Gun Control

Is it really guns, or just the “entertainment” world?

1/7/2013:

I’m getting a bit tired of the argument to ban guns – when it’s a constitutional right. Even though it’s harder than ever to get a gun legally, and next to impossible to carry one unconcealed (they’ve been chipping away at that great document on many levels since it was signed), one has to wonder if it’s the guns themselves – or all the “violence” that has been so gloriously promoted in Hollywood.

Like that ridiculously hypocritical PSA that a bunch of actors released recently – when they themselves are promoting gun violence on the TV and movie screens – and getting filthy rich in the process. Someone made a video that shows how shallow these people are in their phony “message” to the world:

What about video games?

Below is a very popular “FPS” (first person shooter) called Max Payne 3 (we wrote about it last year because one part of it supposedly takes place right here in Hoboken).

So kids for the past 20 years have been de-sensitized about blowing people’s heads off. Hmmm. Did the guns make them do that? Or something else?

What next – some kids running around roof-tops in Hoboken blasting their glocks?

Citizens from other countries: “Never give up your guns!”

Lastly – one Hoboken411 reader shared this VERY INTERESTING blog post from a chap in Russia – who really understands history. He wrote a story entitled Americans Never Give Up Your Guns,” where he reminds everyone of the tragic track record with previous societies where similar circumstances took place under the guise of “public safety.” A total MUST READ.

“For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people.”

Carry on with your day, peons!

2nd Amendment: What has come over people?

1/2/2013 Update:

As I mentioned in my New Year’s Resolutions (i.e., life changes) post the other day – I’ve long given up on mainstream media (TV, print, etc.)

However, that does not mean I’m exempt from seeing the horrific messages they pound into the heads of regular readers and viewers. Like how they now attack the constitution on a daily basis!

Like this coordinated blitz from the NYC newspapers soon after the CT “shooting.” This is along the lines of the predictive programming plan that I mention a few weeks ago. There’s some kind of tragic event – quickly followed by some governmental “change” which is supposed to “better” the people. Yeah. I’m surprised that this tactic keeps working over and over. Humans are such easy marks these days now that they’ve collectively been dumbed-down.

However, those of us who’ve been awake, connected the dots long ago – and see what they’re doing. How come more of you aren’t awake yet? Why do you keep falling for it? Do your research!

Are you for or against gun control? (i.e., 2nd Amendment)

12/19/2012:

I’m sure many of you now have seen how “gun control” has become the big story after the Sandy Hook School shooting in Connecticut.

For those that might need help in forming your opinion – here’s a very relevant episode from Penn & Teller:

Leave a Reply

26 Comments on "Gun Control"


Member
john14
2 years 8 months ago

Funny, VP Biden is overseeing the task force for gun control, but in ’08 he proudly defended his own gun ownership

washingtonexaminer.com/biden-2008-i...roblem/article/2516400#.UNIZ-W80V8E

Member
joey maxim
2 years 8 months ago

joe biden don’t know if he is alive..his dead two votes from his state are a mute point.who the fk is goinig to attack his crappy 18 mile state? There is no task force..weapons will come in from all parts of the globe for a price ..worth more than dope..its all talk to pander to the lib aclu morans ….all should have a weapon in their home to defend themselves,but take a look at the nut jobs that are copycats..kids should not suffer.put
a stop to the x box vidio games that enhance these nut jobs..think about it,,,[quote comment=”218749″]Funny, VP Biden is overseeing the task force for gun control, but in ’08 he proudly defended his own gun ownership[/quote]

Member
joey maxim
2 years 8 months ago

joe biden don’t know if he is alive..his dead two votes from his state are a mute point.who the fk is goinig to attack his crappy 18 mile state? There is no task force..weapons will come in from all parts of the globe for a price ..worth more than dope..its all talk to pander to the lib aclu morans ….all should have a weapon in their home to defend themselves,but take a look at the nut jobs that are copycats..kids should not suffer.put
a stop to the x box vidio games that enhance these nut jobs..think about it,,,[quote comment=”218749″]Funny, VP Biden is overseeing the task force for gun control, but in ’08 he proudly defended his own gun ownership[/quote]
[quote comment=”218749″]Funny, VP Biden is overseeing the task force for gun control, but in ’08 he proudly defended his own gun ownership[/quote]

Member
trueblue11
2 years 8 months ago

we all know that idiots like Penn and Teller, and John14 and Maxim, like to make things black and white. Most things are not, the gun issue is a major example. How do we stop incidents like what happened in Conn.? Pardon the expression, but there is no magic bullet.
yes, banning assault weapons is a part of the solution…A PART!!!! They are not for hunting, but they are great for murdering as many people as possible by some deranged maniac.
violent video games are another part. look at that creep in Norway who practiced on them before he killed those innocent people on that island. What about violence in movies in GENERAL. we GLORIFY violence and you know what they say John14, you reap what you sow. and lastly, banning assault rifles has NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment. you can still have your handguns and rifles, just not military weapons, what’s wrong with that. I cant own a tank, or a RPG. so Penn and teller, George Carlin (RIP), and ted nugent, go fuck yourselves.

