Violation of the United States Constitution, Obama is disarming America.

define a trustworthy news source in your opinion and with an example

Untrustworthy:CNN, Fox News, Time, I could go on but I don't want to (pretty much every mainstream news source).

The problem I have with these news sources is that there are only people who either remain neutral on a subject or slavishly support it. For example, the war in Israel, nobody dares speak against it or that we are possibly backing the wrong side of the war. The Arab-Jewish conflict is sickening. Because so many people are stuck in the mainstream television environment everyday of their lives, I become labeled an anti-Semite if I ever try say something bad about that country which is actually extremely racist to the extent which you've probably never even imagined. Its small things like this that shape the opinions of American society. Not just news sources, but images/concepts that come back to you negatively in your everyday life. For example, you can call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever, but the Dark Knight Rises has a plot in which these extremely horrible criminals are loose and are working together to kill innocent people, there is a mass shooting on the night of the premiere, and later there is another mass shooting which surprisingly shows at least some relation to The Dark Knight rises if you began to look for a conspiracy theory. Then Obama steps in with his gun control. Once you start to notice these subversive images, you begin seeing more and more not because you're paranoid, but because your mind has become aware of these things and is working to make you see what is reality. Lastly, have you ever wondered why most of society ridicules conspiracy theories? Because most of them presented to you truly are ridiculous. Time magazine has a list of conspiracy theories for the case of Adam Lanza, where most of them are just completely ridiculous talking about tin-foil hats being used to communicate with some alien race that controls society. History channel and Discovery channel give bullpomegranate so you reject it. If you were to be given a list of 100 conspiracy theories and only 2 or 3 of them pointed to something accurate, chances are you would stop reading after about 5 completely stupid theories.

 Spoiler

And I could link you to a trustworthy news source with an example, but I already did.

Conspiracy theories are called theories for a reason.

Conspiracy theories are called theories for a reason.

What are you trying to say? All conspiracy theories are wrong? For a conspiracy theory to be true it has to be beyond theory?

For a conspiracy theory to be true it has to be beyond theory?

Well, yeah. That's what theory means.

Lets ignore everything else for a moment, all the "it's unconstitutional" or "having gun control will make this a safer country" or "FREEDOM", all arguments for or against gun control. Lets just ignore them for this post.

Congress is NOT about compromises. Our entire government is NOT about compromises. I'm sure you've heard "give them an inch and they will take a mile"? This is the quintessential state of the government in this country right now. If one thing passes, they don't see it as a victory, they see it as a mere step. A step to the next, slightly stronger bill passing, which in turn is a step for an even stronger, et cetera, until everything is exactly where they want it. Everything is in black and white, nothing is in grey; they want everything to go their way, that is how people in power THINK, that is their defining mentality. If one bill undermining the Bill of Rights passes, REGARDLESS of how weak, it no longer has an untouchable status. Both sides will, slowly but surely, begin picking away at technicalities and perceived loopholes to make the country more in their personal image and less in the image it was founded on. You can argue that things have already been passed that undermine some amendments in the Bill of Rights, to which I would reply, "and here we are".

What are you trying to say? All conspiracy theories are wrong? For a conspiracy theory to be true it has to be beyond theory?

I'm saying no such thing. They could be true, they could not be. It's a theory. You've presented an argument that is not held as a commonly accepted belief among the majority of people, making it one such theory. Additionally, you have no solid argument or proof to back up said theory, meaning that I'm not likely to change my opinion on it until more appropriate evidence is collected and brought forth.

Besides. It's probably pointless to argue. I'm pretty sure you believe this theory is true, and I'm pretty sure that there's quite a few people who are sure that it isn't.

I'm saying no such thing. They could be true, they could not be. It's a theory. You've presented an argument that is not held as a commonly accepted belief among the majority of people, making it one such theory. Additionally, you have no solid argument or proof to back up said theory, meaning that I'm not likely to change my opinion on it until more appropriate evidence is collected and brought forth.

Besides. It's probably pointless to argue. I'm pretty sure you believe this theory is true, and I'm pretty sure that there's quite a few people who are sure that it isn't.

I'm not here to talk about conspiracy theories anyway. But I'll bring one thing that shows relation, as if it is a taunt by whoever may or may not be pulling the strings, to the case of Adam Lanza to The Dark Knight rises.

