Kansas Right to Bear Arms Question, Constitutional Amendment Question 1

Created by CitizenTopix on Oct 7, 2010

3,432 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

“So it's not you, It's them?”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#5351 Apr 21, 2013
d_thompson wrote:
<quoted text> Didn't figure you would change your screen name. So now that I'm registered let the judging by my peers begin. Which in your mind it is the only way my post will matter but if memory serves me correctly you responded to quite a few of my post already when I was anonymous so this should get even more entertaining now that I'm a serious poster right? But I figure the only reason registering was so important is so you can get me blocked every time I poke fun at your left wing psycho babble.
Is there a question of substance somewhere in the run on sentence above, newbie?
positive ID

Junction City, KS

#5352 Apr 21, 2013
d_thompson wrote:
<quoted text> Didn't figure you would change your screen name. So now that I'm registered let the judging by my peers begin. Which in your mind it is the only way my post will matter but if memory serves me correctly you responded to quite a few of my post already when I was anonymous so this should get even more entertaining now that I'm a serious poster right? But I figure the only reason registering was so important is so you can get me blocked every time I poke fun at your left wing psycho babble.
Now we need your full first and middle name , blood type , mother`s maiden name , copies of your last 5 Form 1040`s , and whether or not you`re an organ donor. Also , a current photo WITHOUT the sunglasses. Thanks , Doug...errr Dave...um Don...Dennis....????
Fred Phelps

Girard, KS

#5353 Apr 22, 2013
The manhunt for the two suspects in last week's bombing of the Boston Marathon has only just ended, but FBI and Boston law enforcement agencies are already being inundated by demands that they identify the exact weapons used by the Tsarnaev brothers during the bloody two-day battle that left one local police officer dead and wounded at least fifteen others. "It is wrong for law enforcement to keep this information to themselves," NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre said during a speech yesterday evening. "All across this nation, Americans have been waiting to hear which weapons were used by these terrorists so that our members can go purchase those same weapons. Withholding this information serves no purpose other than make it more difficult for these patriots to know which models of guns they should next be stocking up on."
NRA member Timothy Campbell of Dallas, Texas, says he has called Boston and MIT police departments over a dozen times since the murder of an MIT police officer last Thursday, but neither department has been willing to release the exact brands and models of guns used. While many cite fears that guns like the ones used in acts of terrorism or mass murder will be targeted for stricter regulation or even banning by the government, Campbell, an avid gun collector, says he recognizes that the odds that access to such weapons would be restricted are "essentially zero," he still is eager to purchase the guns as soon as the Tsarnaev weapons are identified. "I don't really know why I want to own them so bad," he said during an interview conducted this morning. "I guess it's probably a penis thing."

An executive with a prominent gun manufacturer said that having one of a company's guns used in an incident of mass murder or terrorism can represent a substantial boon to profits. The executive, who wished his identity and the name of his company to remain anonymous, noted that "the more vicious the crime, the bigger the surge in resulting sales is. When one of our guns was used in the murders at Sandy Hook, our dealers couldn't keep them on the shelves afterwards. We had to add another shift, we were selling so many."

A Boston-area Glock dealer who also wished to remain anonymous agreed. "Having one of our guns used in the shooting of an actual congressperson was probably the best advertisement we ever had. The sales were phenomenal afterwards." He says that while the company urged him to tell prospective buyers that the gun could likely face stricter regulation in the wake of the shooting, "It was nonsense, but I found I didn't even have to. Sure, everybody says those things, but the truth is people just want to own a gun that they know has become infamous. It makes them feel dangerous themselves, and that's what we're in the business of selling."

According to the gun executive, "It's one thing to say that your rifle can quickly kill a whole room full of elementary school children. Any company can say that. But to have it demonstrated and proven true, that's a completely different thing. That's when gun owners know they've got a gun they can count on. You might never need to kill that many kids before the cops come, sure, but that guy proved you could do it if you wanted to."

"We had groups in every state buying that exact gun to offer as contest prizes, for raffles and things like that. This is shaping up to be the best sales year we've ever had, and by a lot."
interesting

Junction City, KS

#5354 Apr 22, 2013
Makes you wonder if pressure cooker sales are up.
Fred Phelps

Girard, KS

#5355 Apr 22, 2013
He also notes that gun enthusiasts often demand strict attention to detail when purchasing brands made famous by American mass murderers. "The same magazine, the same accessories—it's got to be precise. So there can be numerous companies that all see a sales windfall, if the killer was really loaded for bear."

Both individuals agree that the delay in releasing pictures and other details about the guns by the Boston suspects is an intentional effort by the government to diminish gun owner's rights. LaPierre says that if the information isn't forthcoming, he'll ask lawmakers to pass legislation that requires law enforcement agencies to release the information within the first 30 minutes of it becoming known—and requiring police departments to carry brochures and other promotional materials for guns used in recent murders to be passed out to gun collectors that seek the information.

