General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
and you of course have several studies that show this, right?



I have no problem imagining having easy access to a gun would make it easier to kill yourself, much less effort etc, and the threshold being lower. much easier and less painful then many other methods

but thats my imagination, which is why I don't go making statements about it

Hanging is the most common form of suicide in males, poison for females, look it up. Having a gun isn't going to make you committ suicide. Registering a gun you own is not going to prevent you from doing so.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 05-07-2010, 03:45 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#46  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
That's a pretty extreme statement.

Consider that thousands of military vets have committed suicide in the last ten years. Are they worthless cowards, or people suffering from mental derangement caused by PTSD?

hush you with your logic, let me be inflammatory
Old 05-07-2010, 03:58 PM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#47  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xayd View Post
and the law was passed in '96.

google again, better luck next time.

are you a complete idiot?
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 05-07-2010, 04:32 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#48  

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
are you sure that's what heller said? I tried to wrap my head around the whole decision but from my understanding they pointed out that bans on assault weapons ends up ignoring the militia aspect of the second amendment


edit: hold on, reading it again.

edit2: thanks scalia, you fat fucking wop

What?

I didn't find anything Scalia wrote about upholding Assault Weapon bans as constitutional. He just mentioned MGs, school zones, and commercial restrictions. Breyer wrote about AW bans in the Dissenting opinion...but that wasn't the majority opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
I'm not saying it's a particularly rational objection from the Democrats, but there's no Constitutional right to carry assault weapons. The Republicans added in it to kill the bill and it worked, the end.

Apparently you have a tough time reading the 2nd Amendment, and don't understand how laws work.
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET
Old 05-09-2010, 10:08 AM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#49  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
Apparently you have a tough time reading the 2nd Amendment, and don't understand how laws work.

Let me know when the Supreme Court overturns an assault weapon ban. Until then, there's no Constitutional right to have them. They overturned the blanket gun ban in DC, but that's it.
Old 05-09-2010, 10:44 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#50  

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Let me know when the Supreme Court overturns an assault weapon ban. Until then, there's no Constitutional right to have them. They overturned the blanket gun ban in DC, but that's it.

How is it that I am able to possess an "Assault Weapon" right now, since it is a right that you say must be affirmed by the Supreme Court before it is granted to me? Do you say the same for any and all rights in the Constitution?

The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear. There is no more, or no less, right to own one specific type of arm than another one. The methods to obtain said arms that are in place right now (NICS, NFA, etc) should be free to be questioned, as I personally believe they do not go beyond "shall not be infringed," but things like the AWB and the Hughes Amendment are clear violations of the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET
Old 05-09-2010, 12:05 PM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#51  

SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
dude, he didn't say that at all

I know you like to think that your personal interpretation is the way things should be but here in the real world the constitution means what SCOTUS says it means.

Read Scalia's statements on the case.
Old 05-09-2010, 10:51 PM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#52  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
How is it that I am able to possess an "Assault Weapon" right now, since it is a right that you say must be affirmed by the Supreme Court before it is granted to me? Do you say the same for any and all rights in the Constitution?

The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear. There is no more, or no less, right to own one specific type of arm than another one. The methods to obtain said arms that are in place right now (NICS, NFA, etc) should be free to be questioned, as I personally believe they do not go beyond "shall not be infringed," but things like the AWB and the Hughes Amendment are clear violations of the 2nd Amendment.

You can personally believe what the fuck you want to believe, but the official interpretation of the Constitution is determined by the Supreme Court. They have not overturned any of the standing assault weapon bans from various states, nor the national one when it existed, despite multiple opportunities to do so. Their legal opinion on the Heller vs DC case made it quite evident that only blanket gun bans are unconstitutional, and left the door WIDE open for specific bans. Some states have such bans, others do not. The bans that exist are constitutional until determined otherwise by the Court, not by some dude on the Internet. We're not going to suddenly gain the right to have tanks or artillery because you think the 2nd Amendment is "pretty clear."

We can question the wisdom of their interpretation, but running around shrieking about how we have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ASSAULT WEAPONS, despite no judicial precedent to that effect, just makes you look stupid.
Old 05-09-2010, 11:31 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#53  

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
The bans that exist are constitutional until determined otherwise by the Court, not by some dude on the Internet.

