Liberalism in America

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 8:46 pm

Like I said I'm not going to get involved in the gun control debate. If you really care do a search for it.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 8:56 pm

Don't buy into the hype. Liberals lie, assault weapons are mythical.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

airsoft guy · Post by **airsoft guy** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 9:20 pm

Mind you, this is not mine, it was posted by someone else at another forum by a guy named G-Man.

The AWB, insofar as it bans the possession of military-style firearms is in direct conflict with binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

The court in Miller held that the sawn-off shotgun Miller was charged with possessing and carrying across state lines bore no relation to military service, and therefore, Miller lacked standing to make a Second Amendment challenge to the 1934 law. This means that if Miller DID possess a firearm that WAS related to military service, he would have had standing. The Court would not have entered into this discussion if no type of firearm would satisfy this threshold standard for standing.

Using the Miller standard, a weapon that IS closely related to military service (especially the AR-15, which is identical to the standard issue M-16 except for the lack of three-round busrst capability) is protected by the Second Amendment. It is precisely the class of firearm that the framers intended the militia "to keep and bear." Here is the current Militia Act on the federal books, 10 U.S.C. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â§ 311 (2003):

Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

We have a constitutional right to bear that exact class of firearm, targeted by the federal AWB and all the clones at the state level, whether it is to overthrow a government that has degenerated into tyranny or to restore order after a natural disaster, riot, or other breach of peace.

That's all you need to know about "assault weapons."

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 9:30 pm

The "national gun database" has only been proposed as a sort of compromise, since the radical viewpoint of banning guns completely isn't very popular yet, unfortunately.

I'm one of those few people who thinks guns serve no purpose except to kill other people. I think every person in America should be required to hand over all their guns to the police/government/military, and there should be strict and harsh penalties for possessing a gun.

I also think the second amendment should be abolished.

Well regulated militia my ass...

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:12 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:I'm one of those few people who thinks guns serve no purpose except to kill other people.

The two million people who defend themselves with guns every year would disagree with you. So would the ranchers and land owners who depend on guns to control varmints that can potentially destroy their land. These people depend on guns; it's not just a hobby for them.

Nuclear Gandhi · Post by **Nuclear Gandhi** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 11:32 pm

Banning guns is idiotic. IF in fact the government does go to shit and turn despotic, what can we do? NOTHING.

Banning guns is just the next step of control.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 11:49 pm

Doyle wrote:These people depend on guns; it's not just a hobby for them.

Just like they depended on slavery 150 years ago huh?

EDIT: Hail Titor!

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:32 am

Franz_Schubert wrote:Just like they depended on slavery 150 years ago huh?

What's the better solution? Modernization allowed agriculture to grow beyond the need for a lot of physical labor. There was a better solution to a bad situation. If you think guns are analogous to slavery, what's the better solution? How does a rancher control the pests on his property? What options are as effective for self-defense as guns?

Ruben Rooben Reuben · Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:41 am

A U.N. Council?

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 2:56 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:The "national gun database" has only been proposed as a sort of compromise, since the radical viewpoint of banning guns completely isn't very popular yet, unfortunately.

I'm one of those few people who thinks guns serve no purpose except to kill other people. I think every person in America should be required to hand over all their guns to the police/government/military, and there should be strict and harsh penalties for possessing a gun.

I also think the second amendment should be abolished.

Well regulated militia my ass...

Well if you arent American then you shouldnt tell us that we need to oblish our second ammendment just because you dont like guns. If you are an American then well thats a stupid solution. Like i said, criminals arent going to give a shit about a gun-control law. They dont give a shit about drugs, and neither do non-criminals, what makes you think they are going to give it all up. Crime rates will rise because all we will have is a damn knife! Christ, soon they might ban them too! Plus look at how we treat criminals, they get away with fucking child molestation, soon they might get away with murder too because some damn liberal says we treat them to harsh. If it was thier kid who got molested, or thier family or friends who got muredered, they wouldnt be saying shit now would they!?

Slave_Master · Post by **Slave_Master** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:01 pm

As for liberals treating criminals too nicely, we need to institute harsher penalties for crimes, and apply them more consistently. Something like:

Sexual crimes: Genital mutilation

Murder: Torture to death

Assault and battery: The severity of the beatings inflicted on victim is what criminal gets

Stealing: Hand cut off

White collar crimes: Work camps for rest of life.

Once I get it all figured out I'll send it in a letter to my senators and congressmen and stuff.

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:04 pm

Lol! I just thought of something too, a gun-control law will usher in the civil war of 2005!

Edit: Refer to Megatron if you don't get that. I mean, look at how we responded to prohibition on alchohol, now we might have to go to war against Colombian rebels because of drugs, what do you think a gun ban will do? A civil war in 2005 perhaps!?

Edit Edit: Smoking kills more than guns, so does aids, are you going to tell people to stop having sex now too?

the guardian · Post by **the guardian** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:44 pm

People should stop having sex now.

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 7:48 pm

Lol...in some countries, like Liberia, if you are caught having adultery, then your punishment, is death by stoning. Now that is either liberal, or very harsh, or very religious.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 7:49 pm

Or fun!

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 1:31 am

Here is a funny law, its against the law in arkansas, usa to pronounce the states name wrong. you know to pronounce it r-kansas the correct way being r-kansaw.

InvisibleMonkey · Post by **InvisibleMonkey** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 1:39 am

How is that funny, that's not funny, that is stupid. Damn unconstitutional laws, who passes these laws anyway.

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 1:39 am

Thats whats so funny about them, theyre ridiculous.

Crusader · Post by **Crusader** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 2:20 am

Yeah there is growing liberalism in America. It's bound to get far worse. But its provided us with more and better freedoms, if I had a say in it, i would leave it where it is at, but make a few changes, like what Soldier87 said about the criminal system. We do treat them pretty easy.

InvisibleMonkey · Post by **InvisibleMonkey** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 2:21 am

I'd rather be liberal than conservative.

Duck and Cover

Liberalism in America

Too much liberalism in America?