Presidential Study on Gun Control

Poor Mike. He really isn't disagreeing with anyone here, but everyone's beating him with big sticks anyway.

I demand more big stick control!

Would it really be that different if the person or event you were protesting was suddenly relocated to a place that wasn't disclosed to you? Should they also be obligated to inform you of the correct place to stage your protest?

I say the right to speak is not the right to have an audience or be heard.

Talk about a complete waste of our money. A study on gun control. Why study something that is unconstitutional, that is unless, the President is looking for new and creative ways to try and usurp the Constitution as he and his cronies in the Congress did with healthcare.

Kirk, it's unconstitutional if it goes beneath the floor that the 2nd amendment has established. Like the DC case...that was unconstitutional because it banned guns. period. Waiting periods, assault weapon laws etc simply limit certain types of guns. That doesn't prevent you from getting a gun, just not that type of gun. See the difference? (Not that I expect you to.)

Seriously, how do you expect someone to respond when you are being such an asshole Alfie?

Last I checked, the Constitution made no distinction, or identification as to which arms are okay to keep and bare, or which ones are not. In fact as far as I can tell, there are no limitations in the Constitution.

Not that I expect a mentally deficient, cock sucker like you to see the difference.

So do fuck off and crawl back into whatever asshole you were hiding out in prior to your return.

It's not even nearly a "huge" infringement, if at all. You aren't being silenced, physically or otherwise. You may not be able to disrupt the person who's speaking, or cause a disturbance with your dissent, but you are still able to avail yourself of the right to express yourself freely. You've retained the ability to engage in free exercise, and can continue to do so.

In addition, because there isn't any law supporting your "free speech zone", you have grounds for redress (which, by the way, the ACLU and other organizations have done, with varying degrees of success).

Gun abolitionists (and make no mistake, it's not just the extremists who are pushing for the cessation of 2nd Amendment rights) are calling for measures which cannot be undone.

And while you may value your 1st Amendment rights more than your 2nd, they are of equal importance. The warning to the government which is implicit in the 2nd helps to assure the continued exercise of the 1st.

Bet on it.

Sorry, the use of the word 'require' was a poor choice. I meant that we should require certain restrictions on the Second Amendment.

But of course as soon as I mention putting a waiting period or restriction on where you can carry a gun, people like Zombie claim I'm part of a radical agenda to ban guns in the country. I don't understand why some people are touchier about gun rights than 1st Amendment rights.

In that case, nukes for everyone!

And gun control isn't a huge infringement either. You may have to wait for some period of time and you may not get the exact gun you want, but you have plenty of other guns to choose from.

Infringement is infringement is infringement, numb nuts.

And we're protective of our gun rights because if someone tries to take away our first amendment rights, our guns are what back them up.

A restrictions on the Second Amendment is a restriction of rights and liberty.

Works for me at this point.

Oh no, he just wants restrictions placed on the Second Amendment.

Sure. And if certain types of literature were banned and confiscated it would be okay, right? Legal limits on how many words you may use when writing, or a ban on certain types of words, would sit with you just fine, right?

Thanks for making my point for me. The second amendment simply says:

Any law that says "You cannot have a gun inside these 4 corners. Period." Is unconstitutional because it infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. A law that prevents you from having a certain type of gun is perfectly permissible. I may not necessarily agree with it, but that doesn't mean its unconstitutional.

Ugh.

If you're gonna trot out the "What about nuclear weapons?" chestnut, you might as well just fucking say "I'm an idiot with no argument."

You didn't. Look up thread.

No...that's not the same thing at all. At least not in the legal sense.

I'm all for your gun rights. Tell me, how many times have you been refused when you try to buy a GUN?


Do you have problems with rules that prevent psychos and retards from getting a permit for a weapon?

No tears please. This thread really illustrates the problem. I'd rather talk about sex,politics and religion with in-laws than discuss anything to do with gun laws. Who needs this shit? I just think it's valuable to show how deep the divide is on this issue when someone like me, who is not for gun grabbing and holds that the D.C. gun ban was clearly unconstitutional can be gang banged for not going along with the groupthink. In lieu of any kind of reasonable debate, I'm willing to leave the status quo as is and talk about things where people don't throw shit fits when the topic gets brought up.

You're going to be hard pressed to find any person in this argument bitching about a waiting period. If that were all that gun abolitionists wanted, there'd be no debate at all.

Do you honestly believe that's what this is about?

Limiting and preventing some one from owning a firearm is an infringement Alfie.

I don't believe that there would be no resistance to a waiting period.

Look, we as gun owners have been burnt far, far too many times in the past. You talk about it, we're looking at the past actions of people who have talked about it too.

This isn't personal (at least as in directed at you).

I haven't bought a gun for a while, but isn't there already a waiting period on the purchase of guns?

That notwithstanding, I'd bet that more people are concerned about legislative measure which would foreseably lead to gun snatching then they would over a waiting period.

Not at a Federal level. That's what the whole "instant background check" thing was about.

And I'm glad. The last time my Fiance needed to buy a pistol, she was being stalked.

If you don't want me to take things personally, don't' call me a liar and an asshat.

I don't think you're understanding the problem.

No they are not obligated to tell the protesters where they will be nor does a protester have the right to an audience or to be heard.

The problem is the government rounding people up and forcing them to go to one area and only that area in order to protest.

I have the right to protest, say in front of the building the President is in, without having government goons force me away into a fenced off area. The President doesn't have to listen or pay attention to the protest of course but I've got the right to be there.