By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Call your Congressman tomorrow as Obama is giving his speech!

sc94597 on 16 January 2013
Mr Khan said:
NobleTeam360 said:
MDMAlliance said:
I think many people here (and in the video that was shown) are missing the point of the high-capacity ammunition ban.

The whole argument how there's only a .5 second difference in two 10 rounds vs 1 20 round isn't exactly accurate for all cases. The trial he ran was pretty much a bare minimum of the difference, and it assumes many things.

Generally, though, if you have to bring more magazines to have more shots, it is an inconvenience for you unless you want to get caught. So what will happen with the ban is that it makes it more difficult to hold more ammunition with you, therefore the gunman will have less shots creating a situation that makes it more difficult for mass shootings to be even more deadlier if they had the higher capacity magazines.

To say it makes no difference or the difference doesn't matter is kind of dumb, as Obama is really more trying to save as many lives as he can, whether it's one or one hundred. The ban isn't going to do THAT much for those who do it for sport, considering they don't have to worry as much about carrying all those things with them.

Also, I think it's kind of dumb to say crime will happen anyway because that's really not the point. I actually looked up that stabbing incident in China and I realized that bringing that one up is kind of dumb too when the Sandy shooting had 26 dead, the stabbing had 23 wounded (not dead). The deadliness of the two are on totally different levels. You can't possibly say that 26 dead is about the same as 23 wounded.

Lol protect who? He isn't trying to save lives criminals will still have guns and thus resulting in more preventable crime. Guess what else if criminals know their aren't any guns to stop them they can do whatever they want. Do you think the police will stop them? the victims will be long dead by time they get their. How is it dumb to say crime will happen anyway? That is a major point for everyone to be allowed to own guns. Glad I live in a state that will block any federal laws that are put in place. 

States CANNOT overrule federal law. You live in no such state.

When it comes to state powers, yes they can. And if the federal government decides to enact an unconstitutional law states can nullify it. The supremacy clause is limited to federal (interstate) powers. The ninth amendment protects rights and the tenth amendment gives anything not explicated to the people and the states. The federal govenrment was not allocated the power to ban guns and in fact the constitution explicitly states it shall not do as such. 



Around the Network
fordy on 16 January 2013
sc94597 said:

 

Where have you explained it? You've only mentioned that you'd use said "inferior" weapons against military grade weapons in an attempt to hijack a nuclear device, with no thought of the government perhaps having control of setting it off beforehand/during the attempted hijack.


Check the countless other gun control threads. I'm not explaining it again. 


You've explained NOTHING. Saying to go on a wild goose chase for previous info to validate YOUR argument is not how this works.

If you have something to contradict my argument, then say it. Otherwise, I'm not going to go fetching your own information for the sake of YOUR argument.



Ckmlb1 on 16 January 2013
NobleTeam360 said:
Mr Khan said:
NobleTeam360 said:
MDMAlliance said:
I think many people here (and in the video that was shown) are missing the point of the high-capacity ammunition ban.

The whole argument how there's only a .5 second difference in two 10 rounds vs 1 20 round isn't exactly accurate for all cases. The trial he ran was pretty much a bare minimum of the difference, and it assumes many things.

Generally, though, if you have to bring more magazines to have more shots, it is an inconvenience for you unless you want to get caught. So what will happen with the ban is that it makes it more difficult to hold more ammunition with you, therefore the gunman will have less shots creating a situation that makes it more difficult for mass shootings to be even more deadlier if they had the higher capacity magazines.

To say it makes no difference or the difference doesn't matter is kind of dumb, as Obama is really more trying to save as many lives as he can, whether it's one or one hundred. The ban isn't going to do THAT much for those who do it for sport, considering they don't have to worry as much about carrying all those things with them.

Also, I think it's kind of dumb to say crime will happen anyway because that's really not the point. I actually looked up that stabbing incident in China and I realized that bringing that one up is kind of dumb too when the Sandy shooting had 26 dead, the stabbing had 23 wounded (not dead). The deadliness of the two are on totally different levels. You can't possibly say that 26 dead is about the same as 23 wounded.

