Gun Legislation

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

this is bigger than MH issues which is a fraction of the issue

the majority of guns used in crimes are legally purchased but are stolen and not reported and with no digital data base near impossible to trace them back to an owner

The MH issues are the people shooting things up.

[afterhours]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The MH issues are the people shooting things up.

Bingo.
What is bigger than MH issues? If there were no MH issues this thread would NOT exist.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

No issue with owning weapons I have issue with thinking you can have any weapon you want ..

Wrong again, the mere ownership or choice of ownership of arms is supposed to protect all of us from a tyrannical government. But as you can see we are failing as they chip away at liberty with each breathe we take. Enough is enough.


of course you do, you are a Statist

[Slipknot]

I'll ask again

"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?

Since all of the above are illegal, and people still do them, what makes you think that making any guns illegal will stop those that want to cause harm?"

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I'll ask again

"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?

If all of the above were legal, would it increase or decrease their occurrence?

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
Alexander Hamilton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If all of the above were legal, would it increase or decrease their occurrence?

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
Alexander Hamilton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what's your point?

Hamilton also proposed President for Life, Senators for Life and was viewed as a monarchist sympathizer....

"Ultimately Hamilton wanted to take the idea of self government out of the Constitution, claiming that power should go to the "rich and well born". This idea all but isolated Hamilton from his fellow delegates and others who were tempered in the ideas of revolution and liberty."

According to Madison's notes, Hamilton said in regards to the executive, "The English model was the only good one on this subject. The hereditary interest of the king was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad... Let one executive be appointed for life who dares execute his powers."


I guess Hamilton would have been in favor of KING TRUMP

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

what's your point?

Hamilton also proposed President for Life, Senators for Life and was viewed as a monarchist sympathizer....

"Ultimately Hamilton wanted to take the idea of self government out of the Constitution, claiming that power should go to the "rich and well born". This idea all but isolated Hamilton from his fellow delegates and others who were tempered in the ideas of revolution and liberty."

According to Madison's notes, Hamilton said in regards to the executive, "The English model was the only good one on this subject. The hereditary interest of the king was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad... Let one executive be appointed for life who dares execute his powers."


I guess Hamilton would have been in favor of KING TRUMP

My point is laws never totally eliminate behavior, but we still believe they are necessary.

What’s yours?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

My point is laws never totally eliminate behavior, but we still believe they are necessary.

What’s yours?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you adhere to everythingHamilton stood for PeteF ,or are you being selective again? Asking for a friend.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Wrong again, the mere ownership or choice of ownership of arms is supposed to protect all of us from a tyrannical government. But as you can see we are failing as they chip away at liberty with each breathe we take. Enough is enough.


of course you do, you are a Statist

I know your smarter than a supreme court justice.. NRA and your view just another example if you say it enough it must be true. https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-106856size=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

My point is laws never totally eliminate behavior, but we still believe they are necessary.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

good one!...wtf?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I know your smarter than a supreme court justice.. NRA and your view just another example if you say it enough it must be true. https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-106856size=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

Supreme Court Justices disagree with each other. So, I guess by your implication, some are smarter and others dumber. Supreme Court Justices have made vile or unconstitutional decisions, such as Dred Scott. The most important quality of a Supreme Court Justice, in my opinion, is fidelity to the Constitution. Justices who rule by various values of justice that come and go with generations, rather than by what the Constitution dictates, are the greatest enemies of the Constitution and our founding system of government.

SCOTUS Justices are not gods. They are fallible, all too human, sometimes vain and full of self-importance, or politically biased. Quoting one may tell more about you than the intelligence or constitutional fidelity of the judge. Read the Constitution for yourself. Stick to its words, not the opinions about those words other than the opinions of the founders who wrote it.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If all of the above were legal, would it increase or decrease their occurrence?answer a question with a question, typical. you have no answer

Why has government been instituted at all? So that a limited government can see to it that our natural rights can be exercised freelyBecause the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
Alexander Hamilton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

try answering with an answer

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

My point is laws never totally eliminate behavior, but we still believe they are necessary.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

of course, but that does not mean we should put up with bad laws that favor the power hungry rulers who sit on their butts and tell us how to live.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Read the Constitution for yourself. Stick to its words, not the opinions about those words other than the opinions of the founders who wrote it.

funny ...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned,

or One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means

[wdmso]

https://www.brennancenter.org//analy...waAiLIEALw_wcB


not sure why 2a supporters think people against assault weapons think we Don't know how to read or do research or see the topic in historical terms...

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

try answering with an answer
I'll ask again

"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?

