I'm sure it's yet to be determined but by the audio sounds like a fully automatic weapon was used, so it's either a completely illegal weapon or a legally purchased semi automatic converted to automatic action. I have no doubt this will bring up some gun control debate as this moves forward and while I personally agree in the constitutional right to own and bear arms, I also pretty sure our forefathers didn't mean civilians should be able to own military grade fire arms. I used to hunt, but haven't in decades, just never got my juices flowing like being on the water. I'm know many on this site hunt and I've been lucky enough to enjoy some of their yummy game treats back when we used to get together a few times every year to grille, eat, drink and then do some fishing. I can still taste some of GB Outdoors marinated bear meat, served up behind M&D's a decade or more ago, man was that good.

I personally question the need for any semi automatic AR15 type weapon, especially if those are easily converted to automatic action, if you aren't hunting with it what purpose does it serve. I guess if you have a Domesday shelter stocked with water and can goods, then yeah that's probably a natural fit; right along with your ham radio set. It's a F'd up world we live in and I can certainly appreciate wanting that personal "legal" arsenal ready if needed, but man it seems like every time you turn around someone with a screw loose is going ballistic.

My T&P's go out to all the victims, all the witnesses, all the first responders, but I question when does all this madness stop.

Great post. Hard to process, for me at least.

I'm also no huge fan of the types of guns that aren't assault rifles, but sure look like them, and the sexy look, unfortunately, fuels the fantasies of some really sick folks. But we tried a ban once, and it didn't do much.

Nothing will change until we are ready to talk about many things, including gun control; thresholds for committing the mentally ill; curbing the graphic violence in TV, movies, and video games; cutting back on the way that progressives mock traditional family values, and religion.

Personally, I think if it weren't for 5% (or so) of the population, we could all keep our doors wide open at night. I don't know if that 5% number is increasing, but I do believe they are becoming more and more wicked. I don't know if we have a larger number of people that are scary, but the scary ones that we have, are getting scarier. The Internet makes people detached from one another, we lose intimacy, which means some people will lose empathy.

I don't know. All I know is that I'm really sad.

Lol..easily converted. Go ahead and order a full auto sear , I'll wait here for your reply about the feds showing up at your door.. thousands die from cancer ,you can still buy cigarettes. Booze and cars kill more and they're still readily available..
Point is if you don't like them don't get one. And don't tell me what I can/can't own because you don't like them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

horrible senseless mass murder by a madman. I am afraid it's not the last one :(

don't blame the inanimate object like the reactionaries do

I can think of a reason to own what the military owns, a couple actually, for one a tyrannical government. they work for us and answer to us, not the other way around.

Lol..easily converted. Go ahead and order a full auto sear , I'll wait here for your reply about the feds showing up at your door.. thousands die from cancer ,you can still buy cigarettes. Booze and cars kill more and they're still readily available..
Point is if you don't like them don't get one. And don't tell me what I can/can't own because you don't like them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cigarettes is a bad analogy. 99% of those who die from cigarettes, are the people who choose to smoke. The people who got killed yesterday, did not do anything negligent to contribute to this.

Couple things.

First, this tragedy is clearly horrible and was likely perpetrated by one persons or two at best. And the cause has yet to be determined (mental illness, grudge, whatever).

The audio surely sounds like something running full auto and reloads or switching guns. Premeditated by all accounts. Would be easier to do it with a truck, though. And where they have gun bans, trucks and pressure cookers and other improvised explosives are what they use. Crazy is going to do crazy.

Andy's point on converting to auto is spot on, think about it and get a knock on your door by people wearing threeletteragency jackets.

Could have been a bump/slide stock?? Dunno - but stupid people are going to do stupid things, particularly where people can't shoot back.

Reports are this guy had dozen plus weapons in a room rented for many days, this was a planned out premeditated disaster. He would have used some other avenue if he could not get possession of weapons.

Very, very sad and terrible.

Lol..easily converted. Go ahead and order a full auto sear , I'll wait here for your reply about the feds showing up at your door.. thousands die from cancer ,you can still buy cigarettes. Booze and cars kill more and they're still readily available..
Point is if you don't like them don't get one. And don't tell me what I can/can't own because you don't like them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never told you or anyone what they can or can't own. If you can legally buy it, then you have that legal right. That however doesn't mean I agree with it, because I don't see the need to legally own assault rifles. When that next nut job blows a gasket, I would much prefer that those closest to him are dealing with a less lethal weapon and a better chance at getting out alive or that fewer lives are loss before he can be subdued.

Sure I don't know how easily a semi-automatic might be converted, but I've read it can and has been done. Not my point, but seeing your avatar, I'd expect you to be waving your NRA card in my face. Doesn't mean I don't know guns, I've hunted in the past, just found it cut into my fishing too much. Never brought down Bambi with an AR15 however and I guess my question would be what is the need for the assault rifles or anything that isn't required for the pursuit of hunting?

This guy brings 19 weapons or more into a hotel, how many fewer people do you think would have died and how much less suffering would have to be endured had he not had access to assault rifles or automatic weapons? Yes I agree with John to some extent that if he wanted to do harm and didn't have the weapons, he might have found another way, but he had access and did it his way. These lone wolfs I don't think are the terrorist trained average bomb carrying, truck driving, ready to die for alla nut job. These home grown nuts like the guns, they love the 15 minutes of fame and I'd just rather seem them with pistol or shotgun.

Hey it is America and IMHO (yeah I'm entitled to it), things have got to change when it comes to what weapons we can put in any Tom, #^&#^&#^&#^& or Harry's hands.

Ok, so you don't know what they are or how they function but you don't think people should own them? Got it,typical reactionary post. I get it , I do but hey nobody needs a vehicle that can go 80 mph too,innocent people are killed by speeders all the time...and texting and driving kills innocent people too ,so cell phones are gone too..let's just take everything. See the "slippery slope"?

Nowhere do "the forefathers" mention hunting in regard to the second amendment but they sure do mention a tyrannical government and I'll stick with the facts thanks. I won't wave any NRA card in anyone's face as long as they don't try and tell me what I should or shouldn't own. And by the way "assault rifles" are banned already. One needs a stamp approved by the ATF to own certain items.

If it makes anyone's feelings not hurt I asked all my rifles if they plan on doing anything wrong..but they just sat in my safe not talking or planning anything so we're safe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cigarettes is a bad analogy. 99% of those who die from cigarettes, are the people who choose to smoke. The people who got killed yesterday, did not do anything negligent to contribute to this.

Second hand smoke...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok, so you don't know what they are or how they function but you don't think people should own them? Got it,typical reactionary post. I get it , I do but hey nobody needs a vehicle that can go 80 mph too,innocent people are killed by speeders all the time...and texting and driving kills innocent people too ,so cell phones are gone too..let's just take everything. See the "slippery slope"?

Nowhere do "the forefathers" mention hunting in regard to the second amendment but they sure do mention a tyrannical government and I'll stick with the facts thanks. I won't wave any NRA card in anyone's face as long as they don't try and tell me what I should or shouldn't own. And by the way "assault rifles" are banned already. One needs a stamp approved by the ATF to own certain items.

If it makes anyone's feelings not hurt I asked all my rifles if they plan on doing anything wrong..but they just sat in my safe not talking or planning anything so we're safe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty sure the texting and driving kills the driver and maybe a few innocent victims and the same can be said for the truck driver who has been driving his semi for 8 hours longer then he probably should have, how does that compare in the scope of what happened in vegas? I could use that argument and go in dozen's of directions, but we weren't talking highway safety; at least I wasn't.

Of course our forefathers didn't mention hunting, but I'm pretty sure at the time those words were penned, weapons on our side, the British side or anywhere in the world; were all pretty much basic and simple fire arms.

At some point you have to take time and place into consideration and what was so right, reasonable and so necessary then as a constitutional right, I think in today's environment and pressures needs to be seasoned with some fing common sense.

Do you think those who wrote those constitutional rights giving us all the right to own those basic firearms, in order to protect your life and the lives of your family, do you think today those same people would broad brush that to include everything? I seriously doubt those same people would feel the same today, not given the environment we are all living in today.

Some of me best friends are avid hunters, I'm not advocating taking guns away, I'm just saying control what can be bought and put better vetting on who can buy.

Nowhere do "the forefathers" mention hunting in regard to the second amendment but they sure do mention a tyrannical government and I'll stick with the facts thanks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are right, no mention of hunting. It does mention a well regulated militia.

I think GS is bringing up a discussion of what well-regulated militia means. Oxford dictionary states:

well-regulated, adjective
Properly governed or directed; (now) especially strictly controlled by rules or regulations.

Origin
Late 16th century; earliest use found in Geoffrey Fenton (c1539–1608), translator and administrator in Ireland. From well + regulated.

Having a discussion of where that line is a valid discussion. You have your opinion, we have ours.
Where is the line? Grenades? Tanks? Working Howitzer in your front yard?


Since Jim CT is probably the only one here who has seen what these weapons actually do to a person, so I'll weight his opinion appropriately.

In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings, with at least 1,715 people killed and 6,089 wounded.

No your advocating for something you don't know about. You think because the sounds were fast it was automatic weapon fire . You said they're easy to convert. You posted about it without knowing what type were used. ABC has just reported one rifle had a bump fire stock on it . I've shot one before, and I and my son can shoot my rifles pretty damn fast too. ATF was working to determine the rest of the facts. You posted about restrictions on something you don't even know if they were used.
We could go back and forth on other causes of innocent people dying all night from trucks,pressure cookers, hammers.. whatever you choose. My only point is nobody blames the other inanimate objects ..but if it fits the agenda go right ahead. I hear Hillary already blamed the NRA this afternoon so it's fitting the rest follow along now. But she's not the President...lol. Thank Christ for that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In December 2012, a gunman KILLED HIS OWN MOTHER ,STOLE HER FIREARMS and walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings, with at least 1,715 people killed and 6,089 wounded.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I inserted what you guys choose to leave out.

You are right, no mention of hunting. It does mention a well regulated militia.

I think GS is bringing up a discussion of what well-regulated militia means. Oxford dictionary states:

well-regulated, adjective
Properly governed or directed; (now) especially strictly controlled by rules or regulations.

Origin
Late 16th century; earliest use found in Geoffrey Fenton (c1539–1608), translator and administrator in Ireland. From well + regulated.

Having a discussion of where that line is a valid discussion. You have your opinion, we have ours.
Where is the line? Grenades? Tanks? Working Howitzer in your front yard?


Since Jim CT is probably the only one here who has seen what these weapons actually do to a person, so I'll weight his opinion appropriately.

It also reads "shall not be infringed"...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Second hand smoke...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's exactly why I said most, not all, people who die from lung cancer, are people who choose to smoke, so they chose their path. Not remotely close to what happened in Vegas.

It also reads "shall not be infringed"...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great.
Where is the line?
Grenades?
Mines?
Anti-aircraft guns in your back yard?

Great.
Where is the line?
Grenades?
Mines?
Anti-aircraft guns in your back yard?

Can I get those? I pass a background check every firearm purchase I make. Do you get those through the internet loophole I hear so much about? Or are those already restricted items according to ATF?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can I get those? I pass a background check every firearm purchase I make. Do you get those through the internet loophole I hear so much about? Or are those already restricted items according to ATF?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, I'm just trying to find the line. Those are illegal (obviously I picked things that were clearly illegal), and that is OK with you that those are restricted?

there's that pesky word infringed


what bothers me is the never ending pigpile on within minutes of a gun related shooting where the left can't help using a tragedy for political purposes instead of coming up with actual solutions for stopping these madmen in their tracks or preventing mass casualties of large crowds of people. Fertilizer is pretty easy to buy enough of to blow up a federal building but gunshots? blame the gun, need gun control, need more gun laws. The laws we have infringe enough. Sometimes a few of the many whackjobs this country has produced go off the deep end. I don't have an answer. I feel for the dead and wounded as well as the first responders and others being shot at.

It also reads "shall not be infringed"...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes it does, and that's the thing. I'm not a huge fan of all these guns in the hands of people with a questionable grasp of reality. But what's scarier to me, is ignoring the parts of the constitution we don't happen to like. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but that is a slippery slope I don't feel like embarking upon.

There isn't anything even close to an easy answer. I wish there were a lot less guns. I also wish there was a bit less evil, and a bit more empathy.

Everybody here is making a lot of sense, I think...no extreme reactions one way or the other. Neither Charlton Heston nor Nancy Pelosi has the answer, I'm confident of that.

Our moral compass needs a tune up. I turned the TV off and went outside to shoot hoops with my kids.

And for the record -I understand and respect everyone's opinion on their respective points. I do happen to be one of millions of responsible firearm owners , I don't go preaching or trying to force people to buy them or have an interest in them. I just want those that don't to not force their opinion on me. We can all look up facts to twist our opinions for our argument.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great.
Where is the line?
Grenades?
Mines?
Anti-aircraft guns in your back yard?

I think that's a great point (sincerely, no sarcasm). If you take that "shall not be infringed" literally, then any restrictions, any at all, are unconstitutional. So where's the right place to draw the line?

The point is, because I'm done with the internet and TV for the night, is there is a line somewhere in there; to some of us it is more restrictive for some types of firearms, for others it is whatever the military has.

The answer is probably somewhere in between.

So, I'm just trying to find the line. Those are illegal (obviously I picked things that were clearly illegal), and that is OK with you that those are restricted?

Hell no!! I'd love to safely and responsibly own an anti aircraft gun or 3!! The OP was about automatic weapons, rifles easily converted etc etc...that was my reply. Personally most illegal things are the most fun..yes I've fired several automatic firearms, no it doesn't make me an expert but it made me smile and dammit I liked them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Personally most illegal things are the most fun..yes I've fired several automatic firearms, no it doesn't make me an expert but it made me smile and dammit I liked them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


:) that sounds like FREEDOM

:) that sounds like FREEDOM

Well restricted and properly licensed freedom. And yes it was .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is a concise and precise explanation for the purpose of the Second Amendment. It explains the meaning and derivation and purpose of a well regulated militia. It explains the absolute rights of the people to own arms. It is Google's most referred to article on the purpose of the Second Amendment.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/

The purpose of a right to keep and bear arms was expressly and completely to enable the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. There was no need to define what type of weapons were required to do so because, obviously, in order to defend against a tyrannical government, the people would have to possess whatever weapons, "arms", would enable them to do so. Obviously, hand guns, limited magazines, hunting rifles, AR 15's, wouldn't do the trick against a government today that has far more deadly weapons.

Because of the horrors of mass killings, there is a desire by many to overlook the actual purpose of the Second Amendment. There is always the attempt to "interpret" the Amendment to mean some right that is far more limited in scope than the expansive right to arms that the Amendment gives to the people. That, surely, the Founders, not knowing what kind of weapons exist today, would not have given the people the right to own them. There is no evidence that such is true. Quite the contrary, their fear of tyranny, of government disarming the citizens, the absolute guaranty they gave the people to defend themselves against tyranny, the evidence is that they actually did intend for the people to own whatever weapons necessary to preserve their freedom. And the militia referred to in the Amendment is not some national guard type of regiment. The militia is all the people.

We are also warned that an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms would lead to a bunch of people owning tanks, and fighter planes, and battleships, and nuclear weapons. On the one hand, if a tyrannical government has such weapons, what would a people need to fight them. On the other hand, how would any citizen even be able to buy any of those things if the government has control of their production, even if anyone other than the government actually wanted to buy some. And who would sell such weapons to private citizens without government permission.

In actuality, those who feel there must be some middle ground, that there must be some more "reasonable" interpretation, really would rather that the Amendment didn't exist. And they, it appears, do not think there is any reason to fear government. And many, if not most, who feel that way, don't really believe government should be limited. After all, we elect our governments. And, so, what's the point even of having or constantly referring to the Constitution. It is constantly getting in the way of government doing what needs to be done. If there were no such thing as the Constitution, the frightening gun "problem" would have been solved long ago.

Sometimes the greatest danger is total trust in those who profess to be your servants or your guardian angels.

Terrible event
Mass has THE strictest and most restrictive gun laws in the nation
I watched some of the cell phone footage. Sure sounded like full auto.
Pretty sure you can legally get/ own full auto weapons in NeVada with little hassle
But my wife never let me near vegas so
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't think of a single Gun Control law that would have prevented the Vegas shooting from happening.

I can't think of a single Gun Control law that would have prevented the Vegas shooting from happening.

I am hearing he had bump stocks. If thats true, and if they were never legal, perhaps a few more people would be alive. Is that worth giving up the freedom to own them? A lot of people say no. I am inclined to say yes, but the constitutional issue is troubling.

You are correct, no law would have prevented it. But possibly reduced the carnage...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am hearing he had bump stocks. If thats true, and if they were never legal, perhaps a few more people would be alive. Is that worth giving up the freedom to own them? A lot of people say no. I am inclined to say yes, but the constitutional issue is troubling.

You are correct, no law would have prevented it. But possibly reduced the carnage...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't know and good question.

One of the problems with gun control laws is that when some are made the anti-gun folks make a law, they try to expand its reach.

A lot of people that would support increased licensing / testing / mental stability screening don't because we know that politicians and bureaucrats will abuse that.

Constitution is fine.

Don't know and good question.

One of the problems with gun control laws is that when some are made the anti-gun folks make a law, they try to expand its reach.

A lot of people that would support increased licensing / testing / mental stability screening don't because we know that politicians and bureaucrats will abuse that.

Constitution is fine.

And the people who fear that there will be over-reach, are justified in feeling that way.

It all leads to gridlock. The right doesn't want to budge on guns. The left doesn't want to budge on things like committing the mentally ill, or curbing violence in the entertainment industry, or in curbing the notion that all weird human impulses are a cause for celebration., or letting up on mocking people like those who live in the Dakotas (where everyone has guns, and there is almost no gun crime...but they are "bitter clingers", not people to respect and emulate??)

I'd like to see some common sense gun laws, if they could pass the constitutionality test. I'd also like to see our moral compass get a tune up. Don't ask me how to do it.

I'd like to see some common sense gun laws....

name one....or two...

I'm thinking in the house and senate there's a deal making process that goes like this- We will give up the fight to protect the right to seek abortions if you give up the right to own assault rifles and high capacity mags.. and vice versa.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

name one....or two...

Come on, you think there's no such thing as a common sense gun law?

I would start with the tools that make mass shootings a realistic possibility for a "typical" homicidal maniac, if there is such a thing.

Things like high capacity magazines, bump stocks...maybe make it legal to go to a very expensive gun club that the individual pays to join, where you can go in a room all by yourself, and shoot it, if that's how you get your jollies. Don't let people take them home. That's military functionality, there's no earthly reason to have it in your home.

When the technology is available (is it yet?), maybe require that all future guns have fingerprint id, so that no one else can shoot them. If that adds to the cost of owning a gun, so be it.

There's always a trade off between liberty and security. If Sandy Hook doesn't cause you to re-think where that line is drawn, at least a little bit, I'd say you are a pretty callous person.

Scott, if you had 50 caliber machine guns in your house, I'd probably still feel safe letting you babysit my kids. 95% of us are no threat. But the fact is, there are some kooks out there, and unfortunately, they don't walk around wearing signs that say "I am a homicidal maniac". They are out there, and we can't identify them. So we can make it harder for them to kill our kids (we can never make it impossible), or we can choose not to make it harder.

Come on, you think there's no such thing as a common sense gun law?

