gun control rant thread

Toyman01 wrote: Osterkraut for President.

Have I explained my "Get Rid of a Law to Get a Law" Law?

In case anybody was listening.. there was another school shooting today.. this time in California. Ex-student in question was using a shotgun and wounded one and missed another. Teacher who got hit with some pellets yelled at the kid that shooting was not allowed in their classrom and talked him into putting the gun down before anybody else got hurt.

Credit due to the teacher and really puts a lot of holes in some of the gun control arguments (from both sides). Shot guns are not a gun most people think to control.. and the teacher was only armed with bravery and intelligence.

Carry on

Osterkraut wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: Osterkraut for President.

Have I explained my "Get Rid of a Law to Get a Law" Law?

Dude, you're way more thoughtful than I remember from other threads. Good thoughts.

tuna55 wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: Osterkraut for President.

Have I explained my "Get Rid of a Law to Get a Law" Law?

Dude, you're way more thoughtful than I remember from other threads. Good thoughts.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=backhanded%20compliment

Thanks, dickface.

mad_machine wrote: Credit due to the teacher and really puts a lot of holes in some of the gun control arguments (from both sides). Shot guns are not a gun most people think to control.. and the teacher was only armed with bravery and intelligence.

...and a pair of solid brass gonads.

Osterkraut wrote: ....Let's be topical and take the second Amendment: the right to bear arms grants the American people access to military-grade weapons of war. The writers weren't stupid, they said "arms" not "muskets" or "sabers" or "cannons," but "arms." You want to put restrictions on those arms? You're going to have to pass another Amendment. Did the writers forsee nuclear weapons when they wrote that? No. There's a really easy solution to that, though: make an Amendment banning private holdings of nuclear etc weapons. They did it for booze!....

This is sadly a point that is missed by most. The primary problem with the 2nd amendment is that it is TOO open. Thus essentially justifying restrictions.

I entirely agree though. It would be much better to re-write the law / amend (although that would be a bit of a nightmare) then to keep bending the one that is there.

Of course there seems to be a wild reluctance to even touch anything related to the Constitution. It's not the Bible, the damn thing was designed to be modified!

the problem with amending the constitution Aircooled.. there is a sizable part of the population that wants only to take it word for word.. not interpert it, not change it, not discard it.. they expect it to be taken just as written

mad_machine wrote: the problem with amending the constitution Aircooled.. there is a sizable part of the population that wants only to take it word for word.. not interpert it, not change it, not discard it.. they expect it to be taken just as written

That's actually a good thing. Adding a government responsibility to it (health care, gun control, etc) requires far more than the 51/49 split we seem to be stuck with. If that many states agree that the government should handle something in some way, it is probably a good solid opinion voiced by many.

If we keep adding stuff ad hoc, we're going to end up splitting this country in half.

Osterkraut wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: Osterkraut for President.

Have I explained my "Get Rid of a Law to Get a Law" Law?

Osterkraut for King of the World.

Toyman01 wrote: Osterkraut for King of the World.

Voting isn't really how you get to be King of the World. Typically you need, at bare minimum, a weather machine or death ray and a sinister plan involving major cities.

King of America, we voted for that.

tuna55 wrote: Dude, you're way more thoughtful than I remember |Put it up on a pedestal| from other threads.| KNOCK IT DOWN!| Good thoughts.

hah

N Sperlo wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Dude, you're way more thoughtful than I remember |Put it up on a pedestal| from other threads.| KNOCK IT DOWN!| Good thoughts.

hah

Yeah, I thought it was funny, Osterkraut, apparently, did not. I've never actually been called a Dick-face before, internet or not.

tuna55 wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Dude, you're way more thoughtful than I remember |Put it up on a pedestal| from other threads.| KNOCK IT DOWN!| Good thoughts.

hah

Yeah, I thought it was funny, Osterkraut, apparently, did not. I've never actually been called a Dick-face before, internet or not.

Dickface, one word. What sort of life are you living where you've never been called a dickface? E36 M3, my wife calls me that sometimes!

I also thought it was funny.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: Osterkraut for King of the World.

Voting isn't really how you get to be King of the World. Typically you need, at bare minimum, a weather machine or death ray and a sinister plan involving major cities.

Let me dig through my junk box and see what I can come up with.

