Welcome to PatsFans.com

Why do Liberals want additional gun control laws?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by cupofjoe1962, Mar 19, 2008.

  1. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,676
    Likes Received:
    49
    Ratings:
    +130 / 20 / -16

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday took up gun control, hearing arguments concerning a District of Columbia ban on handguns more than two centuries after the Second Amendment gave Americans the right to "keep and bear arms."

    I don't understand why liberals want additional gun control laws.
    If the liberal judges would enforce the current laws, there would be no
    need for additional laws.

    The implementation of the Bartley-Fox law in Massachusetts in the 1970s which imposed a mandatory one-year term in prison for carrying a gun without a permit.

    Judges do not enforce this law. They allow criminals to walk with a slap on the wrist after breaking this law.

    The real problem is the judges and the criminals, not the people who bear arms legally.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2008
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,766
    Likes Received:
    284
    Ratings:
    +717 / 20 / -30

    Are you sure this argument is germaine to liberals??
     
  3. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Where does it say anything about anyone other than militias having this right?
     
  4. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    .

    New Hampshire, recently judged as the safest state to live in, has one of the HIGHEST gun ownership rates of any state. I bought my first gun at Riley's in Hookset many years ago; it was a huge, well-stocked, and very professionally managed gun shop, one that ran checks on prospective owners long before it became mandatory.

    People who abide by the law need to have a means to protect themselves against those who would break the law to satisfy their personal wishes at the expense of others.

    The Supreme Court will not take this right of Americans away. Although DC is not New Hampshire, the same right for law-abiding citizens to own fire arms holds: an armed citizenry is the surest defense against tyranny and mob rule.

    //
     
  5. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Gotta disagree with Joe on the one year mandatory law in MA. I've come across more than one scumbag who's intimidated by that law, which IMO is the main reason it was enacted.


    I am real interested in how the SC case breaks. On the one hand you have a large proportion of DC residents who like the law very much. On the other you have the Constitution saying what it says. I look forward to some real legal scholarship, but I'm concerned that things might just go political.
     
  6. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Perhaps you need to investigate the origins of "militia"?

    Or would learning a few facts cause your world view to tilt dangerously beyond your comfort level?
     
  7. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,842
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +515 / 49 / -7

    #75 Jersey

    The militia the founding fathers referred to here, were farmers, silversmiths, and fisherman, who took up their own arms to fight the British. The men killed at Lexington where not soilders they were mainly farmers, who grab their own guns, and defended this country.

    That is the right that the 2nd amendment secures. If they truely believed that no man should own a gun, wouldn't they have written that?
     
  8. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Considering how smart everyone in that room was, and considering how carefully worded and crafted everything else they put together was, you would think so, yes. But far, far too many people don't want to think.
     
  9. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,918
    Likes Received:
    885
    Ratings:
    +2,476 / 20 / -20

    #75 Jersey


    They also wrote that "....all men are created equal" while owning slaves. I wouldn't get too literal in parsing the Founding Fathers' words.
     
  10. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I agree.
    It's for the safety of the People to own firearms. The powers of the police and paramilitary groups like ATF and FBI could get out of control, if they aren't already. Even our own military could be used against us if the wrong person is in power. Our civilian gun ownership is one of the reasons we are a free country to begin with. If the day comes when the authorities become oppressive enough to warrant a reaction by the People, what are we supposed to do if we have no weapons?
     
  11. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Umm...shmessy? You do know that you're quoting the Declaration of Independence, written by one man, and not the US Constitution, right?
     
  12. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,842
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +515 / 49 / -7

    #75 Jersey

    Please point out where that is written in the Constiution:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

    You are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. You should have complained that they were only counting salves as 2/3 of a person. So yes, if they thought it, they wrote it down.

    And if they thought that the second amendment was a ban on arms, wouldn't they have gone around the country and started collecting them after it's passage? Of course, if they did that, the country would have fallen back to British rule in 1812.
     
  13. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,278
    Likes Received:
    255
    Ratings:
    +995 / 2 / -9

    Left wing liberal socialist do-gooders don't like the idea of the Law Abiding Citizen "defending themselves" when a good guy fights back it usually means the bad guy will be offended, and we can't have that.

    It brings a smile to my face when I pick up a paper and read about the Variety Store owner who works 15 hours a day 7 days a week for his family taking his gun from under the counter and blowing the brains out of the baggy pant vermin who is trying rob him, Medals should be given to these people, maybe the
    "Nobel Peace Prize"

    BILL COSBY FOR PRESIDENT

    :bricks:
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2008
  14. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,874
    Likes Received:
    278
    Ratings:
    +740 / 17 / -19

    #24 Jersey

    I think the point is that those militias are no longer needed as we have a widely varying level of defenses now, from local police to the DoD, which make militias unnecessary. Therefore making the premise of the 2nd amendment questionable. Yes, I am a pro gun control Republican. I do think, however, it is were voted upon by the people of the country that the 2nd amendment would pass quite easily.
     
  15. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,842
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +515 / 49 / -7

    #75 Jersey

    They are exactly needed, without an armed citizendry, those very institutions could become corrupt and unstoppable.

    Imagine an Attorney General hell bent on proving a point, storming a religious compound and setting it ablaze killing innocent women and children, that is the type of thing that could happen to an unarmed public (oops, nevermind, bad example). OK lets say that you are making a tax protest and you are standing on your own land holding one of your children, when a government sniper shoots (oops, another bad example).
     
  16. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    In the 1770s, owing to more than a century of slaving in the European and American world, slaves were not technically considered "men" or any other kind of people. That was wrong, many of the founding fathers knew it, yet to not destroy the fragile alliance of this newly formed experiment, called the "United States of America" -- an entity the likes of which had never existed ever before in history -- those who opposed slavery acquiesced to allowing slavery to continue. But, even then, most knew it was an issue that needed to be resolved so that all people would be regarded as "people", and not as "property". We have witnessed the slow but steady move toward the final denouement of slavery, even today.

    Gun ownership, however, has never been an issue of any doubt. The implications are clear as crystal for any who look: a people unable to defend themselves from attacks by those who possess weapons will be defeated; those who have the means to defend themselves and repel attacks will fare far better in the quest for survival of a free people, a people free to decide their own course, without imposition by an armed force. Thus, gun ownership has been a cherished right of all free men, as was demonstrated by what started the American Revolution: the British military marched on Concord and Lexington for the sole purpose of removing the American means to defend herself from British aggression. That means for American self-defense was in the weapons stored at Concord and Lexington, weapons to repel British forced domination.


    //
     
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,874
    Likes Received:
    278
    Ratings:
    +740 / 17 / -19

    #24 Jersey

    The point for me is that the governments firepower has advanced so far beyond a mere gun that an armed citizenry is powerless to stop them. The government can see your gun and raise you many times and render you useless.
     
  18. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,918
    Likes Received:
    885
    Ratings:
    +2,476 / 20 / -20

    #75 Jersey

    Of course. I know it by heart. One man wrote it (with help). 56 of our Founding Fathers signed it.

    I was writing about the words used by the Founding Fathers......not the Constitution separately.
     
  19. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Please don't go down this road. The stupid chit like this--abuse of power at all levels...it's one of my biggest hot button issues. If this whole conversation starts I'm liable to make NEM look reasonable.

    :eek:
     
  20. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You can't say that what was written by one man years before the Constitution was written--and Jefferson didn't have much to do with writing the Constitution--is the same thing.

    That would be like trying to say Rod Rust and BB are the same, just because they were both HC of the NEP.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>