U.S. Federal Election

[The Unknown Poster]

12 hours ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

this is the US, likely more then half the population supports their amendments just for the fact "its their right". you start taking those away and you'll rile up the crazy ones like that armed militia would be happening everywhere. If there is any truth to that population control, and why it's so ridiculously easy to obtain fire arms in the US,  then a lot of people and politicians seem to be ready to fight tooth and nail to uphold this constitutional right. I applaud Obama for trying a little at the end of his term, but it really wont matter.

 

**the key to this all,  is stricter regulation on licence approval to make it harder for shady bumpkins from getting their hands on firearms.  Will it stop them ultimately. not always, but from the times it does, or the hoops they gotta jump thru to obtain them,  who knows maybe it'll prevent a few deaths along the way,  and thats about all you can do.  Just like drugs,  people will always find a way if theres a will

 

 Thats why i like living in Canada.  theres guns out there, but your more likely to get stabbed by your uncle at a northend house party,  then worry about your kids being shot up at school.  remember when kids used to just settle their differences with a fight?

You cant govern because some crazies might get mad.  If the reason is, gee some people will be angry, thats not good enough.  The second endearment is silly.  Even those that have a much better understanding of it are afraid to suggest its not what it seems because the constitution is "sacred".  There has been changed to the constitution before.  The debate that this one amendment is so sacred is just asinine.

[Taynted_Fayth]

for us being on the outside looking in,  its easy to say this is the problem,  fix it, do this do that,   but you really gotta appreciate just how many people are "rights" crazy in the US. Your not even just uphill fighting against the legions of gun lovers,  your uphill fighting against the people who live breathe and die to defend their rights as this is murica and murica is the land of the free

Edited March 8, 2016 by Taynted_Fayth

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Taynted_Fayth said:

for us being on the outside looking in,  its easy to say this is the problem,  fix it, do this do that,   but you really gotta appreciate just how many people are "rights" crazy in the US. Your not even just uphill fighting against the legions of gun lovers,  your uphill fighting against the people who live breathe and die to defend their rights as this is murica and murica is the land of the free

Its the land of the naive.  People do what they are told.  The lobby is strong.  But if there was political will to change things, they would change things and all the whining and crying would be heavy until its done and then they'd get over it.  Gay marriage is legal now and the world didnt stop and there wasnt a mass exodus of people out of the US.  They can change if they want to.

The Supreme Court would likely uphold the wrong-minded perception of the 2nd amendment.  Obama should get a lefty judge in there and then ram something through that ends up at the Supreme Court and have them approve the measure as constitutional.  And it should start with outright ban on assault weapons, longer wait periods, increased vetting for licenses and they should increase consequences for gun crimes, not just for those that use guns but also for the registered owner than allowed the gun to fall into the wrong hands.

[Taynted_Fayth]

they might have changed the laws on gay marriage, that doesnt mean a great deal of their populace accepts it, especially the bible thumpers.  but gay marriage wasnt a constitutional right, having guns is, as silly as it is.  but it's not just about the right to own guns, it's also to secure their freedom

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are a lot of responsible gun owners out there,  and no one will say yeah we want guns in the hands of psychos or thugs or bad people period, but you cant punish the many by the actions of a different many, and in the end thats about it.  you can't infringe on the rights of someone because someone else is abusing it.  if that was the case we'd have no cough syrup, mouth wash, gasoline, or paint...ect  just cuz someone decides to get high or drunk on these things

[The Unknown Poster]

The amendment isnt clear.  To me its pretty clear that it doesnt mean what most gun nuts want you to think it means.  But at worst its not clear.  It refers directly to keeping a militia which, at the time, the US didnt have a standing army.  The people were the army.  There were threats of invasion.  Protecting the union and free society was the responsibility of every day people.  It isnt anymore.  The founding fathers could never have envisioned what was to come and I would suspect they'd be appalled at the gun violence.

[Jimmy Pop]

I suspect the founding fathers would be appalled at a lot of what's going on in America...often in their name, too.

[Taynted_Fayth]

oh probably they would be appalled,  but thats only focusing on the negative side of it and people abusing guns.  again your completely ignoring the responsible gun owners who strictly own for protection or hobby.  those people have a right to point at the constitution and feel protected by the laws that were instilled for them by the same government that is of the people,  by the people and for the people.  if that government starts taking away your rights, and you dont have the arms to over throw them, then what, you'd fall into dictatorship.  

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Taynted_Fayth said:

oh probably they would be appalled,  but thats only focusing on the negative side of it and people abusing guns.  again your completely ignoring the responsible gun owners who strictly own for protection or hobby.  those people have a right to point at the constitution and feel protected by the laws that were instilled for them by the same government that is of the people,  by the people and for the people.  if that government starts taking away your rights, and you dont have the arms to over throw them, then what, you'd fall into dictatorship.  

You're missing the point.  Firstly, the amendment was not written with the idea of some guy in 2016 owning an assault rifle.  So if he wants to own a musket from the 1700's, go for it.  No one is stopping him.

If you think the American people and their nutty gun clubs could over throw the government, you're wrong.  And its the wrong argument to make anyway.  Just look at the election process as it is today and then tell me American's need guns so endure a free society. 

