Complete bullshit new law passed in US Created 11 years ago2012-12-21 09:51:35 UTC by zeeba-G

Obama has just signed a bill allowing military to abduct and throw you in jail without any due process or explanation! ! ! Spread this word, it is a complete atrocity and infringes the Bill of right's 4th, 5th and 6th amendments! We really have no freedom with this law. Look up n.d.a.a. martial law! Also look up fusion camps!

Seems bullshit to me, how a country that exalts it's freedom is stripping rights away from it's citizens.
I want to visit or live in the US, namely Washington or California. But I'm afraid of going there due to laws such as this, and many other things like the allowance of guns and so on.

You people need this, never had a normal war and poking your noses where you should not.

I remember reading about NDAA awhile back. It sounded shitty then and it sounds shitty now.

You people need this, never had a normal war and poking your noses where you should not.

What?

Thats what happens when too much corruption rises.
The sad thing is that this will only make things worse as time passes.

In a country where any nut job can own a firearm, I'd say this is fine.

I told you guys.

I've told everybody about these bills floating around Congress, as well as a lot of drone bills.

And they pretty well have been doing that for a while, before the law even got signed.

I have to wonder how many of you would even think of mentioning the 2nd amendment is last Friday didn't happen.

I think your country is going to self-destruct.

I saw a hearing on the shootout earlier today on BBC. Loved how the NRA lobbyist basically said the problem was with the school system not arming itself to the teeth or hiring armed security. Not enough guns being bought, people! Get your act together.

I have to wonder how many of you would even think of mentioning the 2nd amendment if last Friday didn't happen.

I didn't mention the 2nd amendment. I just mentioned nutters with guns. That's been going on a lot longer than a week across the pond.

Dimbark sounds like one of those crazy old "I told you all and you didn't listen!" doomsday preachers.

Rufee, we the people of America have nothing to do with our corrupt government that invades other countries. A lot of us infact believe 911 was a scam to place blame on the middle east so that we could invade for actual benefitial reasons rather than reaction offense.

Don't you say we need this. Our freedom has been stripped from under our feet against our will. The government is allowed to throw all of us in prison for no reason with no explanation. Sounds pretty similar to Hitler's concentration camps if you ask me. I shared this here because I thought a lot of smart people would have a smart conversation but as usual I was wrong. Don't let pride cloud truth.

This looks exactly like the sort of law where if you so much as talk to someone who turns out to be a terrorist then you can be detained indefinitely, without trial or explanation

The beginning of doomsday, here!

A lot of us infact believe 911 was a scam to place blame on the middle east

...or maybe, terrorism is a thing. FUCK!

A lot of us infact believe 911 was a scam to place blame on the middle east

...or maybe, terrorism is a thing. FUCK!

I hate to admit it but the US has been known to falsify events just to go to war, so 9/11 being an inside job is still entirely possible. Just look at how the US got involved in the Vietnam War.

EDIT: I also would argue that we should arm teachers (if they go through training.) More lives are saved if these people can get the shooter first rather than waiting for the police to show up. Besides, taking away guns from normal people is entirely stupid because what people do not get is that criminals are criminals and they will get their hands on weapons illegal or not. All this does is take away weapons normal people could use to defend themselves.

You people need gun control, it will make it harder for potential criminals to get them, any unstable people should be denied a gun. To get a gun in my country is quite hard so no one bothers and I'm talking about handguns, anything more powerful is almost impossible to put your hands on and therefore there aren't many shootings unlike in the US which a massive killing spree happens every week. More guns does not solve the problem.

How about everyone gets a gun when they get their drivers licence. That would ensure everyone, rich or poor, can defend themselves when the situation arises. Yeah.

You people need gun control, it will make it harder for potential criminals to get them, any unstable people should be denied a gun. To get a gun in my country is quite hard so no one bothers and I'm talking about handguns, anything more powerful is almost impossible to put your hands on and therefore there aren't many shootings unlike in the US which a massive killing spree happens every week. More guns does not solve the problem.

Mass shootings are going to happen whether or not we have gun control. The latest shooting also was caused by a man who took the guns from his mother who was not an unstable person.

How about everyone gets a gun when they get their drivers licence. That would ensure everyone, rich or poor, can defend themselves when the situation arises. Yeah.