Lol protect who? He isn't trying to save lives criminals will still have guns and thus resulting in more preventable crime. Guess what else if criminals know their aren't any guns to stop them they can do whatever they want. Do you think the police will stop them? the victims will be long dead by time they get their. How is it dumb to say crime will happen anyway? That is a major point for everyone to be allowed to own guns. Glad I live in a state that will block any federal laws that are put in place. 

States CANNOT overrule federal law. You live in no such state.

Yeah any state can make up their own laws regarding guns they don't have to follow what the federal government does. Why do you think their is so many differnet gun laws in different states? Duh

You have no idea what you're talking about, states have different gun laws because they addded their own laws in addition to federal laws, no state can go against a federal assault weapons ban.



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb

NobleTeam360 on 16 January 2013
Mr Khan said:
NobleTeam360 said:
Mr Khan said:
NobleTeam360 said:
MDMAlliance said:
I think many people here (and in the video that was shown) are missing the point of the high-capacity ammunition ban.

The whole argument how there's only a .5 second difference in two 10 rounds vs 1 20 round isn't exactly accurate for all cases. The trial he ran was pretty much a bare minimum of the difference, and it assumes many things.

Generally, though, if you have to bring more magazines to have more shots, it is an inconvenience for you unless you want to get caught. So what will happen with the ban is that it makes it more difficult to hold more ammunition with you, therefore the gunman will have less shots creating a situation that makes it more difficult for mass shootings to be even more deadlier if they had the higher capacity magazines.

To say it makes no difference or the difference doesn't matter is kind of dumb, as Obama is really more trying to save as many lives as he can, whether it's one or one hundred. The ban isn't going to do THAT much for those who do it for sport, considering they don't have to worry as much about carrying all those things with them.

Also, I think it's kind of dumb to say crime will happen anyway because that's really not the point. I actually looked up that stabbing incident in China and I realized that bringing that one up is kind of dumb too when the Sandy shooting had 26 dead, the stabbing had 23 wounded (not dead). The deadliness of the two are on totally different levels. You can't possibly say that 26 dead is about the same as 23 wounded.

Lol protect who? He isn't trying to save lives criminals will still have guns and thus resulting in more preventable crime. Guess what else if criminals know their aren't any guns to stop them they can do whatever they want. Do you think the police will stop them? the victims will be long dead by time they get their. How is it dumb to say crime will happen anyway? That is a major point for everyone to be allowed to own guns. Glad I live in a state that will block any federal laws that are put in place. 

States CANNOT overrule federal law. You live in no such state.

Yeah any state can make up their own laws regarding guns they don't have to follow what the federal government does. Why do you think their is so many differnet gun laws in different states? Duh

They can only make their own laws when it doesn't conflict with federal law. If it does; federal law wins.


Oh yeah your right my bad. Damn let's hope these bills get blocked. 



NobleTeam360 on 16 January 2013
Ckmlb1 said:
NobleTeam360 said:
Mr Khan said:
NobleTeam360 said:
MDMAlliance said:
I think many people here (and in the video that was shown) are missing the point of the high-capacity ammunition ban.

The whole argument how there's only a .5 second difference in two 10 rounds vs 1 20 round isn't exactly accurate for all cases. The trial he ran was pretty much a bare minimum of the difference, and it assumes many things.

Generally, though, if you have to bring more magazines to have more shots, it is an inconvenience for you unless you want to get caught. So what will happen with the ban is that it makes it more difficult to hold more ammunition with you, therefore the gunman will have less shots creating a situation that makes it more difficult for mass shootings to be even more deadlier if they had the higher capacity magazines.

To say it makes no difference or the difference doesn't matter is kind of dumb, as Obama is really more trying to save as many lives as he can, whether it's one or one hundred. The ban isn't going to do THAT much for those who do it for sport, considering they don't have to worry as much about carrying all those things with them.

Also, I think it's kind of dumb to say crime will happen anyway because that's really not the point. I actually looked up that stabbing incident in China and I realized that bringing that one up is kind of dumb too when the Sandy shooting had 26 dead, the stabbing had 23 wounded (not dead). The deadliness of the two are on totally different levels. You can't possibly say that 26 dead is about the same as 23 wounded.