This is a screenshot from the movie of the map of gotham city. The only visible text on here... "Sandy Hook", I don't think that has anything to do with batman. Perhaps there is something really big going on here that we don't know about.

 Spoiler

If one bill undermining the Bill of Rights passes, REGARDLESS of how weak, it no longer has an untouchable status.

[COLOR="#cc8899"]Your rights as given in the Bill of Rights/Consitution extend only so far as to not infringe on the same rights of others. For the gun control example, limiting ownership of guns based on lethality/ability to inflict mass casualty can be considered comparable to limiting free speech based on potential damage to others. You cannot legally falsely yell "Fire!" in a theater because the resulting panic is likely to infringe on the rights of others to health and happiness.

I am not necessarily agreeing with the specific limitations chosen by President Obama, but I am damned sure against the overreaction in opposition to it - limiting you to a 10 bullet clip or a non-"assault" weapon is not an impending sign of a tyrannical dictatorial rule. Nevermind that the military that would be used to impose such a rule consists of some of the most likely citizens to privately own "assault" weaponry in the first place and be most opposed to such a rule. [/COLOR]

I am damned sure against the overreaction in opposition to it - limiting you to a 10 bullet clip or a non-"assault" weapon is not an impending sign of a tyrannical dictatorial rule.

That's where we disagree, then. One step is just the same as any other. This isn't the first one or the last one, but nevertheless, it's still a stone on the yellow brick road leading to the end of this country.

That's where we disagree, then. One step is just the same as any other. This isn't the first one or the last one, but nevertheless, it's still a stone on the yellow brick road leading to the end of this country.

[COLOR="#cc8899"]We've had various restrictions on free speech for quite some time and still have the ability to voice opposition to government policy in a multitude of forms (television, print, internet, protest, etc). We've had restrictions on gun ownership for quite a while as well, everything from who can purchase/possess a firearm to what kind of ammunition you can use and what modifications are legal to make.

It's not a slope, it's an attempt at finding equilibrium.

Also:
Countries where gun ownership AS A WHOLE is either illegal or near non-existent (less than 10 guns owned per 100 citizens) yet tyrannical rule is not in place:
South Korea
Ireland
Netherlands
Scotland
England
Isreal (of particular note, given the generations of conflict and considerable threat of a hostile takeover by outside forces)
Poland
Malaysia
Singapore
Indonesia
Japan[/COLOR]

Let me first of all say, your poll is stupid. I mean that in the most literal sense of the word. I can support the 2nd Amendment, the idea of gun control, and disagree with you all at the same time while remaining philosophically consistent.

Posts like this are the reason that I can never seem to vote Republican. Even when I agree with their policy someone like [MENTION=9924]Afeared[/MENTION]; or [MENTION=2088]Flonne[/MENTION]; comes along and I immediately decide to vote against whoever they support or against whatever issue they support. It's not because I necessarily disagree with their beliefs, but you guys are paranoid as pineapple. Your arguments are so convoluted and your attitudes so abrasive that I want to vote against you just because you guys act crazy. Try to tone it down a little and make calm, reasoned arguments instead of leaping to the apocalyptic scenario where Obama MUST be the next Hitler because he opposes certain types of guns or even all guns.

Hitler also passed laws prohibiting Jews from owning guns in 1938, GUESS WHAT HAPPENED IN 1939!

This statement alone shows the complete irrationality of your argument and makes me want to slap you.

I'm going to apologize for the tone now because I could probably say that better (less offensively), but I can't deny believing it though I may revise my opinion as it applies to Flonne and IAmFear. I fully admit to not knowing you all that well and this judgment is solely based on the relatively few posting I have seen here on SouthPerry.

On to the actual top of banning assault weapons and extended magazine/clips:
Background-
I am a gun owner from a family of gun owners. My fire arm is not registered and probably has very little paperwork to lead to me. I have no intention of registering the gun nor any future weapons I may chose to purchase. The gun is not on the list or even similar to those under consideration for ban by this legislation.

Thoughts-
I am of two minds when it comes to this type of discussion. I want myself and other rational, lawabiding individuals to be able to own guns for recreational and defensive purposes; however I do not want mentally disturbed or criminal people to have guns.