That's assuming everyone carry them around everywhere they go. I for one, would not do that, unless I lived in Congo or someplace similar.

Mass shootings are going to happen whether or not we have gun control.

Gun control could reduce them, at least in theory.

Besides, taking away guns from normal people is entirely stupid because what people do not get is that criminals are criminals and they will get their hands on weapons illegal or not. All this does is take away weapons normal people could use to defend themselves.

What about shootings committed by people who wouldn't know how to get ahold of one illegaly? Because they only know decent people or because they're socially awkard?

I also would argue that we should arm teachers (if they go through training.) More lives are saved if these people can get the shooter first rather than waiting for the police to show up. Besides, taking away guns from normal people is entirely stupid because what people do not get is that criminals are criminals and they will get their hands on weapons illegal or not. All this does is take away weapons normal people could use to defend themselves.

Yes, because giving everyone more guns will stop shootings!

My point exactly

Suture is kind of like the Grumpy cat, he just wants to see the world burn, that's all

His ideal country is one where everyone gets to walk around with guns strapped to their belts, ready to pull on anyone who may pull on them first, kinda like the wild west I guess.

Here's a thought! Maybe you should go live in Zimbabwe or one of those countries.
I mean loads of people may try to kill you, but at least you'll have an AK47 to defend yourself, right? What more could you ask for? xD

Oh, for fuck's sake. We've had this gun argument a billion times before. The right to bear arms is, just like religion, a belief, which is why the argument can never be resolved. Let's face it. The only real solution to shootings and shit is to have NO guns, in the hands of ANYBODY, anywhere, for any reason. Obviously that ain't gonna happen. We chose this path, we've gotta live it. Why are we on about guns anyway? It wasn't even the point of the thread!

Let's just start donning the V avatars again, aye?

Yes, because giving everyone more guns will stop shootings!

You're missing the point entirely. More lives would be saved if people could defend themselves instead of waiting on police. Not everyone should receive guns, yes, but banning them entirely is not the answer.

And don't forget that these people are going through special training to use these weapons properly in a situation.

Six out of fifty states in the US allow teachers to conceal firearms in order to defend students, as absurdly rare as that situation is, under several conditions:

1: They must buy a licence, not just a gun licence, a licence to carry a firearm on school grounds, which is normally so fucking illegal that it's not even funny. Children have been expelled(not suspended, expelled) from school for unknowingly having a single bullet in their jacket pocket leftover from their last family hunting trip, in my own home town.

2: They need to attend a very lengthy training course on indoor, tactical firearm usage.

3: They need to use ammunition specifically designed not to pierce targets, or ricochet off surfaces. The ammo disintegrates upon impact.

4: The district(not school, not town, district.) needs to give the specific teacher a written letter of permission, which the teacher must apply for.

To put all of this into perspective, the requirements for being an armed security guard(which lots of people are suggesting large schools have an armed security guard at the door) are not even fucking close to this.

A both informative and thought provoking comment.

I don't see why the argument over gun laws always has to be two extremes, guns and no guns. Personally I think stricter gun laws would be beneficial and at the same time allow people to still keep their weapons for defense and hunting. Does any civilian really need an assault rifle? What would we use it for? Unless your house is under attack by a huge group of armed men, self defense can be handled with a handgun or shotgun and hunters can easily kill a deer without one. So why sell them for public use? Can't there be a middle ground where everyone is happy? Gun people get to keep their rights and people who think it'll reduce shootings will be more content knowing people can't easily get their hands on these weapons.

Whether or not this will reduce shootings and gun violence would remain to be seen, but WHY NOT do it? I haven't seen one good argument over why civilians should be able to buy military grade weapons, even if there wasn't shooting problems, civilians simply don't need them.

I don't see why the argument over gun laws always has to be two extremes, guns and no guns

Yes. That is the US gun control argument by people who don't live in the US and have no idea what they're talking about. It's either "no guns" or "guns".

Everyone in the US knows that there are more guns than there are people, and just a little more than half are actually legal and registered, and that removing guns from the US is logistically impossible. We know this entire debate is completely and utterly pointless.

Quite frankly I'm disgusted whenever something like the Sandy Hook shootings, or Virginia Tech, or Columbine happens and people are so quick to use it to support their own political or sociological ideals or arguments.