Member
HansBrix
2 years 8 months ago

Actually the Bushmaster is very good at feral hog control which is a problem in southern states. It’s essentially a varmint gun. I’m pretty sure Kos or MSNBC never mentioned this which would explain why you didn’t know.

[quote comment=”218761″]we all know that idiots like Penn and Teller, and John14 and Maxim, like to make things black and white. Most things are not, the gun issue is a major example. How do we stop incidents like what happened in Conn.? Pardon the expression, but there is no magic bullet. yes, banning assault weapons is a part of the solution…A PART!!!! They are not for hunting, but they are great for murdering as many people as possible by some deranged maniac. violent video games are another part. look at that creep in Norway who practiced on them before he killed those innocent people on that island. What about violence in movies in GENERAL. we GLORIFY violence and you know what they say John14, you reap what you sow. and lastly, banning assault rifles has NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment. you can still have your handguns and rifles, just not military weapons, what’s wrong with that. I cant own a tank, or a RPG. so Penn and teller, George Carlin (RIP), and ted nugent, go fuck yourselves.[/quote]

Member
2 years 8 months ago

AR 15s are also very popular for multiple target matches. Attend the state High Power match or one of the multiple Civilian Marksmanship Program matches and you’ll be surprised how many legally owned ARs there are in NJ. As long as they don’t have a flash hider or a bayonet lug, they are not considered Assault Weapons and so are NJ legal.[quote comment=”218764″]Actually the Bushmaster is very good at feral hog control which is a problem in southern states. It’s essentially a varmint gun. I’m pretty sure Kos or MSNBC never mentioned this which would explain why you didn’t know.[/quote]

Member
HansBrix
2 years 8 months ago

But let’s not forget that they are indeed good at killing or at least stopping people, especially those who covet your stuff, wife or daughter, and decide to invade your occupied home to act on their primitive impulses.

Urban blue staters don’t know much about rural law enforcement and the realities of response times. Sheriff Duckworth’s job is often a mop up operation. Even locally a criminal could push past the AC unit and be inside faster than it even takes to swipe past the iPhone closed screen. An M4 can bring down your intruder without the same chance of sending bullets from missed shots through your walls and into the house next door, as your 30-06 deer rifle would do. Would create less damage than a shotgun too.

And it’s appearance is frankly more intimidating than that of any handgun. Maybe Mr Crime will reconsider once he sees formidable firepower pointing back from his would be victim.

[quote comment=”218794″]AR 15s are also very popular for multiple target matches. Attend the state High Power match or one of the multiple Civilian Marksmanship Program matches and you’ll be surprised how many legally owned ARs there are in NJ. As long as they don’t have a flash hider or a bayonet lug, they are not considered Assault Weapons and so are NJ legal.[/quote]

Member
2 years 8 months ago

I’m gonna put this in a light people tend to evade. All these natural rights; free speech, freedom of religion, of the people to bear arms, etc., share an equal status in their untouchable status (unalienable). Which religion you choose to practice cannot be limited, nor can the government legislate banning of one religion by arguing it’s not infringement since you may choose from the approved list of religions. The same applies to the Second Amendment, being equal (all unalienable) to freedom of religion, free speech, and the rest.

The Declaration of Independence (DoI) establishes Natural Law, individual sovereignty, and describes that government is authorized by the people to protect these natural rights.

The Bill of Rights (BoR) are a list of 10 Commandments (Shall Nots) which serve to remind the government that it cannot misconstrue any part which results in an infringement of these natural rights. See all the “shall nots” in the BoR? In the Preamble of the BoR, it reminds government it cannot twist, manipulate, or misconstrue in any way that it can even touch these natural rights.

Here’s the text of the Preamble in the BoR:

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”

To pretend that if all branches of government collude in unconstitutional de facto practice in violation of de jure restrictions in the intentional infringement of the right of the people to bear arms (banning any type) is the same as banning one religion and arguing it is not infringement if you are allowed to practice the approved list of religions. It’s the same as saying there is no infringement of free speech when the people are banned from free speech where ever the Executive happens to be, since you are free to have you speech elsewhere on the approved list of free speech locations. They are all violations.

Member
Bornandpraised
2 years 8 months ago

No one is evading anything.

