Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in head

[Straight Shooter]

I have a question for all the Americans on the board. I don't know much about the Constitution, but has there ever been any serious conversation down there about creating an amendment to include a limitations clause that allows the government to limit constitutional rights? Here in Canada, the government has used that to stop the kind of thing that WBC always does, and while freedom of speech is pretty cool, this kind of stuff simply should not be tolerated.

Arizona lawmakers have passed a bill that prohibits people from picketing or protesting within 300 feet of any residence, cemetery, funeral home, church, synagogue or other establishment during or within one hour of a funeral service or burial service. It's not anything like amending the constitution but it's something I guess.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

OK, then show me any legislation within the last 110 years that threatens to disarm you. Hell, I'll even give you a head start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_1901-2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_2001-present
I counted five gun laws total (I could have missed some, so correct me, please). Unless you are a felon, are they of any concern to you?

How about showing me any proposed legislation which is threatening to disarm you since the shootings? I've seen one - which restricts the clip size - which had been restricted until 2004. Were your guns taken away then?

How about on the state level? Are them thar lubrals taking away your right to bear arms on the state level?
If so, find it for me. Perhaps I missed some:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Ohio

Once again, if the right spent as much time on the education of firearm safety as they did about ghosts, goblins and other phantoms taking away their guns. Stop living in fear of your own damn shadows.

You and I know that gun restriction would have to be a progressive thing. Of course there's no one piece legislation to disarm anyone. That would never happen. Gun control folks very from those who would never dream of completely banning all sales of firearms to those who most definitely are working toward it. Total cessation of firearms sales is a long term goal for many though.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

I have a question for all the Americans on the board. I don't know much about the Constitution, but has there ever been any serious conversation down there about creating an amendment to include a limitations clause that allows the government to limit constitutional rights? Here in Canada, the government has used that to stop the kind of thing that WBC always does, and while freedom of speech is pretty cool, this kind of stuff simply should not be tolerated.

If you start there, where do you stop?

 

[Facetious]

How about showing me any proposed legislation which is threatening to disarm you since the shootings? I've seen one - which restricts the clip size - which had been restricted until 2004. Were your guns taken away then?

You mean magazine capacity?

 

[Straight Shooter]

If you start there, where do you stop?

Yeah it's a slippery slope type of argument. You start by restricting one thing and that could lead to a restriction of all rights.

 

[Deepcover]

I was just shocked. My deepest prayers and sympathy to Gabrielle Giffords.

 

[Hot Mega]

I have a question for all the Americans on the board. I don't know much about the Constitution, but has there ever been any serious conversation down there about creating an amendment to include a limitations clause that allows the government to limit constitutional rights? Here in Canada, the government has used that to stop the kind of thing that WBC always does, and while freedom of speech is pretty cool, this kind of stuff simply should not be tolerated.

No right based on the US Constitution is absolute. There are many cases where our rights are limited based on exigent circumstances...

We have the right to free speech but not the right to yell fire in a crowded theater or bomb on a plane for example.

Everyone in the US doesn't have the right to keep and bear arms. There are circumstances that can forfeit that right...just like the right to vote for example.

Our biggest problem is the paranoid ninnies who can't even come to grips with enhancing NICS.

We have far too many people with clear evidence of mental disorder still being able to purchase firearms.

I have argued this being the biggest loophole right now...whether it be the kid who killed a bunch of people at Va. Tech...the guy who killed the coach in Iowa, this guy, etc., etc., etc., etc....a whole lot could be accomplished by enhancing NICS with inclusions of any mental health incidents.

But nooo...too many paranoids see ANY reasonable restriction as a 'creep' but they don't realize how much they hurt the cause with their unreasonable incorrigibility.

If you start there, where do you stop?

^^See

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

If you start there, where do you stop?

Stopping there works pretty well. That's what we did and (for the most part) its pretty awesome.

I have argued this being the biggest loophole right now...whether it be the kid who killed a bunch of people at Va. Tech...the guy who killed the coach in Iowa, this guy, etc., etc., etc., etc....a whole lot could be accomplished by enhancing NICS with inclusions of any mental health incidents.

Technically, the second amendment just protects people's rights to keep and bear arms. That doesn't seem to mean there can't be better control to keep them out of the hands of these idiots. You should be free to keep and bear arms... so long as you can prove you can handle it.

 

[Straight Shooter]

We need bullet control

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

No right based on the US Constitution is absolute. There are many cases where our rights are limited based on exigent circumstances...

We have the right to free speech but not the right to yell fire in a crowded theater or bomb on a plane for example.

Everyone in the US doesn't have the right to keep and bear arms. There are circumstances that can forfeit that right...just like the right to vote for example.

Our biggest problem is the paranoid ninnies who can't even come to grips with enhancing NICS.

We have far too many people with clear evidence of mental disorder still being able to purchase firearms.

I have argued this being the biggest loophole right now...whether it be the kid who killed a bunch of people at Va. Tech...the guy who killed the coach in Iowa, this guy, etc., etc., etc., etc....a whole lot could be accomplished by enhancing NICS with inclusions of any mental health incidents.

But nooo...too many paranoids see ANY reasonable restriction as a 'creep' but they don't realize how much they hurt the cause with their unreasonable incorrigibility.



^^See

1. NICS is not enough. The problem is that there is no continuity at the moment when some entity raises a red flag about someone's mental state and the point of sale. Obviously this won't stop someone from acquiring a gun informally, but it may make it more difficult for them. Even then, someone like Cho or Loughner would get the weapons they used in their crimes seeing that they were obsessed with carrying out their acts.