Lol protect who? He isn't trying to save lives criminals will still have guns and thus resulting in more preventable crime. Guess what else if criminals know their aren't any guns to stop them they can do whatever they want. Do you think the police will stop them? the victims will be long dead by time they get their. How is it dumb to say crime will happen anyway? That is a major point for everyone to be allowed to own guns. Glad I live in a state that will block any federal laws that are put in place. 

States CANNOT overrule federal law. You live in no such state.

Yeah any state can make up their own laws regarding guns they don't have to follow what the federal government does. Why do you think their is so many differnet gun laws in different states? Duh

You have no idea what you're talking about, states have different gun laws because they addded their own laws in addition to federal laws, no state can go against a federal assault weapons ban.


I wasn't even talking to you about that and I already told Mr. Kahn that I was wrong. 



Around the Network
MDMAlliance on 16 January 2013
NobleTeam360 said:
MDMAlliance said:
NobleTeam360 said:

Obama has broke so many laws domestic and internationally that he should of been impeached a long time ago. 


You say that, but if you're going to make a statement like that you'd better have a way of backing it up.  Otherwise, you're just a parrot repeating what others say and have no real opinion for yourself.


Lol you did the same thing in your comment I qouted a minute ago you didn't provide any evidence. Also you can go look it up yourself your perfectly capable of doing so. 


You missed the point by a long shot, and what I'm saying is definitely much different than what you're saying.  Claiming the president broke the law (as written on some propaganda-ridden website, but no others) is different than saying in theory thing aren't the way they seem on the surface.  I don't need evidence to make the claim.  Yours, you do.



Ckmlb1 on 16 January 2013
NobleTeam360 said:

Obama has broke so many laws domestic and internationally that he should of been impeached a long time ago. 

If the Repubicans in congress had any grounds to impeach Obama they would have already done it (they don't have anything). They impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob...



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb

sc94597 on 16 January 2013
fordy said:
sc94597 said:

 

Where have you explained it? You've only mentioned that you'd use said "inferior" weapons against military grade weapons in an attempt to hijack a nuclear device, with no thought of the government perhaps having control of setting it off beforehand/during the attempted hijack.


Check the countless other gun control threads. I'm not explaining it again. 


You've explained NOTHING. Saying to go on a wild goose chase for previous info to validate YOUR argument is not how this works.

If you have something to contradict my argument, then say it. Otherwise, I'm not going to go fetching your own information for the sake of YOUR argument.

Good thing it's not my job to convince you. I've already explained this too many times that I frankly don't care whether or not you believe whatever you believe. I mostly wanted to direct you toward the strawman logical fallacy. And of course, I can direct you to the Argument from ignorance fallacy, if you conclude that there are no contradictions to your statement. Anyway, for starters, I'll just state that the overwhelming majority of the millitary would not kill their family members, and that's precisely the premise of why such a war would be more even than one would think. 



kain_kusanagi on 16 January 2013
fordy said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Ckmlb1 said:
JoeTheBro said:

About 70% of America is strongly against these gun laws, we will not let it pass!

Wrong! 6 in 10 Americans support tougher gun laws. 


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564252-10391739/poll-6-in-10-favor-tougher-gun-laws/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/cnn-poll-majority-approve-of-obama-biden-in-advance-of-gun-control-announcement/

Anyone too dumb to hang up on an interupting polster doesn't represent the common sense of general public. I say no thanks to every poll phone call and ask to never be called again. Excuse me if I don't trust the stats collected from who too stupid or loney to hang up.

If you don't want your voice to be heard, whose fault is that?

It's like saying "I didn't vote, but the results are not a clear representation of what we all wanted".

No, it's like voting and while leaving refusing to tell the polster how you voted.

I will call my represetives and tell them how I feel, but I'm not going to talk to a stranger on a phone with an agenda and trick questions.



NobleTeam360 on 16 January 2013
Ckmlb1 said:
NobleTeam360 said:

Obama has broke so many laws domestic and internationally that he should of been impeached a long time ago. 

If the Repubicans in congress had any grounds to impeach Obama they would have already done it (they don't have anything). They impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob...


I'm just a civilian so I don't know what is going on behind closed doors. If the republicans really wanted to impeach him going into other countries without permission from those countries (Pakistan and Libya) is punishable. I bet if we did that to someone like Russia or China we would be a real trouble right now.