Since all of the above are illegal, and people still do them, what makes you think that making any guns illegal will stop those that want to cause harm?"

Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint, we enact laws that our elected officials feel are reasonable with the hope that our fellow Americans will obey them.

They do reduce behavior and actions that we find hazardous or objectionable, it is also obvious that laws don't absolutely prevent anything.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

funny ...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned,

or One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means

read this if you can navigate around the ads

this link actually works unlike yours

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-te...cond-Amendment

[afterhours]

So if AR's and AK's are banned and shootings are not reduced by any significant amount - what's next?

[spence]

Originally Posted by afterhours

So if AR's and AK's are banned and shootings are not reduced by any significant amount - what's next?

I think it's more about comprehensive reform -- not just banning one type of weapon -- and a willingness to see things through long haul.

[Pete F.]

Probably have to try Hannity's brilliant idea, though I think he stole it from the Red Chinese.

"I'd like to see the perimeter of every school in America surrounded, secured by retired police ... retired Secret Service ... military, and I want guys to donate 15 hours. I think we could cover every school, every hour, every day," Hannity proposed. "Add a metal detector, and I think we're going to have safer schools. Have one armed guard on every floor of every school, all over every mall, the perimeter, and inside every hall of every mall. ... We can do that with stores; we can do that in malls; we can do that pretty much anywhere the public is — courthouses — we can expand that out everywhere and keep Americans safe."

Of course all these retired cops would gladly carry a gun for not having to pay taxes, most of the ones I know are actually working at something unless they are disabled.

And I'm sure all the 2a guys would be fine with a police state, wouldn't you? Remember someone will need to organize this s show.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

read this if you can navigate around the ads

this link actually works unlike yours

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-te...cond-Amendment

you guys keep mudding the waters .. I am not against gun ownership never have been .. I am against the idea that somehow the constitution says you can have whatever type of gun you want . mantra hidden by your unfounded fear there taking our guns...

the NRA went from gun safety and marksmanship .. to marketing and sales of guns as their primary driver






https://www.brennancenter.org//analy...waAiLIEALw_wcB


Today at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.” Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:

“.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by afterhours

So if AR's and AK's are banned and shootings are not reduced by any significant amount - what's next?

there was an assault ban. for 10 years guess what party killed it

death toll from mass shootings went from 4.8 per year during the ban years to 23.8 per year afterwards.


it's hard to try and put the genie back in the bottle .. Republicans want to break the bottle completely

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I think it's more about comprehensive reform -- not just banning one type of weapon -- and a willingness to see things through long haul.

that's pretty deep......

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means

Ohhh I dunno, here is the Supreme Court's response:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.[2]

Originally Posted by spence

I think it's more about comprehensive reform -- not just banning one type of weapon -- and a willingness to see things through long haul.

That is the problem why we do not get anything done. Each step that is completed by the left is one more step in that law, on its Long March to confiscation.

Originally Posted by wdmso

you guys keep mudding the waters .. I am not against gun ownership never have been .. I am against the idea that somehow the constitution says you can have whatever type of gun you want . mantra hidden by your unfounded fear there taking our guns...

the NRA went from gun safety and marksmanship .. to marketing and sales of guns as their primary driver






https://www.brennancenter.org//analy...waAiLIEALw_wcB


Today at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.” Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:

“.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.

Cough, see DC vs Heller above.

Originally Posted by wdmso

there was an assault ban. for 10 years guess what party killed it

death toll from mass shootings went from 4.8 per year during the ban years to 23.8 per year afterwards.


it's hard to try and put the genie back in the bottle .. Republicans want to break the bottle completely

And it is the same ustable people doing it, so the unstable problem has not been addressed. Though overall gun crime and deaths are down.

Progressives want to STEAL the bottle.

[Got Stripers]

Does anyone really feel there is any likelihood people with mental health, depression or radical ideas will reduce? If anything based on the current state of things, the likelihood financial and emotional burdens will radically increase with more large scale climate change induced disasters and the inevitable recession; we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg. But hey manufacture all the AR and high capacity long rifles you can, with the largest capacity magazines you can and while your at it; ask your kids how their shelter in place drills at school are working. Depression is out of control, between the pressures on our kids with social media and bullying, now you have to factor in the impact of fear of school shootings.

Look at the increase in road rage, hit and runs, people just don’t give a f*ck any more, let’s arm everyone, it will be the wild Wild West.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Does anyone really feel there is any likelihood people with mental health, depression or radical ideas will reduce? If anything based on the current state of things, the likelihood financial and emotional burdens will radically increase with more large scale climate change induced disasters and the inevitable recession; we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg. But hey manufacture all the AR and high capacity long rifles you can, with the largest capacity magazines you can and while your at it; ask your kids how their shelter in place drills at school are working. Depression is out of control, between the pressures on our kids with social media and bullying, now you have to factor in the impact of fear of school shootings.

