Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[colourwheel]

Yet the constitution protects the freedom of speech, people can't go around calling out bloody murder and making bomb threats an such.

And you calling for the abolishen of the secound amendment. Don't you people get it?

 

I was never once was calling for the abolishment of the 2nd amendment. Was just simply stating I think it might be time for major reform to the 2nd amendment and/or new legislation to change the gun laws in america.

 

Yes, the USA is a republic but it is also a democracy too.

See, it are these moments who wanna let me get in some Ted Nugent style rant. When people who can go to the ballot box don't know stuff, don't know anything about America. No, its not "also a democracy", its a republic. You didn't even get that.

 

This is getting alittle off the topic but let me enlighten you about Republics and democracies...

 

Republicans and other democracy detractors point to the U.S. Constitution and bits of history, and say, "See, the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution gave us a Republic. They believed democracies were dangerous and unworkable."

 

On that, they are partly right, but they fail to mention that democracies and republics overlap. They are not opposites. And they fail to account for the history of American government since 1788, much less the debates that took place in America prior to 1788, when the U.S. Constitution was substituted for the Articles of Confederation.

 

Democracy means rule of the people. The two most common forms of democracy are direct democracy and representative democracy. In direct democracy everyone takes part in making a decision, as in a town meeting or a referendum. The specific rules may vary: perhaps everyone must agree, perhaps there must be consensus, perhaps a mere majority is required to make a decision. The other, better known form of democracy is a representative democracy. People elect representative to make decisions or laws. Again, specifics vary greatly.

 

And, surprise, a representative democracy is a kind of republic. What distinguishes a republic is that it has an elected government. Representative democracies are, therefore, a kind of republic. Self-appointed governments such as monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies and juntas are not republics. However, this still allows for a wide spectrum. The classic is the Roman Republic, in which only a tiny percentage of citizens, members of the nobility, were allowed to vote for the Senators, who made the laws and also acted as Rome's supreme court. Most people would say that Rome was a Republic, but not a democracy, since it was very close to being an oligarchy, rule by the few. Although the Roman Republic was not a dictatorship (until Augustus Caesar grabbed power), it did not allow for rule of the people. In both theory and practice the Soviet Union, that late evil empire, was a republic (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) because the lawmakers were elected, if only by the Communist Party members.

Edited December 28, 2012 by colourwheel

[ColdHeartonIce]

I was never once was calling for the abolishment of the 2nd amendment. Was just simply stating I think it might be time for major reform to the 2nd amendment and/or new legislation to change the gun laws in america.

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.

 

What is so outdated?! You know what the term "militia" means? A militia is a military organization, with access to military grade armory. This fullauto ban is already unconstitutional and you want more regulations and try to fear monger us with the dumb public and nuclear weapons? If you don't like it, move. Move to Canada or whatever when you don't like it.

 

Democracy means rule of the people.

First off that sounds like you wanna educate me. Just because i'am for the right to own guns, that doesn't mean i'am a dumbed moonshine drunk hillbilly who don't know history. It doesn't mean "rule of the people". Deme, from where "Democracy" or "demonstration" comes from means village, not people. Also, the decision maker or elders called Krates in this community called Deme are a thiny percent of the people. The people who can vote, the people we would call citizens, are just the people who were armed. The Majority who didn't made desicions and weren't allowed to vote, were called Idios. and yeah this is where our word IDIOT comes from. No, it doesn't mean "rule of the people".

And even if democracy would be that concept where we could elect people to make laws, why i should give a snap? Why i should care what laws people make, based on the demands of those who voted for them? Why i should care about your opinion the 2nd is outdated? Why i should care of that? I don't! And i don't care for democracy and what people are voting for. I don't care for laws people wanna enforce on me, just because a majority said so. America isn't a democracy, america is a republic and wasn't even supposed to have a police force.

If you don't like that, move. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, so many other places to got to without guns and militias and NRA rightwing hillbillies.

 

I would like to answer the whole "i explain democracy to you" stuff but i don't to because my rational thinking process warns me that i just would waste my time.

Edited December 28, 2012 by ColdHeartonIce

[Keanumoreira]

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom.

Who decides which citizen is dangerous and which ones not? The Government? The most dangerous organisation in the history of men?

Hey i don't want raining days on a weekend, but they come from time to time. If you wanna save streets, carry a firearm and stop mad gunman if you get confronted with such an situation. The government can't protect you in such a case anyway, the government can just make laws enforced on everyone else.

 

I never agreed with taking guns away from anyone.

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind.

 

I agreed with restrictions and reforms, not with seizing individual liberties.

Doubletalk.

"Hey Mr. Gun sales man i wanna buy a fullautomatic 308 assault rifle" Normaly he would say "Here is what i got, choose the product you wanna buy" Win-Win Situation.