No one was talking about how much of a problem guns are a week before 20 children died. No one here was debating gun control in the US the day, week, or month before the shooting. The day after, everyone can't shut up about how their own political stance would have stopped this. It's like people wait for this sort of thing to happen just so their opinions can be justified. It's absurd.

Since I am afraid this thread will potentially dissolve into an argument, I offer no opinion, and just want to say something that is relevant to the discussion, perticularly regarding the phrase 'Assault Weapon'.

I believe the laws in the US are, at least on a federal level;
If one is over the age of 18, having no prior felony convictions and having no history of mental illness requiring a court ordered intervention, they are allowed to purchase or own any long gun.
If they are over the age of 21, with the same rules regarding felony convictions and mental illness, they can purchase or own any handgun.
There are more restrictions, for example certain types of weapons (explosives, automatic weapons, silenced weapons, things like that) are illegal unless they are registered. One needs to pay for a government tax stamp to get them registered, and the registry for automatic weapons was closed in 1986, so effectively the average civilian can't get their hands on automatic weapons*. It is entirely legal to buy an assault rifle registered (not made) before 1986, but due to the fact that they are rare (and getting rarer), and they are mostly in the hands of collectors who won't sell them, getting even the cheapest of automatic weapons would cost so much money that the average person would never be able to get one unless they saved up for a long time. Impulse buyings just don't happen, and as such if a spree killer ever uses an automatic weapon you could bet money on it that it was illegally modified.

* The point of is post is to clean up some confusion that I have noticed is quite common. This paragraph is not relevant to my personal stance on gun control, it is just a result of the fact that I dislike when people intentionally misrepresent information. It has been pointed out before on various websites that the media in the US often uses incorrect terminology when describing gun laws, which can lead to confusion. After seeing some examples, I can't help but agree that it does seem purposeful at times.
One thing that seems to be quite common, is that people often refer to shooters using 'assault weapons', and saying that these military weapons should not be legal to own. 'Assault Weapon' is not a real term, but is similar to the term 'Assault Rifle'. An Assault Rifle is a lightweight, select-fire weapon with a detachable magazine, chambered in an intermediate cartridge. The important point here being that they are select-fire, meaning that they can be fired in automatic (or burst) mode. A lot of people don't know the specific definition of an assault rifle, but they do know that they are military type, automatic weapons. So the fact that people are referring to 'Assault Weapons' can be confusing, and infers that the shooter had an automatic weapon.
Generally when the term Assault Weapon is used, it is used to refer to a 'military style' weapon, or in other words a civilian variant of a military weapon. While it is understandable that one may see these as unreasonable for a civilian to own, it is an important point that they are invariably semi-automatic only. As such, they have no more capability than a lot of other hunting weapons that one may buy. In fact, since Assault Rifles (and by extension, civilian variants) fire an intermediate cartridge, they are in fact less powerful than most hunting weapons, which tend to fire full-sized cartridges.

news flash, the patriot act did that like 8 years ago.

TJB made the most technically informative post so far, but none of the previous posters are even going to read it, lets be honest.

Everyone just ignored my suggestion of talking about what this thread was supposed to be about >.>

I also would argue that we should arm teachers (if they go through training.) More lives are saved if these people can get the shooter first rather than waiting for the police to show up

thats dumb. its not about how fast the cops show up, its about eliminating the ablility for someone to breach the saftey of a community.

Mass shootings are going to happen whether or not we have gun control.

We had a mass shooting in Australia here in 1996. They threw in gun control and no mass shooting has happened sinse.

Let's just start donning the V avatars again, aye?

No that was also dumb

I'm just infuriated that this worthless and ultimately useless discussion came up again for about the third or so time this year.

1. Gun Lobbyists have and will continue to call for more guns so that everyone can protect themselves. Sure, this might help, but are you sure?

2. Anti-gun Lobbyists still asking for tighter gun laws or the banning of guns altogether. Won't fix the problem, because it just pushes the market underground and then there is no control at all.

3. America fucked themselves up royally, by putting in 'laws' to band-aid the problem because of a Constitutional right that people have taken out of context for their own gain. When they wrote that 2nd amendment they still had some belief in the decency of humanity, bless their souls, the arrogance of people however continue to spit on their graves.

As far as I'm concerned, its America's problem and they should buck up and fix it 'cause I don't give a fuck. Maybe if they all got together they might have a brain between them and realise the rest of the world isn't so 'backwards'.