I would start with the tools that make mass shootings a realistic possibility for a "typical" homicidal maniac, if there is such a thing.

Things like high capacity magazines, bump stocks...maybe make it legal to go to a very expensive gun club that the individual pays to join, where you can go in a room all by yourself, and shoot it, if that's how you get your jollies. Don't let people take them home. That's military functionality, there's no earthly reason to have it in your home.

When the technology is available (is it yet?), maybe require that all future guns have fingerprint id, so that no one else can shoot them. If that adds to the cost of owning a gun, so be it.

There's always a trade off between liberty and security. If Sandy Hook doesn't cause you to re-think where that line is drawn, at least a little bit, I'd say you are a pretty callous person.

Scott, if you had 50 caliber machine guns in your house, I'd probably still feel safe letting you babysit my kids. 95% of us are no threat. But the fact is, there are some kooks out there, and unfortunately, they don't walk around wearing signs that say "I am a homicidal maniac". They are out there, and we can't identify them. So we can make it harder for them to kill our kids (we can never make it impossible), or we can choose not to make it harder.

would any of what you listed have stopped the shooting in Vegas?

"I'd also like to see our moral compass get a tune up." Man have you got that right.

Look I get that one nut job is to blame, the guns he used aren't responsible, but because he's up there with those types of weapons and not a couple rifles intended to deer hunt; is why 58 people and over 500 were injured. You want to use the "don't blame the tool" argument, then let's talk cell phones and the highway deaths attributed to them. Again the phone wasn't to blame, but as a trend grows and more deaths result, law changes are required to prevent more deaths. I have no problem with a new law and tougher penalties for either idiots on the highway texting while driving, or much more involved vetting to purchase firearms or limiting what can be purchased to avoid the magnitude of these mass shootings. I have no doubt as many have stated, most are responsible gun owners, but a troubled teen stealing their parents 16ga or pistol isn't near as bad as running into the school with their AR and a dozen clips.

I'd also like to see our moral compass get a tune up. Man have you got that right.

how do you tune up the moral compass of a homicidal maniac?

One of the problems with gun control laws is that when some are made the anti-gun folks make a law, they try to expand its reach.



And the pro- gun crowd doesn't do the same?

Did anything happened in Feb. of this year w/background checks?

Come on, you think there's no such thing as a common sense gun law?

.

Is allowing silencers a common sense gun law?

Edit - think how many more deaths there may have been if people didn't know as soon where the gunman was.

what bothers me is the never ending pigpile on within minutes of a gun related shooting where the left can't help using a tragedy for political purposes instead of coming up with actual solutions for stopping these madmen in their tracks or preventing mass casualties of large crowds of people. .

C&P

If only Stephen Paddock had been a Muslim … If only he had shouted “Allahu akbar” before he opened fire on all those concertgoers in Las Vegas … If only he were a member of ISIS … If only we had a picture of him posing with a Quran in one hand and his semiautomatic rifle in another …

If all of that had happened, no one would be telling us not to dishonor the victims and “politicize” Paddock’s mass murder by talking about preventive remedies.

No, no, no. Then we know what we’d be doing. We’d be scheduling immediate hearings in Congress about the worst domestic terrorism event since 9/11. Then Donald Trump would be tweeting every hour “I told you so,” as he does minutes after every terror attack in Europe, precisely to immediately politicize them. Then there would be immediate calls for a commission of inquiry to see what new laws we need to put in place to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Then we’d be “weighing all options” against the country of origin.

would any of what you listed have stopped the shooting in Vegas?

Nothing would have stopped it. But if was operating in semi mode (I am assuming it was more like full auto), there likely would be fewer dead/injured, no?

Just because we can't prevent them outright, why does that mean we do nothing? Zero dead would be great. But short of that, isn't fewer dead, better than more dead?

I would be more concerned with why he did it, and not how he did it. If it wasn't guns, it could easily have been explosives or a car /truck, anything to achieve the destruction and mayhem he wanted.

What were his motives? Was he mentally unstable? Was it the result of his losing at the casino? Did his "girlfriend" take all his cash when she went to Japan?

Too many unanswered questions that don't have to focus on the guns (yet).

His brother was saying that he was a "millionaire" and loved gambling and real estate....both which could drain your bank account quickly when you really take risks.

What they should do is allow his estate to be confiscated and used to pay for the survivors recovery and final disposition for those killed.

how do you tune up the moral compass of a homicidal maniac?

You can't. An improved moral compass likely won't effect a true sociopath.

But an improved collective moral compass, is exactly what the doctor ordered, to target "garden variety" street crime, like what we see in Chicago.

I blame the right for availability of weapons that I'd personally be happy to see disappear. I blame the left for the decay of the moral compass.

C&P

If only Stephen Paddock had been a Muslim … If only he had shouted “Allahu akbar” before he opened fire on all those concertgoers in Las Vegas … If only he were a member of ISIS … If only we had a picture of him posing with a Quran in one hand and his semiautomatic rifle in another …

If all of that had happened, no one would be telling us not to dishonor the victims and “politicize” Paddock’s mass murder by talking about preventive remedies.

No, no, no. Then we know what we’d be doing. We’d be scheduling immediate hearings in Congress about the worst domestic terrorism event since 9/11. Then Donald Trump would be tweeting every hour “I told you so,” as he does minutes after every terror attack in Europe, precisely to immediately politicize them. Then there would be immediate calls for a commission of inquiry to see what new laws we need to put in place to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Then we’d be “weighing all options” against the country of origin.

That's also true, if he were a Muslim, the right would have no trouble politicizing this to promote their agenda. 100% true.

Is allowing silencers a common sense gun law?

Edit - think how many more deaths there may have been if people didn't know as soon where the gunman was.

No, I don't think that legalizing silencers is common sense, I think it's insane. Are people advocating for that?

I don't know what C&P means but I think we should wait to see what the experts find out about his motive before speculating and blaming GUN as usual. That is IF they let us know when they learn the real truth if they don't already know. Just because something is possible, is no reason to go ahead and do it just to prove that point. Evil is everywhere. If George Soros gets his way and we have globalization, you can forget about freedoms and liberties because then they will be in control and they WILL control us all.
People need to go to church or something.

Jim, you have laws about automatic fire already, criminals don't follow the law. If they find someone or learn how to, they will convert a semi auto themselves if they want to bad enough. Same with the tough gun laws in Chicago, criminals go out of state and bring them illegally.
Society is breaking down for some reason, and some people can't handle the technology advances.

That's also true, if he were a Muslim, the right would have no trouble politicizing this to promote their agenda. 100% true.

:btu:

No, I don't think that legalizing silencers is common sense, I think it's insane. Are people advocating for that?

I believe that was going to be introduced this week (and remove a $200 tranfer tax on slencer) - also loosen regs on armour piercing bullets, allow gun owners to transport registered firearms across state lines, carry guns in national parks.

I don't know what C&P means but I think we should wait to see what the experts find out about his motive before speculating and blaming GUN as usual. That is IF they let us know when they learn the real truth if they don't already know. Just because something is possible, is no reason to go ahead and do it just to prove that point. Evil is everywhere. If George Soros gets his way and we have globalization, you can forget about freedoms and liberties because then they will be in control and they WILL control us all.
People need to go to church or something.

C&P = cut and paste. I stole that from an editorial.

You said

"what bothers me is the never ending pigpile on within minutes of a gun related shooting where the left can't help using a tragedy for political purposes instead of coming up with actual solutions for stopping these madmen in their tracks or preventing mass casualties of large crowds of people."

and I was just pointing out that the right would also use that no differently for political purposes.

Jim, you have laws about automatic fire already, criminals don't follow the law. If they find someone or learn how to, they will convert a semi auto themselves if they want to bad enough. Same with the tough gun laws in Chicago, criminals go out of state and bring them illegally.
Society is breaking down for some reason, and some people can't handle the technology advances.

Slipknot, your arguments make a superb case as to why the things I posted, can never eliminate gun crime entirely. Never. But you cannot tell me that they won't help reduce it a bit. Maybe it' snot worth the liberty we'd have to give up, that might be a valid point. But many argue on the right that there is zero benefit to any gun laws, that we can't reduce crime by one zillionth of one percent. I don't buy that. Noting is that absolute.

The only way to shop a mass shooting is with another gun.
Everyone should be armed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The only way to shop a mass shooting is with another gun.
Everyone should be armed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That still wouldn't have stooped this one from happening. I doubt anybody with a handgun at the concert was going to hit this guy, who was 400 yards away, 32 stories up, in the dark, while people are bumping into you in a panic.

That's some Hollywood " Lethal Weapon" chit right there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That still wouldn't have stooped this one from happening. I doubt anybody with a handgun at the concert was going to hit this guy, who was 400 yards away, 32 stories up, in the dark, while people are bumping into you in a panic.

That's some Hollywood " Lethal Weapon" chit right there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
How about the people staying on the same floor as him? House keeping ? Seconds matter when a cop is 30 minutes away.

I don't carry but I see the logic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

C&P = cut and paste. I stole that from an editorial.

You said

"what bothers me is the never ending pigpile on within minutes of a gun related shooting where the left can't help using a tragedy for political purposes instead of coming up with actual solutions for stopping these madmen in their tracks or preventing mass casualties of large crowds of people."

and I was just pointing out that the right would also use that no differently for political purposes.


it still would bother me whether it's the left,right or Libertarians

No, I don't think that legalizing silencers is common sense, I think it's insane. Are people advocating for that?

They are already perfectly legal to own in 42 states. All that is required is a stamp from BATFE as they are on the NFA list. Send them $200 , get a stamp and get a SUPRESSOR. Thankfully the NFA also bans assault rifles.

it still would bother me whether it's the left,right or Libertarians

Ok, but that is not what you said.

I would be more concerned with why he did it, and not how he did it. If it wasn't guns, it could easily have been explosives or a car /truck, anything to achieve the destruction and mayhem he wanted.

What were his motives? Was he mentally unstable? Was it the result of his losing at the casino? Did his "girlfriend" take all his cash when she went to Japan?

Too many unanswered questions that don't have to focus on the guns (yet).

His brother was saying that he was a "millionaire" and loved gambling and real estate....both which could drain your bank account quickly when you really take risks.

What they should do is allow his estate to be confiscated and used to pay for the survivors recovery and final disposition for those killed.

I don't argue the point, but making a bomb might require some online searches and research, which might have raised a red flag to law enforcement. I think everyone is more conscious of the dangers of truck attacks now and while I don't know if there were barriers set up to avoid it; again a truck isn't likely going to kill 58 and injure 500 more. I also don't think we would have seen the massive casualties we saw here, these pour victims were in a war zone and were sitting ducks.

People are going off the deep end more and more, or possibly we just are hearing it reported more, the media loves that payday. But it just seems there are more road rage incidents, domestic violence and it's sad that it seems to be every other week there is another mass murder but the flavor of the week nut job.

Slipknot, your arguments make a superb case as to why the things I posted, can never eliminate gun crime entirely. Never. But you cannot tell me that they won't help reduce it a bit. Maybe it' snot worth the liberty we'd have to give up, that might be a valid point. But many argue on the right that there is zero benefit to any gun laws, that we can't reduce crime by one zillionth of one percent. I don't buy that. Noting is that absolute.

I understand your point
I have common sense also


BTW that bill is about suppressors, not silencers. They suppress the noise a bit, not silence. That is Hollywood who use silencers not real life. Suppressors can aid in saving hearing and noise pollution, I'll wear ear protection and use the range in the hours allowed and I am fine with that. If you want a suppressor, go to a state that allows one I guess.

It is terrible what happened but I really feel a need for a high caliber rifle. I see them at the range and get jealous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok, but that is not what you said.

correct, I said Left because that is what Hillary is and that is relevant in this case ,no? . what is your point, that there are others that do the same thing? does not make it ok

I don't argue the point, but making a bomb might require some online searches and research, which might have raised a red flag to law enforcement.

Well, the guy did already have a trunk full of Ammonium Nitrate, and that didn't raise any flags.

And the pro- gun crowd doesn't do the same?

Did anything happened in Feb. of this year w/background checks?

What would Feb have made a difference on?

Is allowing silencers a common sense gun law?

Edit - think how many more deaths there may have been if people didn't know as soon where the gunman was.

"Silencers" / noise suppression reduce sound mainly at the shooter by tens of decibels, so from levels that wreck your hearing to levels that merely play havoc with your hearing. They don't "silence" a gun so nobody can here it - unless you are in Hollywood (sarc).

I would prefer not needing to register with ATF and pay $200 to buy a suppressor and reduce the impact on my ears. But it is illegal for me to own one in RI and I do not own one.

I believe that was going to be introduced this week (and remove a $200 tranfer tax on slencer) - also loosen regs on armour piercing bullets, allow gun owners to transport registered firearms across state lines, carry guns in national parks.

So I am OK with autos being banned (they are) but would like to see silencers allowed - for my hearing.

I would enjoy an opportunity to fire full auto for grins and giggles - or a bump stock. I don't own a bump stock and have no desire to get one. I CANNOT LEGALLY purchase an auto without jumping through a lot of paperwork and have no desire to do so.

It is terrible what happened but I really feel a need for a high caliber rifle. I see them at the range and get jealous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lol.. I've wanted a high caliber rifle forever but I don't know what one is. Whatever it is it's going to have high capacity clips too. Because pew pew.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

correct, I said Left because that is what Hillary is and that is relevant in this case ,no? . what is your point, that there are others that do the same thing? does not make it ok

No it does not make it right but I wasn't making that point you were. You are acting as if the right doesn't do that when there's numerous cases in the past they have. we can't hold someone to a higher standard than you hold yourself or you can't hold one party to a higher standard than you hold another party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What would Feb have made a difference on?
.

No it wouldn't have.

I was pointing out where you said that the left keeps trying to make legislation more restrictive by showing you an example of the right trying to weaken legislation. That's what both parties do
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lol.. I've wanted a high caliber rifle forever but I don't know what one is.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are a dumb ass....a high calibered rifel has lots of calibers and probably a silencer thingy so you can sneak up on people

This guy was a murderous nut job. He had the fiscal ability to acquire weapons and accessories legally. Marrying some of these accessories to the weapons is against the law, as it is currently written here in Mass. ie suppressor and bump stock. A bump stock will convert a semi automatic into a full fire automatic, and it is stupid easy to install and make operational in less than ten minutes. Again, the law states that in this configuration it is illegal. As for large capacity feeders and magazines, I will address what I know, which is about magazines. In Mass. It is illegal to possess magazines of over 10 rounds capacity. Pre-ban magazines manufactured before September 13, 1994 are exempt from this restriction.. So I cannot buy or acquire large capacity mags legally. These are some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
So what is the next step? To stop the production of accessories such as bump stocks and suppressors? Maybe. Turn in all accessories that "could" render a weapon illegal? (I have none) Require all pre ban magazines be turned in? That won't happen...(mine are pre ban). Unless it were to be mandated upon transfer or death of registered owner.
It is a slippery slope. Both sides of the debate need to find some room for negotiation in the best interest of the Union. But I also think our monies would be much better spent on mental health in this country and rebuilding our hurricane ravaged states, cities, and commonwealths as opposed to spending billions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other active theaters

you are a dumb ass....a high calibered rifel has lots of calibers and probably a silencer thingy so you can sneak up on people

Oh I am a dumbass...no argument there. If your multi high calipered riffle has a shoulder thing that goes up you are a felon. Nobody needs one of those.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ross by definition it does not make it a full auto, it doesn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Technicality and we both know it. It allows continuous gas cycling of the bolt and trigger override (re set). Consider the source of the definition and that another author could word it differently. Different means to reach the same end.

I've shot them and I've shot some of the new select fire binary triggers where squeezing the trigger fires a round and releasing it fires another.. practice with each of those can really cook rounds out but they aren't "automatic" .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No it does not make it right but I wasn't making that point you were. You are acting as if the right doesn't do that when there's numerous cases in the past they have. we can't hold someone to a higher standard than you hold yourself or you can't hold one party to a higher standard than you hold another party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not but thanks for assuming
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Technicality and we both know it. It allows continuous gas cycling of the bolt and trigger override (re set). Consider the source of the definition and that another author could word it differently. Different means to reach the same end.
Agree. He had 12 semi-auto rifles with bump stocks. To argue if it's really fully auto or not at this point defies conscience. Listen to the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing audio.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know full well exactly what they sound like. Nobody is arguing , the definition of full auto is defined and regulated by BATFE not me. There's thousands of these plastic stocks out there..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know full well exactly what they sound like. Nobody is arguing , the definition of full auto is defined and regulated by BATFE not me. There's thousands of these plastic stocks out there..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Because they're not illegal. At least not in Nevada.

You know I'm not anti gun. I've actually been looking at buying a hand gun because shooting is a lot of fun. Like a lot of fun.

That being said...I don't see how high velocity weapons are useful for sport shooting, hunting or even home defense.

So what's the point? The argument to defend against an oppressive government is really just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not but thanks for assuming
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I got that from what to you posted and I pointed it out.
You said the left politicizes the tragedy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You know I'm not anti gun. I've actually been looking at buying a hand gun because shooting is a lot of fun. Like a lot of fun.

That being said...I don't see how high velocity weapons are useful for sport shooting, hunting or even home defense.

Have you taken a step toward the dark side? Didn't you once say that the purpose of a hand gun was to kill? Now its lots of fun? I congratulate your evolution of thought on the matter. Some do get a rush, lots of fun, firing high velocity weapons. Could be a higher order of gun sport. You might want to give it a try. Your guns as fun philosophy may evolve into a higher more refined perspective. Gun ranges could get permits to buy such guns purely to be used for sport shooting on the range.

Think on it. A boost for the economy. A peaceful way of asserting excess testosterone. Competitions evolving into a sort of American pastime. Available to all of the various genders, testosterone loaded or not. Televised tournaments at which the national anthem could be played and the Second Amendment read by a Monday Night type of cis-female. And thus another venue provided for those who wish to protest how America oppresses them. Competitions ranging first from the smallest size hand guns which can be hidden in the palm of a hand all the way to the grand finale of high velocity guns all ending with the roar of rapid fire in an All-American gun fest giving new meaning, usefulness, and appreciation for the supposed American love of guns.

So what's the point? The argument to defend against an oppressive government is really just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



Right . . . right . . . just a pile of bull poop. History has shown that people never had to rebel or defend against various sorts of tyranny. Oh, that's right . . . we humans have evolved to a time where governments will forever be benevolent, peopled by humane, nice-guy rulers who have our best interests at heart. Who bend to our will rather than their own. With those minor exceptions, of course, when they know better than us what our best interests are. No doubt, after we are dis-armed, they will see the even greater need for them to protect us against . . . against . . . well, against ourselves, or even other bad nasty governments. And that bull poop piece of paper that limits their ability to protect and nourish us can be discarded.

Here's an interesting article showing how the strictest gun controls in Western society prevent mass killings:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/02/gun-control-in-europe-is-almost-total-it-hasnt-stopped-mass-shooting-attacks-like-las-vegas.html

I know, I know, it is written by John Lott, so it must also be bull poop

Lol..easily converted. Go ahead and order a full auto sear , I'll wait here for your reply about the feds showing up at your door.. thousands die from cancer ,you can still buy cigarettes. Booze and cars kill more and they're still readily available..
Point is if you don't like them don't get one. And don't tell me what I can/can't own because you don't like them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

own as many as you want they should all be registered..

and stop the lie there coming to take your Guns ...