"There's no reason for this garbage," he says. "This is a high-profile case, and our members deserve to know immediately. We should be putting sales information for those weapons in every police car, and they should be distributed to any citizen that asks. Every cop in Boston should be able to tell a citizen who asks not only what kind of gun was used by the terrorists, but where you can buy one, what it costs, and what it might feel like to be shot by one."

He also says this latest incident shows yet another reason why background checks are an infringement of gun owners' rights. "There are a lot of Americans who, due to convictions for violent crimes, aren't able to obtain the kind of weapons they used to—especially the kinds of things used by your Adam Lanzas or your terrorist types. Right now the only way felons can obtain guns like that are through gun shows or via private sellers, and it would be outrageous to shut that last easy avenue down. These are among the nation's most avid gun enthusiasts we're talking about."

No matter when the information about the Boston weapons are released, all parties agree that it will be followed by a surge in gun sales not seen since the mass murder of Connecticut schoolchildren last December. The Glock dealer says he wouldn't be surprised if sales demand for the Boston shootout guns were "double or even triple" the size of surges that followed other recent mass murders.

"Having your gun used to kill a cop is pretty much a monthly thing these days, so it's not really a powerful selling tool anymore," says the Glock dealer. "But actual terrorism? God, a gun company couldn't get any luckier. People are going to make so much money."

But the best thing, says gun collector Campbell, are the new stories behind each gun in his collection. "That's why I collect them, because they all have such history behind them, whether it's from Aurora, or Tucson, or Sandy Hook or this latest thing. There's so many stories these weapons tell."

"It almost makes you wish these things happened more often."
Sharon Peters

Lexington, KY

#5356 Apr 24, 2013
Does Fred Phelps still give rim jobs at Gage Park?
Fred Phelps

Girard, KS

#5357 Apr 25, 2013
Sharon Peters wrote:
Does Fred Phelps still give rim jobs at Gage Park?
Yes

“Dump Brownback ”

Since: Oct 10

Junction City KS

#5358 Apr 25, 2013
It's funny to see the gunfags gloating about the Senate vote on Manchin-Toomey, as if that's the end of it. Surprise, baby boys! We are in this fight for the long haul and you do not have the fortitude to last as long.

Since: Apr 13

Fort Scott

#5359 Apr 25, 2013
The Kangaroo wrote:
It's funny to see the gunfags gloating about the Senate vote on Manchin-Toomey, as if that's the end of it. Surprise, baby boys! We are in this fight for the long haul and you do not have the fortitude to last as long.
We will last as long as the constitution last. Gun grabbers on the other hand will just whine some more the next time it gets voted down.

“Dump Brownback ”

Since: Oct 10

Junction City KS

#5360 Apr 25, 2013
d_thompson wrote:
<quoted text> We will last as long as the constitution last.
that's doubtful. Your antisocial behavior is being wiped out in future generations.
Gun grabbers on the other hand will just whine some more the next time it gets voted down.
You deluded idiot, there are no "gun grabbers" unless you are a criminal.
The Learning Tree

Junction City, KS

#5361 Apr 25, 2013
d_thompson wrote:
<quoted text> We will last as long as the constitution last. Gun grabbers on the other hand will just whine some more the next time it gets voted down.
Just curious , as a Ft Scott resident , did you ever have the honor of meeting Gordon Parks when he was still alive ?

“Dump Brownback ”

Since: Oct 10

Junction City KS

#5363 Apr 26, 2013
You make some good points, Agnostik, but I'd compare it to the smoking bans: they were a long hard uphill battle but eventually they dominoed.

Pretty much everybody these days knows smoking is an antisocial activity. Gun fetishism certainly is too and eventually enough people will realize that, probably sooner than you and I think it will.

“Dump Brownback ”

Since: Oct 10

Junction City KS

#5364 Apr 26, 2013
this is the sort of thing I'm talking about, from an e-mail from the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee):

After leading the filibuster against background checks, polls show Mitch McConnell has the lowest approval rating of any Senator. How did he respond to news that we could defeat him?[description of early television advertising buy follows]

Mitch McConnell Releases First Television Ad to Distract from Gun Law Filibuster

Rove-McConnell Super PAC to set spending records. Help beat Mitch. Renew Today.

— After leading a filibuster on background checks -- his 401st filibuster -- new polls shows that Mitch McConnell is now defeatable.

But with an incredibly close race looming, McConnell already released his first 2014 television ad yesterday.

We’re responding with more ads, blah blah, and send us money (paraphrased)

***

Turtle Man is the most vulnerable Republican Senator up for re-election in 2014, and a potent symbol of what's wrong with Washington.

Sure, Kentucky's a Red State and getting redder, save for Louisville, the Cincinnati suburbs, and various college towns, but gun nuts overemphasize their strength. Recent polls show Alaska's the only state with over a 60% gun ownership rate. That means in the best of places for gunfolk, four of ten own no guns and apparently don't want any.

