ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:01 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:31 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4401
Location: Pennsylvania
"If other law abiding citizens want to buy a firearm, then its fully within their rights. However, being put through a screening process is a small sacrifice to make to prevent those who either do not have the right or who have thrown away the right to own a firearm from getting one." - TheHeb

FBI background checks are already required for most firearms transfers including those made at gun shows. I'd have no problem with extending this requirement to all transfers, since it doesn't infringe on the ability of law abiding adult to aquire firearms.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:48 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4401
Location: Pennsylvania
We already have tens of thousands of gun laws in the US at the federal, state and local level. The firearms industry is heavily regulated. Dealers can lose their licences on mere suspicion of illegal activity.

I'm not opposed to ALL gun control. I am opposed to any new ban or regulation that threatens my rights or the rights of other law abiding citizens.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:08 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4401
Location: Pennsylvania
I also have a problem with guns laws that are deliberately deceptive. For example, the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban was actually a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. Likewise, Ted Kenedy's proposed Armor-Peircing Ammunition Ban was actually a ban on conventional centerfire rifle ammo.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3984
Matt Z wrote:
"Your mindset seems to be set in another dimension. What are you scared of, liberals holding power? Do think that they will take away all ur rights and we will become a fascist country? And all this is based on a parties ideology and not on their actions?" - ironmaiden708

It's not just the liberals. I'm affraid of any politician or party that opposes my constitutional rights. It doesn't matter if it's the Second Amendment, freedom of speach, freedom of religion, due process, etc.



Then you should be more afraid of republicans. Since the takeover of the right wing and religious right, they want to take away more rights, and they have already taken some away. That is my problem with them. I vote 100% on civil liberties.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:27 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4401
Location: Pennsylvania
By the way, full-auto rifles, machine guns and submachine guns have been effectively banned since the Great Depression (along with short-barreled rifles and shotguns). In order to aquire one, one must get a special licence which is both expensive and difficult to aquire and register it (also expensive). Meanwhile, legal full-autos are both rare and expensive. Most of the people who own them are hardcore collectors.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:31 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4401
Location: Pennsylvania
"Then you should be more afraid of republicans. Since the takeover of the right wing and religious right, they want to take away more rights, and they have already taken some away. That is my problem with them. I vote 100% on civil liberties." - Ironman

I would be if they controled the white house and both houses of congress as the democrats do now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3984
wilburburns wrote:
Matt Z wrote:
It wouldn't take an amendment to the constitution to ban all guns. All it would take is one more liberal justice on the supreme court. That would be enough to overturn the recent decision you refer to, and turn a constitutional RIGHT into a mere priveledge. Then congress, state legislatures, and even towns and cities could ban anything they want by a simple majority vote.


Many Seem to forget that the Supreme Court Justices truly have ALL the Power. Currently there is a good balance of Power amongst them, however, many expect the balance to end once Obama takes office and a couple of the Conservative justices retire. They will likelybe replaced with more liberal judges. :sad:

Cliff


Wrong on all counts. The supreme court can only strike down legislation as unconstitutional. They CAN'T amend the constitution. The second problem is 2 liberal justices will be replaced with 2 more liberal justices. So there will be no change. You are also forgetting you need conservative Democrats and a republican or 2 to break a philibuster.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3984
Matt Z wrote:
"Then you should be more afraid of republicans. Since the takeover of the right wing and religious right, they want to take away more rights, and they have already taken some away. That is my problem with them. I vote 100% on civil liberties." - Ironman

I would be if they controled the white house and both houses of congress as the democrats do now.


I see so you're 50/50 gridlock rather than republican?

I can understand that, but we still need to undo the damage of the last 8 years.Especially 2006 and before when republicans had a total monopoly of power.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:49 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3984
Myself, and I think the majority of Americans, like gun laws as they are. I really hate all the fear mongering on the part of politicians and the media.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:21 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator

Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:27 am
Posts: 1115
Location: Kabutzkatura
Quote:
Even if this were true, the Bill of Rights was created to protect individuals from the tyrany of the majority.
Wrong. It was to protect us the MAJORITY from the gov't and again there has not been a proposed 28th amendment banning all guns. I think you need to take a crash course on the US gov't. Even if this were true? Who were the ones that got a Black man elected into the highest office? The liberal Judges?