Yes its your right to own a gun what about those 59 and counting Rights not to be killed by Guns "don't tell me what I can/can't own" I am sure thats a comforting remark to the Familys ...

Gun owners are so afraid to say there a gun problem in this country if your a responsible gun owner as you say you are be involved the change needed or get rolled over by it ..

Agree. He had 12 semi-auto rifles with bump stocks. To argue if it's really fully auto or not at this point defies conscience. Listen to the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing audio.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

100% correct. To deny that bump stocks can be used to make a semi auto achieve near full auto functionality...well it's hard to talk to someone who would deny that. As you said, all you need to do is listen to the audio, no human being can pull a trigger like that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"near full auto" not full auto. If you're going to split hairs about who can own what I'll split them in regards to what is factually a full auto and what isn't.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence

To argue if it's really fully auto or not at this point defies conscience.


100% correct. To deny that bump stocks can be used to make a semi auto achieve near full auto functionality...well it's hard to talk to someone who would deny that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Quote:



so which is it? "really fully auto"..."or not"....or...."near full auto"....hard to talk to someone that can't even make a simple distinction


according to the bump stock website...it is "simulated full auto"...so there's another term you can act smart with


this effort to marginalize if someone is trying to make a simple distinction(and since the discussion is over legality) when you are engrossed in emotional verbal venting is...well....makes communication tough:wavey:

own as many as you want they should all be registered..is there some lack of registration of legally owned guns that we're unaware of?

and stop the lie there coming to take your Guns ...who said this?

Yes its your right to own a gun what about those 59 and counting Rights not to be killed by Guns "don't tell me what I can/can't own" I am sure thats a comforting remark to the Familys ... I don't think anything could comfort those families right now

Gun owners are so afraid to say there a gun problem in this country if your a responsible gun owner as you say you are be involved the change needed or get rolled over by it ..

I think gun owners are happy to point out the "gun problems" in this country which are most often caused by crazies and center most routinely around lovely places like Chicago-this past weekend for instance(at least 32 people were shot over the weekend, including a man killed along the Chicago River on the Northwest Side and a 13-year-old boy wounded while riding his bike in Little Village on the West Side, according to police Between Friday afternoon and early Monday, at least four people were killed and 28 others wounded, police said. The weekend violence brings to at least 2,877 the number of people shot in Chicago this year. There have been at least 527 homicides..)...and that's actually an improvement over last year...not sure if the guns were registered/unregistered...or..."semi full auto"...and I doubt those families can be comforted



I'm not a gun owner by the way...could one of you guys please enumerate the "changes" you'd like to see....Jim tried and failed miserably...unless you think we can retrofit millions of guns(legal and illegal) with fingerprint technology that may or may not exist or something(which would not have stopped the vegas shooting)

Because they're not illegal. At least not in Nevada.

You know I'm not anti gun. I've actually been looking at buying a hand gun because shooting is a lot of fun. Like a lot of fun.

That being said...I don't see how high velocity weapons are useful for sport shooting, hunting or even home defense.

So what's the point? The argument to defend against an oppressive government is really just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is so much fail in your statement . It's actually mind boggling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again this was a tragedy for sure , undoubtedly. This type of thing shouldnt happen ever. I don't know what transpired in the man's head to do so and I can't fathom performing this cowardly act.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence

To argue if it's really fully auto or not at this point defies conscience.



Quote:



so which is it? "really fully auto"..."or not"....or...."near full auto"....hard to talk to someone that can't even make a simple distinction


according to the bump stock website...it is "simulated full auto"...so there's another term you can act smart with


this effort to marginalize if someone is trying to make a simple distinction(and since the discussion is over legality) when you are engrossed in emotional verbal venting is...well....makes communication tough:wavey:

Spence, as you said, all you need to do, is listen to the audio. One of the first cops at the scene radioed that he thought it was a belt fed machine gun. He shot 600 people, right? SIX HUNDRED.

Why split hairs over whether it's auto or "near full auto"? Why does anyone need bump stocks in their home?

Lots of people die in car accidents, but cars provide an incredible amount of freedom to almost every single one of us. That's why we tolerate the inevitable deaths, because society can't function without them.

Can we really say the same thing about bump stocks?

I think gun owners are happy to point out the "gun problems" in this country which are most often caused by crazies and center most routinely around lovely places like Chicago-this past weekend for instance(at least 32 people were shot over the weekend, including a man killed along the Chicago River on the Northwest Side and a 13-year-old boy wounded while riding his bike in Little Village on the West Side, according to police Between Friday afternoon and early Monday, at least four people were killed and 28 others wounded, police said. The weekend violence brings to at least 2,877 the number of people shot in Chicago this year. There have been at least 527 homicides..)...and that's actually an improvement over last year...not sure if the guns were registered/unregistered...or..."semi full auto"...and I doubt those families can be comforted



I'm not a gun owner by the way...could one of you guys please enumerate the "changes" you'd like to see....Jim tried and failed miserably...unless you think we can retrofit millions of guns(legal and illegal) with fingerprint technology that may or may not exist or something(which would not have stopped the vegas shooting)

I concede I failed miserably. But what do we tell the families of the victims, if we do absolutely nothing?

Can we really say the same thing about bump stocks?

ok, I'm for that...ban bump stocks....I read that he may have been more deadly with a weapon that was more targeted....bump stocks apparently make it very hard to control the fire and are frequented with problems....it took the police 72 minutes to get to him...

this would be the first "bump stock massacre" that I'm aware of...what do you tell all of the victims of other "non bump stock gun violence"?

Lots of people die in car accidents, but cars provide an incredible amount of freedom to almost every single one of us. That's why we tolerate the inevitable deaths

yeah...tell that to the families of the innocent victims

what do you tell all of the victims of other "non bump stock gun violence"?

If I was in public office, and I had taken an oath to serve the public, then my response would be easy, and I think you know that. I would tell them that I am honor bound to try and advocate for policies that make these attacks as difficult as possible to execute, within the limits of the Constitution and common sense. Does anyone really think that's where we are?

yeah...tell that to the families of the innocent victims

I've never heard a car accident victim, advocate for getting rid of cars. Not once, ever.

What you tell the victims of car accidents, is that you'll try to learn from what happened, to see if anything can be improved (safety engineering, speed limits, etc). It's the same principle here with guns.

If I was in public office, and I had taken an oath to serve the public, then my response would be easy, and I think you know that. I would tell them that I am honor bound to try and advocate for policies that make these attacks as difficult as possible to execute, within the limits of the Constitution and common sense. Does anyone really think that's where we are?

and the only way to have stopped this attack would be to ban people from legally owning firearms(or maybe install metal detectors and guards in hotel lobbies)...that's your argument...if this guy got them flying under the radar and created the havoc that he did, then anyone could...that's the obvious argument...anything else is a rhetorical little bandaid on a big wound

I've never heard a car accident victim, advocate for getting rid of cars.

that's because they understand it's the vehicle operator(save mechanical issues) ...and not the vehicle in most cases

That being said...I don't see how high velocity weapons are useful for sport shooting, hunting or even home defense. You are mentioning that velocity thing again. High velocity rounds are very suitable for hunting, preferred in many cases. Certainly important for target shooting and accuracy.

So what's the point? The argument to defend against an oppressive government is really just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device Hopefully that remains the case.

I got that from what to you posted and I pointed it out.
You said the left politicizes the tragedy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The left politicizes the tragedy and the right politicizes that the left politicized the tragedy.

own as many as you want they should all be registered..

and stop the lie there coming to take your Guns ...

Yes its your right to own a gun what about those 59 and counting Rights not to be killed by Guns "don't tell me what I can/can't own" I am sure thats a comforting remark to the Familys ...

Gun owners are so afraid to say there a gun problem in this country if your a responsible gun owner as you say you are be involved the change needed or get rolled over by it ..


There is a gun problem. Particularly the youth and gang violence and suicides - where most of the death happens. Other things like kid's gaining access to guns should also be better adressed (safe storage, separate ammo storage, etc)

They might not come to take the guns because it has been well established that they won't be given up easily, nor without a fight. But this has not stopped politicians from saying there should be a blanket ban and confiscation. And from politicians that have conducted partial bans it is not a big leap to complete bands. Some partial bans like like for imminent mental health concerns or DV instances which I would be OK with if it were not for the real consideration that they would not stop their.

Let me try again to explain my opinion. A bump stock modification is a "workaround" to circumvent the law on automatics. It allows the weapon to "mimic" full auto. I think even the gun rights side will be considering some "concessions" when it comes to this accessory.

I think the other 42 states should consider a ban on bump stocks, I have no problem with that. However, it probably won't prevent another mass shooting of innocent people. I also feel that this maniac had the means to apply for and buy a legitimate full auto rifle if he had the time and qualifications but maybe he he just went the bump stock route because it was easier.
They might be fun to shoot at a pumpkin shoot or something , but not practical for an everyday person.



As far as fingerprint reading on guns, hogwash. First put breathalizers in every car, truck or bus in the country before that lamebrain idea.

and the only way to have stopped this attack would be to ban people from legally owning firearms(or maybe install metal detectors and guards in hotel lobbies)...that's your argument...if this guy got them flying under the radar and created the havoc that he did, then anyone could...that's the obvious argument...anything else is a rhetorical little bandaid on a big wound

"the only way to have stopped this attack would be to..."

You're doing what too many (in my opinion) people on my side do, in regards to this question. I concede that there is no constitutional way to prevent all of these attacks from occurring. You are saying, therefore, let's not do anything. Why is it all or nothing?

What if we can make the attacks harder to pull off, and what if we can reduce the likely body count, when attacks do take place? For sh*ts and giggles, what if bump stocks were banned from the get go? Obviously, this guy could have loaded his room with semi autos and gone to town. But do you think it's likely, that if he was limited to true semi auto, that he would not have been able to shoot 600 people?

If someone proposes gun control, I don't think it's a valid rebuttal to point out that any given proposal, will not be a 100% guarantee of 0 future attacks. The minimum requirement for a proposal to be worthwhile, shouldn't be a guarantee of perfect results. If a proposal makes things better (but not perfect), isn't that maybe a good thing?

We have laws that prohibit murder. But people still murder each other. So using your logic, let's do away with those laws?

You are saying, therefore, let's not do anything. Why is it all or nothing?

I never said that

For sh*ts and giggles, what if bump stocks were banned from the get go? Obviously, this guy could have loaded his room with semi autos and gone to town. But do you think it's likely, that if he was limited to true semi auto, that he would not have been able to shoot 600 people? you are an actuary...do the math....he had 72 minutes to pull the trigger....how many bullets could he fire from semi


We have laws that prohibit murder. But people still murder each other. So using your logic, let's do away with those laws? what law did I suggest doing away with?



I honestly can't follow your logic

And now we have a republican senator saying that the victims should have - "gotten small" to not get shot.

Wtf???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I honestly can't follow your logic

I know. That's what makes me sad.

Bump stocks allow you to shoot more rounds per minute, which, in some cases, increase the expected deaths.

"how many bullets could he fire from semi"

Too many. But, not as many as he could fire from what is essentially full auto.

Scott, let's say your family is in a crowd (let's say in a theater), and a gunman is walking in, preparing to shoot up the area. He has an AR-15. He asks you on his way in, if he should use the bump stock or not, he is going to let you decide. Are you going to say "it makes no difference"? Or are you going to say "don't use the bump stock"?

I know. That's what makes me sad.

Bump stocks allow you to shoot more rounds per minute, which, in some cases, increase the expected deaths.

"how many bullets could he fire from semi"

Too many. But, not as many as he could fire from what is essentially full auto.

Scott, let's say your family is in a crowd (let's say in a theater), and a gunman is walking in, preparing to shoot up the area. He has an AR-15. He asks you on his way in, if he should use the bump stock or not, he is going to let you decide. Are you going to say "it makes no difference"? Or are you going to say "don't use the bump stock"?


I will quote myself from a little earlier

"ok, I'm for that...ban bump stocks..."

the windmills are taking a beating...

And now we have a republican senator saying that the victims should have - "gotten small" to not get shot.

Wtf???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not quite as WTF as the CBS VP that said the victims didn't deserve sympathy. Just another D upset over the election still.

At least "get small" is sound advice, albeit terribly obvious and damn near not feasible in a run for your life scenario.

Not quite as WTF as the CBS VP that said the victims didn't deserve sympathy. Just another D upset over the election still

And to balance the hate- Carl Paladino, a western New York builder, one-time Republican candidate for governor of New York and political ally of President-elect Donald J. Trump, came under fire on Friday for racially offensive comments about President Obama and the first lady, who Mr. Paladino said should be “let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe.”

Mr. Paladino’s comments were published in Artvoice, a weekly Buffalo newspaper. They came in response to an open-ended feature in which local figures were asked about their hopes for 2017.

“Obama catches mad cow disease after being caught having relations with a Herford,” said Mr. Paladino, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2010, making an apparent reference to the Hereford cattle breed. He said he hoped the disease killed the president.

Asked what he most wanted to see “go away” in the new year, Mr. Paladino — who has a reputation in New York political and business circles for speaking in an unfiltered manner reminiscent of Mr. Trump’s — answered, “Michelle Obama.”


“I’d like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla,” he said.

Paul...wasn't that like a year ago?...surely you can find something contemporary

Just an easy one to google.

If I was Maxie the gorilla I'd find that offensive too. The poor thing. But seeing as how this has nothing to do with the OP lets try to stay on topic ok?

If I was Maxie the gorilla I'd find that offensive too. The poor thing. But seeing as how this has nothing to do with the OP lets try to stay on topic ok?

And on that we agree 100%. That would constitute animal cruelty.

If I was Maxie the gorilla I'd find that offensive too. The poor thing.

classy

classy

:thanks:

Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing. But let's be honest Bump stocks and new discussion on silencers or suppressors it's all a game to make more revenue for the gun companies. Gun companies are actually marketing system suppressors to help reduce hearing loss . And I believe stocks in gun companies went up after the shooting. Does anyone know why electronic gun registration is not allowed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again I'm not a gun owner currently, but I guess I'm curious why a guy legally (I assume) amassing such a large arsenal of weapons is automatically flagged as someone maybe law enforcement should be looking at?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe they did, but he didn't do anything wrong until that night.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again I'm not a gun owner currently, but I guess I'm curious why a guy legally (I assume) amassing such a large arsenal of weapons is automatically flagged as someone maybe law enforcement should be looking at?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Without a law authorizing them to do so I don't think they would be doing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the mass shooters that you refer to (not Muslim) predominantly came from certain other countries, the federal government could impose a travel ban from those countries. But if the mass shooters live in the State, the federal government should defer to that State's legal system.

BTW, you first referred to the "federal" government being expected to do something, then in comparing mass shooting to terrorism you eliminated the "federal" and just referred to government. We have been conditioned by the Progressive trend in politics to merge the two--federal government and government being the same thing. The Progressive mindset is that government SHOULD be centralized. That government and federal government should be the same thing. That the federal government (government) should be involved in all things that influence our lives.

Travel bans from other countries, constitutionally, should be the federal government's responsibility. Mass shootings in Nevada, which don't involve foreign influence, should be the responsibility of Nevada. It may be "perplexing" to you why those concerned about the survival of the Constitution as the actual "law of the land" make a distinction between responsibilities of various levels of government, and that "government" doesn't automatically mean "federal" government. But the distinction should be obvious to those who believe that a federation is preferable to a monolithic State.

Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing. But let's be honest Bump stocks and new discussion on silencers or suppressors it's all a game to make more revenue for the gun companies. Gun companies are actually marketing system suppressors to help reduce hearing loss . And I believe stocks in gun companies went up after the shooting. Does anyone know why electronic gun registration is not allowed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


What do silencers / suppressors have to do with the price of heroine in Central Falls? You know the benefits of them. The real benefits - not the crap the talking heads spew.

I'm OK with banning bump stocks - different subject

So the federal government requires us to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. States require us to buy auto insurance. But the insurance against government tyranny that was given to us free of monetary charge by the Founders is "just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&."

Having health insurance doesn't prevent illness. It helps us to more physically and financially be able to survive illness and return to good health. Auto insurance does not prevent accidents. It makes it more possible to financially survive the misuse of autos and maintain our use of them. The Second Amendment is our freedom insurance policy. It does not prevent the misuse of weapons. It makes it possible to resist an armed government which misuses its weapons to strip us of our unalienable rights--to insure that we do not lose our liberties.

No doubt to many of us now, that sounds quaint. A nice, old fashioned sentiment that is no longer relevant, a historical conceit. But is there some evidence that we should not have any fear of an overreaching government? Or worse, that our government should not fear its citizens? Is a government which is confident that its citizens have been fully pacified through its subjugation of the educational system, its transformation of the political system including the founding structure, its massive regulation of the economy, its collusion with the media, its incremental transfer to itself of powers from the people and their local and State governments . . . is such a government truly not to be feared?

Is there some evidence that we actually no longer need the rights and liberties that the Constitution guarantied to us? Have we been persuaded that we no longer need the insurance policy, no longer need outdated notions such as freedom, liberty, rights?

Well, on reflection, we are as, a society, consumed with the notion of rights. But not some ethereal notion of unalienable ones. We are perfectly satisfied with provided rights rather than inherent ones. What we inherit we are responsible for. It is up to us to protect inherent rights. The rights given to us by a government which we do not fear are its responsibility to decide and dispense. Some may have such rights. Others may not. We become divided by "rights." We don't all have the same old unalienable rights. Just the ones given to us by the benevolent government we trust, do not fear, and which does not fear us. Some we have in common. Others are special to preferred or protected groups. They can be more a matter of enforcement rather than codification. "Gays" can force a baker to bake a "gay" cake. But no one can force a baker to make a chartreuse cake. Those who love the color chartreuse have not been given the right by government to demand chartreuse. Of course, the baker no longer has the unalienable right to his property. Those who make x dollars do not have the right to pay the same tax rate as those who make y dollars. Those who score higher test rates may not have the right to enter a university over someone who scores lower test rates. Certain groups need special rights to get a leg up. Some have the right to say certain words, while the use of those words by others are considered hate speech. Some are granted free speech at publicly supported schools, others can claim free speech to shout down, without prosecution, those they disagree with. And on and on and on.

The notion that the world we presently live in should cause us to have no reasonable fear of government tyranny is not based on actual evidence, historical or otherwise. But the greatest threat to the freedom we have inherited is not the government, rather it is our complacency. Our willingness to constantly allow the government to assume the responsibilities that rightly belong to us as individuals, and our ignorance of how economies work (or don't), and the dangers of all-powerful centralization (politically and commercially).

The actual evidence, if rightly looked at, is that discarding the framework that guaranties us individual freedom, with its insurance policies (the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment), and leaving our lives and sacred honor in the hands and ever changing whims of a centralized and fairly unlimited bureaucracy is "just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&."

What do silencers / suppressors have to do with the price of heroine in Central Falls? You know the benefits of them. The real benefits - not the crap the talking heads spew.

