If you let a "liberal" (vs an actual liberal) talk long enough, eventually their racism comes out.
If you let a proponent of "reasonable" gun control talk long enough, eventually they start to admit they want a ban.
As we will see below, first they talk about how the magic cure is to repeal one of our founding amendments.
They still couch it in terms that they just need that as a tool for "reasonable" restrictions, not a ban. They want it to be a privilege.
But let's look at that: they'll allow guns for "legitimate" purposes--that means collecting, target shooting, and MAYBE hunting. IOW, recreational uses, not defensive or political uses.
So, it comes down to, "These items are so dangerous they should only be allowed as toys!"
Hell of a logic there.
Heller and McDonald have really thrown them into a tizzy. They've been trying anger and denial, and it hasn't been working. They're now onto bargaining, and their first salvo is so angry it's cute:
~~~~
http://quietmike.org/2013/09/23/one-way-stop-gun-violence-in-america/
~~~~
My reply:
We need reasonable speech control. Right here, we see an example that endangers the Constitution.
Other "speech" exploits children. Certainly the Founder never foresaw the internet. They meant actual speech, and block-printed papers.
Give the risk child predators offer to children, there is simply no reason most people need internet in their home. They can go to the library, properly supervised, and their access can be logged. No one is saying you can't express yourself. We just need reasonable limits on it. Certainly we can't consider there to be a "right" to describe how to violate the law.
Ultimately we'll need to consider whether the First Amendment still applies in the modern world. This is not what the founders had in mind at all.
~~~~
Do you drink alcohol? Alcohol serves no purpose except to reduce awareness, hinder decision making, reduce inhibitions and impair motor control. There is absolutely no moral justification for alcohol. There is a common factor in 90% of the avoidable deaths in America--alcohol.
The common factor in every alcohol-related incident is alcohol (recursive tautological statement for posters like the one above me, who clearly failed not only Logic 101, but likely 7th grade arithmetic).
Go ahead, explain to me why you drink and support Big Alcohol. Why aren't you moving to ban that?
HINT: Banning guns will be about as effective. Guns are a 13th century technology. You can build AK47s in a garage:
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/politics-The%20Steampunk%20AK47.html
You can't possibly have the intellect to grasp this, but since I actually do know what I'm talking about, I'll say it, and you can double check anywhere you like (which you won't, because you don't want a rational debate): The easiest guns to make are like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Submachine_gun_Bechowiec.jpg
Much like moonshiners were producing cheap, dangerous liquor, illegal gun builders will produce cheap submachine guns. These won't be subject to any of the 20,000 regulations the US has, and will be as common as meth.
Your proposal will be no more effective than Prohibition. If you think it's bad now (it's not), wait until it's illegal.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."."
- See more at: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/why-the-assault-weapon-ban-failed-and-a-new-one-would-too#sthash.fa8oH0Su.dpuf
~~~~
Part 2:
Do you really think you're going to get Congress, the President and 3/4 of the states to sign off o such an amendment? If so, put the crack pipe down.
If it did happen, how exactly do you plan to take my guns away? Ask nicely? How about, "no?" Are you going to try to take them from me? Unlikely. You're a pussy. Are you going to demand the police and military do it? Retired military here--again, go fuck yourself.
But that opens up the next problem. How are you going to do so when I have a right against unreasonable search and seizure? Are you going to repeal the 4th Amendment too? (Again, retired military, with an oath to defend the Constitution. That would be grounds for me to kill the parties involved. Yes, that means civil war. Yes, you'll find a lot of vets agree with me (if you don't prove you're a total pussy by blocking this because a little language hurts your feewings). And you might want to consider which side has the guns.
What about the requirement that private property not be taken for public use without due process? The Courts have repeatedly upheld that any laws cannot be ex post facto. You'll have to grandfather everything, or pay "fair market value," which, 300 million guns X $500 average value is $150 billion. Plus implementation costs.
Canada's mere "registration" scheme, estimated at a cost of a few million, ballooned into $2 billion, with 1/10th our population. So a good first order estimate is that you're going to drop a couple of trillion dollars on this scheme.
So what you're saying is, "I want to destroy the country and start a civil war because I'm totally ignorant of how our system works, selfish, whiny, and have an irrational fear of weapons and a misplaced ignorant assessment of what they do."
So here's what's going to actually happen:
You're not going to leave America, because you know you have it better here than anywhere else. If you didn't, you'd move (Which being an immigrant, I did, from a lesser society). Leaving would take fortitude, which you don't have, because you're a pussy.
You're not going to change the Constitution. You're just going to use your First Amendment rights to whine about the Second Amendment on the internet (because you're a pussy).
You're not actually going to try to take anyone's guns, because you're a pussy.
And you're probably going to block this "angry" dissent, because you're a pussy.
You're not going to actually study the law, political science, or weapons so you actually have a clue what you're talking about, because you're a lazy whiner in a very comfortable spot, enjoying your white male privilege and deathly afraid of losing it.
But you waaaaant it! It's not faaaaaiiiirrrr!