Look at the increase in road rage, hit and runs, people just don’t give a f*ck any more, let’s arm everyone, it will be the wild Wild West.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

^^^ this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Does anyone really feel there is any likelihood people with mental health, depression or radical ideas will reduce? If anything based on the current state of things, the likelihood financial and emotional burdens will radically increase with more large scale climate change induced disasters and the inevitable recession; we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg. But hey manufacture all the AR and high capacity long rifles you can, with the largest capacity magazines you can and while your at it; ask your kids how their shelter in place drills at school are working. Depression is out of control, between the pressures on our kids with social media and bullying, now you have to factor in the impact of fear of school shootings.

Look at the increase in road rage, hit and runs, people just don’t give a f*ck any more, let’s arm everyone, it will be the wild Wild West.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We had actual bomb threats at my High School, by militant lefties.

Then get the kids off the XBox, out of their phones, and outside learning to play with others, get them off the effing antidepressants

Originally Posted by spence

^^^ this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Haha - so with all the crazy people out there if I turn in my rifle, that will make you feel better?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by JohnR

We had actual bomb threats at my High School, by militant lefties.

Then get the kids off the XBox, out of their phones, and outside learning to play with others, get them off the effing antidepressants



Haha - so with all the crazy people out there if I turn in my rifle, that will make you feel better?

If you think parents are suddenly going to understand the dangers of allowing their kids to continue playing the mindless video games that romanticize weapons of all types and desensitizing them to what death is, I think you are dreaming. The internet, smart phones and social media were once a blessing and now may becoming a curse. After bullied Johnny finishes a failed attempt at his favorite shoot them up game after another bad day at school, the lock on daddies gun locker better be able to stop junior with his bolt cutter or torch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

funny ...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned,

What's "funny" is the notion that every specific thing that the Federal Government might possibly wish to abridge the citizens right to own should have been discussed during the Constitutional Convention. I'm not sure, but I don't think the right to a head of cabbage, for health or any other purpose, was discussed during the Convention.

What is not funny is that deceptive articles such as the one you linked actually persuade good people to believe that there is any significance to the idea that if some particular thing was not discussed, then there is no reason to believe that the Federal Government should be denied the power to control that thing.

To begin with, the Bill of Rights as a whole and as it was drafted, was not written during the convention. It was added to the Constitution afterwards in order to assure ratification by states whose representatives wanted a Bill of Rights. The reason that the majority of Representatives during the Convention voted down addressing a Bill of Rights was because the way the Constitution was written already denied the Federal Government the power to abridge the rights that a bill of rights would propose.

So your article's ruse of pretending that somehow the 2A is diminished in scope and meaning because "There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention" is an idiotic tautology. Of course there was not a single word about and individual's right to a gun--because they did not discuss it during the Convention. And they didn't because, even if the 2A had not been created, the limitations that the original, pre-amended, Constitution would still have prohibited the government from infringing the right to arms. The Bill of Rights was not part of the original constitution. It was added later as an Amendment in order to assure Ratification.


or One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

This is a bald faced lie. We really do know what the Framers meant by those words. They are preserved, verbatim, as in the above links which it seems you did not read.


so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means

I don't know what the gun lobby is suggesting. I know what the 2A says and what those who wrote it and discussed it and later commented on it meant.

I couldn't stand reading your whole article because it started out with lies and misinformation. It was an obvious progressive ploy to make us believe that the 2A, and the entire Constitution no doubt, can mean whatever a judge says it means. To which I say, then if that is so, what purpose does it serve? Why bother to have written it in the first place?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If you think parents are suddenly going to understand the dangers of allowing their kids to continue playing the mindless video games that romanticize weapons of all types and desensitizing them to what death is, I think you are dreaming. The internet, smart phones and social media were once a blessing and now may becoming a curse. After bullied Johnny finishes a failed attempt at his favorite shoot them up game after another bad day at school, the lock on daddies gun locker better be able to stop junior with his bolt cutter or torch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So because kids - particularly those with underlying mental health issues - can't adjust well to growing up and parents can't parent, other people, law abiding people, should give a constitutionally guaranteed right up and reduce their ability defend themselves and their family to accommodate one group of people? Rather than work to focus on the core issues of gun violence and keep firearms out of those hands, we'll punish everyone?