I'm OK with banning bump stocks - different subject

trying to go around the Law and promoting a false Narrative NRA and gun makers word games

Like Bump stock simulate rapid Fire their not making gun full Auto if your in denial ... ATF noted that according to Slide Fire, the device “is intended to assist persons whose hands have limited mobility to ‘bump-fire’ an AR-15 type rifle.”

https://youtu.be/x0f7OCnrrpkor Please note his trigger finger not moving and if someone think thats not Automatic fire they shouldn't own a gun


suppressors-good-for-our-hearing yea thats why they are made i thought that was what ear plug were for?


https://www.nraila.org/articles/20111117/suppressors-good-for-our-hearing

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-ridiculous-non-searchable-databases-explained/

a good read another topic that Americas are un aware on how the ability to track weapons have been blocked by our elected officials and Law paid for and written by lobbyist

[QUOTE=JohnR;1129367]

I'm OK with banning bump stocks


QUOTE=WDMSO

trying to go around the Law and promoting a false Narrative NRA and gun makers word games

Like Bump stock simulate rapid Fire their not making gun full Auto if your in denial




see...even when you agree they keep arguing like you disagree...talk about perplexing :eek:...it's almost like marriage

Again I'm not a gun owner currently, but I guess I'm curious why a guy legally (I assume) amassing such a large arsenal of weapons is automatically flagged as someone maybe law enforcement should be looking at?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I feel the same way. Perhaps a better flag would be a public listing of any gun owner who owns more than a certain number of weapons (pick a number). Listing of weapon owners would be publicly posted at city/town halls and printed in local media (newspaper) quarterly. Just as gun owners have a right to bear arms I think residents and law enforcement have a right to know if there is a "private arsenal" for lack of a better word in their neighborhoods. All to often neighbors say they had "no idea" their neighbor had that many weapons. If they knew maybe they could monitor behavior more closely and alert law enforcement.

I feel the same way. Perhaps a better flag would be a public listing of any gun owner who owns more than a certain number of weapons (pick a number). Listing of weapon owners would be publicly posted at city/town halls and printed in local media (newspaper) quarterly. Just as gun owners have a right to bear arms I think residents and law enforcement have a right to know if there is a "private arsenal" for lack of a better word in their neighborhoods. All to often neighbors say they had "no idea" their neighbor had that many weapons. If they knew maybe they could monitor behavior more closely and alert law enforcement.

If th government can regulate sudafed to flag an abuser (potential meth cook), they can moniter arms hoarders. Unless the hoarder has a lot of straw men buying for him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

trying to go around the Law and promoting a false Narrative NRA and gun makers word games

Like Bump stock simulate rapid Fire their not making gun full Auto if your in denial ... ATF noted that according to Slide Fire, the device “is intended to assist persons whose hands have limited mobility to ‘bump-fire’ an AR-15 type rifle.”

https://youtu.be/x0f7OCnrrpkor Please note his trigger finger not moving and if someone think thats not Automatic fire they shouldn't own a gun


suppressors-good-for-our-hearing yea thats why they are made i thought that was what ear plug were for?


https://www.nraila.org/articles/20111117/suppressors-good-for-our-hearing

WE ARE IN )#*$#$$!@ AGREEMENT on Bump Stock / slide fire. YOU ARE NOT READING THE EFFING QUOTE. I am cApLoCkInG so you might stop to read rather than narrativetalkingpoints. You are going down the road of NRA this and that and jumping topics. (PS - not yelling mad, yelling shockingly but with @#(*#$@#$ smiley faces :faga: )

As for trigger control, some are way faster than others (though when speed goes up accuracy typically goes down). Kindofa stunt like a ProgressiveSocialist 22 year old mom's basement with Cataracts "Medical Marijuana" recipient searching for a higher THC count. Well, except Medical Marijuana is not in the Bill of Rights.

As for noise? Any reduction in noise DBA at your ear is beneficial, no?


https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-ridiculous-non-searchable-databases-explained/

a good read another topic that Americas are un aware on how the ability to track weapons have been blocked by our elected officials and Law paid for and written by lobbyist

A good read on how MOST legislation is effed up by our elected officials and often written by Lobbyists. Ever hear of the Affordable Care Act?


QUOTE=JohnR

I'm OK with banning bump stocks


QUOTE=WDMSO

trying to go around the Law and promoting a false Narrative NRA and gun makers word games

Like Bump stock simulate rapid Fire their not making gun full Auto if your in denial




see...even when you agree they keep arguing like you disagree...talk about perplexing :eek:...it's almost like marriage

http://memeshappen.com/media/created/2017/02/I-know-right-.jpg

I feel the same way. Perhaps a better flag would be a public listing of any gun owner who owns more than a certain number of weapons (pick a number). Listing of weapon owners would be publicly posted at city/town halls and printed in local media (newspaper) quarterly. Just as gun owners have a right to bear arms I think residents and law enforcement have a right to know if there is a "private arsenal" for lack of a better word in their neighborhoods. All to often neighbors say they had "no idea" their neighbor had that many weapons. If they knew maybe they could monitor behavior more closely and alert law enforcement.

So you think posting the address of people that have X amount of firearms, publicly, would be a good idea? The two biggest firearms problems we have are suicides and violence with youth / gang - frequently with stolen / underground weapons.

Good idea?

Let the public know...yup. That puts the final cap on stupid in this thread. Good day boys!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WE ARE IN )

So you think posting the address of people that have X amount of firearms, publicly, would be a good idea? The two biggest firearms problems we have are suicides and violence with youth / gang - frequently with stolen / underground weapons.

Good idea?

Maybe - trying to come up with something. I mean we're not going to ban guns that is a given... but maybe we can regulate how many a person can own and what types they can have in their domicile. Always looking for a compromise. Discussion is a good thing ;)

Let the public know...yup. That puts the final cap on stupid in this thread. Good day boys!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tysdad - You are the people we need to hear from. I'm not a gun owner but support gun ownership. What would you suggest as a compromise?

I'd publish the names of gun owners as well as a list of the weapons that they own and the combination to their gun safe, just in case someone needs to get in there....that should help prevent crime.....

Maybe - trying to come up with something. I mean we're not going to ban guns that is a given... but maybe we can regulate how many a person can own and what types they can have in their domicile. Always looking for a compromise. Discussion is a good thing ;)


I am open to discussion on the broad topics and might support some things BUT time has shown that those that only want maximum control or confiscation will go to any length and move any goal post necessary to strip Consitutionally provided rights. By publishing people's names is at worst dangerous to those people and encouraging theft or worse. At best it allows public shaming Grab-Your-Torch-And-Pitchforks of your neighbors. I don't have an "arsenal" not have intention / plans of building one but if I was on some list that would make me susceptible to people coning to my home? Where my family lives?

As for variety of guns, styles, and such - look at how many specialized rods you have - your beach rod, schoolie rods, boulder rod, plugging, Albie, oh and then add your freshwater stuff, Salmon Rod, fly rods. Specialized and task built rods for different purposes.

You could easily have 10 different guns for different purposes, competition, trap / skeet, plinking, tournaments,. You may collect old rifles like some collect Needlefish ( ; ) ) . Perfectly legit owners of guns would be called out under such a "list".

Recently in RI bills went through (I believe needing to be signed by the Gov) that requires confiscation of weapons for someone that has a DV restraining order against them. Something that reasonable people could debate. But people won't be reasonable - particularly if there are gains to be made politically. I could support something like that if it is temporary, has well defined sunset clauses, and an impartial arbiter. I really don't think we will find a neutral arbiter. Denis, how many impartial arbiters / politicians have you met in your travels through local and state government ; ) ? 20-30%? 40?

Currently their are Dem politicians at state and federal levels going around with information stating because 2A you can get Grenade Launchers and that guns should be confiscated.

Yes, we need better discussion and understanding. We also need to understand that 2A defines a Constitutional Right. There is a process to change that though, 66% approval in Congress and 3/4 states Convention.

If congress wants a compromise, pass the Share act so we have reciprocity among the states for concealed carry permits and add in to halt bump stocks to satisfy the snowflakes. Criminals and psychotic people are going to break laws to do what they want to do no matter what just like a gun free zone does not insure your safety. I see no problem with collections of arms by civilians as long as they are properly stored and as far as others not realizing it, that is a good thing.

Good discussion.
Here is a hypothetical question.
If you had a neighbor that had 42 weapons, all acquired legally, wouldn't you want to know? Should we have the right to know? I know we can compare it those who collect other things but most other collectibles are not considered deadly weapons. Is it a privacy issue?

Scott mentions a good point that it would be a bad idea because then criminals would then know you have a cache of weapons and try to steal them. Of course any responsible gun owner would have them in a locked weapons vault I assume. Could also be a good deterrent if it was publicly known that your home was armed to the hilt.

What we look for when we have civil discourse about a topic is a reason WHY for a stated position. John did that well with his response to my comments. The old argument of we can't do it because "It will set a precedent" doesn't cut it. Tell me why banning bump stocks is wrong and who it would hurt if they were banned. Explain why owning 42 deadly assault weapons should be legal. These are questions in the national discussion. I'm here to learn from both sides.

Good discussion.
Here is a hypothetical question.
If you had a neighbor that had 42 weapons, all acquired legally, wouldn't you want to know? Should we have the right to know? I know we can compare it those who collect other things but most other collectibles are not considered deadly weapons. Is it a privacy issue?

Scott mentions a good point that it would be a bad idea because then criminals would then know you have a cache of weapons and try to steal them. Of course any responsible gun owner would have them in a locked weapons vault I assume. Could also be a good deterrent if it was publicly known that your home was armed to the hilt.

What we look for when we have civil discourse about a topic is a reason WHY for a stated position. John did that well with his response to my comments. The old argument of we can't do it because "It will set a precedent" doesn't cut it. Tell me why banning bump stocks is wrong and who it would hurt if they were banned. Explain why owning 42 deadly assault weapons should be legal. These are questions in the national discussion. I'm here to learn from both sides.

Well, it sound like the shooter took multiple legal semi-automatic rifles (not assault weapons) and through mods made them near equivalent to automatic rifles - something heavily regulated since the 1930s and almost impossible to attain since 1984. This shooter may have been able to afford real autos because they costs thousands with a couple digits before the comma. But he went the mods route.

We can have a good debate on the Bumpstocks - in fact, the Evil NRA just released a statement that the Guv should look into if Bumpstocks and other methods to realize capacities closer to full auto should be banned. See attached.

If my neighbor owned 42 deadly assault weapons legal semi-automatic rifles I'd demand some range time with my neighbor to learn more.

Part of the concern with the National discussion is that people want to take them away because your neighbor having grenade launchers and Zombie stocks is morally not woke enough. /sarc

Lots of disinformation and purely wrong info out there by people that want them banned.

As for the safe, yes, your guns should be locked up and many states have regulations for that to protect against theft and negligent access by kids / other adults. My kid (that I throughout support as a great & responsible kid) does not have the combo to the safe. But a determined thief can usually bust a safe in an hour or less.

If you had a neighbor that had 42 weapons, all acquired legally, wouldn't you want to know? Should we have the right to know?

no and no....they are legally owned and registered, the local authorities know.....if you purchased 4 firearms a year over 10 years you'd have 40 weapons......people actually collect these like anything else, the drive to acquire something that you don't have or would like to add to your collection or to find something valuable for a good price all fuels this...I know people that collect some unusual stuff and spend what most would consider insane amounts of money to acquire certain things...a "collection" of one or two things isn't all that interesting, a large collection of any related objects is pretty interesting....I know...we're talking about firearms that can injure and kill...there's no shortage of preaching about properly storing these things and training for use

Good one ;) - I was going to ask if collecting live hand grenades was/is legal. I have no idea? My bad with the deadly assault weapons - I should have said potentially deadly semi-automatic rifles. Either way I'd want to know but that is another discussion. Good stuff John!

Good one ;) - I was going to ask if collecting live hand grenades was/is legal. I have no idea? My bad with the deadly assault weapons - I should have said potentially deadly semi-automatic rifles. Either way I'd want to know but that is another discussion. Good stuff John!

There may be some way to collect inert ones but never tried not desired enough to bother looking. Other than a 10 second lookup based on this thread. I have seen Inert Artillery shells in Army Navy stores but never in one's house.

Did make homemade gunpowder once with a friend when we were 12. Lit up one helluva genie :hihi: - Trying to explain to the Pharmacist that one of the ingredients was for a school experiment, hahaha.

Let the public know...yup. That puts the final cap on stupid in this thread. Good day boys!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I do wish I could see the look on your face when you read that.

I do wish I could see the look on your face when you read that.

Hehehe

Good one ;) - I was going to ask if collecting live hand grenades was/is legal. I have no idea? My bad with the deadly assault weapons - I should have said potentially deadly semi-automatic rifles. Either way I'd want to know but that is another discussion. Good stuff John!

I think it's a no on the live hand grenades and I understand anyone who can't understand why someone would collect firearms, I also understand why some do...I stopped hunting primarily because I hunted with some knuckleheads once and decided I didn't really want to be in the woods if those guys or some facsimile might be out there...a .30-06 is a pretty common semi-automatic hunting rifle and also potentially deadly

Good discussion.
Here is a hypothetical question.
If you had a neighbor that had 42 weapons, all acquired legally, wouldn't you want to know? Should we have the right to know? I know we can compare it those who collect other things but most other collectibles are not considered deadly weapons. Is it a privacy issue?

Scott mentions a good point that it would be a bad idea because then criminals would then know you have a cache of weapons and try to steal them. Of course any responsible gun owner would have them in a locked weapons vault I assume. Could also be a good deterrent if it was publicly known that your home was armed to the hilt.

What we look for when we have civil discourse about a topic is a reason WHY for a stated position. John did that well with his response to my comments. The old argument of we can't do it because "It will set a precedent" doesn't cut it. Tell me why banning bump stocks is wrong and who it would hurt if they were banned. Explain why owning 42 deadly assault weapons should be legal. These are questions in the national discussion. I'm here to learn from both sides.

So you are suggesting NIMBY? not in my backyard. Like building a prison nearby or some other unpopular thing. Bullcrap DZ, the guns , no matter how many are not going to leave the safe and harm anyone on their own.
Locks are for honest people, a criminal with a grinder can take care of that in minutes.


42 deadly assault weapons is not the term to use in a discussion about semi automatic rifles. A so called assault rifle would be the military version of an Armalite rifle AR15 as they are known and the military assault rifles have select fire. Machine guns are not legal since the 30's so don't be like the anti gun liberals by calling a common ar-15, AR-10 ( which is the .308 version as opposed to the .223 caliber)or an AK-47 an assault rifle.

They are picking away with their gun control little by little, it is about control. They can't control us, so they want to mistakenly try to control guns. I call them guns not weapons.

[QUOTE=JohnR;1129367]

I'm OK with banning bump stocks


QUOTE=WDMSO

trying to go around the Law and promoting a false Narrative NRA and gun makers word games

Like Bump stock simulate rapid Fire their not making gun full Auto if your in denial





see...even when you agree they keep arguing like you disagree...talk about perplexing :eek:...it's almost like marriage

only applies to those whom it applies ... thats all

Good one ;) - I was going to ask if collecting live hand grenades was/is legal. I have no idea? My bad with the deadly assault weapons - I should have said potentially deadly semi-automatic rifles. Either way I'd want to know but that is another discussion. Good stuff John!

right, that is better

WE ARE IN )#*$#$$!@ AGREEMENT on Bump Stock / slide fire. YOU ARE NOT READING THE EFFING QUOTE. I am cApLoCkInG so you might stop to read rather than narrativetalkingpoints. You are going down the road of NRA this and that and jumping topics. (PS - not yelling mad, yelling shockingly but with @#(*#$@#$ smiley faces :faga: )

As for trigger control, some are way faster than others (though when speed goes up accuracy typically goes down). Kindofa stunt like a ProgressiveSocialist 22 year old mom's basement with Cataracts "Medical Marijuana" recipient searching for a higher THC count. Well, except Medical Marijuana is not in the Bill of Rights.

I am-not arguing with those who agree on Ban on Bump stocks again just showing the BS Marketing

As for noise? Any reduction in noise DBA at your ear is beneficial, no?

Really thats your answer to that kind of marketing




A good read on how MOST legislation is effed up by our elected officials and often written by Lobbyists. Ever hear of the Affordable Care Act?
your comparing the ACA with Willful blocking of law enforcement to track guns in America talk about narratives and Talkingpoints.

these are all factual statements from the NRA and the bump stock maker If you find this kind marketing acceptable I cant change that nor Am i just exposing to sunlight

http://memeshappen.com/media/created/2017/02/I-know-right-.jpg



So you think posting the address of people that have X amount of firearms, publicly, would be a good idea? The two biggest firearms problems we have are suicides and violence with youth / gang - frequently with stolen / underground weapons.

Good idea?--

If th government can regulate sudafed to flag an abuser (potential meth cook), they can moniter arms hoarders. Unless the hoarder has a lot of straw men buying for him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they cant the law will not allow ATF to have a searchable Data base

they cant the law will not allow ATF to have a searchable Data base
That's my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't see the need for the public to know who has one gun, 15 or 150, I can only see good neighbors suddenly becoming bad ones. I do however see a reason law enforcement should have access to who's amassing enough weapons to start a war. What is the difference between this nut or one that happens to be a radical Islamic nut? What they are buying, where and when IMHO should be part of the record that local law, federal agents or anyone in homeland security should be able to see.

It's sad that this is where we are today, that we can't go calmly into a football stadium, concert hall or country fair, or airport without being concerned about our safety. I see no reason to not be monitoring purchases by law enforcement and maybe this is already in place, but if not; I think it would be a good thing to be monitoring. Sadly this isn't Mayberry and Aunt Bee isn't baking Andy a nice pumpkin pie for the holiday weekend.

If legal gun owners or collectors have no reason to be concerned, then why would you mind if law enforcement has a record or what you own? If someone breaks into your home and walks away, then law enforcement has a record of what was taken. The argument about what legally should be allowed to purchase is clearly a contentious one. I would back legislation to ban anything that can be used to cause the loss of life and injuries this or previous attacks before them caused. Whether that is bump stocks, silencers or semi-automatic weapons which can be converted to automatic operation.

It's clear most on this site are gun owners, I'm sure are all responsible owners, it's properly locked and used safely and responsibly. My problem is that someone just like you, no someone exactly like you, once a very responsible gun owner, well respected, a great guy according to all the neighbors, suddenly losses is job, his wife, his truck, his health, his self respect and then one night after a half a bottle of booze hatches a plan to make a statement and grab his 15 minutes of fame. Hopefully it's never someone we know, but it's always someone, someone knows.

Hope your indoor range has some good filtration, that stuff you breath will kill you.

Gun collectors don't want anyone to know what they have in case something like the big "Obama is going to take our gun" scare really happens
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama and Hillary have been the best gun salespeople of all time

Yep
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

3% of Americans own half the country's 265 million guns
Between 300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/

3% of Americans.... controlling gun control in congress you call that democracy ? I call it money

Obama and Hillary have been the best gun salespeople of all time

And the NRA marketed that Fear expertly and Gun owners believed all of it and still believe .. there will be no more bump stocks to ban they will all be bought up by Saturday.. the ban if it happens will grandfather in the old ones

The NRA understands this so their PR stunt to support the ban has not credibility its good optics

3% of Americans own half the country's 265 million guns
Between 300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/

3% of Americans.... controlling gun control in congress you call that democracy ? I call it money

You can call it whatever you want, that doesn't make you correct. Spin statistics to make it look one sided. Life is about choices, not everyone chooses to be a gun owner. 3% choose to be armed and prepared for a tyrannical government and will resist a New World Order also. Your agenda does not compute. Common sense from statistics show gun control does not stop people from killing people.