It sure would be ironic if this is what leads Bluegrassers to ditch Mitch!
Respite

Oskaloosa, KS

#5365 Apr 26, 2013
The Kangaroo wrote:
You make some good points, Agnostik, but I'd compare it to the smoking bans: they were a long hard uphill battle but eventually they dominoed.
Pretty much everybody these days knows smoking is an antisocial activity. Gun fetishism certainly is too and eventually enough people will realize that, probably sooner than you and I think it will.
Here we go, comparing apples and oranges again. It's usually kangaroo complaining about this. Now it's my turn. I have not read any amendment that said anything about having a right to smoke. So let's not compare the right to bear arms with smoking please.
THANK YOU

“Dump Brownback ”

Since: Oct 10

Junction City KS

#5366 Apr 26, 2013
Respite wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go, comparing apples and oranges again. It's usually kangaroo complaining about this. Now it's my turn. I have not read any amendment that said anything about having a right to smoke. So let's not compare the right to bear arms with smoking please.
THANK YOU
Sorry, people with common sense won't be able to do that because no amendment states the right of paranoid nuts to own whatever firearm they want is unlimited. Like the first amendment the second amendment is far from absolute. And actually the right to smoke if you so desire in your own home and/or car free from infringement of the nanny state is absolutely guaranteed by those of the amendments which guarantee meaningful rights, that is, the first, fourth, fifth, and ninth, the same ones which guarantee the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, the right to birth control in Griswold v. Connecticut, and the right of the New York Times to publish the Nixon tape transcripts in NYT v. Nixon, among so many others which cited those four amendments. Now, yes, as Junction City discussed a scant few years ago, governments do have a right to ban smoking in bars and restaurants and the like and if a business owner decides no smoking on the premises that's their right. Get a clue.

According to the logic of those too thickheaded to understand what the second amendment means, the third amendment means military dependents can put the SM's possessions on the curb and change the locks but still stay in the quarters indefinitely.
2nd amendment

Junction City, KS

#5367 Apr 26, 2013
Gun control has always been in existence and it needs to continue - too many people are misunderstand the second amendment - it does not allow free reign of any and all weapons - the second amendment itself is gun control

In 1875, the Supreme Court ruled that "the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "protects arms that had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.

“Dump Brownback ”

Since: Oct 10

Junction City KS

#5368 Apr 26, 2013
2nd amendment wrote:
Gun control has always been in existence and it needs to continue - too many people are misunderstand the second amendment - it does not allow free reign of any and all weapons - the second amendment itself is gun control
In 1875, the Supreme Court ruled that "the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "protects arms that had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.
the 2008 case concerned the D.C. rent a cop who sued over local ordinance prohibiting firearms ownership. It went too far, said SCOTUS. They were right. But OHOH it did not confer upon anyone the right to own a tank or hollow point bullets.

Since: Apr 13

Fort Scott

#5369 Apr 26, 2013
The Kangaroo wrote:
<quoted text>
the 2008 case concerned the D.C. rent a cop who sued over local ordinance prohibiting firearms ownership. It went too far, said SCOTUS. They were right. But OHOH it did not confer upon anyone the right to own a tank or hollow point bullets.
I'm beginning to think you don't know as much as you think you do and you really need to stay on one side if the fence. For starters in this post you mention hollow point bullets, did you know hollow point or soft point bullets are required to hunt legally? Full metal jacket bullets are illegal for hunting purposes.
As for the fence thing in one post you say no one is trying to take your guns , but in the next you say no one should own a gun. Which is it? For or against?
namano

Omaha, NE

#5370 Apr 29, 2013
The Kangaroo wrote:
You make some good points, Agnostik, but I'd compare it to the smoking bans: they were a long hard uphill battle but eventually they dominoed.
Pretty much everybody these days knows smoking is an antisocial activity. Gun fetishism certainly is too and eventually enough people will realize that, probably sooner than you and I think it will.
Yet you still molest children. Hypocrite!
Respite

Oskaloosa, KS

#5372 Apr 29, 2013
For awhile I thought Kangaroo was half way intelligent. But the more I read of his dribble the more I think he must be related to Obuma. He has his head so far up the gun grabbers @$$ he can't smell anything but the crap they put out. He is a very good speaker like his twin Obuma. Problem is he doesn't understand what he is saying. Like Obuma, he never answers a question, he just goes on ranting about the constitution and amendments to it.
Maybe some day he will get his head out of those @$$e$ and get to smell the roses.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lawrence Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Men in Knickers (Oct '08) 1 hr Andrew 8443 1,129
scared come on Fri matthews 1
Sophie House Linwood KS (Jun '13) Sep 19 matthews 10
KS Who do you favor in the Kansas governor's race? Sep 19 dreamer 217
men wearing panties (Nov '09) Sep 18 Andrew 8443 132
KS Kansas Voting Disqualification Amendment - Ment... (Oct '10) Sep 8 Helms-persecuted ... 321
Students' quilt depicts life of slave abducted ... Sep 7 Rock 2
•••
•••

Lawrence Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Lawrence People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Lawrence News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Lawrence
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••