Obama: America needs "soul searching" on gun violence

DavidH64 wrote:

<quoted text>
We DON'T need more gun laws, we need ENFORCEMENT of existing. We need stiffer, enforced, penalties for crimes committed with firearms.
And yes more, additional, gun laws are deteriorating the Second Amendment. Why do those who are opposed to guns miss the part "... shall NOT be infringed"? Which part of that is not understood? Every time a new gun law is passed it is an infringement.

And what these idiots fail to realize is that gun control made it possible for the CO shooter, the VT shooter, columbine shooters, etc., to kill as many people as they did. The theater was a gun-free (disarmed victim) zone. GUN-FREE ZONES GET PEOPLE KILLED.

OzRitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Typical of a rightwing cowboy with their favorite deflection, "it's not the gun, its the idiot using it." Well unless they pack all these idiots into a container & ship them off to sea then its a bit hard to ban people. Besides all these wonderful quotes about sticking to the constitution word for word. Then why are you not all carrying one shot muskets instead of full automatics with laser sights. Those were the guns at the time the constitution was written.

Do they actually make muskets anymore?

I don't think there is anything in the U.S. Constitution about America being a military empire, spending a trillion dollars a year on a military empire, and I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that says the U.S. is supposed to be spending $4 TRILLION a year on Socialist Security and government Medicare. It doesn't say anything in the Constitution about borrowing money from China to give the tea party government Medicare. Just saying.

Oh and what about those Amendments?? Make booze illegal, oops, make booze legal. Could do the same with guns. Things change, which is why most every case fought in court is referenced to case laws, not to the Constitution. Try typing up a litigation document and see how often the Constitution is cited and see how often case laws are cited. The point is things change, things changed, cases are decided on case laws, not on the Constitution unless it goes before the Supreme Court.

Do lawyers cite case laws when they bring cases before the Supreme Court? I bet they do.

Pamela wrote:

I don't think there is anything in the U.S. Constitution about America being a military empire, spending a trillion dollars a year on a military empire, and I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that says the U.S. is supposed to be spending $4 TRILLION a year on Socialist Security and government Medicare. It doesn't say anything in the Constitution about borrowing money from China to give the tea party government Medicare. Just saying.

duh.......suggest remedial reading.

Pamela wrote:

I don't think there is anything in the U.S. Constitution about America being a military empire, spending a trillion dollars a year on a military empire, and I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that says the U.S. is supposed to be spending $4 TRILLION a year on Socialist Security and government Medicare. It doesn't say anything in the Constitution about borrowing money from China to give the tea party government Medicare. Just saying.

Lol, you can thank the government for taking a big greasy dump on the constitution which led to the problems you mentioned.

Pamela wrote:

Oh and what about those Amendments?? Make booze illegal, oops, make booze legal. Could do the same with guns. Things change, which is why most every case fought in court is referenced to case laws, not to the Constitution. Try typing up a litigation document and see how often the Constitution is cited and see how often case laws are cited. The point is things change, things changed, cases are decided on case laws, not on the Constitution unless it goes before the Supreme Court.

Do lawyers cite case laws when they bring cases before the Supreme Court? I bet they do.

That's the problem.

His soul should let the kid in out of the sun.

The Obama reign of terror must end and must end with the election of a new president. Romney is the Candidate so let's get him elected and hold him accountable unlike this Kenyan. No more freewheeling such as excessive golf, and vacationing. This is also a time to put our foot on the heads of these corrupt senators and congresspeople who are in it for the money only. These Lawyer politicians and corrupt judges must also be reigned in and this include the corrupted SCOTUS!

Obama, Seeking a total dictatorship. If he prevails the LIBTARDS will scream the loudest as these scum created this monster.

gossamer wrote:

<quoted text>
Do they actually make muskets anymore?

It's called Black Powder and yes. I hunt with a single shot black power gun. 54 cal. makes a BIG hole.