New world order?
How is the kool aid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

New world order?
How is the kool aid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yea, don't take my guns but no worries about using the DOJ to subpoena your social media because you hit like on an anti-trump meme. There is your new world order.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's move this conversation to what is important about this Country. What makes this Country (generally) safe, safer than any large country in the world: Freedom

Freedom is the underpinning of our society. The core of those freedoms are the right to speak and assemble, to redress your grievance against the country, to defend your life, your family, and your property. Freedom to respect, and yes, even disrespect. Freedom to enter old and new ideas into the national common and not go to jail or beheaded. Freedom to run a government of the people. And as a last resort, Freedom to change that government should it become tyrannical. We ain't perfect. we are flawed. But we do a better job than almost everyone else - in the world.
This conversation and spirited debate we have here does not happen in all countries. Some places you could die for saying this. Sometimes it is ugly.

Yea, don't take my guns but no worries about using the DOJ to subpoena your social media because you hit like on an anti-trump meme. There is your new world order.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Hahaha - shall we find examples or sides being wrong and stuck on stupid??

3% of Americans own half the country's 265 million guns
Between 300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/

3% of Americans.... controlling gun control in congress you call that democracy ? I call it money

From the article: Overall, Americans own an estimated 265 million guns – more than one gun for every American adult, according to the study by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. Half of those guns – 133 million – were in the hands of just 3% of American adults, so-called “super owners” who possessed an average of 17 guns each, it showed.

Who here owns 17 Fishing Rods?

:hidin:

so it's just the ...oooohh... 3% controlling congress? what about the others who own 133 million guns what influence do they have? don't like guns...don't own any- no one is forcing you to.

Common sense from statistics show gun control does not stop people from killing people.

Seat belt laws do not "stop" all vehicle deaths. But they reduce vehicle deaths.

A very, very common argument I hear from the gun crowd, goes something like this..."if you enact such-and-such a ban, people can still get guns and kill others". In other words, they seem to be saying that unless a proposed gun law guarantees that there will be zero gun deaths, that there's no sense in enacting any laws.

No law is that perfect. Not one. So should we eliminate all laws?

Some (not all) gun crimes are committed with zero planning, sometimes people just snap in the heat of the moment. Common sense tells me, that in those cases, the less firepower the person (who is no longer completely in control of himself) has at his fingertips, the fewer graves we need to dig.

Some (not all) gun crimes are carried out by the mentally disturbed. Not all of these people have the ability to circumvent gun laws and either buy things on the black market, or manufacture it themselves.

No law is ever going to be perfect. That doesn't mean laws don't add value.

Let's move this conversation to what is important about this Country. What makes this Country (generally) safe, safer than any large country in the world: Freedom

Freedom is the underpinning of our society.

Agreed. But another cornerstone of our society, is the belief that your freedom to swing your arms in the air, ends where the tip of my nose begins. It's very clear that the founders never meant for any of the freedoms expressed in the Bill Of Rights, to be limitless.

I would never, ever support a ban on handguns, hunting rifles, or things that can reasonably be argued are for personal self defense. When we start talking about things that bring the killing potential to military-level numbers...I think that's a different conversation.

I concede that any bans are a limitation on freedom, there's no way to deny that. But the pro-gun side is refusing to concede that bans can have any value whatsoever. I don't get that argument. If you want to claim that it's not worth giving up the tools of war to save a few lives, well I disagree with that, but at least it's intellectually honest. To say out loud that bans won't help? I mean, we know that some bans are essentially worthless, especially in reducing garden-variety gun crime in urban areas, where handguns are available everywhere, so it's very easy to acquire the tools to kill a person or two.

Mass-shootings are a completely different problem, requiring a completely different fix. The body count will be very much driven by the tools that are available, which is why the Vegas shooter didn't choose to open fire with the Marlin .22 that my Dad taught me to shoot with. If that was all he had available to him, he could not have possibly shot 600 people. It's not possible.

I'm not saying we ban everything except the Marlin .22. I'm saying, at the very least, we need to be able to say out loud that if certain things were banned, it might make it harder to kill huge numbers of people in a short span of time. But we can't agree on that. So a conversation isn't possible.

Seat belt laws do not "stop" all vehicle deaths. But they reduce vehicle deaths.

Seat belt law does not ban anything. It does not ban cars nor even superfast, super-powerful cars. It does not remove several ton trucks from the road. It doesn't require background checks. It doesn't restrict your right to own any of those. The greatest potential and actual reduction of vehicle deaths is safe, sane, drivers.

More to the point, seat belt laws have no impact on your ability to defend yourself against tyranny.

A very, very common argument I hear from the gun crowd, goes something like this..."if you enact such-and-such a ban, people can still get guns and kill others". In other words, they seem to be saying that unless a proposed gun law guarantees that there will be zero gun deaths, that there's no sense in enacting any laws.

Jim, I didn't think you would resort to sophistry. Your second sentence is a non-sequitur to the first. Maybe the word "seem" gives you a little connection to both statements, but the connection is so minute that it is shameful to try it.

No law is that perfect. Not one. So should we eliminate all laws?

Laws are required for direction, not perfection. They are necessary BECAUSE we lack perfection. Serious personal imperfections can lead to deaths and chaos. Because of that, most laws restrict personal or collective behaviors. But, in a fundamental, existential matter such as freedom vs subjugation, laws that favor freedom must exist to restrict government. The balance between freedom and subjugation, if there is a balance, must weigh in favor of freedom if freedom is the object. Otherwise, the power to rule is more important than the power to be free from unconsented rule.

Again, your sophistry overflows. Eliminating all laws because none is perfect is begging a question. A question that does not exist.

And, as you say, no law is perfect. There will be those who take advantage of their freedom to deny others of theirs. The only correction to that is to punish those who abuse others of their rights. But every diminishment in favor of the fundamental laws which restrict the rulers, and impose on freedoms to resist tyranny, is a path to that very tyranny.

Some (not all) gun crimes are committed with zero planning, sometimes people just snap in the heat of the moment. Common sense tells me, that in those cases, the less firepower the person (who is no longer completely in control of himself) has at his fingertips, the fewer graves we need to dig.

The brutal truth is that the number of graves does not change. It's when and how or why. Another brutal truth is that if we surrender a bit of freedom at every new moment of tragedy, that will not prevent future tragedies from which you surrender more freedom. It's a one way process. The end of the process, if freedom is your goal, is obvious. And that end is not freedom. Emotion is one of those feelings we have that can raise us to heights of beauty and passion. It also can lead us into destruction.

If your rebuttal is "how would you feel if it was your wife or child or friend that was killed?" I am certain, at this long road of coming to know myself, that I would not be selfish enough, hopeless enough, to strip one more layer of my fellow, want to say men but that convenient metaphor has been stripped from us, so I'll say the more awkward, of my fellow people's ability to resist dictatorial government.

Some (not all) gun crimes are carried out by the mentally disturbed. Not all of these people have the ability to circumvent gun laws and either buy things on the black market, or manufacture it themselves.

No law is ever going to be perfect. That doesn't mean laws don't add value.

It certainly doesn't mean that all laws do add value. So many of the laws we have been imposed on us since the war on our Constitution began have diminished the value of freedom and the personal responsibility that goes with it that we may be at a critical point where the scales will irrevocably be tipped in favor of all-powerful government. Getting rid of the Second Amendment is a huge tipping in that direction. If you apply the Socratic method of debate on gun control to its final conclusion, it is inescapable that elimination of the Second Amendment is the goal.

It certainly doesn't mean that laws do add value. So many of the laws we have been imposed on us since the war on our Constitution began have diminished the value of freedom and the personal responsibility that goes with it that we may be at a critical point where the scales will irrevocably tipped in favor of all-powerful government. Getting rid of the Second Amendment is a huge tipping in that direction. If you apply the Socratic method of debate on gun control to its final conclusion, it is inescapable that elimination of the Second Amendment is the goal.

"Seat belt law does not ban anything"

Sure it does. Before these laws, many people chose not to wear their seal belts. These laws ban that choice. That's a thing. If people were choosing not to wear seat belts despite the danger, I presume they felt like they had a good reason to do so. Now it's illegal to make that choice.

"seat belt laws have no impact on your ability to defend yourself against tyranny."

The feds have nukes, stealth bombers, those cool bombs that destroy caves, rail guns, etc. So the only reason they aren't using those against me, is because I might have a couple of guns in a vault? That makes more sense, than I can make when I say that smart laws might save a few lives? Really?

"the connection is so minute that it is shameful to try it"

I disagree. every night this week, I heard gun advocates claim that no gun control laws can effectively ban all attacks. They are saying, that because the laws aren't perfect, that they are worthless. I hear that every single night, all night long, from the right. It's one of the most common statements.

"The balance between freedom and subjugation, if there is a balance, must weigh in favor of freedom if freedom is the object."

Limitless freedom isn't the object, we know this. The founders were specific on that, that they weren't designing an anarchy. Some limits on freedom are perfectly constitutional. There is a tradeoff between liberty and security.

Cars cause a lot of deaths. I have never, not once, heard anyone call for a ban on cars. We aren't a society that wants to ban everything that's dangerous. Not even close.

I don't see a big benefit to allowing things like bump stocks and high capacity magazines. I see a very big benefit, to a few less graves being dug during mass shootings (I am not talking about street crime).

Before these laws, many people chose not to wear their seal belts. These laws ban that choice. That's a thing.

:huh:

I can't even keep up any more

Agreed. But another cornerstone of our society, is the belief that your freedom to swing your arms in the air, ends where the tip of my nose begins. It's very clear that the founders never meant for any of the freedoms expressed in the Bill Of Rights, to be limitless.

The Founders meant, in fact clearly expressed in other documents, that the Constitution as a whole was created for a virtuous people. Freedom, as a foundational principle for a virtuous people, can only be achieved with the responsibility of all to respect all other's freedom. Their is no constitutionally prescribed limit to the freedom they envisioned. The Second Amendment basically limits government, not the people. The freedom to keep and bear arms is implied by that limitation on government to be without prescription, not to be granted but naturally inherited. The only limitation on any such natural right is not against the freedom as practiced by a virtuous people, but, obviously, only limitations against the corrupt persons who don't respect natural and virtuous freedom, but abuse it to their own ends to deprive others of their unlimited right. Those who break that natural compact, obviously, are not part of it.

I would never, ever support a ban on handguns, hunting rifles, or things that can reasonably be argued are for personal self defense. When we start talking about things that I think that's a different conversation.

As I said in my previous reply to you, the end goal is the elimination of the Second Amendment (as well as the Constitution itself). Your comment here is a perfect example of denying what the amendment is about. As uncomfortable as it is to you, it is precisely about the people being able to defend themselves against government which would, no doubt, require weapons that you say 'bring the killing potential to military-level numbers".


I concede that any bans are a limitation on freedom, there's no way to deny that. But the pro-gun side is refusing to concede that bans can have any value whatsoever. I don't get that argument. If you want to claim that it's not worth giving up the tools of war to save a few lives, well I disagree with that, but at least it's intellectually honest. To say out loud that bans won't help? I mean, we know that some bans are essentially worthless, especially in reducing garden-variety gun crime in urban areas, where handguns are available everywhere, so it's very easy to acquire the tools to kill a person or two.

Mass-shootings are a completely different problem, requiring a completely different fix. The body count will be very much driven by the tools that are available, which is why the Vegas shooter didn't choose to open fire with the Marlin .22 that my Dad taught me to shoot with. If that was all he had available to him, he could not have possibly shot 600 people. It's not possible.

Mass shootings are, indeed, a different problem. They occur far, far, more rarely than "garden variety gun crime." And that garden variety accounts, overall for far, far greater numbers of deaths than mass shootings. And the garden variety types have had the opportunities to use the big bad weapons. But the shock of killing lots of people at one time stuns us into thinking that the "gun problem" is about the type of weapons used. If you're intellectually and objectively honest, you would realize that the hand gun, in terms of numbers killed (which seems to be your criteria), is far more responsible for numbers killed. So if we use that Socratic Method, and keep asking on how to fix the "problem" of numbers killed by guns, eventually we'll have to admit that hand guns should be banned to the public. What would be left of the Second Amendment after that would be . . . nothing.

I'm not saying we ban everything except the Marlin .22. I'm saying, at the very least, we need to be able to say out loud that if certain things were banned, it might make it harder to kill huge numbers of people in a short span of time. But we can't agree on that. So a conversation isn't possible.

If we can't agree on the purpose of the Second Amendment, then a conversation isn't possible. And when the emotional incidents compound, there will be enough of that so revered "consensus" to eliminate the Second Amendment.

And when emotion supercedes principle, law is at the mercy of emotion.

"Seat belt law does not ban anything"

Sure it does. Before these laws, many people chose not to wear their seal belts. These laws ban that choice. That's a thing. If people were choosing not to wear seat belts despite the danger, I presume they felt like they had a good reason to do so. Now it's illegal to make that choice.

OK. Let me fix the "thing" thing. "Seat belt law does not ban anything. It does not ban cars nor even superfast, super-powerful cars. It does not remove several ton trucks from the road. It doesn't require background checks. It doesn't restrict your right to own any of those. The greatest potential and actual reduction of vehicle deaths is safe, sane, drivers." Do you see the connection--seat belt law does not restrict the power of the automobile (whereas gun control laws do restrict the power of weapons). And vehicle death reduction is mostly due to sane, safe drivers, as is the safe, sane, case in gun deaths, the laws in each case notwithstanding.


"seat belt laws have no impact on your ability to defend yourself against tyranny."

The feds have nukes, stealth bombers, those cool bombs that destroy caves, rail guns, etc. So the only reason they aren't using those against me, is because I might have a couple of guns in a vault? That makes more sense, than I can make when I say that smart laws might save a few lives? Really?

The loss of constitutional protections has been incremental because that is the only way the character of a free people could be chipped away. Any federal military attack on the people of this country would obviously be the downfall of that government. Nor is it the Progressive intention to have a military war against the American people. The intention is to eliminate the hold the Constitution has on the governance of this country. That is done by philosophically and psychologically, and by regulation, invading, not the people, but their institutions. And that method began before our country had the weapons to which you refer. It has been very successful to this point, albeit, it has taken a long time. And the character of our people has dramatically changed vis a vis freedom, what it is, and how it is protected. The word is not often used, except by people who are now marginalized as kooks.

We do not have to fear government nukes, stealth bombers, etc., if we fear the loss of freedom. People will mobilize against such attacks, especially if they have weapons, not to speak of the military commanders who would turn on such a government. We have to fear the loss of the American character that jealously guarded against governmental intrusion against freedom. We have to fear (and I don't feel comfortable using that word--maybe concern would be better) the imprecise, mushy, emotional, language that influences us to, rather brainlessly, accept the notion that government gives us freedom and tells us what it is.

Mass immigration, BTW, not mass shootings, has been part of what I believe is the intended changing of the American character.

We are somehow mesmerized into believing that an all-powerful benevolent government is far more beneficial to us than the responsibility of being free. What on earth, and I mean that literally, gives us to believe that once limitations on government are erased government will always be benevolent. All the Constitution does is keep government in its proper place regarding individual freedom. It's what I referred to in another thread as freedom insurance. Things like the Second Amendment are parts of the insurance policy that helps to guaranty it. You like to say cars are different. They are necessary to our way of life. We can't overregulate their use even though their misuse causes more unconsented death than guns of any type in our country. And that it is wise of us to have automobile and health insurance, costly and imperfect as they may be, but a policy that may guard against some future tyranny--well that's a different argument because some mass shootings happen.

"the connection is so minute that it is shameful to try it"

I disagree. every night this week, I heard gun advocates claim that no gun control laws can effectively ban all attacks. They are saying, that because the laws aren't perfect, that they are worthless. I hear that every single night, all night long, from the right. It's one of the most common statements.

You said "In other words, they seem to be saying that unless a proposed gun law guarantees that there will be zero gun deaths, that there's no sense in enacting any laws."

That is an absurd, sophist, statement. You try to gloss over the nonsense about people saying that if zero gun deaths occur as a result of a law there's no sense in enacting any laws" with your notion that they "seem" to be saying that. Do you really hear that every night of the week--they are actually saying that? That's BS--of course, if it "seems" that way to you, I can't argue against what something seems to you.

"The balance between freedom and subjugation, if there is a balance, must weigh in favor of freedom if freedom is the object."

Limitless freedom isn't the object, we know this.

I have said on various threads, including this one, what is meant by freedom by the Founders in regards to natural rights and the Constitution. It is not license to trespass against anyone else's freedom. It comprises the virtue to understand and practice what freedom really is. License is not freedom. It depends on subjugating others to your will, not on respecting their freedom. It has to be mutually consented or it is tyranny.

The founders were specific on that, that they weren't designing an anarchy. Some limits on freedom are perfectly constitutional. There is a tradeoff between liberty and security.

Those are vague words. Could you flesh them out?

Cars cause a lot of deaths. I have never, not once, heard anyone call for a ban on cars. We aren't a society that wants to ban everything that's dangerous. Not even close.

What do cars have to do with it?

I don't see a big benefit to allowing things like bump stocks and high capacity magazines. I see a very big benefit, to a few less graves being dug during mass shootings (I am not talking about street crime).

OK. If bump stocks are not allowed to be made, then nobody can have what does not exist. Constitutional arguments can be made against such a ban, but my mind is too numbed by your all-over-the-place points. I think that's the way Progressives eventually get tough stuff passed. They wear you down to where you just give in to feed them a bone so they'll go away. Of course, feeding the bone just encourages them to even come after more.

OK. If bump stocks are not allow to be made, then nobody can have what does not exist. Constitution arguments can be made against such a ban, but my mind is too numbed by your all-over-the-place points. I think that's the way Progressives eventually get tough stuff passed. They wear you down to where you just give in to feed them a bone so they'll go away. Of course, feeding the bone just encourages even to come after more.

If you are trying to prove to me that seal belts and bump stocks are not the same thing, let me save you the trouble, I concede that they are not identical from a subatomic particle perspective. However, when the state of CT was considering seat belt laws, I heard the same exact arguments from people...this is tyranny, when does it stop, these are my rights, it's my choice blah blah blah. It was like a Mad Lib game (remember those?), you could remove "gun" and insert "seat belt". That law took away a degree of liberty, for the purpose of saving lives. In that regard, it's the same exact issue we are discussing here.

"my mind is too numbed by your all-over-the-place points."

I'm making one point. Just one, and that is this...Restrictions on our freedoms (be it the freedom to buy bump stocks or the freedom to not wear one's seat belt or the freedom to possess child pornography) are not always a bad thing. The Bill Of Rights was never, ever meant to be absolute. Freedom of speech was never meant to include threatening people or child pornography (which is a 'thing', right?) Freedom of religion doesn't include human sacrifice.

And as far as the 2nd Amendment goes, here is a rule from the University of VA rulebook of 1819..."“No student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or vinous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind…”

That rule was ratified by the school's board of directors, which included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Therefore, he Bill of Rights is not a catalogue of absolutes and it never was. We can have reasonable restrictions on the second amendment, and indeed the first amendment, without infringing upon our freedoms. I can't buy child pornography legally, but I can still say that Congress is full of jerks and write a letter criticizing the president (especially the last one) without fear of the gulag.

New world order?
How is the kool aid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Bruce has been sitting up nights watching Patrick Swaye in Red Dawn way to many times.

belts and bump stocks are not the same thing, let me save you the trouble, I concede that they are not identical from a subatomic particle perspective. However, when the state of CT was considering seat belt laws, I heard the same exact arguments from people...this is tyranny, when does it stop, these are my rights, it's my choice blah blah blah. It was like a Mad Lib game (remember those?), you could remove "gun" and insert "seat belt". That law took away a degree of liberty, for the purpose of saving lives. In that regard, it's the same exact issue we are discussing here.

