NRA offensive exposes deep U.S. divisions on guns

Foxrac said:
Yup, that what I posted in other thread.

I think that Obama's executive order is reasonable and he has no authority to renew the federal assault weapon ban because it require an approval from the congress.

Hardcore, anti-Obama will have a lot of bad things to say, beyond to moderate views because they simply don't like Obama.
Click to expand...

I don't hear any moderates supporting this. The orders themselves are hardcore. Only the gun control people will be happy with these.
 
TXgolfer said:
I don't hear any moderates supporting this. The orders themselves are hardcore. Only the gun control people will be happy with these.
Click to expand...

Most moderates support some of gun regulation and Obama's executive orders are constitutional, so he has no authority to ban on assault weapon because those proposal require the congress to approve.

You have a lot of bad things to say about Obama because you don't like him. I don't have much interest to discuss with anyone who have hardcore, anti-Obama agenda.
 
Foxrac said:
Most moderates support some of gun regulation and Obama's executive orders are constitutional, so he has no authority to ban on assault weapon because those proposal require the congress to approve.

You have a lot of bad things to say about Obama because you don't like him. I don't have much interest to discuss with anyone who have hardcore, anti-Obama agenda.
Click to expand...

Most moderates, if you have been watching the news, are completely against most of these orders. Some of the orders are just silly. Whether or not. these orders are constitutional will be up to the courts to decide.
 
TXgolfer said:
Most moderates, if you have been watching the news, are completely against most of these orders. Some of the orders are just silly. Whether or not. these orders are constitutional will be up to the courts to decide.
Click to expand...

Due to agreement with forum admin, I'm not going discuss with nonsense statement because those statements are not exist with news and the officials that where we learned.

I'm going move on and focus on other post. :io:
 
Foxrac said:
Due to agreement with forum admin, I'm not going discuss with nonsense statement because those statements are not exist with news and the officials that where we learned.

I'm going move on and focus on other post. :io:
Click to expand...

:cool2: I believe Alex was referring to nitpicking, not debate. :dunno:

Everyone here is free to research the reaction themselves as well do some research into what each line of this order means. Other than that I guess we will have to see how the courts rule.
 
Journey said:
1. If there is non-restrictive belief in the constitutions wording "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", does this translate to meaning that any citizen of the US has the right (and can) purchase and/or have anything from knives to nuclear bombs?
Click to expand...

In theory, yes, but in reality it's impractical. Since in the time of the framers there were firearms and cannon so it follows that this is what they had in mind. While there is no restriction on knives, it wasn't a dominant weapon. Yes, they did have swords, but gunpowder has solved that problem. As for nuclear weapons it is not even close to practical. My understanding is that the framers wanted protection from government, and not just outside government. Remember, at the time, we were ruled by the British Empire. There were many wars going on and I think it was more about subjugation by any government at that point(The french could have seized world power).

2. Is the argument against gun control really based on being anti-constitutional? As I understand it, the Framers set up the constitution in a way that allows for amendments which, in turn, can be further amended (or even reversed/removed). So how are those who wish to possibly adjust or amend the 2nd amendment being "unconstitutional"?
Click to expand...

Neither side of the argument is against the constitution, it is when both sides have a point that we have arguments.

3. If the argument on the right to bear arms is based on what the founding fathers itended regarding the amendment, why is the NRA's place in this so large? The NRA was founded and set up to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis". Is it valid to argue one thing based on the founders intent and not the other?
Click to expand...

I don't understand, "scientific basis", but if that is the case it would be a smoke screen since the NRA is against scientific analysis of gun violence.

Basically, the NRA has a vested interest in guns. It makes a lot of money off firearms just has Goldman Sachs make a lot of money off banking, both have powerful lobbies that fight laws. The arguments they pose, while designed to pull at the heart strings of those they serve, are really about money.

However, in a larger sense, to the individual citizen, the heart of this debate is not about money or guns(while it is the topic) so much as rights. That is something that both sides take very seriously, the right to feel safe(from people not having guns) and the right to feel safe by protecting yourself(from people who do have guns). Both sides want the same thing, to feel safe, but look at it in two different ways.

I have thought about these questions for a long time now and cannot come up with any clear answers myself. Any feedback, one way or the other, would be appreciated. :)
Click to expand...

Try not to think about it in terms of right and wrong and it should become more clear.
 
TXgolfer said:
I hope you are kidding.

Also, note, as predicted those Obamacare electronic records now have a window to enter. :ugh:
Click to expand...

And, your solution to the problem would be? How exactly do we stop mentally ill people from mass murder in your opinion?
 
VacationGuy234 said:
And, your solution to the problem would be? How exactly do we stop mentally ill people from mass murder in your opinion?
Click to expand...

You don't.