If American's cared about the spirit of the constitution, they wouldnt fight against gun control.  But they use arguments they dont believe in because it's not about the constitution at all.  Its about little men and how strong they feel with a gun.  And Im not talking about "legitimate" collectors.  But legitimate collectors arent the problem.

How about sending the registered owner of a gun to jail for 20 years if his gun is used in a crime where someone is seriously injured or killed?  Do that and see how many Joe Sunday's decide they need a bunch of guns for "protection".  There should be no argument against this if the argument is all "legitimate" gun owners are responsible.  If that's the case then they have nothing to worry about.  And all the irresponsible gun owners will be in jail. 

But lets be honest, the gun nuts dont care.  They dont care if you die or I die or 100 children die.  They'd rather 100 children die then ban the gun that killed them.  There is no argument that supports the ease of getting a gun.  Not one.  Every argument collapses under it's own silliness. 

[bigg jay]

6 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

oh probably they would be appalled,  but thats only focusing on the negative side of it and people abusing guns.  again your completely ignoring the responsible gun owners who strictly own for protection or hobby.  those people have a right to point at the constitution and feel protected by the laws that were instilled for them by the same government that is of the people,  by the people and for the people.  if that government starts taking away your rights, and you dont have the arms to over throw them, then what, you'd fall into dictatorship.  

Even given the huge gun culture that already exisits, do you actually think for a second "the people" have the weaponry to overthrow the government?

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, bigg jay said:

Even given the huge gun culture that already exisits, do you actually think for a second "the people" have the weaponry to overthrow the government?

You're right.  We have to try harder.  We need strategic ballistic missiles at home.  We need suitcase bombs.  We need nukes.  We need tanks.  Only then can we be assured the government wont screw us over.  The 2nd amendment says Im allowed to amass a weapon cache to defend myself from the government.  So I guess all those weapons are fair game?   Wait, it doesnt say that?  Ofcourse it doesnt.  It also doesnt say you can have an assault rifle either

[Taynted_Fayth]

maybe if they had assault rifles lol.  The amendment might have been with a certain idea fuelling it at the time it was written, but it can still apply today in that a person has a right to bear arms in their home to secure their state (home). It's unfortunate we live in a world where people abuse certain privileges, but make no mistake there are a lot of law abiding responsible gun owners. if you think it'd be so easy to lobby against them, then why hasnt it been done yet, gun violence isnt exactly a new concept

[do or die]

Someday... someone is going to fly a drone over my property.  

At that point, I should have the right and ability to protect the integrity of my property, and obtain a portable Hellfire missile launcher, to properly deal with the situation........   

If that launch somehow goes astray.... we'll simply call it collateral damage.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

3 hours ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

maybe if they had assault rifles lol.  The amendment might have been with a certain idea fuelling it at the time it was written, but it can still apply today in that a person has a right to bear arms in their home to secure their state (home). It's unfortunate we live in a world where people abuse certain privileges, but make no mistake there are a lot of law abiding responsible gun owners. if you think it'd be so easy to lobby against them, then why hasnt it been done yet, gun violence isnt exactly a new concept

So who is saying someone cant do that?  Where does the amendement mention that a citizen has the right to the most power weapons RIGHT NOW?  It doesnt.  The government should be able to add wait times and vetting and their discretion.

[Taynted_Fayth]

well it says a right to bear arms,  no dictation on what type of arm, and seems like assault rifles are the black sheep, but you can by ridiculous powerful revolvers and shotguns, and modify them...ect  

 

I recently watched the purge and purge: anarchy to get myself caught up for the new Purge: Election day,  they allow people to use fire arms but they have to be a class 4 or under type of firearm. I dont know if there is such a class thing but we do have our own stuff on the rcmp website

Quote

All firearms in Canada fall into one of three classes - non-restricted, restricted or prohibited. 

Non-restricted firearm:  any rifle or shotgun that is neither restricted nor prohibited. Most common long guns are non-restricted, but there are exceptions.

Restricted firearm* means:

1. a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,
2. a firearm that
   • is not a prohibited firearm,
   • has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and
   • is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic  manner,
3. a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or
4. a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm in theRegulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted.

Prohibited firearm* means:

1. a handgun that
   • has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or
   • is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge, but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,
2. a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,
   • is less than 660 mm in length, or
   • is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,
3. an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or
4. any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm in the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted

so maybe in the states they just need to get stiffer on their restrictions without alienating people from still being able to exercise their right within a sensible manner

[Taynted_Fayth]

here's an interesting thing about the 2nd amendment that im sure some of you are aware of;

Quote

Second Amendment[edit]

In the United States the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. While there have been vigorous debates on the nature of this right, there was a lack of clear federal court rulings defining the right until two relatively recent United States Supreme Court cases.