No, it's not the same issue. And your blah blah arguments that you repeat over and over when they are based on emotion and "saving a few lives" are actually a lib game.

"my mind is too numbed by your all-over-the-place points."

I'm making one point. Just one, and that is this...Restrictions on our freedoms (be it the freedom to buy bump stocks or the freedom to not wear one's seat belt or the freedom to possess child pornography) are not always a bad thing. The Bill Of Rights was never, ever meant to be absolute. Freedom of speech was never meant to include threatening people or child pornography (which is a 'thing', right?) Freedom of religion doesn't include human sacrifice.

Restrictions are bad if they create legal precedents which can be used to expand the power to restrict. The mantra (blah blah) is always to save some lives.

And "freedom" of religion can only be free if it respects the freedom of all. If someone does not want to be sacrificed it would not be freedom to sacrifice her. In the Founders notion of "freedom" that which is not consented to is not freedom. Unconsented to sacrifice would obviously not be a freedom of religion, it would be an unconstitutional license.

Threatening people would be a coercion of sorts, not an act of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.

Child pornography would be subjugating children who are not capable of having mature, constitutional notions of their rights, of what participating in pornography could do to their growth, etc. It would not be an act of freedom.

Again, you must understand the Founder's idea of freedom in order to discuss it.

And as far as the 2nd Amendment goes, here is a rule from the University of VA rulebook of 1819..."“No student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or vinous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind…”

That rule was ratified by the school's board of directors, which included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Therefore, he Bill of Rights is not a catalogue of absolutes and it never was. We can have reasonable restrictions on the second amendment, and indeed the first amendment, without infringing upon our freedoms.

Schools (especially private ones as many were in the founding days) and localities can restrict such things. The federal government is far more limited by the Constitution.

I can't buy child pornography legally, but I can still say that Congress is full of jerks and write a letter criticizing the president without fear of the gulag.[/QUOTE]

And how can you insure that this will always be so?

belts and bump stocks are not the same thing, let me save you the trouble, I concede that they are not identical from a subatomic particle perspective. However, when the state of CT was considering seat belt laws, I heard the same exact arguments from people...this is tyranny, when does it stop, these are my rights, it's my choice blah blah blah. It was like a Mad Lib game (remember those?), you could remove "gun" and insert "seat belt". That law took away a degree of liberty, for the purpose of saving lives. In that regard, it's the same exact issue we are discussing here.

No, it's not the same issue. And your blah blah arguments that you repeat over and over when they are based on emotion and "saving a few lives" are actually a lib game.

"my mind is too numbed by your all-over-the-place points."

I'm making one point. Just one, and that is this...Restrictions on our freedoms (be it the freedom to buy bump stocks or the freedom to not wear one's seat belt or the freedom to possess child pornography) are not always a bad thing. The Bill Of Rights was never, ever meant to be absolute. Freedom of speech was never meant to include threatening people or child pornography (which is a 'thing', right?) Freedom of religion doesn't include human sacrifice.

Restrictions are bad if they create legal precedents which can be used to expand the power to restrict. The mantra (blah blah) is always to save some lives.

And "freedom" of religion can only be free if it respects the freedom of all. If someone does not want to be sacrificed it would not be freedom to sacrifice her. In the Founders notion of "freedom" that which is not consented to is not freedom. Unconsented to sacrifice would obviously not be a freedom of religion, it would be an unconstitutional license.

Threatening people would be a coercion of sorts, not an act of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.

Child pornography would be subjugating children who are not capable of having mature, constitutional notions of their rights, of what participating in pornography could do to their growth, etc. It would not be an act of freedom.

Again, you must understand the Founder's idea of freedom in order to discuss it.

And as far as the 2nd Amendment goes, here is a rule from the University of VA rulebook of 1819..."“No student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or vinous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind…”

That rule was ratified by the school's board of directors, which included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Therefore, he Bill of Rights is not a catalogue of absolutes and it never was. We can have reasonable restrictions on the second amendment, and indeed the first amendment, without infringing upon our freedoms.

Schools (especially private ones as many were in the founding days) and localities can restrict such things. The federal government is far more limited by the Constitution.

I can't buy child pornography legally, but I can still say that Congress is full of jerks and write a letter criticizing the president without fear of the gulag.

And how can you insure that this will always be so?[/QUOTE]

"No, it's not the same issue"

How is it not the same issue? If the issue is "sometimes it's OK to limit freedoms in the interest of saving lives" than what's the difference?

"Restrictions are bad if they create legal precedents which can be used to expand the power to restrict"

Can you name a single law that can't be potentially expanded? If expandability makes a law bad, then all laws are bad.

"how can you insure that this will always be so?"

I can't. What I can be sure of, is that bump stocks can be used to slaughter huge numbers of people in no time. So we can worry about hypotheticals (which sound like something that someone wearing a tin foil hat would say), or we can respond to things that actually happen.

[COLOR="Blue"]


If expandability makes a law bad, then all laws are bad.



ahhhh...the " theory of expandability"...now you've taken this thread to a whole new level.... from sub atomical partical perspective of course:spin:

And how can you insure that this will always be so?

"No, it's not the same issue"

How is it not the same issue? If the issue is "sometimes it's OK to limit freedoms in the interest of saving lives" than what's the difference?

You were comparing guns to seat belts. One is a Bill of Rights issue. The other isn't

"Restrictions are bad if they create legal precedents which can be used to expand the power to restrict"

Can you name a single law that can't be potentially expanded? If expandability makes a law bad, then all laws are bad.

In the instances where the Constitution enumerates a power given to the government, that power is unlimited. That power is absolutely expandable so long as it doesn't drift (expand) into areas not enumerated as governmental power or are constitutionally limited or denied to government. If laws fall in an area limited by the Constitution, they cannot expand outside of that constitutional scope. If laws are prohibited by the Constitution, they are bad laws.

If laws that are allowed by the Constitution can be "interpreted" in ways that facilitate the creation of laws which are actually limited or denied by the Constitution, those interpretations erode the Constitution and set precedents for further erosion and eventual destruction of the Constitution.

If laws such as seat belt law are used as interpretive examples that justify limiting specifically constitutionally guarantied rights (such as the Second Amendment) such interpretation erodes the Constitution.

Examples of laws that unconstitutionally limit freedom as a result of "interpreting" existing law ("good" or "bad" law) are way, way, too numerous to list, even to research and find. The federal regulatory agencies, for instance, and their thousands and thousands of regulations which all stem from an "interpretation" that the federal Congress has the power or right to delegate its authority of regulation to unelected agencies. Nowhere in the Constitution is there such a delegatory power granted to Congress. The Constitution specifically entrusts legislation to Congress itself, to the elected representatives of the people, not to unaccountable, unelected agencies, and worse, to agencies that have legislative, executive, and judicial power such as the federal regulatory agencies have. And all that has mushroomed from early precedents, especially under the FDR New Deal administration's creation of several of these agencies including, for example, agency actions that led to the freedom busting Supreme Court's expansion of the Commerce Clause.

The meaning of "commerce" was expanded from merely the trade of goods (as was defined during the founding era) to include the production or manufacture of them. And the original meaning of the clause's wording "among the several States," was defined as commerce occurring across State lines, and was mostly meant to prevent States from impeding commerce between them such as when States imposed tariffs on goods from other States. The regulation of purely intrastate commerce, (occurring within the State) was left to the States themselves.

That all was expanded to mean any trade, production, or manufacture which in the aggregate might have a "substantial effect" on [the expanded definition of] "commerce," and whether it occurs within a State or across State lines. Which, actually, affects in some way most human activity in our country. And that expanded interpretation has resulted in many important Court decisions which would not have been possible under the original meaning of the Commerce Clause and has, in itself, given the federal government an almost unlimited power to regulate most aspects of our lives if and when it chooses to do so. If we add to that other such interpretations of different parts of the Constitution along with the many thousands of regulations imposed on us by the hundreds of federal regulatory agencies, there isn't much, due to its expanded power, that the federal government can't regulate if it wants, and if it appoints enough Progressive judges to approve.


"how can you insure that this will always be so?"

I can't. What I can be sure of, is that bump stocks can be used to slaughter huge numbers of people in no time. So we can worry about hypotheticals (which sound like something that someone wearing a tin foil hat would say), or we can respond to things that actually happen.[/QUOTE]

Yes, what has actually happened, while we have been gradually conditioned to want the federal government to "do something" about every crisis and public emotional trauma, is that we have been encumbered by thousands of regulations, many of which most of us are unaware, which, in fact if not in total practice, has created a basically unlimited government waiting for enough crises to convince us that the latent total power it actually has garnered due to the erosion of constitutional limitations, must be implemented--to make our lives better and secure and free from emotional trauma, of course. And when that happens, there will no longer be a constitutional guaranty that the agenda of those in power can be prevented from doing things to us we don't like. When government has unlimited power and demonstrates its use of that power, history shows that such a government is ripe for the taking by some ego-maniacal, narcissistic, Stalin, Hitler, Caesar, Kim il whatever, or becomes one that imposes the worst of "democracy" in which collective groups rule over minorities, especially the minority of actual producers. In either case, the wealth and security of its citizens diminishes or is lost. But while things are still good, that seems unlikely. The slowly but gradually rising temperature of the water that baths them in good times is not noticed until it's too hot and too late to escape, or until its time for one of those persistent revolutions that human societies resort to when the rulers go too far. And yeah, they vote in dictatorships. The ballot as a last resort may not cut it.

Yeah, let's do the bump stock regulation. Hey, it wasn't as if there weren't mass shootings without its use. Hey, it's not as if those simple hand guns that we think are OK aren't used to kill way more people than bump stocks and semi-automatic weapons do. Oh, right, the really bad weapons kill more at once than the nice handguns do at once. No doubt, after we somehow eliminate public ownership of the heavy duty bad stuff and limit the people to acceptable hand guns, there will be no more cries demanding we do something about the overall larger gun violence that those handguns in the hands of bad guys wreak.

Yeah, right.

It ain't really, ultimately, about the danger of big guns vs. little ones. It's about transforming how we are governed. Guns, in the hands of common folks can get in the way of that transformation. Not necessarily, but possibly, if enough folks are of the mind to resist.

You can call it whatever you want, that doesn't make you correct. Spin statistics to make it look one sided. Life is about choices, not everyone chooses to be a gun owner. 3% choose to be armed and prepared for a tyrannical government and will resist a New World Order also. Your agenda does not compute. Common sense from statistics show gun control does not stop people from killing people.

statistics are what they are no spin needed ... but you think they are fake ! but you think 3% choose to be armed and prepared for a tyrannical government and will resist a New World Order also.

and you think I am the one wearing the Tin foil hat LOL

From the article:

Who here owns 17 Fishing Rods?

:hidin:


The super owners consisted of an estimated 7.7 million Americans and owned between eight and 140 guns each. Nearly half of gun owners owned just one or two guns.

Fishing rod that are stole are usually show up in used in Crimes unlike
300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.

and the Average thing doesn't change 3% own all the guns.

to be clear have has many guns as you want they all need to be registered and there should be a searchable data base, allow the CDC to study gun Violence , close the gun show loop hole . and stop the lie their coming for our Guns

I think Bruce has been sitting up nights watching Patrick Swaye in Red Dawn way to many times.

And too many people think Marx and Che are cool - those that do directly or indirectly support the deaths of 100s of millions

statistics are what they are no spin needed ... but you think they are fake ! but you think 3% choose to be armed and prepared for a tyrannical government and will resist a New World Order also.

and you think I am the one wearing the Tin foil hat LOL


From the article:
Despite steep declines in violent crimes, an estimated 70 million firearms were added to American arsenals the past two decades, according to a new landmark study on gun ownership.
In the last 20 years, Americans bought over 150 million cars. https://www.statista.com/statistics/199974/us-car-sales-since-1951/


Overall, Americans own an estimated 265 million guns – more than one gun for every American adult, according to the study by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. Half of those guns – 133 million – were in the hands of just 3% of American adults, so-called “super owners” who possessed an average of 17 guns each, it showed.

The super owners consisted of an estimated 7.7 million Americans and owned between eight and 140 guns each. Nearly half of gun owners owned just one or two guns.

Fishing rod that are stole are usually show up in used in Crimes unlike
300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.

and the Average thing doesn't change 3% own all the guns.

to be clear have has many guns as you want they all need to be registered and there should be a searchable data base, allow the CDC to study gun Violence ,

The point equating with fishing rods - I figured even you could not be biased enough to miss it from earlier in this thread - was that you have MANY different rods for different purposes if you are a fishing enthusiast, particularly if you do Fresh and Salt or any other modifiers such as bait, plug, or fly.


close the gun show loop hole . and stop the lie their coming for our Guns

The gun show loophole - you mean that dealers (in most states) have to be official and can't sell from Trunk? Or that in some states a relative can sell you a gun without a background check? BTW - not something you can do in RI or Mass IIRC.

As for coming for the guns, you mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4AcjyuV38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcWePEsg94

Or after Irma, USVI actually confiscated them?

Sad example: In UK, a comparable country to the USA in laws and Anglosphere, just a few hours ago someone intentionally ran through a crowd with their car, killing 7 and injuring others. Guns are incredibly restricted in the UK.

And too many people think Marx and Che are cool - those that do directly or indirectly support the deaths of 100s of millions




From the article:
Despite steep declines in violent crimes, an estimated 70 million firearms were added to American arsenals the past two decades, according to a new landmark study on gun ownership.
In the last 20 years, Americans bought over 150 million cars. https://www.statista.com/statistics/199974/us-car-sales-since-1951/


Overall, Americans own an estimated 265 million guns – more than one gun for every American adult, according to the study by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. Half of those guns – 133 million – were in the hands of just 3% of American adults, so-called “super owners” who possessed an average of 17 guns each, it showed.



The point equating with fishing rods - I figured even you could not be biased enough to miss it from earlier in this thread - was that you have MANY different rods for different purposes if you are a fishing enthusiast, particularly if you do Fresh and Salt or any other modifiers such as bait, plug, or fly.



The gun show loophole - you mean that dealers (in most states) have to be official and can't sell from Trunk? Or that in some states a relative can sell you a gun without a background check? BTW - not something you can do in RI or Mass IIRC.

As for coming for the guns, you mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4AcjyuV38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcWePEsg94

Or after Irma, USVI actually confiscated them?

I watched both videos. The video with Hillary speaking also linked other videos of her and others talking about banning guns. This one is of one of her delegates being taped by O'keefe of Project Veritas. Pretty straightforward admitting the desire to ban guns and how it must be lied about to the public with statements similar to "sensible gun legislation.":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nlhQafsx3o

Sad example: In UK, a comparable country to the USA in laws and Anglosphere, just a few hours ago someone intentionally ran through a crowd with their car, killing 7 and injuring others. Guns are incredibly restricted in the UK.


"Today's incident follows a series of vehicle attacks across Europe which have left well over 100 people dead in Britain, France, Germany and Stockholm."


those cars are really getting out of control...

Fishing rod that are stole are usually show up in used in Crimes unlike
300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.



Are those legally stolen guns? Maybe we should work on laws that restrict people from legally stealing guns. That legal theft loophole should be closed


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like it when people on the internet tell me what I think
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1129483]

It's very clear that the founders never meant for any of the freedoms expressed in the Bill Of Rights, to be limitless.

/QUOTE]

1.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

no- not any(ever)

2. 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.

infringe-so as to limit or undermine; encroach on.


I think your only argument might be through the 9th....

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

in other words...there are others not enumerated...but I don't think you can limit the enumerated rights because you think they may affect other rights that you perceive...meaning you can't infringe on your neighbors rights to keep and bear arms simply because they bother you.....contrary to what you wrote...you actually CAN yell fire in a crowded theater and you CAN drive without wearing a seat belt....those "choices" are not banned(a choice is not a "thing" it is a direction)...making those choices will cost you money or jail time...we ban things to take away the individuals ability to have a choice...to eliminate the choice to yell fire in a crowded theater you'd have to ban theaters.....you can't limit free speech(unless you are a leftist rent-a-mob) or infringe on the right to bear arms but you can impose various forms of punishment for choosing to use them in ways that affect the rights of others

I like it when people on the internet tell me what I think
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Especially after you tell them how to think. Enjoy your paranoia.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Especially after you tell them how to think. Enjoy your paranoia.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Show me where I did that Chris
I'm not paranoid but you are free the assume anything you want
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Especially after you tell them how to think. Enjoy your paranoia.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is not paranoia to understand that the Progressive, leftist, vision, philosophy, desire, is to create a world order, or you can drop the "a" and just call it a desire to create world order. But the "a" is significant. It denotes one order for world governance.

The League of Nations was a Progressive idea. But it wasn't "a" enough. So it transformed into the United Nations. Supposedly a more cohesive, centralized, and powerful unification rather than a league of disparate and conflicting interests.

Calling this attempt to create a world order "new" is probably a holdover from Bush Sr.'s referring to it that way. It is no longer new. But it is consistent with the 150 year old Progressive, leftist, ideal of governance being centralized and omnipotent. Actually that ideal is way older than that, being the way that larger, monarchical or dictatorial societies have always operated. So every Progressive solution to perceived, or depicted, problems, world or otherwise, is to impose some centralized top-down regulation. This ideal disparages notions of local or individual power (the "village" power that Hillary mouths, except her notion of village is the whole country, or the whole world).

And any "problem" or "crisis" is an event which the Progressive Left uses to convince us that a higher "controlling authority" (as Al Gore might call it) is needed. Gun "control" (actually, elimination) has always been a need of the Progressive Left, and of dictators and authoritarians of all stripes. Now there is even the Progressive push to impose U.N. regulation of guns. Even destructive climate patterns call for centralized regulation. I urge everyone to actually read past proposed climate accords. They are nominally about climate "control," but they accomplish that by a central world governance imposed on every nation and its economy. They are directives that direct national economies, technology patents, private rights, world taxation, to name a few things offhand.

None of that is to say it is "bad" or "good." Probably more people think it is good than those who think it is bad. But the dismissal of the drive for a world order, bad or good, is either being blind or ignorant.

Suit yourself, I am just not buying whatever it is you are selling. I don't think I am alone when I call it kooky, but I respect your right to be kooky.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Suit yourself, I am just not buying whatever it is you are selling. I don't think I am alone when I call it kooky, but I respect your right to be kooky.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks. I needed someone to encourage me to suit myself. You're suggestion (encouragement also?) that I am trying to sell my thoughts is also very generous of you. But I prefer, at this time, to give them gratis. I realize that is rather kooky in our selfish, materialistic, capitalistic, greedy U.S.of A. Or maybe I am not as giving as I allow myself credit for, and just don't want to admit that my expressions aren't good enough to sell. Probably not even good enough to give away. Probably too wordy and detailed with "verbal gymnastics" rather than effective verbal punches to the cerebral cortex. And I must admit that you are very good at such punching. The lack of detail and ratiocination in your replies is as good or better than some of Trump's best.

You are the master of the pissing match. I bow out to your superior ability.

