Gun Control, Mental healthcare, big brother... thread (1 Viewer)

[magnifier661]

Since George himself said that, would you agree that it would not be a violation of your second amendment rights if every gun purchase involved a mandatory spanking?

barfo

As long as you are doing it big boi

 

[Natebishop3]

Interesting infographic in the Oregonian

http://www.oregonlive.com/data/2015/10/gun_deaths_other_causes.html#incart_big-photo

 

[barfo]

But... but... we have the "best healthcare system in the world". How come all those people die of illness? Must be the Obamacare death panels.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

But... but... we have the "best healthcare system in the world". How come all those people die of illness? Must be the Obamacare death panels.

barfo

Well, not just that, but the suicide numbers are staggering and extremely disheartening. If you count the gun and non-gun suicides, plus the overdoses, that's 76,812 in 2013 alone. That's horrible. People keep harping on mass shootings, but mass shootings are a tiny blip on the radar compared to some of those other issues.

 

[Denny Crane]

But... but... we have the "best healthcare system in the world". How come all those people die of illness? Must be the Obamacare death panels.

barfo

People catch diseases while in the hospital. Because, you know, many people with diseases go to the hospital.

 

[magnifier661]

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. ~ See Related Article



**Share this info with others**

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).

These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.

The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.

Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states:

"The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.

Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917

Source

 

[riverman]

Mags, I worked with what has to be your identical twin brother for almost 30 years and I loved him like he was my own brother, right wing whacko beliefs be damned. I miss daily interaction with him, looney as he is. And like you, he was rarely an asshole about it. You guys just state your version of "the facts" and then gird your loins to take on all comers. Its rarely about being "right, it's more about getting your version of the "truth" out there. As with my friend, politics is your hobby. Thank you for filling a hole in my life (seriously). You guys at least make me do my homework, even if it's just to rebut your particular brand of crazy bullshit....

Like to add that the forum has voted and taken many polls coming to the decision that mags must build a wall around this thread and we expect him to pay for the whole thing

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Like to add that the forum has voted and taken many polls coming to the decision that mags must build a wall around this thread and we expect him to pay for the whole thing

This thread is already inescapable. Who needs a wall.......??

 

[riverman]

This thread is already inescapable. Who needs a wall.......??

Roger Waters

 

[barfo]

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.

You could have stopped right there (like I did), since that statement is obvious bullshit. No law can 'invalidate' other laws passed later.

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

You could have stopped right there (like I did), since that statement is obvious bullshit. No law can 'invalidate' other laws passed later.

barfo

So we can invalidate Roe vs Wade decision?

 

[barfo]

So we can invalidate Roe vs Wade decision?

Yes, but that's a bit apples/oranges since Roe v Wade was a court case whereas the Big Dick act you posted about is apparently an act of congress.

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

Yes, but that's a bit apples/oranges since Roe v Wade was a court case whereas the Big Dick act you posted about is apparently an act of congress.

barfo

"The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

Maybe you breezed past this part?

 

[oldfisherman]

Late to this party, but my other cave does not have phone or internet service.

Have not read the 39 pages of this conversation; hope I am not repeating info.

The link below is to an analysis of mass public shootings made by the Crime Prevention Research Center.

There are a couple of interesting points. The main point to consider, 92% of all mass public shootings from 2009 to 2014 occurred in GUN FREE ZONES. Page 10 is where the Gun Free Zone report starts.

You are much safer in a public place that has a lot of guns, ammunition and people that know how to shoot, such as in a Cabela's store, than in a gun free zone such as a school or workplace.

"Since 2009, only 8 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in places where civilians are allowed to defend themselves"

“Mass Public Shooters avoid places where people can defend themselves”.

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg2.pdf

 

[Denny Crane]

"The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

Maybe you breezed past this part?

It's bullshit, mags.

 

[barfo]

"The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

Maybe you breezed past this part?

I didn't breeze past it. In fact I didn't go further than that. I pointed out to you that it wasn't true.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

In The UK, Guns Aren't The Problem, It's Knives. And The Number Of Attacks Are Surging
Matt Vespa | Jul 18, 2015

Gun ownership is an alien concept with our British cousins across the Atlantic, but that doesn’t mean that violent crime has been reduced. In fact, with no guns readily available, though there are gun crimes in the UK, knives seem to be the weapon of choice. This isn't surprising. The rise in knife attacks has been in the UK press since 2008–and they’ve increased by 13 percent since last year (via Sky News):

Knife crime has increased for the first time in many years, annual crime statistics have revealed.
The figures show there were 1,577 more knife assaults (up 13% from the previous year) and 1,000 more cases of knife possession (up 10%).
Overall, knife crime rose by 2% in the 12 months up to March this year, said the Office for National Statistics.
The ONS [Office for National Statistics] report also revealed that sex offences rose by 37% to the highest figure since 2003, but it suggested this was the result of victims being more willing to report such offences, improvements in police recording methods and a significant number of reported historic sex attacks.
The official figures for all crimes recorded by police show they went up by 3%, with a particular rise of 23% in violence against the person, but the ONS said that was purely because of changes in police recording methods.