Wait... your wife only calls you that SOMETIMES? Huh.... must not be married to a Jersey girl.

tuna55 wrote: If we keep adding stuff ad hoc, we're going to end up splitting this country in half.

too late I am afraid.

agreed.... we're already split. The bigger question, is the split too far apart to bring it back together.

I ant skeered.

I honestly feel that an open and frank discussion of what exactly gets added to the constitution for Health Care, for Gun Control (add an amendment that says arms do not include automatic weapons or nuclear/chemical/biological weapons of mass destruction, for instance) etc would really make a difference. Force each side to make a three line summary of what they are really asking for. No 10,000 page pork laden crappy bill, a real live frank explanation. We vote on it, if 2/3rds of the states agree, it's in and then we make a bill based on those rights. More Ron Pauls, less Nancy Pelosis (based on the adherence to the constitution, not politics, the left has very valid points on most of these issues, ie, mentally ill people shouldn't have firearms, the current health care system DOES suck, etc) and we could get there.

tuna55 wrote: I honestly feel that an open and frank discussion of what exactly gets added to the constitution for Health Care, for Gun Control (add an amendment that says arms do not include automatic weapons or nuclear/chemical/biological weapons of mass destruction, for instance) etc would really make a difference. Force each side to make a three line summary of what they are really asking for. No 10,000 page pork laden crappy bill, a real live frank explanation. We vote on it, if 2/3rds of the states agree, it's in and then we make a bill based on those rights. More Ron Pauls, less Nancy Pelosis (based on the adherence to the constitution, not politics, the left has very valid points on most of these issues, ie, mentally ill people shouldn't have firearms, the current health care system DOES suck, etc) and we could get there.

Unfortunately I have a better chance of winning both the State lotto and hte powerball the same day(without actually buying a ticket for either), getting struck by lightening, being shot by a burglar while getting hit by a bus while making out with Sandra Bullock than any of that ever happenening.

tuna55 wrote: I honestly feel that an open and frank discussion of what exactly gets added to the constitution for Health Care, for Gun Control (add an amendment that says arms do not include automatic weapons or nuclear/chemical/biological weapons of mass destruction, for instance) etc would really make a difference. Force each side to make a three line summary of what they are really asking for. No 10,000 page pork laden crappy bill, a real live frank explanation. We vote on it, if 2/3rds of the states agree, it's in and then we make a bill based on those rights. More Ron Pauls, less Nancy Pelosis (based on the adherence to the constitution, not politics, the left has very valid points on most of these issues, ie, mentally ill people shouldn't have firearms, the current health care system DOES suck, etc) and we could get there.

thats 2/3rds of the house and senate, and 3/4ths of the states

Bobzilla wrote: agreed.... we're already split. The bigger question, is the split too far apart to bring it back together.

I don't completely agree with that. It does appear that way (media hype), but I think in reality, we have a small percentage of very loud voices standing on each end, and a larger percentage of people in the middle who really could do without all the shouting.

Wait, tuna....what is wrong with automatic weapons again? And why do you want them removed from the constitution?

Someone here posted the figures, something like two legal FA's have been used in crimes since the 30's....

yamaha wrote: Wait, tuna....what is wrong with automatic weapons again? And why do you want them removed from the constitution? Someone here posted the figures, something like two legal FA's have been used in crimes since the 30's....

Sorry, nothing, I was just giving examples. I think it might be reasonable to require extra checks for truly automatic weapons, but that's my opinion and I'm just throwing a bunch of crap out there.

Strizzo wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I honestly feel that an open and frank discussion of what exactly gets added to the constitution for Health Care, for Gun Control (add an amendment that says arms do not include automatic weapons or nuclear/chemical/biological weapons of mass destruction, for instance) etc would really make a difference. Force each side to make a three line summary of what they are really asking for. No 10,000 page pork laden crappy bill, a real live frank explanation. We vote on it, if 2/3rds of the states agree, it's in and then we make a bill based on those rights. More Ron Pauls, less Nancy Pelosis (based on the adherence to the constitution, not politics, the left has very valid points on most of these issues, ie, mentally ill people shouldn't have firearms, the current health care system DOES suck, etc) and we could get there.

thats 2/3rds of the house and senate, and 3/4ths of the states

OOPS, thanks for the correction. Either way its not 49/51.