I watched both videos. The video with Hillary speaking also linked other videos of her and others talking about banning guns. This one is of one of her delegates being taped by O'keefe of Project Veritas. Pretty straightforward admitting the desire to ban guns and how it must be lied about to the public with statements similar to "sensible gun legislation.":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nlhQafsx3o

I know right?
But I am the one wearing tin foil

Suit yourself and think what you want
I can only control what I can control, I will support people like Rand Paul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm fine with being considered kooky also as long as I am prepared(or paranoid as some think)

Good one detbuch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The News Paper of Record"

Repeal the Second Amendment
Bret Stephens
Bret Stephens OCT. 5, 2017

Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones.which amendment did we repeal to get same sex marriage?

Expansive interpretations of the right to bear arms will be the law of the land — until the “right” itself ceases to be. not sure how to interpret this

Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty.ummmm, yeah stupid...

Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people is a sensible goal, but due process is still owed to the potentially insane. I'm thinking pens and keyboards too


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html

ahhhh...the " theory of expandability"...now you've taken this thread to a whole new level.... from sub atomical partical perspective of course:spin:

Oh I agree, and that's why I didn't bring it up, detbuch did. He said we need to be wary of gun restrictions because the restrictions can be expanded. My point was that all laws can potentially be expanded. So expandability doesn't mean a law s bad.

"No, it's not the same issue"

How is it not the same issue? If the issue is "sometimes it's OK to limit freedoms in the interest of saving lives" than what's the difference?

You were comparing guns to seat belts. One is a Bill of Rights issue. The other isn't

"Restrictions are bad if they create legal precedents which can be used to expand the power to restrict"

Can you name a single law that can't be potentially expanded? If expandability makes a law bad, then all laws are bad.

In the instances where the Constitution enumerates a power given to the government, that power is unlimited. That power is absolutely expandable so long as it doesn't drift (expand) into areas not enumerated as governmental power or are constitutionally limited or denied to government. If laws fall in an area limited by the Constitution, they cannot expand outside of that constitutional scope. If laws are prohibited by the Constitution, they are bad laws.

If laws that are allowed by the Constitution can be "interpreted" in ways that facilitate the creation of laws which are actually limited or denied by the Constitution, those interpretations erode the Constitution and set precedents for further erosion and eventual destruction of the Constitution.

If laws such as seat belt law are used as interpretive examples that justify limiting specifically constitutionally guarantied rights (such as the Second Amendment) such interpretation erodes the Constitution.

Examples of laws that unconstitutionally limit freedom as a result of "interpreting" existing law ("good" or "bad" law) are way, way, too numerous to list, even to research and find. The federal regulatory agencies, for instance, and their thousands and thousands of regulations which all stem from an "interpretation" that the federal Congress has the power or right to delegate its authority of regulation to unelected agencies. Nowhere in the Constitution is there such a delegatory power granted to Congress. The Constitution specifically entrusts legislation to Congress itself, to the elected representatives of the people, not to unaccountable, unelected agencies, and worse, to agencies that have legislative, executive, and judicial power such as the federal regulatory agencies have. And all that has mushroomed from early precedents, especially under the FDR New Deal administration's creation of several of these agencies including, for example, agency actions that led to the freedom busting Supreme Court's expansion of the Commerce Clause.

The meaning of "commerce" was expanded from merely the trade of goods (as was defined during the founding era) to include the production or manufacture of them. And the original meaning of the clause's wording "among the several States," was defined as commerce occurring across State lines, and was mostly meant to prevent States from impeding commerce between them such as when States imposed tariffs on goods from other States. The regulation of purely intrastate commerce, (occurring within the State) was left to the States themselves.

That all was expanded to mean any trade, production, or manufacture which in the aggregate might have a "substantial effect" on [the expanded definition of] "commerce," and whether it occurs within a State or across State lines. Which, actually, affects in some way most human activity in our country. And that expanded interpretation has resulted in many important Court decisions which would not have been possible under the original meaning of the Commerce Clause and has, in itself, given the federal government an almost unlimited power to regulate most aspects of our lives if and when it chooses to do so. If we add to that other such interpretations of different parts of the Constitution along with the many thousands of regulations imposed on us by the hundreds of federal regulatory agencies, there isn't much, due to its expanded power, that the federal government can't regulate if it wants, and if it appoints enough Progressive judges to approve.


"how can you insure that this will always be so?"

I can't. What I can be sure of, is that bump stocks can be used to slaughter huge numbers of people in no time. So we can worry about hypotheticals (which sound like something that someone wearing a tin foil hat would say), or we can respond to things that actually happen.

Yes, what has actually happened, while we have been gradually conditioned to want the federal government to "do something" about every crisis and public emotional trauma, is that we have been encumbered by thousands of regulations, many of which most of us are unaware, which, in fact if not in total practice, has created a basically unlimited government waiting for enough crises to convince us that the latent total power it actually has garnered due to the erosion of constitutional limitations, must be implemented--to make our lives better and secure and free from emotional trauma, of course. And when that happens, there will no longer be a constitutional guaranty that the agenda of those in power can be prevented from doing things to us we don't like. When government has unlimited power and demonstrates its use of that power, history shows that such a government is ripe for the taking by some ego-maniacal, narcissistic, Stalin, Hitler, Caesar, Kim il whatever, or becomes one that imposes the worst of "democracy" in which collective groups rule over minorities, especially the minority of actual producers. In either case, the wealth and security of its citizens diminishes or is lost. But while things are still good, that seems unlikely. The slowly but gradually rising temperature of the water that baths them in good times is not noticed until it's too hot and too late to escape, or until its time for one of those persistent revolutions that human societies resort to when the rulers go too far. And yeah, they vote in dictatorships. The ballot as a last resort may not cut it.

Yeah, let's do the bump stock regulation. Hey, it wasn't as if there weren't mass shootings without its use. Hey, it's not as if those simple hand guns that we think are OK aren't used to kill way more people than bump stocks and semi-automatic weapons do. Oh, right, the really bad weapons kill more at once than the nice handguns do at once. No doubt, after we somehow eliminate public ownership of the heavy duty bad stuff and limit the people to acceptable hand guns, there will be no more cries demanding we do something about the overall larger gun violence that those handguns in the hands of bad guys wreak.

Yeah, right.

It ain't really, ultimately, about the danger of big guns vs. little ones. It's about transforming how we are governed. Guns, in the hands of common folks can get in the way of that transformation. Not necessarily, but possibly, if enough folks are of the mind to resist.[/QUOTE]

"You were comparing guns to seat belts. One is a Bill of Rights issue. The other isn't"

You seem to be cherry picking. But fine, let's stick to the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights is not absolute, and was never, ever intended to be. The First Amendment doesn't give me the right to threaten someone, nor to possess child pornography.

Child pornography, like firearms, is a tangible thing. And its existence has been banned, in the interest of public safety (same argument I am making here). There are extremist kooks out there who claim that laws banning child pornography, are a violation of the first amendment, since that amendment doesn't specify that kiddie porn is excluded. The people who want to legalize kiddie porn, are using the same exact argument and language you are using. There is zero difference. So if your argument supports the possession of bump stocks, why doesn't it support the right to possess kiddie porn?

My point was that all laws can potentially be expanded. So expandability doesn't mean a law s bad.

:spin:

:spin:

Scott it's historical fact that the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also wrote a rule saying that no guns were allowed on the University of Virginia campus. Therefore, the only conceivable conclusion, is that they never intended for the 2nd amendment to be absolute. They were literally the same guys.

All of our freedoms have restrictions. Only rarely do the extremists shriek that restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. Gun control always triggers those extremists remarks. Always.

The First Amendment doesn't give me the right to threaten someone, nor to possess child pornography. this is correct,
no where in the 1st Amendment does is state a right to possess or do these things :rtfm:

Child pornography, like firearms, is a tangible thing. And its existence has been banned, in the interest of public safety (same argument I am making here). There are extremist kooks out there who claim that laws banning child pornography, are a violation of the first amendment, since that amendment doesn't specify that kiddie porn is excluded. The people who want to legalize kiddie porn, are using the same exact argument and language you are using. There is zero difference. So if your argument supports the possession of bump stocks, why doesn't it support the right to possess kiddie porn?

I see what you are trying to do there....I'm really concerned about you....

All of our freedoms have responsibilities.

fixed it for you

The 1st amendment protects you for when you want to talk about kiddie porn, argue about kiddie porn and ask about kiddie porn. I’d imagine a freak like Scott could walk around Washington square and talk about it all day. He just can’t own or share physical examples of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fixed it for you

No, you didn't. The freedoms absolutely have restrictions, which I can be arrested for violating.

The 1st amendment protects you for when you want to talk about kiddie porn, argue about kiddie porn and ask about kiddie porn. I’d imagine a freak like Scott could walk around Washington square and talk about it all day. He just can’t own or share physical examples of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right, you can talk about it, fantasize about it...but you cannot possess it, nor can an artist create it and say it's protected free speech. Because the freedoms are not absolute, they were never intended to be, nor have they ever been.

.

I see what you are trying to do there....I'm really concerned about you....

If you are concerned, then you don't know what I am doing, probably because I am not articulating it well.

If it's unconstitutional to impose restrictions to the second amendment for the sake of public safety, why is it considered not unconstitutional to impose restrictions to other amendments for the sake of public safety? That's all I'm asking, and neither you nor detbuch (two guys I deeply respect and agree with 95% of the time) have come close to answering that. I don't think you can, because I don't think there is a conceivable retort to that.

We can disagree about where to draw the lines, to be sure. But that's not what the pro-gun folks usually argue. They always use the same tired arguments (slight exaggeration for effect)::

I need my guns to protect against a tyrannical government (because Seal Team Six might seize my home if I didn't have a deer hunting rifle in my basement)

Banning bump stocks would not be a 100% guarantee that there would be zero gun crime in the future, therefore we shouldn't do anything, because only perfect laws are worth ratifying.

If we let the feds ban bump stocks today, we go down a slippery slope where tomorrow if I criticize Trump, I will be put into a gulag. Because today, apparently, there are zero restrictions on anything I might do, so this would be the very first time in the history of the USA that the feds have ever said "no" to me.

I feel like I'm talking to people who are trying to defend slavery. That's how hard it is for me to believe that otherwise rational and logical people, can be so...I don't know... extremist? thoughtless? Unsympathetic to the victims? I have very close friends who agree with you and detbuch, these are guys of high intelligence and very solid moral character. I just can't fathom their position on this issue.

I think a painter can paint nude children and not be arrested for it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

between you and Eben the nonsense is epic :kewl:

between you and Eben the nonsense is epic :kewl:

That’s our job
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you are concerned, then you don't know what I am doing, probably because I am not articulating it well.



you act as there are no gun laws and no 'restrictions' currently exist

I've repeatedly agreed that bumps stocks should go away...I think you just like saying "bump stock"

thoughtless, extremist slavery/child pornography defenders...that's an all time low


I feel like I'm talking to Nancy Pelosi :uhuh:

you act as there are no gun laws and no 'restrictions' currently exist

I've repeatedly agreed that bumps stocks should go away...I think you just like saying "bump stock"

thoughtless, extremist slavery/child pornography defenders...that's an all time low


I feel like I'm talking to Nancy Pelosi :uhuh:

You can fantasize about Pelosi. You just can’t own one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You can fantasize about Pelosi. You just can’t own one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotflmao:

[QUOTE=scottw;1129673]:rotflmao:[/QUOTE

I’m in love

https://goo.gl/images/ExV5jp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you act as there are no gun laws and no 'restrictions' currently exist

I've repeatedly agreed that bumps stocks should go away...I think you just like saying "bump stock"

thoughtless, extremist slavery/child pornography defenders...that's an all time low


I feel like I'm talking to Nancy Pelosi :uhuh:

I feel like I'm talking to a liberal too. You are claiming I am saying things, that bear no resemblance to anything I have ever said.

"you act as there are no gun laws"

In what way am I acting as if there are no laws? Of course there are laws. In my opinion, they can be improved. In fact, I am very confident they can be improve din a way which (1) saves a few lives (but doesn't eliminate 100% of gun violence, obviously), and (2) doesn't trample on the intent of the second amendment. That's all I am saying. I'm not saying the earth is flat...

I feel like I'm talking to a liberal too. You are claiming I am saying things, that bear no resemblance to anything I have ever said.

"you act as there are no gun laws"

If it's unconstitutional to impose restrictions to the second amendment for the sake of public safety, why is it considered not unconstitutional to impose restrictions to other amendments for the sake of public safety?


In what way am I acting as if there are no laws? Of course there are laws. In my opinion, they can be improved. In fact, I am very confident they can be improve din a way which (1) saves a few lives (but doesn't eliminate 100% of gun violence, obviously), and (2) doesn't trample on the intent of the second amendment. That's all I am saying. I'm not saying the earth is flat...

:kewl you seem upset that I'm not a hysterical as you

I agreed with regard to bump stocks....limit the number of guns?...he had a bunch but only used "two" I believe

restrictions "to the second amendment" can not stop people from doing evil acts...just as "restrictions to the 1st"...cannot stop someone from yelling fire in a theater(talk about tired arguments)

that is why Rights come with Responsibilities...not restrictions.....restrictions are a joke to someone lacking responsibility....restrictions mainly restrict those that are already responsible

Freedom is exercising your inalienable Rights with Responsibility....I think socialism might be exercising the rights they allow you *with restrictions

you have yet to offer any "restrictions" that would have prevented the shooting in Vegas...

can you identify a few restrictions to other amendments for the sake of public safety? I'm just curious

I'm fine with being considered kooky also as long as I am prepared(or paranoid as some think)

Good one detbuch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Bring that prep work into your bomb shelter which is stocked with canned goods and respirators. It probably doubles as a place to hide from twisters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bring that prep work into your bomb shelter which is stocked with canned goods and respirators. It probably doubles as a place to hide from twisters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One man’s survivalist shelter is another man’s snow flake’s safe space. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scott it's historical fact that the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also wrote a rule saying that no guns were allowed on the University of Virginia campus. Therefore, the only conceivable conclusion, is that they never intended for the 2nd amendment to be absolute. They were literally the same guys.

No, that is not the only conclusion. Property rights were of paramount importance to Jefferson and Madison, as well as the other Founders. Ownership of property would include the right to not permit guns, or most anything else in any domicile or place of business. Ownership by a group, consortium, governing body of a private institution, could ban most anything from their physical space.

The minutes of the University Board of Visitors which contain the ban you refer to were not directly, or indirectly attributed to Jefferson or Madison. They did not, as you say, write the rules. They attended the meeting, and may well not have objected to the ban, but they certainly would not have said that the board could not make the ban. The ban included all sorts of things that could lead to "riotous" behavior including alcohol.

The ban did nothing to curb the absolute right to own guns. Nor the right to how many. Jefferson owned many guns. And he recommended carrying a gun with you. But no freedom in the Bill of Rights allows you to trespass someone else's constitutional rights. Obviously, there is no constitutional right to bear arms or anything else, including yourself, into a private home whose owner forbids it. Again, freedom, as understood by the Founders, is only such when it does not destroy someone else' freedom. It must be mutual among all parties. Under such freedom, you cannot impose your property on someone else's property.


All of our freedoms have restrictions.

An expressed freedom cannot be restricted. Restriction denies freedom. Denied freedom is obviously not freedom. If there is something that needs to be restricted, it would not be included in the expressed freedom in the first place. If you later want to exclude a portion of freedom, it would be necessary to re-express what that freedom is, that is you would have to amend it. Otherwise, that freedom is uncertain, always open to "interpretation," so will be a tool to actually deny freedom in the name of freedom. Or in the name of something else.

Only rarely do the extremists shriek that restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. Gun control always triggers those extremists remarks. Always.

You sound very extreme with your "never", "only", "always", and "all". You also seem to be shrieking. You're also not making a lot of sense. What is it with the rarely shrieking that restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. The Constitution is inherently loaded with restrictions. The enumerated powers of the federal government restricts it from everything (the vast residuum of rights left to the people that Madison spoke of) except the rights expressly given to it. The Bill of Rights further sets in stone some specifically expressed restrictions on the government. The vast restrictions on government are necessarily constitutional, not unconstitutional.

The restrictions on the people can be imposed by the federal government if it is within the scope of its enumerated powers. I don't find such an enumeration for gun control.

Of course, there are mass shootings, and garden variety criminal shootings, and suicides, and family squabbles, and accidents. And those hurt the psyche of the population. And even though there is no enumeration that empowers the federal government to attend to the emotional disturbance of the people, it is deemed to be, by the emotionally stricken shriekers, the only venue that can prevent or make smaller such disturbance. As well, it is the go to authority, in spite of no empowering enumeration, to ameliorate hunger, poverty, gender dysfunction, physical health, mental health, education, employment, all commerce in every facet of it . . . well . . . just about anything it puts its mind to.

Why on earth do we bother having all these other levels of government, and religious, charitable, and private, associations, and community organizations, and educational institutions as well as private think tanks and philosophical societies trying to tend to human problems?

The federal government could pretty well fix everything.

Bring that prep work into your bomb shelter which is stocked with canned goods and respirators. It probably doubles as a place to hide from twisters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't afford that luxury, I'm too busy paying taxes and insurance so others can leach off our government and sit around all day raking in the free bucks wondering how they are going to spend it and how they can take more from the suckers that are America.

I will take responsibility for myself like more able bodied Americans can do, thank you very much

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SY

a fabulous free speech debate....could not stop listening

https://livestream.com/accounts/7106882/events/7748290/videos/163491464

I can't afford that luxury, I'm too busy paying taxes and insurance so others can leach off our government and sit around all day raking in the free bucks wondering how they are going to spend it and how they can take more from the suckers that are America.

I will take responsibility for myself like more able bodied Americans can do, thank you very much

Pat Robertson has taught you well Bruce. Are you still hanging with the John Birch society as well?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never listened to Pat Robertson in my life so assume what you want , as long as there is a constitution, it is your right to do that, it doesn't make your opinion right, just different than mine. We can have a real conversation about it some day Chris.
Who is John Birch?
You don't have to answer because I don't really care.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:can you identify a few restrictions to other amendments for the sake of public safety? I'm just curious

Really?

Freedom of speech - can't threaten someone, can't yell "fire" in a theater, can't possess or create kiddie porn.

Freedom of religion - no human sacrifices, no mutilating women's genitalia

2nd amendment - all kinds of things you can't buy

We agree that what happened is horrible, and we both hope it never happens again. we can leave it at that.

You sound very extreme with your "never", "only", "always", and "all". You also seem to be shrieking. You're also not making a lot of sense. What is it with the rarely shrieking that restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. The Constitution is inherently loaded with restrictions. The enumerated powers of the federal government restricts it from everything (the vast residuum of rights left to the people that Madison spoke of) except the rights expressly given to it. The Bill of Rights further sets in stone some specifically expressed restrictions on the government. The vast restrictions on government are necessarily constitutional, not unconstitutional.

The restrictions on the people can be imposed by the federal government if it is within the scope of its enumerated powers. I don't find such an enumeration for gun control.

Of course, there are mass shootings, and garden variety criminal shootings, and suicides, and family squabbles, and accidents. And those hurt the psyche of the population. And even though there is no enumeration that empowers the federal government to attend to the emotional disturbance of the people, it is deemed to be, by the emotionally stricken shriekers, the only venue that can prevent or make smaller such disturbance. As well, it is the go to authority, in spite of no empowering enumeration, to ameliorate hunger, poverty, gender dysfunction, physical health, mental health, education, employment, all commerce in every facet of it . . . well . . . just about anything it puts its mind to.