You are not allowed to slander. You are not allowed to libel. You are not allowed to incite violence or treason. All of these are restrictions on the first amendment. That goes double for the press, not to mention the loads of restrictions put on the later. Peaceable assemblage? Where to start on the restrictions on that.

You are not allowed to practice a religion based on slander or libel or incitement to violence or treason, nor follow a religion that practices sacrifice, and there are legal means to declare a religion is not a religion.

You also carefully ignore the first half of the second amendment, the only of the first ten to have a condition placed upon it.

The fact of the matter remains that restrictions have been placed on the amendments, sometimes by the very authors and signers of the original document. You can have your opinion on the matter, but your opinion (and yes, it is just an opinion and not truth) is only that. Greater legal minds have disagreed with you, and their opinion is law of the land. You can argue it is all illegal, but it simply does not make it so until so adjudicated by the Supreme Court.[quote comment=”218760″]I’m gonna put this in a light people tend to evade. All these natural rights; free speech, freedom of religion, of the people to bear arms, etc., share an equal status in their untouchable status (unalienable). Which religion you choose to practice cannot be limited, nor can the government legislate banning of one religion by arguing it’s not infringement since you may choose from the approved list of religions. The same applies to the Second Amendment, being equal (all unalienable) to freedom of religion, free speech, and the rest.The Declaration of Independence (DoI) establishes Natural Law, individual sovereignty, and describes that government is authorized by the people to protect these natural rights.The Bill of Rights (BoR) are a list of 10 Commandments (Shall Nots) which serve to remind the government that it cannot misconstrue any part which results in an infringement of these natural rights. See all the “shall nots” in the BoR? In the Preamble of the BoR, it reminds government it cannot twist, manipulate, or misconstrue in any way that it can even touch these natural rights.Here’s the text of the Preamble in the BoR:“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”To pretend that if all branches of government collude in unconstitutional de facto practice in violation of de jure restrictions in the intentional infringement of the right of the people to bear arms (banning any type) is the same as banning one religion and arguing it is not infringement if you are allowed to practice the approved list of religions. It’s the same as saying there is no infringement of free speech when the people are banned from free speech where ever the Executive happens to be, since you are free to have you speech elsewhere on the approved list of free speech locations. They are all violations.[/quote]

Member
2 years 8 months ago

Slander, libel, inciting violence and committing treason are not freedom of speech. You introduce a straw man argument which falls flat. Freedom of speech is your natural right to express your opinion and ideas for or against proposed or enacted government policy. Freedom of speech pertains the person’s opinion and ideas to the governance or possible policies. Unfortunately, you use a logical fallacy here for that and the religion example.

The Second Amendment includes grammar which you seem not to comprehend.

“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.”

I assume your argument is that the Constitution is redundant, in that only if you’re a part of the state militia do you have a natural right to bear arms which shall not be infringed. Problem with your position is not only lacking comprehension, grammatically, but also the rest of your position claims it needs to be “adjudicated”. It was, in 2008, see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the court ruled that it was a natural right of each individual to bear arms as individuals, not part of a militia or in service to one. At question was whether an individual bearing arms was a natural right or privilege. So the debate went back in history to the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (100 years before the US version). The King at the time wanted to exert control over the Protestants by disarming them, using many excuses you see the current ones use today. With the English Bill of Rights (1689), just as the U.S. Bill of Rights, it was well established that the individual has a natural right to bear arms, that it was not a positive law privilege, but that it was necessary to further enact declaratory language to remind the government it shall not infringe. It’s very clear. So you neither have grammatical nor legalistic strength in the position.

Back then, the King tried to disarm the people. Today is no different. Except there are more of you who go along with violating the U.S. Constitution. The wording is very clear when it says shall not infringe. It means that a future Congress cannot possibly legislate that which commands they shall not legislate.

Member
2 years 8 months ago

What it comes down to is de facto and de jure implementation. The government at times practices social engineering which does not always comply with the restrictions of the U.S. Constitution. It is a violation, but when the Justice Department refuses to enforce the Constitution’s restrictions, there’s no check against the violations. Even the Supreme Court is at times openly hostile to the restrictions and few (17) enumerated powers granted to a limited government. Case in point is Justice Ginsburg who during an interview regarding Egypt’s formation of a new constitution was asked if Egypt should ratify the same U.S. Constitution for Egypt. Ginsburg emphatically said no, that the U.S. Constitution was too restrictive for government and the courts to get things done that society needed. Another example is the recent Obamacare case in which it was ruled that commerce within a state is not restricted by the Commerce Clause which restricts the power of the federal government to only foreign and state to state commerce, and that it was somehow lawful for the federal government to force individuals in a state to buy something from a company in the same state. That’s a de facto versus de jure problem.