Unrealistic to believe any of this will work. And it was disgusting to see the children used as props.
 
VacationGuy, thank you for your thoughtful answers to my questions. Please understand that I ask these questions not to porove another right or wrong but to try and gain knowledge and to feel that I have gotten enough knowledge and input to form a valid opinion myself. This is why I appreciate feedback from both sides. :)

Further questions if you don't mind ...

Is a restriction, of the type of armaments one may have, anti-constitutional?

The quote I provided which states the reason the NRA was founded was directly taken from the NRA website. Therefore, it was not set up, nor intended, to promote gun ownership. Yet that seems to be the loudest message the NRA leaders are conveying. What am I missing here?
 
Journey said:
VacationGuy, thank you for your thoughtful answers to my questions. Please understand that I ask these questions not to porove another right or wrong but to try and gain knowledge and to feel that I have gotten enough knowledge and input to form a valid opinion myself. This is why I appreciate feedback from both sides. :)

Further questions if you don't mind ...

Is a restriction, of the type of armaments one may have, anti-constitutional?

The quote I provided which states the reason the NRA was founded was directly taken from the NRA website. Therefore, it was not set up, nor intended, to promote gun ownership. Yet that seems to be the loudest message the NRA leaders are conveying. What am I missing here?
Click to expand...


As far as the constitution, it is unclear if a type of armament is unconstitutional. Certainly, the government has the power to regulate.

Having said that, the above is only an interpretation of writing. Most hard core gun owners would agree guns should be legal, but they wouldn't want their neighbors carrying a bazooka.

You're missing the fact that anything (organization or individual) survives in the U.S. by what they can produce, either by product or service for benefit. The NRA provides a service to gun owners to protect their right and is faithful to that service. This, in itself, doesn't make the NRA bad.

You must understand that the government of the United States is a referee. To maintain a balance someone has to watch the playing field. It's the government's job to make sure neither liberal nor conservative thought has control, unless it is the will of the people.

Are conservatives more vocal than liberals? Is that why you hear more conservative language? It depends on the state you live. If you want an accurate gauge of what people think, look at local ballot questions, here is the truth of the local population. Many talk, but few are up to the moment.


Edit: Point in fact, sit in any Boston bar and you will hear reams of conservative conversation. We are a conservative state, yet we vote liberal in big elections.
 
Journey said:
Ok I am following what you said but then why are people saying gun control is unconstitutional if what it is wanting to do is possibly amend the 2nd amendment (basic or general example: the right to have a gun as long as you do not have a criminal background or mental health issue)?
Click to expand...
I agree that the 2nd Amendment is too fucked up. It doesn't include specifications like a criminal background or mental health issue and what kinds of weapons. It was written a very very long time ago. That's the problem so that's why we want gun control. Pro-gun supporters complain, WTF?
 
CrazyPaul said:
I agree that the 2nd Amendment is too fucked up. It doesn't include specifications like a criminal background or mental health issue and what kinds of weapons. It was written a very very long time ago. That's the problem so that's why we want gun control. Pro-gun supporters complain, WTF?
Click to expand...

WTF? Well some of us are not inclined to overreact to a statistically insignificant event and give away freedom. Doing so would irrational.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
And, your solution to the problem would be? How exactly do we stop mentally ill people from mass murder in your opinion?
Click to expand...

hmm... allow citizens to carry guns so we can protect ourselves from a deranged person.
 
Jiro said:
hmm... allow citizens to carry guns so we can protect ourselves from a deranged person.
Click to expand...

That is an approach which I am not against, but it NOT a solution to the problem. It is a solution only to the symptom.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
That is an approach which I am not against, but it NOT a solution to the problem. It is a solution only to the symptom.
Click to expand...

*shrug* if you have any better solution, then by all means I'm all ears!

meanwhile... I'll need something to protect myself against a deranged person right now and having a CCW with me will do the job just fine.
 
Jiro said:
meanwhile... I'll need something to protect myself against a deranged person right now and having a CCW with me will do the job just fine.
Click to expand...
What kind of a gun are you talking about? Assault rifle?
 
Jiro said:
*shrug* if you have any better solution, then by all means I'm all ears!

meanwhile... I'll need something to protect myself against a deranged person right now and having a CCW with me will do the job just fine.
Click to expand...

I have stated it several times. And, President Obama has tried to enact it. Mentally ill people should not have access to guns and those that provide them to mentally ill people should be prosecuted.

Sleep well with your gun, it is your right to have a gun, I concur, and nobody is taking it away from you. It is my hope that you shoot better than those who would shoot at you.
 
CrazyPaul said:
What kind of a gun are you talking about? Assault rifle?
Click to expand...

uh.... a CCW.

CCW = concealed-carry weapon. need a permit for that..... and assault rifle doesn't qualify as CCW :roll:
 
Back
Top