An individual right to own a gun for personal use was affirmed in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, which overturned a handgun ban in the Federal District of Columbia.^[3] In the Hellerdecision, the court's majority opinion said that the Second Amendment protects "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." However, in delivering the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.^[4][5]

The four dissenting justices said that the majority had broken established precedent on the Second Amendment,^[6] and took the position that the Amendment refers to an individual right, but in the context of militia service.^{[7][8][9][10]}

In the McDonald v. City of Chicago decision in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that, because of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, the guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws and not just federal laws.^[11]

The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether or not the Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns in public for self defense.^[12] Federal appeals courts have issued conflicting rulings on this point. For example, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2012 that it does, saying, "The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside."^[13] But the Tenth Circuit Court ruled in 2013 that it does not, saying, "In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizen's freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections."^[14]

sounds like the justice's opinion kinda sums it up.  how many times can they take this to court?

Edited March 8, 2016 by Taynted_Fayth

[Taynted_Fayth]

I think the scariest place to be would be texas tho,  they undermine a lot of this,  effective this past september and january, people can walk around texas with concealed weapons as long as they're licenced. yikes

Quote

New laws for Handgun Licensing Program 
(Formerly known as
Concealed Handgun Licensing)

Summary of new laws passed in the 84th Regular Legislative Session that impact Handgun Licensing.

Open Carry

House Bill 910   Effective: January 1, 2016

Caption:  Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry a holstered handgun; creating criminal offense.

General information:

• Authorizes individuals to obtain a license to openly carry a handgun in the same places that allow the licensed carrying of a concealed handgun with some exceptions.  (See “Exceptions” below for more information.)
• Unconcealed handguns, loaded or unloaded, must be carried in a shoulder or belt holster.
• Individuals who hold a valid CHL may continue to carry with valid existing license. 
• A separate license will not be required to open carry.  No additional fee will be required.
• Individuals currently licensed will not be required to attend additional training.  Training curriculum for new applicants will be updated to reflect the new training requirements related to the use of restraint holsters and methods to ensure the secure carrying of openly carried handguns.  The new curriculum will be required for all classes beginning January 1, 2016. 
• The eligibility criteria to obtain a license to carry do not change.
• The department has updated the website and training materials to reference License to Carry (LTC) instead of Concealed Handgun License (CHL).
• Changes to the laminated license have been implemented.  For examples of licenses currently in circulation, see:  LTC sample.

Signage:

• Information regarding signage is available in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) found on the department’s website at:  FAQs

Exceptions:

• Open carry is not permitted by a license holder regardless of whether the handgun is holstered:
  • on the premises of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education
  • on any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage or other parking area of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education
  • by an individual who is acting as a personal protection officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code  and is not wearing a uniform

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Taynted_Fayth

[Taynted_Fayth]

8 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You're missing the point.  Firstly, the amendment was not written with the idea of some guy in 2016 owning an assault rifle.  So if he wants to own a musket from the 1700's, go for it.  No one is stopping him.

If you think the American people and their nutty gun clubs could over throw the government, you're wrong.  And its the wrong argument to make anyway.  Just look at the election process as it is today and then tell me American's need guns so endure a free society. 

If American's cared about the spirit of the constitution, they wouldnt fight against gun control.  But they use arguments they dont believe in because it's not about the constitution at all.  Its about little men and how strong they feel with a gun.  And Im not talking about "legitimate" collectors.  But legitimate collectors arent the problem.

How about sending the registered owner of a gun to jail for 20 years if his gun is used in a crime where someone is seriously injured or killed?  Do that and see how many Joe Sunday's decide they need a bunch of guns for "protection".  There should be no argument against this if the argument is all "legitimate" gun owners are responsible.  If that's the case then they have nothing to worry about.  And all the irresponsible gun owners will be in jail. 

But lets be honest, the gun nuts dont care.  They dont care if you die or I die or 100 children die.  They'd rather 100 children die then ban the gun that killed them.  There is no argument that supports the ease of getting a gun.  Not one.  Every argument collapses under it's own silliness. 

I think its actually illegal to own a gun from 1899 and earlier in the US. Im not sure the exact date, id have to look it up or even the reason why, but i was watching an episode of Pawn stars and a guy brought in an old turn of the century gun and they had to do date testing to make sure it wasn't an older make beyond that date otherwise they couldnt buy it as it was illegal

** maybe its an old gun that can still work that might be the issue

Edited March 9, 2016 by Taynted_Fayth

[bigg jay]

No, you have it backwards.  You can buy an antique gun without a permit, that's why they verify the age.  Too new means more time and paperwork and hassle for a pawn shop.

[Taynted_Fayth]

Maybe, I saw the episode a few years ago, I remember it was a big deal tho. I got the feeling the ammo was a center focus of the issue

[bigg jay]

Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 921(a)(16) defines antique firearms as all guns made prior to 1899. This law exempts antique firearms from any form of gun control or special engineering because they are not legally considered firearms.

[Taynted_Fayth]

is it still considered an antique if it's operational? cuz i think this gun did fire and had the flintlock, racking my brain hard trying to remember the episode, maybe i can find it on youtube.  i think they said something about it being like a cash grab to get people to upgrade their guns to suit the ammo that was being made and regulated by the NFA but again its been a few years,  ill be back with youtube

 

**not that these guys are always right but they seem to know their **** pretty well, or get ppl who do