2. It's not paranoid at all seeing that the "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" lobbies have considerable time and resources to work towards one conclusion or another.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

1. NICS is not enough. The problem is that there is no continuity at the moment when an entity red flags someone as needing to see a mental health professional and the point of sale.
Obviously this won't stop someone from acquiring a gun informally, but it may make it more difficult for them. Even then, someone like Cho or Loughner would get the weapons they used in their crimes seeing that they were obsessed with carrying out their acts.

2. It's not paranoid at all seeing that the "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" lobbies have considerable time and resources to work towards one conclusion or another.

 

[Hot Mega]

Technically, the second amendment just protects people's rights to keep and bear arms. That doesn't seem to mean there can't be better control to keep them out of the hands of these idiots. You should be free to keep and bear arms... so long as you can prove you can handle it.

That's what I just said....i.e no right is absolute. There is plenty of precedence in US case law for qualifying rights...just not enough. The effort is further hindered by paranoid ninnies.

1. NICS is not enough. The problem is that there is no continuity at the moment when some entity raises a red flag about someone's mental state and the point of sale. Obviously this won't stop someone from acquiring a gun informally, but it may make it more difficult for them. Even then, someone like Cho or Loughner would get the weapons they used in their crimes seeing that they were obsessed with carrying out their acts.

Of course NICS is not enough as long as you have ninnies vigorously fighting common sense addendums to it. Why isn't clear record of mental health incidents not included in NICS as it could have been in these cases?? Most likely because ninnies fight tooth and nail to stifle anything that might remotely keep a firearm out of reach of a deranged individual. Maybe deranged individuals will get them by other means..but at least we can work on that after we stop them from simply going into Turner Outdoors and buying whatever's available.

2. It's not paranoid at all seeing that the "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" lobbies have considerable time and resources to work towards one conclusion or another.

The pro 'gun' lobby has one trump card...the 2nd amendment. Stop being paranoid.

 

[meesterperfect]

Does anyone really believe the Founders considered universal ownership of military weaponry, outside the context of a National Guard unit or other "well-regulated militia," to be a human right as fundamental to liberty and conscience as the freedoms of speech and religion?

military weaponry?
whats that a new politically correct liberal term for guns?

and the answer to your question is yes.

this thread disgusts me.
someone shot some people and here we are like trained idiots discussing gun ownership rights.

 

[Straight Shooter]

I'm not an expert on gun control but something seriously needs to be done about this issue. I mean the shootings at Columbine, Virginia Tech, NIU, this recent killing. How much more of this are we going to have to go through before something gets done? And the perpetrators of these massacres all have one thing in common: they were all screwed up in the head and were still able to walk into a gunshop and walk out with gun, which is fucking stupid.

 

[DemonV]

Even if you stop them from getting guns from arms stores, there's still the illegal route or having someone of legal age buy them and getting them from that person(like with Columbine).

 

[Hot Mega]

military weaponry?
whats that a new politically correct liberal term for guns?

and the answer to your question is yes.

this thread disgusts me.
someone shot some people and here we are like trained idiots discussing gun ownership rights.

Another mentally disturbed guy walks into his local gun shop, walks out of it with a firearm (legally) then blows away several people including a judge in an attempt on a congressmember's life and you don't think the issue of 'gun' control is going to come up?

He wasn't just some nutcase who got a firearm and killed a bunch of people. He was another nutcase who legally obtained a firearm and killed a bunch of people.

I suppose you are correct in challenging this as a rights issue as it is more of a what's wrong issue.:2 cents:

I'm not an expert on gun control but something seriously needs to be done about this issue. I mean the shootings at Columbine, Virginia Tech, NIU, this recent killing. How much more of this are we going to have to go through before something gets done? And the perpetrators of these massacres all have one thing in common: they were all screwed up in the head and were still able to walk into a gunshop and walk out with gun, which is fucking stupid.

The founders intended for a person (the individual) to be able to own firearms for protection and sport. However, a true advocate for the right to keep and bear arms would be doing all they could to help keep firearms out of the hands of deranged people.

 

[xfire]

OK, then show me any legislation within the last 110 years that threatens to disarm you. Hell, I'll even give you a head start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_1901-2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_2001-present
I counted five gun laws total (I could have missed some, so correct me, please). Unless you are a felon, are they of any concern to you?

How about showing me any proposed legislation which is threatening to disarm you since the shootings? I've seen one - which restricts the clip size - which had been restricted until 2004. Were your guns taken away then?

How about on the state level? Are them thar lubrals taking away your right to bear arms on the state level?
If so, find it for me. Perhaps I missed some:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Ohio

Once again, if the right spent as much time on the education of firearm safety as they did about ghosts, goblins and other phantoms taking away their guns. Stop living in fear of your own damn shadows.

I would +rep you for this if I hadn't recently already.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

Sarah Palin responds to the blaming of conservatives and tea party for the shooting:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20110112/pl_politico/47477_1

 

[alexpnz]

Sarah Palin responds to the blaming of conservatives and tea party for the shooting:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20110112/pl_politico/47477_1

I agree w/ Hank, the Jewish fella...the damage has been done.
Sarah Palin will soon be a footnote in political history and will soon be selling Deer Antlers on QVC!

 

[pete rose]

Get stuffed.

The left is doing everything it can to keep this tragedy as politicized as possible. Not 12 hours after the even the Dupnik decides to blather about right wingers spreading hate.


Next we'll have leftist asshats trying to punish law abiding citizens from owning firearms, as well as restricting the freedom of speech.

What's next lefties? Standard issue kicking in our doors?

"Liberal media" doesn't exist. It only exists in your head. Also, aren't you forgetting about "the right" suspending HABIUS CORPUS? What about the patriot act? You don't seem to be up in arms about that, which is troubling.
You're just a vessel for tired rhetoric.