Quote:
So we're only supposed to concern ourselves with our freedoms AFTER they've been taken away
What are you talking about? That example was hypothetical situation which won't ever happen.

Quote:
I care more about voting records than I do about rhetoric, and Obama does not have a moderate voting record on Second Amendment issues.
That was when he was a senator. Like I've stated before, he is going to be left but moderate. Have you been reading up on who he is surrounding himself with? A mix of Dem, Rep, and Inde. If he wants to stay in power 2 full terms then he won't try to alienate specific groups of people.

Quote:
Many liberals (including the four liberal justices) enterpret the right to keep and bear arms as a state POWER, not an individual RIGHT.
Why does that suprise you? Like I already stated, liberals will never expand gun rights. At the same time not all liberals are trying to ban guns. There are extremes in which politicians lie in, most tend to sit right around the middle and then there a few here and there who are hardcore in their beliefs.

Why are you bringing up those judges again? The court at this time is balanced and in the best interest of everyone including the president himself he will keep it that way. If one conservative and liberal die, he will replace them with a liberal and a conservative.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:41 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4401
Location: Pennsylvania
"Wrong. It was to protect us the MAJORITY from the gov't and again there has not been a proposed 28th amendment banning all guns. I think you need to take a crash course on the US gov't. Even if this were true? Who were the ones that got a Black man elected into the highest office? The liberal Judges?" - Ironmaided

I don't know how many more ways I can explain this. The Supreme Court enterprets the constitution. If the Supreme Court says there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, then there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. And if there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, then congress doesn't need a new Amendment to ban some, most or all guns.

Also, the Anti-federalists wrote fairly extensively about the threat posed by the a tyrany of the majority. Look it up.

Finally, the Supreme Court didn't elect Obama. American voters did.


Last edited by Matt Z on Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:54 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4401
Location: Pennsylvania
"That was when he was a senator. Like I've stated before, he is going to be left but moderate." - Ironmaiden

So he was liberal as a senator, but now he'll be moderate as a president? Do you think he's going to change his political stance just because he has a new job?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:59 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4401
Location: Pennsylvania
"Why are you bringing up those judges again? The court at this time is balanced and in the best interest of everyone including the president himself he will keep it that way. If one conservative and liberal die, he will replace them with a liberal and a conservative." - Ironmaiden

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a president must replace a conservative judge with a conservative or a liberal with a liberal. The only check is that congress most confirm whoever the president nominates, and at the moment the Democrats control both houses.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:02 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4401
Location: Pennsylvania
"I see so you're 50/50 gridlock rather than republican?" - Ironman

Yes. I never said I was a republican. I'm not a member of any political party.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:36 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator

Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:27 am
Posts: 1115
Location: Kabutzkatura
Quote:
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a president must replace a conservative judge with a conservative or a liberal with a liberal. The only check is that congress most confirm whoever the president nominates, and at the moment the Democrats control both houses.
Yes they control both houses and so what? So your back to assuming that they would do that. You are completely disreguarding the fact that it is in nobodies best interest to do that. Democrats would lose all their gained power by 2010 if they decided to abuse their power. You seem to believe that the democrats are power hungry ratts that want to take away all rights and make the US one large prison.

Quote:
So he was liberal as a senator, but now he'll be moderate as a president? Do you think he's going to change his political stance just because he has a new job?
Again completly ignoring the fact that he it setting up a administration full of people from the major parties. So yes I truely believe he will be left but moderate.

Quote:
I don't know how many more ways I can explain this. The Supreme Court enterprets the constitution. If the Supreme Court says there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, then there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. And if there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, then congress doesn't need a new Amendment to ban some, most or all guns.
Explain to me how the supreme court could possibly interpret the second amendment as saying that no person can own a gun? 2nd Amendment 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. Also the supreme court cannot just pull this topic out of their ass and legislate it, it has to be presented to them as a court case or created by the legislature. Like I said before their would not be nearly enough support for this bill by senate and the house. All of congress's democrats would have to be hardcore liberals for even a flicker of hope of the bill being created. Then we are on to interpretation, how can the court clearly justify that it doesn't go against the constitution?

Quote:
Also, the Anti-federalists wrote fairly extensively about the threat posed by the a tyrany of the majority. Look it up.
Antifederalists have been gone for 200+ years and what they wanted was their rights guaranteed on paper. Guess what, they got them.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group