With your kind of doublethink he would say "I'am sorry my good sir, i can't sell this kind of firearms because in other case i would go to jail." So if you get it somewhere else, maybee from some mafia type by trade because capitalism rocks and makes everything possible, and the cops find out you store it under your bed they would raid your home. Probably shoot one of your family members, throw CS gas grenades into the room where the little ones sleep, taser you and than drag you to jail. When you resist against that act of theft by government, you get shoot at the scene.

 

 

The basic positions by this debate are "I wanna be left alone" vs. "i wanna get into your life and tell you what to do".

 

Afterall, the civil rights movement was a rebellion and they were armed.

Hell, even Ghandi was total for the right of keep and bear arms for resistance and self defence.

Black Panther Party bringing their firearms to a demonstration? Love it! What do you think is more impressiv for a tyrannical government? Here is my voice, or here is my gun? The BPP was a good thing before they got infiltrated and highjacked.

 

 

Our opinions clash, that much is obvious. Restrictions and reforms may seem like seizing your rights to you, and if abused, you'd be right, but I don't see it as taking anyone's rights away when you still get to keep your gun. I don't see any liberties being taken away there. I find it interesting how people overreact when words like these enter the conversation. Reform and restrict, in this context, does not add up to "ban the guns and oppress the people". I am equalist (a word that doesn't exist; whatever), so I don't know how many times I have to say that I'm not against keeping guns in America. The only thing I don't approve of is when people abuse their rights and terrorize innocent people who have just as much as a right to live on this planet as you and me. If you can still hold a firearm, then I don't see what this whole hoopla is about. The way I see other people reacting to it, any form of change, no matter how minuscule, results in absolute anarchy. I don't understand why.

[colourwheel]

I was never once was calling for the abolishment of the 2nd amendment. Was just simply stating I think it might be time for major reform to the 2nd amendment and/or new legislation to change the gun laws in america.

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.

 

What is so outdated?! You know what the term "militia" means? A militia is a military organization, with access to military grade armory. This fullauto ban is already unconstitutional and you want more regulations and try to fear monger us with the dumb public and nuclear weapons? If you don't like it, move. Move to Canada or whatever when you don't like it.

 

"Militia"

 

1. A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

2. A military force that engages in rebel activities.

 

Honestly ColdHeartonIce I am not sure why you seem to have this anger over the idea of reform to the 2nd amendment. You seem to alway jump back to suggesting people who want gun reform to move out of the country. Speaking of fear mongering I beleive you are more upset about the idea that it is possible for the 2nd amendment to be changed and/or have legislative reform to. I can understand your desire to own fire arms but in all reality there is simply no need for the general public to have access to high power assault weapons these days in America.

 

Also...

 

There is no need to educate anyone about definitions. All people really need to do these days is google anything.

 

"Democracy"

 

1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

2. A state governed in such a way.

 

In other words "Democracy means rule of the people."

 

My definition for the meaning of "Democracy" seems closer than how you try define it.

Edited December 29, 2012 by colourwheel

[ColdHeartonIce]

My definition for the meaning of "Democracy" seems closer to how you try define it.

Your definition? Are we using the english language here or do you make up your own language with own definitions.

 

Honestly ColdHeartonIce I am not sure why you seem to have this anger over the idea of reform to the 2nd amendment.

If someone breaks your arm three times its also reformed.

 

You see 99% at the time in human history total madness and tyranny. Ancient greek, egypt pharaos, Rome going from republic to democracy to caesars, Medieval Kingdoms, kings who spend one year taxes for firework, Stalin killing millions of ukrainians by starvation, Mao killes 34 million people.... Total madness 99% at the time. At all the time you have Gun bans and Weapons just for the Kings Men. Don't you get this into your head, that without a Weapon you are just a dirty peasant and the government doesn't give a snap about what you want? They just come, the king send his men, to take one year of your labour away from you.

 

You seem to alway jump back to suggesting people who want gun reform to move out of the country.

There are so many western countries already freaked up by social democrates and "reformers". If you don't like the freedom in america, just move. Love it or leave it. If you think american don't need "assault rifles" move to a country where they are already banned. Go lucky there.

 

I can understand your desire to own fire arms but in all reality there is simply no need for the general public to have access to high power assault weapons these days in America.

See this exactly is what makes me so outraged angry. Hey the chinese thought one day "oh the communist can't be that bad, i mean we have cars and movies now, we live in modern times" And boooom, 34 millions of them got murdered by their government.

You can't even tell me the difference between Democracy and Republic, you don't even know what america was founded on, you don't know anything about the modern state where people just rule themself, their own live.

Why you wanna decide what people need and what not? What people need isn't your deal. People decide every day for themself what they need and what they don't need, and they don't need you to decide for them. If they think they need an fullauto AR-18 rifle to protect their home, so they do. See that what that mental illness called democracy does with people? They think because they can walk every four years to the ballot box that gives them the right to decide what you need and what you don't need.