Since the government can never truly prevent 100% of the people who shouldn't have guns (mentally disturbed or criminal people), compromises must be made about the availability of guns to all citizens. I have no use for nor can conceive of any use for a 50 caliber gun in civilian hands. I chose this example for hyperbole because very few people would object to the laws preventing this or those preventing private ownership of say a F16 fighter jet. It's just insane. If any person of diminished mental capacity or sufficiently criminal inclination obtained said weapons, the potential for loss of life far outweighs the necessity of 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms. It certainly wasn't what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote them.

Accepting that premise, the question becomes where do we draw the line? At what point does the destructive capacity of the arms and potential loss of life outweigh the right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves?

I'm not entirely convinced that this question has one right answer. As always, statistics can be used to support or attack the idea of civilian ownership of assault weapons and extended clips. The recent mass shootings are certainly cause for concern and merit investigation for possible reevaluation of current laws and regulations concerning gun control.

I believe that further research needs to be done on how people like the shooters are able to obtain such weapons, legally or illegally, and that is what we must prevent. The grim reality is that assault weapons and extended magazine do increase the body counts in shootings. That is, after all, why they were invented.

The question I pose now is for those who truly believe that citizens deserve the right to assault weapons and extended magazines. Why do you believe normal law abiding citizens need these weapons? I simply can't think of a reason.

Regardless of the passing or failure of the proposed or similar legislature, the world is in all likelihood not going to end. This is not the brink of disaster. This is not the beginning of an Evil Empire or Civil War or WW3. Our country is far too moderate for any of that kind of bullpomegranate so stop trying to scare people into agreeing with you and your Slippery Slope.

P.S. As one of the people who help build the drones, I wonder how exactly they pertain to this discussion? Is it some sort of allusion to hypocrisy or am I completely missing it?

EDIT: slight mistaken identity... completely stupid.

"Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)."

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gu...roductive/

Why the pineapple would I troll about this.

That's not what I said. I said if nobody had guns, through some unexplainable way, would that really be so bad? Nobody being armed is better than everyone being armed.

And you do understand that the president cannot possibly just suddenly make laws, right?

This statement alone shows the complete irrationality of your argument and makes me want to slap you.

I never said that Obama IS the next Hitler, I was using history as an example of countries being disarmed for someone else to gain power. And the drones thing, I was showing how Obama basically performs this whole act in front of his supporters where he looks like he's a person who cares about children very much. He uses these the death of these 20 children to promote his gun control laws, meanwhile drones authorized by himself are killing tons of innocent children somewhere in Africa/Middle East. Not to mention drones killing U.S citizens without due process/fair trial, one of those being a 16 year old U.S citizen. These U.S citizens, whether they actually are terrorists or not, are granted instant death without the government showing us any evidence they had against the suspects.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/top-obama-a...im/5309698

That's not what I said. I said if nobody had guns, through some unexplainable way, would that really be so bad? Nobody being armed is better than everyone being armed.

And you do understand that the president cannot possibly just suddenly make laws, right?

Then I'm sorry for misunderstanding. I had thought you were talking about the magical disappearance of guns among citizens and not among those in power. Realistically I find this push for new gun control laws to be a bad thing.

F'uck off.

And the drones thing, I was showing how Obama basically performs this whole act in front of his supporters where he looks like he's a person who cares about children very much. He uses these the death of these 20 children to promote his gun control laws, meanwhile drones authorized by himself are killing tons of innocent children somewhere in Africa/Middle East. Not to mention drones killing U.S citizens without due process/fair trial, one of those being a 16 year old U.S citizen. These U.S citizens, whether they actually are terrorists or not, are granted instant death without the government showing us any evidence they had against the suspects.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/top-obama-a...im/5309698

How exactly does accepting children as a casualty of war, something that happens with many conventional weapons as well, relate to shootings within the US? They are two completely different situations. It's entirely possible and not at all hypocritical to promote gun control amongst civilians while authorizing military strikes.

We can debate the legality of assassinating US citizens, but it has nothing to do with the current topic of discussion and would require it's own thread.

You're the guy that introduced himself as a bigot aren't you?

I won't even bother.

[video=youtube;RW1rkQwLNaU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW1rkQwLNaU[/video]