True freedom does not equal liberty, it is called anarchy.

Now, for the love of all things fucking sane, can we return to what this post is actually about. I'm sick of hearing about America's bullshit, and I'm definatley sick of hearing about the same bullshit over and over. It's a country of fucking lunatics that's gonna get us all killed.

Like that crazy cousin who likes messing with fire. We've all got one...

(Ps: Watch Lord of War. It's a fictional movie, but does have some truth to it.)

It's hilarious how we are still discussing gun control in the US as if it is logistically possible to change.

What part of this do you people not understand?

Got damnit, you are correct scotch, this thread has NOTHING TO DO WITH GUN LAWS. All of you are too stupid to understand that. Yes, get mad! Now direct that energy into thinking on the actual topic.

It is the second amendment of the constitution that states we shall have the right to bear arms and it shall not be infringed, not for "hunting", not for "self defense" not because "guns are safe" BUT, to weaken the federal government! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

So this discussion is about how our "the US" government is systematically stripping us of our rights and freedoms to secretly gain control over the nation.

It is easy to discuss guns. Why? Because it is all a matter of opinion. Don't be stupid and lazy and discuss whether guns should be allowed or not based on your opinions and observations. Consider why they are available to us and how it is so that we can maintain our freedom and form a militia if we decide to to fight against our government thus keeping it in check. Lets talk about that because I and even you even if you are not from US should be a little less afraid of Americans with guns who are for the most part responsible loving beings than a strong military government seeking totalitarian control.

@hotdog, this thread started with a picture of Hitler controlling Obama. Do you really want the discussion to return to that? Really?

I'm thinking that this thread is better off closed. If it gets any worse in here within the next few posts, don't be surprised.

Thank you Penguinboy.

Yes this discussion is about how The US set up the constitution to not allow the federal government to become too powerful. Now the federal government is somehow magically able to establish laws that completely muzzle the laws originally created to keep it in check. This so called "free" country is no longer "free". Acorrding to the N.D.A.A Martial law each and every one of us can be abducted and thrown into prison without any explanation.

It doesn't matter where in the world you reside, you should all be scared and you should all be actively investigating this! ! !

I've been trying to get the thread back on track since halfway up the page >.> Glad someone seems to be having success.

Uh, I don't think Penguinboy was supporting you Zeeba.

The opening post in this thread was Obama and Hitler together on puppet strings with a burning US constitution behind it. You literally can not get more stupid than that.

Hitler killed like six million people. Obama signed one shitty law. Comparing the two is laughable, not to mention, quite frankly offensive.

I am an American, but Im sorry to tell you zebra, that the US Constitution was set up by a bunch of treasonists, slave owning, mass murdering men who didn't want to pay taxes. It was set up to protect THEIR rights, not the people 225 years in the future.

The patriot act did the same thing 8 years ago, and back during WWII there was a little something called interment camps.

The only thing new here, is you. Not in a mean way, but now it's your generation that is seeing the truth about big government.

Blitzkrieg, before you even speek in a thread read the content, look up the given information and come to an understanding. The image is about Obama signing a bill passing a law infringing some amendments from the US constitution, not about whether or not we should own guns. Penguinboy only suggested we not vere so widly off topic as all of you were doing. I appreciate you and other's involvement but not that it was completely off topic.

Debating gun ownership is one thing but in what context is a whole other story.

Don Punch how was allowing the right to bear arms to protect them?

I agree with you that the patriot act is very similar to the NDAA both completely relying on fear to promote their acceptance.

I am aware of internment camps, what is your point? Yes they are similar to the fema camps but seemed to have better intention.

this is what happens when 'freedom' gets taken too far...

edit - also, that picture, hitlers left arm looks like its made of jelly

Earth is all of ours. It only isn't when you allow someone to take it. Freedom is nothing more than living. If you allow a total imbalance of power what do you think will happen.

His arm is actually doing the nazi solute, just bent it around Obama. It's a stupid analogy.I want to move...

Blitzkrieg's last post was completely correct. And this thread shows no signs of improving. Sorry for those who might want to discuss the things within this thread, but it's just causing conflict within the community which is no good at all. There are plenty of places you can go to get information and discuss stuff like this in a much more informative and unbiased way, but TWHL is not one of those places.