Quote:
We can question the wisdom of their interpretation, but running around shrieking about how we have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ASSAULT WEAPONS, despite no judicial precedent to that effect, just makes you look stupid.
Ding ding!

The exact opposite of these two statements is just as true as the ones you made. My rights under current law are valid unless challenged in the Supreme Court. This is why I am able to have a Constitutional Right to keep and bear an assault weapon. If not, millions in this country do not have a right that they exercise daily. Why aren't you calling the police to get these weapons confiscated? There needs to be a trial date before they can have them, right?

Laws aren't there to tell you what you can do.
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET
Old 05-09-2010, 11:57 PM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#54  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
Ding ding!

The exact opposite of these two statements is just as true as the ones you made. My rights under current law are valid unless challenged in the Supreme Court. This is why I am able to have a Constitutional Right to keep and bear an assault weapon. If not, millions in this country do not have a right that they exercise daily. Why aren't you calling the police to get these weapons confiscated? There needs to be a trial date before they can have them, right?

Laws aren't there to tell you what you can do.

Just because your state doesn't have a ban on assault weapons does not mean you have a Constitutional right to bear one. It means your state (and the federal government) hasn't chosen to restrict it, despite having the power to do so under the Constitution.

Last edited by Gibonius; 05-10-2010 at 01:29 AM..
Old 05-10-2010, 01:19 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#55  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Just because your state doesn't have a ban on assault weapons does not mean you have a Constitutional right to bear one. It means your state (and the federal government) hasn't chosen to restrict it, despite having the power to do so under the Constitution.
What exactly constitutes a "assault weapon" in your world? A chefs knife can be used to chop vegetables...or stab someone in the heart in the wrong hands. I agree that fully automatics have no practical use outside of recreational firing ranges...but the same could be said of a low slung, 600HP sportscar and using it as a daily driver.
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 05-10-2010, 09:43 AM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#56  

Xayd
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
Ding ding!

The exact opposite of these two statements is just as true as the ones you made. My rights under current law are valid unless challenged in the Supreme Court. This is why I am able to have a Constitutional Right to keep and bear an assault weapon. If not, millions in this country do not have a right that they exercise daily. Why aren't you calling the police to get these weapons confiscated? There needs to be a trial date before they can have them, right?

Laws aren't there to tell you what you can do.

that's funny, considering a doctor up here was recently jailed for owning banned assault weapons.

link

maybe you should check with him about legal representation. you're as stupid as he is, you two would get along great.
Old 05-10-2010, 01:46 PM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#57  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
What exactly constitutes a "assault weapon" in your world? A chefs knife can be used to chop vegetables...or stab someone in the heart in the wrong hands. I agree that fully automatics have no practical use outside of recreational firing ranges...but the same could be said of a low slung, 600HP sportscar and using it as a daily driver.

I am not arguing in favor of the assault weapons ban.
Old 05-10-2010, 02:30 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#58  

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Just because your state doesn't have a ban on assault weapons does not mean you have a Constitutional right to bear one. It means your state (and the federal government) hasn't chosen to restrict it, despite having the power to do so under the Constitution.

Just because your state doesn't have a ban on freedom of speech on the internet does not mean you have a Constitutional right to have it.

Just because your state doesn't have a ban on barrel shrouds does not mean you have a Constitutional right to have one.

etc.

You're saying that a right that is affirmed, not granted, by the Constitution is actually NOT a right affirmed by the Constitution until the Supreme Court says it is.

You honestly think that's how the founding fathers designed the constitution?

Thank god LEOs don't think like you, else I'd have been arrested the first time I took an AR to the range, and would have had to appeal my case up to the Supreme Court.

Again, laws aren't there to tell you what you can do, they're there to tell you what they can't do.
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET
Old 05-10-2010, 03:32 PM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#59  

Xayd
 
doesn't matter what you think of the constitution, it matters what the supreme court thinks. and they say assault weapon bans are just fine.
Old 05-10-2010, 04:02 PM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#60  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.