Obama unveils biggest gun-control package in decades

[Ratko Gavrilovic]

Very nice, these laws, but what about the guns that are already in the USA?

[SugarD]

Very nice, these laws, but what about the guns that are already in the USA?

There's not really much that can be done about those since most of them can't be tracked.

[Squeak]

Coincidence that there have been multiple-death shootings less than 6 months apart from eachother, including one where a congresswoman was shot? Nationwide calls for stricter gun control and now Obama's gun-control bill? Fucking planned, it's all fucking planned. I will not say that these shootings are hoaxes or false flag attacks, but why are people surprised this shit happens when the United States continues to bomb the Middle East with drone attacks almost daily? This culture is corrupted and manipulated by people who wish to exploit the masses for their own gain. We will disarm the citizens of the US even more and effectively hand over more power to a government that is nearly omnipotent.

[SugarD]

Coincidence that there have been multiple-death shootings less than 6 months apart from eachother, including one where a congresswoman was shot? Nationwide calls for stricter gun control and now Obama's gun-control bill? f**king planned, it's all f**king planned. I will not say that these shootings are hoaxes or false flag attacks, but why are people surprised this shit happens when the United States continues to bomb the Middle East with drone attacks almost daily? This culture is corrupted and manipulated by people who wish to exploit the masses for their own gain. We will disarm the citizens of the US even more and effectively hand over more power to a government that is nearly omnipotent.

The guy who shot the Congresswoman was mentally unstable, and had a hatred against her specifically. That entire thing was planned out.

[Gandalf]

I have checked on the famous 2nd Amendment and as a result got an interesting question for the US citizens.

In the 2nd Amendment only the word 'arms' is used. This means that it refers to any weapon. The problem with this is that currently there are a number of restrictions on weapons (think of a bomb or Apache helicopter) which have been put in place. Also there is no mentioning of restriction by weapons licenses or training.
Does this mean that the 2nd Amendment has already been infringed and those things are in violation of  the Constitution?
And if not, why would a further restriction on weapons, or even a ban on guns, violate it?

[Mr. Goobii]

An american told me once that he thought US had the best and less abusive democracy. He totally used the liberalism as a word for democracy. In fact, he is totally wrong in many ways, US is known to be the world most liberated people, but without this free gun market, I think they would not be world leading in liberalism either, as liberalism is all about giving the people the choice to do what ever they want, including owning a gun...

Sweden have a really great democracy, but our liberalism is not as high as you possible may see. Example, we need helmet when we need to drive motorbike, we need studded tires on our cars on winter times. If we would remove those things, our liberalism would increase, but people would also die.

I do like the idea of liberalism, but I also think it does not work. The best politic stimulus in my opinion is a mix of politic ideologies. Therefor I think
the americans should remove abit of the liberalism and also work for many more ideologies. Take the swedish parliamentary system as example.

People in United States are offering human lives for something we all call liberalism, is it really worth it is my question?

[Mikal]

and had a hatred against her specifically. That entire thing was planned out.

So his motive was hatred, not because he was mental.

I have checked on the famous 2nd Amendment and as a result got an interesting question for the US citizens.

In the 2nd Amendment only the word 'arms' is used. This means that it refers to any weapon. The problem with this is that currently there are a number of restrictions on weapons (think of a bomb or Apache helicopter) which have been put in place. Also there is no mentioning of restriction by weapons licenses or training.
Does this mean that the 2nd Amendment has already been infringed and those things are in violation of  the Constitution?
And if not, why would a further restriction on weapons, or even a ban on guns, violate it?

Alot of gun stores in America have bombs and such, like mortors and grenades, sure you could say 'They have a special license for it' but why do they need them if they cant' sell them because people would need a special license to own them?

[EliteTerm]

So his motive was hatred, not because he was mental.
Alot of gun stores in America have bombs and such, like mortors and grenades, sure you could say 'They have a special license for it' but why do they need them if they cant' sell them because people would need a special license to own them?

What is this, Somalia? Grenades and motars are completely illegal to civilians. The ones you do see in stores are duds, or sometimes called paperweight.

[Mikal]

What is this, Somalia? Grenades and motars are completely illegal to civilians. The ones you do see in stores are duds, or sometimes called paperweight.

Then why do gun stores have mortars and grenades? I know you shouldn't believe everything on TV, but theres alot of programmes made round US gun stores, and that seems to show them owning and using mortars and such at shooting ranges.

[SugarD]

I have checked on the famous 2nd Amendment and as a result got an interesting question for the US citizens.

In the 2nd Amendment only the word 'arms' is used. This means that it refers to any weapon. The problem with this is that currently there are a number of restrictions on weapons (think of a bomb or Apache helicopter) which have been put in place. Also there is no mentioning of restriction by weapons licenses or training.
Does this mean that the 2nd Amendment has already been infringed and those things are in violation of  the Constitution?
And if not, why would a further restriction on weapons, or even a ban on guns, violate it?

Technically arms refers to firearms, however the federal government isn't the one that restricts these weapons directly. Most of the firearms laws are statewide, and exceptions to the Amendment should have been added to the Constitution as Amendments themselves. State laws and federal laws are enforced separately, so states could theoretically have completely different laws that only they could enforce or ignore, but the federal government could still enforce or ignore them in federal situations too.

[Gandalf]

Technically arms refers to firearms, however the federal government isn't the one that restricts these weapons directly. Most of the firearms laws are statewide, and exceptions to the Amendment should have been added to the Constitution as Amendments themselves. State laws and federal laws are enforced separately, so states could theoretically have completely different laws that only they could enforce or ignore, but the federal government could still enforce or ignore them in federal situations too.

1. The Amendment clearly says 'arms'  and not 'firearms'. One would think the people who wrote it would place such restriction if they wanted.
2. I believe that States are not allowed to pass laws that violate the Constitution. If I am incorrect please tell.

[SugarD]

1. The Amendment clearly says 'arms'  and not 'firearms'. One would think the people who wrote it would place such restriction if they wanted.
2. I believe that States are not allowed to pass laws that violate the Constitution. If I am incorrect please tell.

1. Keep in mind that this was written circa 1776, so their definition of weapons back then was very limited compared to today.
2. Yes and no. Legally they cannot infringe on rights granted by the Constitution, however there are exceptions where states can pass their own laws which restrict certain things, as per their own State Constitutions. It's a little hard to explain, and I honestly find it a bit stupid to have such a system.

An example of the federal and state conflict would be something like how California allows medical marijuana with a doctor's prescription, but the federal government still deems marijuana in any form completely illegal. The federal government can still arrest people for using it in California should they choose to, however the state can't if it's used legally according to state law.

However, if this were the opposite situation and the federal government allowed it, and the state didn't, then you would likely have a very serious situation from which the federal government would step in and force them to change the state law.

[Matt Murdock]

Saw an ad on facebook today, which directed me to this page -

https://www.facebook.com/KylesGunshop?sk=timeline

[SugarD]

Saw an ad on facebook today, which directed me to this page -

https://www.facebook.com/KylesGunshop?sk=timeline

Many businesses have Facebook pages now. They are all trying to keep up with the advertising hype of social media. It likely isn't the only gun shop listed on there.

[Matt Murdock]

Many businesses have Facebook pages now. They are all trying to keep up with the advertising hype of social media. It likely isn't the only gun shop listed on there.

Dude, like their page and check pictures! They have more guns than all GTA games ammunations combined!

Even Auto MP5 and every type of gun you can imagine!
The fuck are those guns doing in public?