Industrial-Sized Deals Best Books of the Month Shop Women's Handbags Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Off to College Essentials Shop Popular Services tmnt tmnt tmnt  Amazon Echo Starting at $99 Kindle Voyage GNO Shop Back to School with Amazon Back to School with Amazon Outdoor Recreation Deal of the Day
Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Rahm Emanuel calls for nationwide assault-weapons ban


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 74 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 17, 2012 11:27:04 AM PST
How about we first punish the criminals before punishing law abiding citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms. How about life in prison without parole for anyone caught with an illegal gun of any kind??

How about it Rahm?!?! Would you support life in prison for a 13 year old black kid caught with a gun in chicago? Of course you wouldn't, but you would support punishing a 40 year old who legally possess a weapon.

Guns dont shoot themselves, just like cars dont speed themselves just like fertilizer doesnt blow up itself. You need to punish those who do evil and not what they use to do evil.

Posted on Dec 17, 2012 11:31:15 AM PST
Rahm is just following his own advice. "Never let a crisis go to waste."

Posted on Dec 17, 2012 11:43:16 AM PST
"If people want to go hunting, a single-shot rifle does the job, and that does the job to protect your home, too. If you need more than that, I don't know what to say," Ray DiStephan said outside Noah's funeral. He added: "I don't want to see my kids go to schools that become maximum-security fortresses. That's not the world I want to live in, and that's not the world I want to raise them in."
http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-holds-first-funerals-victims-183717274.html

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 11:53:00 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 17, 2012 12:04:49 PM PST
Alpha Wingoov Karen -- Criminals will get machine guns even if you make them illegal. Why the hell would you want to limit lawful citizens to single shots??

Some people drive over 100 mph even though the speed limit is 65 in most places. Does this mean we should limit all cars to never exceed 65 mph becuase some people will break the law and kill others while speeding??

Likewise, drinking and driving is illegal yet people do it, so I guess you would support breathalyzers in all cars?? Where does this insanity stop and you start harshly punishing evil.

Do you support giving a 13 year old black kid life in prison if he is caught with an illegal gun? Yes or No?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 12:07:38 PM PST
Justin G. says:
How is the hypothetical 13 year old's race relevant?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 12:12:01 PM PST
Shain Edge says:
I was going to ask the same thing.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 12:13:51 PM PST
DEEZUS says:
we're scarier.

duh.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 12:42:00 PM PST
Dougerie says:
I agree with punishing criminals and taking away illegal guns.

The problem is that most of these mass shooters do not have a criminal background. They are not criminals until they take that first shot. So targetting criminals does not solve this issue.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 12:46:00 PM PST
Why do you think civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons? They're not essential for self defense, and they're not used in hunting. They make it possible for someone to kill a lot of people quickly.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 12:51:56 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 17, 2012 1:04:45 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, arpard fazakas. It's about guaranteeing the People the means they need to check tyranny and balance a standing army in time of peace.

It's about power. The Constitution identifies "the People" as the source of power.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:00:57 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 17, 2012 1:02:31 PM PST
Agree the Second Amendment is not about hunting. I was just referring to a common argument as to why people should be allowed to own guns.

If you believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give "the People" the means to defend themselves against an American military in the service of a tyrannical government, then you would need to let them stockpile not just assault weapons but missiles, artillery, tanks, planes, boats, etc.

When the Supreme Court found in 2008 that the Second Amendment contained an individual right to own guns, they in effect found that this right is divorced from any relationship to "militias". It was those who were arguing that there was no individual right to own guns that were arguing the Second Amendment was purely in the context of a militia.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:01:23 PM PST
OldAmazonian says:
Scarier, or just more special?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:03:18 PM PST
Justin G. -- race plays a major role with liberals since 99% of them voted for obama simply because he was black. Point is to make liberals defend their views when it means imprisoning their own youth for life.

Taking away my the constitutional rights of 99% of people who have never committed a crime for the acts of the 1% who have is insanity. Like I said, you punish evil no matter its age or race rather than taking away our constitutional rights.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:05:11 PM PST
arpard fazakas -- US Constitution give me the right to bear arms. It doesn't limit my rights to a bee-bee gun or a machine gun. You want to limit it, then amend the constitution. Try it and see what happens.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:05:13 PM PST
Do you have a constitutional right to own an assault rifle? How about a fully automatic military rifle? What about a sniper scope?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:07:08 PM PST
OldAmazonian says:
arpard fazakas,
"If you believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give "the People" the means to defend themselves against an American military in the service of a tyrannical government, then you would need to let them stockpile not just assault weapons but missiles, artillery, tanks, planes, boats, etc."

You could have used the same argument to deny effective arms to the millions exterminated by the fascist regimes that once seized power in Germany, the Soviet Union, and China. Or not. Those regimes had already forbidden private ownership.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:08:42 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
"The People" are "the Militia", arpard fazakas. The Founders did not make a distinction between the collective right of the people to bear arms and their right as individuals.

The right to keep and bear arms was (and still is) both an individual right and a collective right. It's also "inalienable." Maybe the Supreme Court didn't read that part or maybe they're not aware of the history of our republic?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:09:35 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
What is a "sniper scope," arpard fazakas?

Are you just making this stuff up?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:13:10 PM PST
arpard fazakas -- Yes, I should have the right to any weapon including .50 cal rifle to be used for recreational sniper shooting. I am not a criminal and thus there should be no restrictions on what I can and cant own.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:13:47 PM PST
Shain Edge says:
The fact is, since the 2nd amendment included both the 'militia' and 'people' in it's writing is a proof that the eople writing it meant the two to be indivisible.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:20:34 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
Good point, Shain Edge. I agree.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:39:39 PM PST
Every other right in the Bill of Rights has been limited by subsequent judicial interpretation. Why should the Second Amendment be any different? Why shouldn't the country be able to pass a law saying that you have the right to own some types of guns but not others? Is this any different from saying the police have the right to conduct some types of searches of your person and effects without a warrant, or that some types of free speech are not allowed, or there are some things you can't print, etc?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:41:22 PM PST
Yes, that is a common argument. I personally am not at all concerned that our government will morph into something similar to the governments you refer to, although I can see why if someone believed that was a distinct possibility, they might want to own a gun.

Although I don't see how it would do them much good.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:42:30 PM PST
You seem to imply that there should be no difficulty interpreting the meaning of the Second Amendment. But the fact that the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in 2008 indicates that is not the case.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:44:16 PM PST
I meant to say a high-powered weapon equipped with a high-powered scope, designed to take out individuals at long range by a trained sniper. I was specifically thinking about the .50 caliber Barrett M82.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  13
Total posts:  74
Initial post:  Dec 17, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 17, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions