United States of America and Gun Control and Ban of High Powered Guns Discussion

[Omega Dragon]

Only on the grounds that they have evidence that you are involved in terrorism.

Article III, Section 3. This part of the Constitution strips Congress of the Parliamentary power of changing or modifying the law of treason by simple majority statute. It's not enough merely to think treasonously; there must be an overt act of making war or materially helping those at war with the United States. Accusations must be corroborated by at least two witnesses. Terrorism falls under the same category.

Give me a break.

You trust the government to only hold someone indefinitely on the claim they've evidence you're involved in terrorism? Yeah, it's true the PATRIOT ACT only made things legal for the alphabetical agencies to do things they were already able to do - things that were illegal by definition.

And here you are, fighting gun control under the belief that Obama will disarm you. Talk about partisan politics.

 

[nordicowboy]

I am talking about The Patriot Act, and it's the single issue which disproves the foolish rationale of people who defend firearms "to fight against tyranny".

Here it is, The Patriot Act itself, and what do firearm owners do ? Nothing.



Get real and find me a website that actually states what The Patriot Act does, like not letting people receive trials under the law and getting psychological, as well as physical, torture.

Oh, and before I forget:



Ladies and gentlemen, this is what delusional paranoia looks like.

It's not paranoia when it's happened in your neighborhood, and I live in a pretty nice one. You think that if a guy knows that I have thousands of dollars worth of firearms in the house, that he won't come back when I'm not there to get a crack at them? You seem to be living in a dream world. And for the website, notice that it's .gov, which means that it's used by government entities. You trust the government on one hand, but not the other? That's twice now that you've gone back on your own argument.

 

[feliciano182]

So, you are changing the thread subject, then?

I stated my point about the lie behind "the tyranny argument", you can choose wether to reply or not.

 

[nordicowboy]

Give me a break.

You trust the government to only hold someone indefinitely on the claim they've evidence you're involved in terrorism? Yeah, it's true the PATRIOT ACT only made things legal for the alphabetical agencies to do things they were already able to do - things that were illegal by definition.

And here you are, fighting gun control under the belief that Obama will disarm you. Talk about partisan politics.

Only on the grounds that they have substantial evidence that said person is acting in a way that jeopardizes the safety of the US.

 

[nordicowboy]

Did the US take away everyone's ability to own components capable of bomb making with it, due to a few incidents? Nope, which exactly what's happening now.

 

[Omega Dragon]

Only on the grounds that they have substantial evidence that said person is acting in a way that jeopardizes the safety of the US.

Give me a break. What one may deem as substantial, is not to another. There is no quantifiability of such, which is why we have juries to begin with (and secondly to challenge contemporary law). By removing an actual jury by one's peers and refusing a man his human right of defense, you have done nothing less than to allow tyranny.

If you really believed in gun rights, you would be against the PATRIOT ACT since it also allows government to get rid of guns through labeling you a terrorist.

 

[feliciano182]

It's not paranoia when it's happened in your neighborhood, and I live in a pretty nice one. You think that if a guy knows that I have thousands of dollars worth of firearms in the house, that he won't come back when I'm not there to get a crack at them? You seem to be living in a dream world.

You are paranoid, one person coming back for what YOU presume is a second attempt at a robbery does not give you a license to kill people, and if a robber is really such a threat that he CAN take your guns from your household, then by Mara you indeed are the reason why guns need to be regulated more rigurously.

And for the website, notice that it's .gov, which means that it's used by government entities. You trust the government on one hand, but not the other? That's twice now that you've gone back on your own argument.

Actually, that's what you argued, you said the second ammendment was necessary to prevent tyranny and that you did not trust the government to regulate firearms, yet here you are rationalizing in favor of denying people the right to habeas corpus and to be protected from torture.

 

[nordicowboy]

You are paranoid, one person coming back for what YOU presume is a second attempt at a robbery does not give you a license to kill people, and if a robber is really such a threat that he CAN take your guns from your household, then by Mara you indeed are the reason why guns need to be regulated more rigurously.



Actually, that's what you argued, you said the second ammendment was necessary to prevent tyranny and that you did not trust the government to regulate firearms, yet here you are rationalizing in favor of denying people the right to habeas corpus and to be protected from torture.

Maybe you're unaware that acts of treason or terrorism forfeit your rights as a citizen. And me using deadly force to protect my home or family from a break in is cause to take away my guns? I truly feel sorry for your family then.

 

[Omega Dragon]

Maybe you're unaware that acts of treason or terrorism forfeit your rights as a citizen. And me using deadly force to protect my home or family from a break in is cause to take away my guns? I truly feel sorry for your family then.

Thanks for another partisan post; do you even know what terrorism is?

Terrorism | Define Terrorism at Dictionary.com

noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

(Hmm, notice how convenient the third definition is?)

Maybe you're unaware but there are tons of people on DHS's terrorist list - that is, people the DHS claims to be involved in terrorism or acts of terrorism. But y'know who else is considered a terrorist? America's founding fathers. But you? You support that, after all it is the PATRIOT ACT that gave FEMA/DHS the life they have.

Good luck trying to defend why you should have guns when the government calls you a terrorist because you're just another right-wing gun-owning nutcase.

 

[nordicowboy]

Too bad #3 is addressed in our second amendment. Not really surprised that you'd resort to name calling either. People tend to do that when they run of of useful things to say. You might also try reading my past post on the Patriot Act. Apparently agreeing with detention of terrorists, means that I inherently approve of FEMA procedures. I was never aware that I posted anything about FEMA, just a few lines from an Act that I find justifiable in conjunction with our Constitution. And as far as the DHS's hit list, if they have the proof that's required, then why aren't all of these US citizens in jail as we speak (or type)?

 

[Omega Dragon]

Too bad #3 is addressed in our second amendment. Not really surprised that you'd resort to name calling either. People tend to do that when they run of of useful things to say. You might also try reading my past post on the Patriot Act. Apparently agreeing with detention of terrorists, means that I inherently approve of FEMA procedures. I was never aware that I posted anything about FEMA, just a few lines from an Act that I find justifiable in conjunction with our Constitution. And as far as the DHS's hit list, if they have the proof that's required, then why aren't all of these US citizens in jail as we speak (or type)?

You think I was calling you names? No, I wasn't.

I told you quite simply, YOU ARE going to be called a domestic terrorist because of your beliefs in gun rights. There are no ifs or buts about it. Actually, you pretty much are called a domestic terrorist, have you been on an airplane the last 4 years? Cause if not, you may want to check yourself, because -anyone- labeled a domestic terrorist or the TSA has room to suspect of terrorism can and will be denied flight.

If you support the PATRIOT ACT, you intrinsically support the DHS & FEMA - the very foundations explicitly created by the bill. You quite clearly defended it all and gave yourself no breathing room, to which no one here forced you into doing so.

But let's start here. Do you not see the obvious loophole here?: "...such as the government being allowed to hold you indefinately, without due process..." with your response beyond, "...only on the grounds that they have evidence that you are involved in terrorism."

I mean, do you even realize there is no measurement of evidence beyond due process? By removing due process, you remove everything else there is to a proper legal system, including the human right to unrestricted self-defense.

Too bad #3 is addressed in our second amendment.

Yeah, such a funny thing. Any gun owner is a terrorist according to that 3rd definition, any other definition makes the government the single-largest terrorist organization in existence. Orwell once taught a thing about language & definitions....

 

[KaitoGhost]

Feliciano, I have 2 questions for you, and I want you to answer honestly, without evading or changing the subject.

First: (I'm pretty sure I know the answer already, but I'm gonna ask anyway) Are you a gun owner?

Second: Fundamentally, the patriot act was about exchanging some freedoms for security. How can you be so against it, yet be so for banning certain weapons, which is fundamentally the same thing; exchanging some freedoms for security?

 

[nordicowboy]

You want to start placing labels such as "right wing nut job", based on the points that I agree with my right to bear arms and the detention of terrorists. I'm also pro-gay rights and for keeping jobs here in the US, both liberal stances. The war on drugs is a joke, and what the war in the middle east has become completely embarrassing. I'm stuck in no-man's land. I personally justify parts of the Patriot Act, but then again it doesn't drag every citizen to jail on the basis that they might be a terrorist right off the bat. While there are those pushing for a re-vamped background check (which I'm good with), there are also people calling for a ban, which I find ridiculous. You think I'm a terrorist? Feel free to forward this entire discussion to the proper authorities.

 

[Omega Dragon]

You want to start placing labels such as "right wing nut job", based on the points that I agree with my right to bear arms and the detention of terrorists. I'm also pro-gay rights and for keeping jobs here in the US, both liberal stances. The war on drugs is a joke, and what the war in the middle east has become completely embarrassing. I'm stuck in no-man's land. I personally justify parts of the Patriot Act, but then again it doesn't drag every citizen to jail on the basis that they might be a terrorist right off the bat. While there are those pushing for a re-vamped background check (which I'm good with), there are also people calling for a ban, which I find ridiculous. You think I'm a terrorist? Feel free to forward this entire discussion to the proper authorities.

I am neither the one calling you anything nor placing labels on you. I said quite clearly you are going to be called a domestic terrorist, and how and why it'll happen. (Albeit, I do wonder if you'd support gun rights even if there were no constitutional amendment like many other "gun-rights" advocates.)

 

[Omega Dragon]

Feliciano, I have 2 questions for you, and I want you to answer honestly, without evading or changing the subject.

[snip]

Second: Fundamentally, the patriot act was about exchanging some freedoms for security. How can you be so against it, yet be so for banning certain weapons, which is fundamentally the same thing; exchanging some freedoms for security?

Excellent question that everyone should be asked (or the reverse for any pro-gun advocates that support the P/A).

 

[nordicowboy]

Thanks for another partisan post; do you even know what terrorism is?

Terrorism | Define Terrorism at Dictionary.com



(Hmm, notice how convenient the third definition is?)

Maybe you're unaware but there are tons of people on DHS's terrorist list - that is, people the DHS claims to be involved in terrorism or acts of terrorism. But y'know who else is considered a terrorist? America's founding fathers. But you? You support that, after all it is the PATRIOT ACT that gave FEMA/DHS the life they have.

Good luck trying to defend why you should have guns when the government calls you a terrorist because you're just another right-wing gun-owning nutcase.

What exactly do you call the last line if not a label?

 

[Omega Dragon]

What exactly do you call the last line if not a label?

I said in whole, "Good luck trying to defend why you should have guns when the government calls you a terrorist because you're just another right-wing gun-owning nutcase."

I guess I will talk to you like I'm talking to a 1st-grader: "Good luck trying to defend why you should have guns when the government calls you a terrorist because, as according to the government, NOT ME, you are just another right-wing gun-owning nutcase."

Is that more easily understandable for you?

 

[nordicowboy]

Feliciano, I have 2 questions for you, and I want you to answer honestly, without evading or changing the subject.

First: (I'm pretty sure I know the answer already, but I'm gonna ask anyway) Are you a gun owner?

Second: Fundamentally, the patriot act was about exchanging some freedoms for security. How can you be so against it, yet be so for banning certain weapons, which is fundamentally the same thing; exchanging some freedoms for security?

The key word in the 2nd question.... fundamentally. Omega and I seem to be on the pages of how it's meant to be used (me), and ways that it could be or has been misused (him). I don't argue the fact that both sides aren't corrupt, at least intentionally, but blaming the law/act/bill instead of those who twist and misuse it is like blaming spoons for making people fat.

 

[nordicowboy]

I said in whole, "Good luck trying to defend why you should have guns when the government calls you a terrorist because you're just another right-wing gun-owning nutcase."

I guess I will talk to you like I'm talking to a 1st-grader: "Good luck trying to defend why you should have guns when the government calls you a terrorist because, as according to the government, NOT ME, you are just another right-wing gun-owning nutcase."

Is that more easily understandable for you?

Oh look, a keyboard warrior. That's cute.

 

[Omega Dragon]

Oh look, a keyboard warrior. That's cute.

You may as well just said whoosh. *shrugs*

As I said, and from one fellow domestic terrorist to another: good luck. You will need it in due time when the government you have chosen to trust to discern the difference in a right-wing gun-owner & a legitimate enemy decides you're a legitimate enemy because you refuse to put down your own guns.

Finally, here's a quote: "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Tacitus