Unhinged Tactical Response CEO threatens to ‘start killing people’ over Obama’s gun control

[Lockout Casualty]

Actually, anyone who was paying attention will know that this has all been a concern since the first Clinton administration at the least.

[Lockout Casualty]

The Constitution doesn't say so, strawman.

[RUPERTKBD]

Wow. The paranoia has reached uber-stupid proportions on CDC.

It's an absolute wonder that some people around here are able to tie their own shoes....

[RUPERTKBD]

Real assault rifles are heavily restricted, if you mean semiautomatic variants, then those are actually ideal for both hunting and self defence.

[RUPERTKBD]

But no-one is trying to take guns away .. they are trying to limit the fire power .. where do you draw the line? .. why can you not then have bazooka's and surface to surface missiles? .. there MUST be limit's!!! .. that is the point the ignorant keep missing, or intentionally avoiding ..

[Electro Rock]

...and shooting up schools and theaters...

[Mr. Ambien]

[Tearloch7]

^ ^ ^ .. your numbers reflect less massive loss of death when "assault" weapons are limited .. this information supports controlling limits on semi-auto's and magazine size .. thanks for your inadvertent support of the "thinking" crowd ..

[Wetcoaster]

Your the one who doesn't get it, stop beating people over the head with the second amendment and try actually READING IT.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say anything about opposing a tyrannical government, or anything about the TYPE of arms allowed, funny how you pro-gun people seem to keep missing the words WELL REGULATED MILITIA. This was written when the country had no standing army, and was still in danger of attack by the British, Spanish, and Indian Nations, also at the time Rifles were still quite a rarity, all guns were muzzle loaded single shot, and not very accurate beyond about 40 yards, a professional soldier under ideal conditions MIGHT get off 4 shots in a minute. No way they writers of this could foresee the advances in weaponry that have taken place or the creation of the US military. They seemed to have had the model used by the Swiss in mind.

http://en.wikipedia...._in_Switzerland

[Mr. Ambien]

The purpose of it is more derived from the Greeks, except as society has evolved, Americans have turned more into the French than Greeks in believing the righteousness of violent government upheaval.

The second amendment was intended to prevent a central (ie federal) government from becoming too prominent as it would undermine the citizens checks upon it. It was encouraged that as a federal government grew in power a private citizen militia should be formed to bring checks upon it as it was inferred that authoritarianism is an inherent trait of an excessively large central government. (If you find people quoting Jefferson, they should read more about his thoughts about federal government)

Those like Norman are in dire need of understanding exactly what the second amendment means, and preferably avoiding the type of anti-gun nut revisionist proselytising biblical cherry picking of words to make up that the US founding fathers intended government to own guns and not citizens. Both were intended.

[Wetcoaster]

You're right, the 2nd Amendment should be limited to obsolete weaponry just as the 1st Amendment should protect only those using obsolete forms of communication!

[Wetcoaster]

I must be dreaming, Wetcoaster actually made a well informed post about the second amendment.

[Mr. Ambien]

My posts are always well-informed, the problem you have is comprehension and attributing to me things that I have not in fact said.

[Wetcoaster]

Always informed? Why is it you only now cite the federalist papers (do a search on the forums for federalist papers and you'll find it was me who pointed them out in response to your naivety about second amendment intention) and form an opinion in complete contravention to prior ones?

How ironic is this..

[Mr. Ambien]

And once again you prove my point that you are unable to comprehend what is written.

[Wetcoaster]

LOL

And yet it's you who out of the blue decides to agree with me and cite the federalist papers, oh so conveniently following me citing them to you in response to your odd agreement with decisions prior to Heller.

If I'm incorrect, quote for me a post of you using the federalist papers prior to my pointing them out to you.

If anything it looks like I've educated you here.

If there's one thing you are good at, lawyer or not, is side-stepping eating your humble pie.

[inane]

one wonders how either of you ever learn anything given you're holier than thou egomaniacs.

[Mr. Ambien]

You educating me???

You are the one claiming that I am posting something that I have never said. Your standard MO aka Strawman Argument.

The Federalist Papers support one interpretation of the Second Amendment - and not even one that the courts universally accept as you can see from the minority opinions in Heller.

Why would I cite them unless I am responding to a claim that there is NO evidence that the Second Amendment could relate to the ability of a citizen to oppose a civil government? That was the context of my post.

I can recognize that there is historical evidence for the opinion but still take the position that majority opinion in Heller is wrong. In fact the majority opinion in Heller is somewhat bizarre and internally inconsistent. The majority in half the ruling applies an approach of strict constructionism (called "frozen concepts" in Canadian jurisprudence that our Supreme Court has rejected) but then apply a much more judicially activist approach (called "the living tree doctrine" in Canadian jurisprudence that our Supreme Court has adopted) to find that the definition of firearms has evolved into those "in common use at the time". That is just one of the issues I have with the majority opinion in Heller.

You most definitely have reading comprehension issues.

[avelanch]

hai gais, i wuz thikin of pikin up a cupel Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons... you know, cause 2nd amdementment...

[Tearloch7]

hai gais, i wuz thikin of pikin up a cupel Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons... you know, cause 2nd amdementment...