Senate Blocked Gun Control Measures

This.
---

And come on, I am all pro weed, but stop talking same shit that it is harmless. It is relatively harmless and possibily dangerous for many people.

Are you like 12 years old? No sorry, I have seen much smarter kids.

---
How is gun prohibition similar to weed one?
We are talking about freedom to own a thing. Everything can be used badly, it doesn't mean everything should be illegal.

 

Freedom to own a non-toxic plant that has medical benefits and no danger to health

vs.

Freedom to own a weapon that works by forcing a metal projectile through a barrel with explosive power so as to penetrate skin, muscle, organs and bone, causing serious bodily harm or death

Yeah, absolutely no difference there

 

Obviously guns and pot are very different products, but they can be compared when it comes to the (failed) prohibition there of.

Has there ever been anything successfully prohibited in the US? Or any "western" nation? When people want a product they will acquire it whether its legal or not.

But then again the thread topic isn't about gun prohibition but "gun control" such as extended background checks and what not. Gun nuts seem to think of it as a slippery slope but a lot of them don't articulate that and start ranting about the left taking their guns away.

 

Well there is one way that gun control and marijuana prohibition are directly related.

"The Original National Firearms Act
Originally passed into law in 1934, the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) was enacted in response to the surging crime gang of the era, like the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Congress addressed this issue by imposing a “tax” on certain firearms and devices mistakenly thought to contribute to this crime wave: machine guns, silencers, and short barreled rifles/shotguns.
The NFA required that the possessor of any NFA restricted firearm or device must register it with the Dept. of Treasury (now the Dept. of Justice) and pay the then enormous tax stamp fee of $200. This was intended to discourage possession of these firearms and devices."

They then adopted the same "tax stamp" strategy in an attempt to control marijuana or hemp.

"Marijuana Tax Act of 1937The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 made possession or transfer of cannabis illegal throughout the United States under federal law, excluding medical and industrial uses, in which an inexpensive excise tax was required. Annual fees for the tax were $24 ($337 adjusted for inflation) for importers, manufacturers, and cultivators of cannabis, $1 annually ($14 adjusted for inflation) for medical and research purposes, and $3 annually ($42 adjusted for inflation) for industrial uses. Detailed cannabis sale logs were required to keep record of cannabis sales. Selling cannabis to any person who has previously paid the tax is $1 per ounce or fraction thereof; however, it is $100 ($1,406 adjusted for inflation) per ounce or fraction thereof to sell any person who has not registered and paid the special tax."

The thing is the government never really issued any tax stamps, or very few, and in order to get one you had to provide proof that you were a grower. seller, user, etc. and by doing such you were automatically in violation because you didn't have a tax stamp!

Timothy Leary challenged it in 1967 (?) and the supreme court agreed and said the tax stamp law was unconstitutional.

 

I've been lurking here for a while and I just finally had to register to respond to this thread.

The 90% figure is a lie. It comes from a Quinnipac poll (notorious left leaning university) and the question was "would you favor or oppose background checks at gun shows?" with 91% of white Americans (heavily weighted to democrats) answering in the affirmative.

There is just one problem. Background checks are ALREADY required at gun shows. Plus, most people (the poll only asked 1700) don't know what a "universal" or "expanded" background check means.

While it is possible for a private individual to sell a gun at a gun show with no background check, it is not common. The tables with lots of guns are dealers who are required to run background checks.

The "expanded" background checks involve registration and combining medical records with this registration. This is against HIPPA laws and electronic medical records are not complete.

With regard to the statement that "nobody is taking away your guns" a number of gun control politicians have said they are working towards EXACTLY that.

I don't care if you don't like guns, or that they scare you. Ignorance is ignorant.

People have the right to defend themselves against those that would do them harm. Not just Americans. All people.

The government doesn't grant rights. No man grants rights. A Right is yours due to the very nature of your existence. That's why they are called "natural rights".

Therefore, the government cannot infringe on this right. Or the right to free speech, religion or the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

I look forward to open minded discussion on this and other issues. But be prepared to back up your claims with facts.

 

:2thumbsup:

 

Yeah, that's why we've had the right to own guns ever since Adam and Eve learned to pick .38 revolvers off the Garden of Eden's gun tree. It's all natural!

 

c'mon Karen, you know that's an absurd and out of context take on what he said.
The right to "defend oneself" is a right that everyone should enjoy by virtue of being alive.

It's exactly this kind of misquoting and misrepresentation of what is said by both sides of this or any debate that precludes any actual progress being made.