 

And every time when i debate with these Anti-Gun baiters, i see all the time the same talkingpoints. "The NRA, the NRA, the NRA and the conservatives". "High powered assault rifles". I bet you can't even tell me the difference between an 5.56 round and a .223 without google it first and take the first wikipedia article you find at face value.

 

i say it the fouth time::: The basic positions by this debate are "I wanna be left alone" vs. "i wanna get into your life and tell you what to do".

 

I'am realy tired of debating this because there is no way to reason with these people.

[colourwheel]

My definition for the meaning of "Democracy" seems closer than how you try define it.

Your definition? Are we using the english language here or do you make up your own language with own definitions.

 

Honestly I am starting to think you are just trying to troll me but this is the definition of "Democracy" HERE <--- click me!

 

Please, feel free to show me your referenced link to how you define the meaning of "Democracy". Would be interesting to see what you link...

 

If this thread debate makes you so "outraged angry" it might be wise just to stop participating and walk away from it.

 

The topic has already shifted from it's main focus of "change to gun laws in america" lets not comepletely derail the thread.

Edited December 29, 2012 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

It is perfectly acceptable to discuss overthrow of the government. It is NOT 'legal' to advocate VIOLENT overthrow of the government. (peaceful overthrow is ok though..... neat huh?)

 

Cars/trucks kill more folks than guns. There is no "need" for anyone to own more than one car. Should we restrict car ownership?

 

Alcohol kills more people than cars or guns...... yet look what happened when alcohol was banned.... a whole new criminal enterprise sprung up, and even MORE people died.....

 

And once again..... Assault rifles are used in less than 1% of gun crimes. In those where they were used, most were acquired illegally to begin with. Not to mention, I have yet to see anyone set the record straight on whether or not mr. Lanza actually USED the assault rifle he had, or if he left it in the car, which was what was originally reported.

 

The guy shooting firemen should not have been in possession of ANY firearms AT ALL. (in all reality, he shouldn't even have been out of prison so far as I am concerned.......) He was a convicted murderer, that convinced some gal to purchase weapons for him. She is now being charged with accessory to murder.

 

No legislation is going to make the slightest difference in these types of incidents. Simply passing some law is NOT going to make people take notice, and not go off on a shooting spree if that is what they really wanna do.

[Beriallord]

Unless you got a Saiga 12 gauge shotgun with a 20 round drum mag, pistols are probably the best killing weapons indoors. And the shotgun only leaves a bigger mess. Semi-auto pistols typically have large magazines for their size, and are adequately powerful enough to kill humans in close quarters. My point is that he didn't need an assault rifle for Sandy hook, which is probably why he left it in the trunk.

 

I hear the preferred weapon of choice for lots of hitmen and assassins, who are professional killers, is a suppressed .22 pistol. Head shot does the job, and doesn't alert anyone. Suppressors are also legal to own, as long as they have a tax stamp on them. They aren't cheap and in many cases are 2-3x the price of the gun itself.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Beriallord

[colourwheel]

Alcohol kills more people than cars or guns...... yet look what happened when alcohol was banned.... a whole new criminal enterprise sprung up, and even MORE people died.....

 

You have a point that deaths related to alcohol far outweigh the deaths from cars or guns yet the deaths are not concidered violent crimes against others. Alcohol is not concidered a dangerous weapon.

 

If you are trying to make the arguement that more people died from alcohol being outlawed it was maining because of illegally bootlegging and gang violence related around the prohibition movement which in irony is related to gun violence as well.

 

You might say "Assault rifles are used in less than 1% of gun crimes" yet a majority of these crimes could have been drasticlly reduced if they were not as easy to acquire reguardless if they were acquired illegally.

 

There is no proof that legislation wouldn't make the slightest difference in these types of incidents. Yet there is proof making things less easy to access or obtain or banned is more of an effective deterrent.

Edited December 29, 2012 by colourwheel

[ColdHeartonIce]

You might say "Assault rifles are used in less than 1% of gun crimes" yet a majority of these crimes could have been drasticlly reduced if they were not as easy to acquire reguardless if they were acquired illegally.

Gangs already use illegal firearms because Gang activity is in areas like L.A. and New York and Detroit, where they have compared to other parts of the country, restrictiv gun laws. Gangs don't care, criminals don't care about gun laws, they are criminals!!

Let the bad guys kill each other, i don't care.

 

There is no proof that no legislation would make the slightest difference in these types of incidents. Yet there is proof making things less easy to access or obtain or banned is more of an effective deterrent.

Dead wrong. Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

 

You think i'am "trolling" you? Tell you what, i get very aggressiv if someone wanna take a right from me. If you continue with this "i just wanna reform..." and "the evil NRA..." BS you will meet way more aggressiv reactions down the road.

 

Don't you get it? We don't need gun controll! We don't need prohibition! I want more freedom!

 

If you don't like it, MOVE. Tell it again : Leave the US and go to Canada, Australia, UK or some place else where they have restrictiv gun laws.