In January, the Telegraph reported that violent crime, overall, rose by 16 percent. Yikes:
Violent crime recorded by the police soared by 16 per cent last year to nearly 700,000 offences, new figures show.
Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) covering the 12 months to the end of September last year showed 699,800 recorded incidents of violence against the person compared with 604,100 offences in the previous 12 months.
The data also showed a new record level of rapes recorded by police in England and Wales.
There were 24,043 rapes in recorded crime figures for the year, a rise of 31 per cent on the previous 12 months and 81 per cent higher than a decade earlier.
The figure beat the 22,000 figures recorded in the previous quarter's data and suggests that continuing confidence in police and the courts is leading growing numbers of rape victims to come forward.
Even in 2008 and 2009, there were reports about the surge in knife crime. In fact, in 2008, the Daily Mail reported that there were 130,000 incidents that year, which averages out to be a knife assault every four minutes.

Concerning homicides in the UK, John Lott of the Crime Prevention Center noted that the rate spiked in Britain once the country ritually outlawed handguns in 1997.

It only began to drop when the UK added more police officers in 2003 and 2004.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/07/18/uk-knife-attacks-are-surging-n2026497

 

[MARIS61]

You could have stopped right there (like I did), since that statement is obvious bullshit. No law can 'invalidate' other laws passed later.

barfo

No need, as The Second Amendment clearly prevents them from ever being enacted.

 

[MARIS61]

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...icide_by_weapon_private_citizen_2009-2013.xls

 

[MARIS61]

Of Oregon's 78 murders that year (2013), 43 were by gun, 12 by knife or other cutting instrument, 18 by other weapons (bat, tool, rock,...) and 5 by hands, fists and feet.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u..._20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

If you look at the states with high murder rates, and consider the ethnic makeup of those states, and consider 53% of all murders in 2013 were committed by blacks who are a mere 12% of the population, it's clear that guns are not what need to be controlled.

 

[MarAzul]

Of Oregon's 78 murders that year (2013), 43 were by gun, 12 by knife or other cutting instrument, 18 by other weapons (bat, tool, rock,...) and 5 by hands, fists and feet.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u..._20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

If you look at the states with high murder rates, and consider the ethnic makeup of those states, and consider 53% of all murders in 2013 were committed by blacks who are a mere 12% of the population, it's clear that guns are not what need to be controlled.

Ha! I think you will draw flies with this one Maris.

 

[KingSpeed]

Actually onus is on those that want to take our right away. It seems what's used right now in strict zones aren't working. If you have any suggestions, feel free to write your congress.

Who wants to take your rights away? No one has proposed that guns be banned. Obama believes that people have the rights for "protection, hunting, and sport" but that there should be background checks for people who purchase guns. No one wants to take away the right for people to own guns. We just want to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns don't have guns.

 

[KingSpeed]

I own multiple guns im still waiting for them to possess me to shoot people, maybe mine are broken cause I've never had the urge?

As a matter of fact, the only person id consider killing is the kind of person who would show up and start killing people.

There are millions of guns in this country. Criminals can get them through illegal avenues. Making guns illegal for law abiding citizens will not change this. I dont get why gun grabbers cant logically see that. The best thing to do is allow law abiding citizens, teachers for instance, to fucking defend themselves against scumbags.

If im a teacher and im offered say a 5% bonus to conceal carry on campus and TAKE TRAINING COURSES. It's a no brains to me. And this is far better use of tax dollars than buying a drug dealer some food and pay in his electricle bill so he can use his drug money to buy illegal firearms.

And what if a kid in the class gets his hands on the teacher's gun and starts killing everybody? And if the teacher has the gun locked in his or her desk, how will she have time to go get the gun before being shot herself. Teachers having guns would lead to more school shootings in my opinion.

 

[KingSpeed]

The internet has created this epidemic. I'm on a bike ride sitting outside of Whole Foods waiting for my wife. Guns have been around forever, I think that is evidence that guns aren't the problem.

Hell, we should outlaw body armor before guns. Nutjob plus gun plus body armor...not good. Take away his feeling of invincibility at least.

Guns ARE the problem. They say "guns don't kill people. people kill people." But a crazy white kid with no gun can't kill 10 people in 2 minutes time. If the best he has to work with is a knife, MAYBE he can kill one guy by surprise?

 

[MarAzul]

but that there should be background checks for people who purchase guns.

You don't say! Well since we have background checks and the recent shooter passed those checks and the Chief keeps mentioning Australia, your assertion doesn't cover the implications.

 

[MarAzul]

Guns ARE the problem. They say "guns don't kill people. people kill people." But a crazy white kid with no gun can't kill 10 people in 2 minutes time. If the best he has to work with is a knife, MAYBE he can kill one guy by surprise?

Ha! Hell, you can't even post the same messages twice on the same page.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Guns ARE the problem. They say "guns don't kill people. people kill people." But a crazy white kid with no gun can't kill 10 people in 2 minutes time. If the best he has to work with is a knife, MAYBE he can kill one guy by surprise?

Anyone that can drive a car can kill more people in less time.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Who wants to take your rights away? No one has proposed that guns be banned. Obama believes that people have the rights for "protection, hunting, and sport" but that there should be background checks for people who purchase guns. No one wants to take away the right for people to own guns. We just want to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns don't have guns.

I wouldn't let you have a gun if you paid me.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

By the way, I wouldn't let 90 percent of the people I know hae guns. Lucky for them I'm not in charge.

 

[MarAzul]

Guns ARE the problem. They say "guns don't kill people. people kill people." But a crazy white kid with no gun can't kill 10 people in 2 minutes time. If the best he has to work with is a knife, MAYBE he can kill one guy by surprise?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...venge-attacks-Christian-villages-Nigeria.html