 

The Second Amendment doesn't say that if someone punches you in the face, you have the right to punch him back. Neither does it say that if someone bombs you with a jet airplane, you have the right to own a jet bomber to strike back. The level of technology is relevant to the conversation.

Nothing about a gun is "natural". It's a modern, manufactured product.

 

you have completely missed the point.

 

The Second Amendment is a small part of an overall "package".
Maybe you also need a refresher course on it;

so if we start to dismantle the Bill of Rights, concerning guns and erase that sentence, how long before they are ALL erased because it offends someone?

So, so tragically humerous all the members here that scream and cry on soapboxes about eroding freedoms and governmental control, yet are 100% in support of even more loss of rights and greater governmental control and interference if it involves evil guns.

What is really crazy is the friggin' Bill of Rights was created to protect from governments EXACTLY LIKE WHAT A LOT OF YOU CLAIM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS BECOMING!
Yet you seem to willingly want to relinquish even more of your personal freedom to this tyrannical American fascist state.

I would love to see some consistency from some of these folks.


Please Karen or any one else, don't just bang out a knee-jerk response, please actually think about the inconsistency.

 

I'm interested in reforms that involve peaceful legal changes, not those that involve shooting those who disagree.

Go ahead and try your shootout with the 82nd Airborne Division, from Fort Bragg. Let me know how that works out for you, if you live long enough to type a post.

 

does the concept of "principles" mean anything to you?

It doesn't matter the particulars, it is the principle that is important.


there are a lot of moronic assholes in the media, online, in print, etc., etc. that I would love if they shut the fuck up,
BUT if someone were to come along and try to force them to shut-up in any manner, I would be one of the first to stand up for their defense.

IT DOESN'T ALWAYS MATTER ABOUT THE PARTICULARS, SOMETIMES THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES ARE VASTLY MORE IMPORTANT.

Gun regulation and the second amendment to the Bill of Rights is one of those instances.

Am I the only sorry son of a bitch who understands that?????

Pretty sad in this community of "free thinkers", "rebels" and "hippies".

 

You don't have to agree with gun ownership, but at least see past that to the underlying issue of personal freedoms.

and yes, I am more than willing to risk the occasional nut job on a mass murder spree to maintain these freedoms for EVERYONE.

 

If the Second Amendment simply said "Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms", you would have a stronger argument. But that's not what it says.

 

I don't see how, except that maybe you take offense at the term "militia".

BUT, AS I HAVE STATED, it ain't about the guns, dammit!!!!!!!!!!!

please look to get a fuller picture of my position;
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=471556&page=3

 

Adam and Eve are fictitious. The absolute right to self defense has nothing to do with guns per say. Ever since one primate figured out he could use a rock to bash his neighbors head in and take his food there began an arms race. The neighbor primate discovered that tying the rock to a bone made it easier to bash his neighbors head in.

That cat is out of the bag. And it isn't going back in.

Guns are the great equalizer. Without guns, the world would ruled by the stronger, younger, healthier. Senior citizens, women, the weak and small would be subject to the tyranny of the stronger.

But your post was a nice deflection.

 

Nobody is suggesting shooting anyone. The founding fathers intended the citizens to have the same weapons as the government. Those guns are also handy for stopping rapists, robbers and all manner of people that mean you harm.

But in a last resort, the intent was to give free people a chance against a government that has turned on the people and removed their freedoms at the point of a gun.

You can believe what you wish, this is America. You can lay down your freedoms in the face of tyranny if you choose, this is America. You can live on your knees hoping someone else keeps you safe - abdicating your self responsibility. You can speak your mind and live your life in a fantasy, this is America.

And don't worry. If I were to find you on your knees begging for your life, I would use my gun to defend you - even though I disagree with you.

For me, I choose to be responsible for my safety and I stand for freedom. Yours AND mine.

 

Probably in this case, it might mean to you that I should be willing to die, if necessary, to defend, protect, and preserve the Second Amendment. Not me. I just want it to go away.

That's the First Amendment. I don't have a problem with that one. I think it's great. We couldn't function without it.

Not me.

You've been watching too many movies.

Where are the big news stories about the ordinary citizen with the self-defense handgun saving the day and becoming a big hero? It never happens. It's a fantasy. Who ends the big shooting sprees? It's always a police officer. Every time.

Pepper spray gets better results.

So...you want the right to buy nuclear weapons? Supersonic jet fighters? Cruise missiles? Drones?

Don't bother. I'll die with dignity.