The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Ridiculous propaganda based on emotional appeal

Pfff.

Politics in general attract the insane.


Oh and Jet:

Firearm injury in the United States has averaged 32,300 deaths
annually between 1980 and 2007. It is the second leading cause
of injury death after motor vehicle crashes.

Remember to note there are more firearms out there than vehicles
yet the death toll for vehicles is still higher :D

I'm thinking that the issuance of a drivers license has done
as much to decrease vehicle related deaths as a firearms license
will to drop firearm deaths :D

It's funny because you state something that is completely false and then immediately try to smooth it over by posting a completely irrelevant fact(?). If 70% of American's are OK with gun restrictions (and bear in mind, ANY restriction is a violation of the 2nd amendment) then they have a very clearly laid out course of action for making it so; namely, they can amend the constitution.



Key difference: Automobile ownership or driving is not a constitutionally protected right. It is a privilege. As I said before, any restriction on gun ownership is a violation of the 2nd amendment, but this doesn't mean I'm full retard. I know good and well that some people absolutely cannot be trusted to own a gun. The restrictions that are already in place are, in my opinion, more than enough. If you want to try to stop killing sprees, taking guns away from sane, law-abiding citizens, or putting restrictions on what guns they can or can't own and how they have to go about getting them, is the wrong answer. How about instead we try focusing all that tax money on earlier detection of mental disorders?



I already very clearly stated that no one here believes Obama to be Hitler in any way shape or form. If you don't believe me, try re-reading my last couple of posts. I'm not going to copy/paste them for you. I also very clearly stated that I was not suggesting that the president or his family did not need protection. All I asked was how is it so bad to suggest armed guards in our schools when his children's school has armed guards. Yes, the first family is special, but so are the children of every other American citizen. Now stop mis-stating and falsely generalizing my comments you pretentious fuck.

edited for content.

qft

Yeah no point... you see him when you shave every morning!

As Kaotic pointed out earlier, its not even about the SS protection - but the fact that the elites in general have armed protection for their kids.

Noone ever said not to protect Obamas kids. In fact it was pointed out repeatedly many times that the issue was the hypocrisy denying the proles of that ability while the elite practice it and tell the proles that they are better off with "gun-free" zones.

But I doubt that would ever register in the brain of the crazy person you see in the mirror each morning.

"If 70% of American's are OK with gun restrictions"

Is a misleading statistic, one that is very likely skewed
based on the organization who conducted the survey.

For example, if CNN posts a poll about how many Americans
just love Obama to death, they'll get an overwhelming positive
response simply based on the fact that CNN ( and it's audience )
is pretty much Pro-Democrat.

If the same poll were conducted over on Fox, the result would be
overwhelmingly negative, for the same reasons. ( They just are
all Pro-Republican )

Statistics can be manipulated by just about anything. Thus, are
they rarely accurate.



If you want another reason why folks oppose any sort of firearm
registration, you need only look at what happened recently when
some self-rightous idiots published that data for the world to
see.

If all individuals were law abiding, I wouldn't care if my name
was on that list. However, we know they are not and all the
paper did was give folks a list of homes to hit ( or not if they
are trying to avoid a possible armed response ) at their leisure.

I did find it somewhat hypocritial that the paper resorted to
utilizing armed guards at the front door after publishing said
paper :D

Multiple polls have come out with background checks hitting int he 90% range. These are respected polling organizations. Even 47% of NRA members support universal background checks.

Back when the 2nd amendment was written, we were talking about muskets and militias. The best Musketmen could get a shot off every 15 to 20 seconds, in a very labored fashion.



With that said, I do not believe the framers intended any of the weapons in the video be in the hands of a private citizen:



With that said, the constitution dos not have a provision for any of the mandates that are being proposed. These would need to be changed to meet the original intent.

The US constitution is not a perfect document, and has to change with the times. And example of this is:



I am sure that none of you would argue that the statement above should be adhered to. (Wait is Ronnie reading this thread )

Like I have said with many common sense statements. There should be a process to license gun ownership. I am sure we all know people that should never be allowed to won a gun.

There is room to compromise here, and I honestly believe as a majority of people in the US do, that there should be some kind of increased controls. On a person level, I am looking in to a 12 guage for home defense as part of my San Andreas fault super earth quake kit. No sense in having 14 days of supplies if someone can come and take them from you. I don't need a 20MM Vulcan Cannon, nor does anyone else.

Is there any common sense left in this country?

The argument always goes towards guns like the video of the one you linked to. Don't you realize that weapons like that already have HUGE restrictions on them? No one is suggesting that fully-automatic or very large caliber weapons should be easy to buy. No one. I highly encourage you to go attempt to buy a .50 cal machine gun so you can see how tightly such weapons are controlled by the government. What this argument is about, and what most recent arguments have been about, are small caliber rifles whose public perception have been distorted to such a large extent by the government and media that now the average person whole-heartedly believes they are fully automatic military grade weapons and that they serve no purpose. This is all blatantly false and quite on purpose. Yes, the main ones like the AR-15 and AK-47 resemble military grade hardware, but then again so does every one of the high-powered rifles used a lot in hunting. Their military counterparts are simply seen less because they are not used by every foot soldier.

Yes, the constitution is old, and some of the language in it is completely dated - most of that language has already been changed through amendments. The fact that muskets were the firearm of the era when the 2nd amendment was written does not mean that the 2nd amendment was written to guarantee you the right to bear muskets (By the way, good job on quoting the president there, always good to throw in some of the party rhetoric when trying to make an argument). Weapons evolve, and governments and criminals all move along to the weapons of the era. Our right to bear arms must also evolve to cover the weapons of the era because our right to bear arms is a guarantee of our ability to protect ourselves from those other people who now have those weapons. How safe would you feel if the only weapon you were allowed to have in your San Andreas kit was a muzzle loading musket?

If you haven't read any common sense in these threads then you've been completely misinterpreting what has been being said (which, based on your video link, seems likely). Now if we can just get sini in here to post some pictures to Patriot missiles or nukes and say "why can't we have these? amirite?"