Pamela wrote:

I don't think there is anything in the U.S. Constitution about America being a military empire, spending a trillion dollars a year on a military empire, and I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that says the U.S. is supposed to be spending $4 TRILLION a year on Socialist Security and government Medicare. It doesn't say anything in the Constitution about borrowing money from China to give the tea party government Medicare. Just saying.

Be careful there.
Without welfare there'd be no democrat party.
You'd be homeless.

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:

<quoted text>It's called Black Powder and yes. I hunt with a single shot black power gun. 54 cal. makes a BIG hole.

Probably not a flintlock though, eh?

voteearlyvoteoften wrote:

<quoted text>
Probably not a flintlock though, eh?

Nah, primer caps.

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:

<quoted text>Nah, primer caps.

Liberals would still be trying to figure out which end to put the powder and patch in.

Le Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>Liberals would still be trying to figure out which end to put the powder and patch in.

I have a suggestion on which end they can put it in.:)

DavidH64 wrote:

<quoted text>
We DON'T need more gun laws, we need ENFORCEMENT of existing. We need stiffer, enforced, penalties for crimes committed with firearms.
And yes more, additional, gun laws are deteriorating the Second Amendment. Why do those who are opposed to guns miss the part "... shall NOT be infringed"? Which part of that is not understood? Every time a new gun law is passed it is an infringement.

And here is where you completely miss that I did not mention NEW gun laws, as I specifically stated that gun laws need TIGHTENING and REVISIONS. It's the same idea I stated, though you play it on a literalist platform, where if it were rigurously applied, that even crazy peoples' gun rights would not be infringed, which is a dangerous statement indeed.

Deflectiing before actually reading is not a smart strategy.

Le Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>si.......spoken like a true socialist.

It's hilarious to see McCarthyist attitudes still alive in an ignorant society despite the collapse of the Soviet Union since over 20 years ago. You have no clue what capitalism and socialism are or how they work as opposed to repeating everthing you hear from FAUX News and imbecilic reactionaries.

Do you still have nightmares of Krushchev hiding under your bed, little one?

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
And here is where you completely miss that I did not mention NEW gun laws, as I specifically stated that gun laws need TIGHTENING and REVISIONS. It's the same idea I stated, though you play it on a literalist platform, where if it were rigurously applied, that even crazy peoples' gun rights would not be infringed, which is a dangerous statement indeed.
Deflectiing before actually reading is not a smart strategy.

The US Constitution protects the rights of "crazy" people as well as everyone else.
Who gets to decide who is crazy? A liberal mental health official?
What is crazy and who defines it?
Is the alleged crazy person going to be denied their right to keep and bear arms?
Are we going to allow an alleged crazy person to drive a car?
Hold a job?
Be in public?
Maybe there's a "crazy" gene and we'll have to round up those who may have a propensity for craziness and lock them up.
Or exterminate them for the good of the state.
I mean, we need to protect you from all the crazies, right?

Bama Yankee wrote:

<quoted text>
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What part of "shall not be infringed" is it that you don't understand?

How about quoting the whole thing? Or is it that the context makes your assertion a bit muddier?

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.

So if you are in a well regulated militia then you can have arms, as a necessity to the security of a free state. However, without that context it means people walking out of an insane asylum must be allowed arms, such as intercontinental nuclear missiles.

These are very different meanings.

I know the USSC made a ruling, appearing to interpret the constitution as meaning a well regulated militia has nothing to do with making sure "everyone" has access to buy guns from companies who donate to politicians. That doesn't mean that is what it meant, nor what it means when people read the entire 2nd amendment.

Don Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
I know the USSC made a ruling, appearing to interpret the constitution as meaning a well regulated militia has nothing to do with making sure "everyone" has access to buy guns from companies who donate to politicians. That doesn't mean that is what it meant, nor what it means when people read the entire 2nd amendment.

Umm, yes it does. They didn't "appear" to interpret it, they in fact interpreted it as is their function.

Did you sleep through civics class?