Why on earth do we bother having all these other levels of government, and religious, charitable, and private, associations, and community organizations, and educational institutions as well as private think tanks and philosophical societies trying to tend to human problems?

The federal government could pretty well fix everything.

The 2nd amendment says that right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. The same guys who wrote that, drafted a rule that banned guns on campus. Therefore, they very clearly did not mean that the amendment was absolute. Because they themselves, passed a rule limiting the right to bear arms. If they were fine limiting the right to bear, by what logic would you assume they were not OK with limiting the right to "keep"?

"I don't find such an enumeration for gun control."

Then you'd be OK with someone buying a nuke?

Never listened to Pat Robertson in my life so assume what you want , as long as there is a constitution, it is your right to do that, it doesn't make your opinion right, just different than mine. We can have a real conversation about it some day Chris.
Who is John Birch?
You don't have to answer because I don't really care.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Just giving examples of folks who share your values Bruce. Educate yourself and become enlightened by doing a search. Surely if a Rand Paul has your attention then you owe it to yourself to become familiar with like minded groups.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The 2nd amendment says that right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. The same guys who wrote that, drafted a rule that banned guns on campus. Therefore, they very clearly did not mean that the amendment was absolute. Because they themselves, passed a rule limiting the right to bear arms.

he explained this very clearly, I have no idea how you missed it

Really?

Freedom of speech - can't threaten someone, can't yell "fire" in a theater, can't possess or create kiddie porn.

Freedom of religion - no human sacrifices, no mutilating women's genitalia

2nd amendment - all kinds of things you can't buy



really?

every example you listed speech/religion would be an infringement on rights of others which is how you lose your rights and freedom


tell me how "all kinds of things you can't buy" infringes on the rights of others?

The 2nd amendment says that right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. The same guys who wrote that, drafted a rule that banned guns on campus. Therefore, they very clearly did not mean that the amendment was absolute. Because they themselves, passed a rule limiting the right to bear arms. If they were fine limiting the right to bear, by what logic would you assume they were not OK with limiting the right to "keep"?

"I don't find such an enumeration for gun control."

Then you'd be OK with someone buying a nuke?

Jim.. the little loophole you are fixating on says nothing about the students not beating able to own weapons. They just can’t bring them to campus. They could store them at an outside residence, their family homestead or at a local armory, etc for safe keeping.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

really?

every example you listed speech/religion would be an infringement on rights of others which is how you lose your rights and freedom


tell me how "all kinds of things you can't buy" infringes on the rights of others?

Like you, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone...

You asked for examples of restrictions of our freedoms. You didn't qualify your request. I answered the question that you asked.

"tell me how "all kinds of things you can't buy" infringes on the rights of others"

Our country has limited the types of weapons you can buy, for a long long time. We impose these limitations on ourselves, for the sake of public safety. You already know this, so I can't fathom why you are asking the things you are asking.

You say (repeatedly) that you are in favor of banning bump stocks, then you seem to be making the argument that we shouldn't be banning anything...you are the one who is all over the place.

Scott and Detbuch...there are all kinds of restrictions on our freedoms (our freedoms to do certain things, to say certain things, to possess certain things) that are imposed for the sake of public safety. Only an anarchist would state that we don't need any restrictions, or a staunch libertarian I suppose...

In the wake of some high profile mass murders, I happen to believe that public safety could be improved, with some additional restrictions.

If neither of you thinks that a billionaire should be able to buy a nuke on Amazon, then you both agree we need these restrictions. We just disagree on where to draw the line.

This has been surreal.

You sound very extreme with your "never", "only", "always", and "all". You also seem to be shrieking. You're also not making a lot of sense. What is it with the rarely shrieking that restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. The Constitution is inherently loaded with restrictions. The enumerated powers of the federal government restricts it from everything (the vast residuum of rights left to the people that Madison spoke of) except the rights expressly given to it. The Bill of Rights further sets in stone some specifically expressed restrictions on the government. The vast restrictions on government are necessarily constitutional, not unconstitutional.

The restrictions on the people can be imposed by the federal government if it is within the scope of its enumerated powers. I don't find such an enumeration for gun control.

Of course, there are mass shootings, and garden variety criminal shootings, and suicides, and family squabbles, and accidents. And those hurt the psyche of the population. And even though there is no enumeration that empowers the federal government to attend to the emotional disturbance of the people, it is deemed to be, by the emotionally stricken shriekers, the only venue that can prevent or make smaller such disturbance. As well, it is the go to authority, in spite of no empowering enumeration, to ameliorate hunger, poverty, gender dysfunction, physical health, mental health, education, employment, all commerce in every facet of it . . . well . . . just about anything it puts its mind to.

Why on earth do we bother having all these other levels of government, and religious, charitable, and private, associations, and community organizations, and educational institutions as well as private think tanks and philosophical societies trying to tend to human problems?

The federal government could pretty well fix everything.

"Jefferson owned many guns. And he recommended carrying a gun with you"

Not on a college campus, he didn't. Therefore, he was OK with certain restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, in the interest of broader public safety.

Jeez...

Anyone want to comment on anyone else's height?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like you, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone...I don't

You asked for examples of restrictions of our freedoms. You didn't qualify your request. I answered the question that you asked.I'll give it to you, you came up with some real winners, i wasn't expecting mutilating genetalia

"tell me how "all kinds of things you can't buy" infringes on the rights of others"

Our country has limited the types of weapons you can buy, for a long long time. We impose these limitations on ourselves, for the sake of public safety. sounds like we don't trust ourselves You already know this, so I can't fathom why you are asking the things you are asking. you can't seem to answer the things without resorting to the ridiculous

You say (repeatedly) that you are in favor of banning bump stocks, then you seem to be making the argument that we shouldn't be banning anything...you are the one who is all over the place. I agreed because if you can't have automatic weapons, which is currently the case, I don't think modifying semi- automatic weapon to be nearly automatic is cool, whether I think citizens ought to be allowed to own automatic weapons is another matter... I'd actually like to just ban the words "bump stock"

Scott and Detbuch...there are all kinds of restrictions on our freedoms (our freedoms to do certain things, to say certain things, to possess certain things) that are imposed for the sake of public safety. Only an anarchist would state that we don't need any restrictions, or a staunch libertarian I suppose...

In the wake of some high profile mass murders, I happen to believe that public safety could be improved, with some additional restrictions. you still haven't been very clear as to how, the only way to stop high profile mass murders with guns as well as low profile murders with guns(there are a lot more of these) is to take away guns, if you say you want to ban bump stock to reduce the number injured you are really shortchanging those who would still be hurt ...don't you care about ALL of the victims?...do you only want to "possibly" reduce the suffering and injury? if that guy couldn't get a bump stock he still had a lot of weapons and time

If neither of you thinks that a billionaire should be able to buy a nuke on Amazon, then you both agree we need these restrictions. We just disagree on where to draw the line. this is dumb

This has been surreal.

you should listen to or watch the free speech debate I posted, you will recognize many similar arguments and sentiments

"Jefferson owned many guns. And he recommended carrying a gun with you"

Not on a college campus, he didn't. Therefore, he was OK with certain restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, in the interest of broader public safety.

Jeez...

I answered this in post #208 of this thread. Constitutional law cannot conflict with its purpose. Personal, private property rights are understood to be protected from encroachment by other laws unless such encroachment is specifically granted in the constitution. People have the right to restrict guns being carried on their property. The right to bear arms, or anything else, including yourself, on someone else's property can be restricted by the owner. This can be said about speech, religion, or other rights in The Bill of Rights. Your example does not imply some vague, unspecified right of government to restrict the right to bear arms.

I might also add that broader public safety was constitutionally meant to be a local and state issue, not a federal one.

And the federal government already has accomplished unlimited power for itself by expanding its scope beyond its enumerated limitations (as in the example in post 188 which responded to your questioning how expanding laws could make bad law). Broadening its scope of power outside of its enumerated powers, as in giving it the ability to regulate the country's public safety, would certainly give it even more of what little power is left for it to take. And, given that its established enumerated power is already considered limitless, imagine what regulatory claims it can have on all facets of society if it can add to that the ability to find a safety issue concerning any constitutional right.

Your method of using various peripheral laws, especially those that are mostly state issues, as examples which can be used as precedents for similar federal expansion of its other powers or to give it powers it doesn't already have, can eventually make the Constitution irrelevant. It is actually a Progressive model which pretty much does that.

Really?

Freedom of speech - can't threaten someone, can't yell "fire" in a theater, can't possess or create kiddie porn.

This yelling "fire" in a crowded theater thing was a bit of a weak example by Justice Holmes. It is more of a property right thing than a First Amendment issue. You don't have a free speech right to yell anything in a theater, whether it's crowded or not. The owner of the theater can restrict yelling or can allow it.

However Holmes' actual wording was "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater". Falsley shouting anything dangerous and false, Holmes concluded, is not protected free speech. Shouting something false but not dangerous is protected speech in general but, again, the owner of the theater can ban shouting of any kind in his theater. Holmes' statement might be construed to be an infringement of speech, except it really is not a speech issue as much as it is a freedom issue. That is, freedom has to be mutual. All parties must respect each other's freedom. Directly and intentionally risking the life of someone hearing you, against his will, is not an act of freedom but of license. It is not free speech, but dangerously coercive speech.

And kiddie porn depicting actual children would be infringing their rights. The other kinds, the government may have overstepped.

Freedom of religion - no human sacrifices, no mutilating women's genitalia

The Declaration of Independence is considered to be the reason for the Constitution. The Constitution is considered to be the political/governmental fulfillment of the Declaration's goal. So the Declaration is considered a legal reference. In so much as human sacrifice denies the Declaration's unalienable right to life, religion may freely practice its many other rituals, but, as with most anything else, it cannot kill you. This is not merely a restriction of religion and meant to impede freedom of religion, it is a restriction of most human actions and endeavors which deny unalienable, protected rights. I suppose, the same could be said about the mutilation thing, except if it is consented to (and the consenter is not a minor or one who does not yet have the rational capacity to oppose the mutilation) I would think it would be the right of the consenter to have it.

2nd amendment - all kinds of things you can't buy

Again, you want to expand the federal government's ability to infringe the expressed rights in the bill of rights because of powers it may have regarding non expressed rights or government rights that actually fall within some of its constitutionally enumerated powers. If government can do that, what can it not do? You would make a soundly Progressive Judge. Interpret to satisfy your notion of social justice, or to decide by emotion rather than law.

We agree that what happened is horrible, and we both hope it never happens again. we can leave it at that.

That's nice . . . but leaving it at that . . . and all the rest above that, leaves the Constitution hanging in the balance.

One final thing, Jim. you said "I feel like I'm talking to people who are trying to defend slavery. That's how hard it is for me to believe that otherwise rational and logical people, can be so...I don't know... extremist? thoughtless? Unsympathetic to the victims? I have very close friends who agree with you and detbuch, these are guys of high intelligence and very solid moral character. I just can't fathom their position on this issue."

I can fathom your position on this issue. But it seems absurd, to me. Being sympathetic to victims of mass shootings to the point of demanding some, yet undefined law to add to or replace those that have not prevented the tragedies with which you sympathise, yet not demanding more laws that are supposed to diminish hand gun deaths which vastly outnumber semi-automatic gun deaths just because more are killed at once with the latter.

It seems just a trifle cold-blooded to not get worked up to the point of demanding more gun control of handguns just because only one or two are killed at a time.

And it seems illogical to me that you would not think that the end game is to ban hand guns as well. It has even been stated by leftists that that's the goal. And that every gun control restriction that can be imposed on the law-abiding gun owners is one step further toward the goal. And that the immediate and vociferous calls for more control after every mass shooting is meant to ultimately create an emotional environment in which the majority of the people will finally give in to the leftists ultimate demands.

Just giving examples of folks who share your values Bruce. Educate yourself and become enlightened by doing a search. Surely if a Rand Paul has your attention then you owe it to yourself to become familiar with like minded groups.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

An awful lot of people share those views: we are taxed too much, the Government is too big, more people need to work harder for their share. When did those become radical ideas? How dare someone try to prevent the Socialist Organization to Protect the Brotherhood of the Workers Party Unite you Running Lacky Dogs.

Pulling Robertson and JBS is a bit of a stretch.


Anyone want to comment on anyone else's height?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope but IQ is fair game :laugha:

Robertson is the author of New World Order. A conspiracy on par with Roswell. Tin foilers unite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One final thing, Jim. you said "I feel like I'm talking to people who are trying to defend slavery. That's how hard it is for me to believe that otherwise rational and logical people, can be so...I don't know... extremist? thoughtless? Unsympathetic to the victims? I have very close friends who agree with you and detbuch, these are guys of high intelligence and very solid moral character. I just can't fathom their position on this issue."

I can fathom your position on this issue. But it seems absurd, to me. Being sympathetic to victims of mass shootings to the point of demanding some, yet undefined law to add to or replace those that have not prevented the tragedies with which you sympathise, yet not demanding more laws that are supposed to diminish hand gun deaths which vastly outnumber semi-automatic gun deaths just because more are killed at once with the latter.

It seems just a trifle cold-blooded to not get worked up to the point of demanding more gun control of handguns just because only one or two are killed at a time.

And it seems illogical to me that you would not think that the end game is to ban hand guns as well. It has even been stated by leftists that that's the goal. And that every gun control restriction that can be imposed on the law-abiding gun owners is one step further toward the goal. And that the immediate and vociferous calls for more control after every mass shooting is meant to ultimately create an emotional environment in which the majority of the people will finally give in to the leftists ultimate demands.

"not demanding more laws that are supposed to diminish hand gun deaths "

Of course I recognize that many more Americans are killed in garden-variety gun crime, where handguns are used. I am a huge advocate of discussing any and all policies which might serve to help this plague. But this is a very different problem than the rare (not rare enough) mass shootings. I for one, think it's possible to want to talk about solutions for mass shootings, and to support policies that reduce 'normal' handgun crime, at the same time. It's not one or the other. Caring about one issue, does not preclude me from caring about the other.,

"It seems just a trifle cold-blooded to not get worked up to the point of demanding more gun control of handguns just because only one or two are killed at a time."

Again, wanting to make it harder for mass shootings to occur, doesn't mean I'm not concerned (even more concerned) about handgun crime. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

"illogical to me that you would not think that the end game is to ban hand guns as well."

Maybe that's some people's end game, but I don't think it's many people's end game. The other extreme, is that there are zero restrictions, in which case you'd be more comfortable if George Soros could buy a nuke on Amazon.

OK. So here are your arguments (not just you arguments, but what everyone on your side, is saying) against any proposals that are designed to make it harder to carry out mass shootings:

(1) I need my bump stocks and high capacity magazines in case the US military wages war against me (because that will allow me to stand up to Delta Force soldiers and Seal Team 6)

(2) if we ban things like bump stocks and high capacity magazines, that's not a 100% guarantee that there will be zero mass shootings in the future, so unless the law is 100% perfect, it's not worth pursuing. Because unless you can save all lives, saving "some" lives is not a worthy goal.

(3) if you take away things like bump stocks and magazines, we are irrevocably down the slippery slope whereby the feds will take my handgun and put me in a concentration camp. It's not possible to ban some things, without going to the extreme of banning everything. Moderation is not possible.

(4) it's inappropriate to try and prevent mass shootings, because there are bigger problems in the world right now, and talking about addressing mass shootings, necessarily means that you don't care about people who die in other ways.

I was talking about this issue with some conservative friends of mine last night, all of them regurgitating slight variations of one of the above arguments. There is no talking to my friends on this subject, they just put their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen. It's like talking to Sandra Fluke about abortion.

So here are your arguments (not just you arguments, but what everyone on your side, is saying) against any proposals that are designed to make it harder to carry out mass shootings:

(1) I need my bump stocks and high capacity magazines in case the US military wages war against me (because that will allow me to stand up to Delta Force soldiers and Seal Team 6)
[/B]
No, I don't think the military, at this time, would war against me. At this time, I believe, or maybe foolishly hope, that our military commanders know that the federal military should not be used against U.S. citizens, especially on U.S. soil. It has been postulated that a President could order U.S. military strikes on US soil only in extraordinary circumstances. Citizens disagreeing with an administration is not an extraordinary circumstance. At least, not at this time.

(2) if we ban things like bump stocks and high capacity magazines, that's not a 100% guarantee that there will be zero mass shootings in the future, so unless the law is 100% perfect, it's not worth pursuing. Because unless you can save all lives, saving "some" lives is not a worthy goal.

No, it is not about numbers for me. It's about freedom. Those who destroy others freedom are the enemy. They are not free nor believe or support freedom. They depend on the victimization of others.

(3) if you take away things like bump stocks and magazines, we are irrevocably down the slippery slope whereby the feds will take my handgun and put me in a concentration camp. It's not possible to ban some things, without going to the extreme of banning everything. Moderation is not possible.

Moderation is a fine thing. It is especially good when applied to personal tendencies. It is not so fine in applying law. Law is definitive. Moderating what is defined blurs the delineation and leads to its dissolution. "Interpreting" law in moderate, fuzzy, indeterminate ways, is a sure way to use it as a means to achieve the opposite of what the law was meant to enforce. Or to make it a tool for whatever the interpreter prefers.

And there can be no end to moderation except extinction. What one has moderated can be further moderated, until it no longer exists. That is what can happen to law when it is moderated.

Laws can be amended, or removed, by consent of the governed, in a free society. Such changes must be defined.

(4) it's inappropriate to try and prevent mass shootings, because there are bigger problems in the world right now, and talking about addressing mass shootings, necessarily means that you don't care about people who die in other ways.

Never said any of that. Free speech, which I hope does not get moderated out of existence, is a wonderful, and historically rare, gift.

I was talking about this issue with some conservative friends of mine last night, all of them regurgitating slight variations of one of the above arguments. There is no talking to my friends on this subject, they just put their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen. It's like talking to Sandra Fluke about abortion.

I've listened to your arguments. They seem, to me, to be based on your emotional reactions to events, and a lack of trust in a free people's owning lethal things, especially things that can quickly kill in large numbers. Because some, who are not truly free but possessed by a need for power over others or are mentally deranged, will misuse lethal weapons, all others, who are free of such dangers and believe in and respect the freedom of others must be "moderated" in their desire to own various weapons.

You, and those on "your side", say we don't "need" such things. The "need" argument should not be used in order to restrict freedom. Being reduced to "need" leaves little to be free of and free about. And to further your arguments of need, utility, and danger, you, and "your side," bring in notions of buying nuclear weapons, or tanks, or other behemoth weapons . . . just in case, I guess, that could actually happen. Do you know of anyone who "needs" or even wants such things? Or how it is even possible to legally buy them? Do you "need" moderation of law so badly that you use such examples?

Even it were possible to buy ultra destructive weapons in times of peace, what about another possibility. You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) But if it's possible for common folks in a modern democracy to buy weapons of mass destruction and then use them to kill huge populations, presumably for fun, or madness, or power, why is it not possible for a modern, democratic government, which can interpret and moderate existing law into means of restricting freedom, to also use its weapons to consolidate power in order to totally mandate what freedom is or isn't. If you wish to restrict the vast majority of common citizens in their right to arms for what you consider a noble purpose, how do you restrict a government from using its power, for supposedly benevolent purposes, over the people whom it is supposed to serve?

You want a "reasonable" moderation of law in order to save some lives. What is a reasonable moderation of government power over ALL the people? Is the power of the people to resist tyrannical government reasonable? What reasonable law gives the people such power to resist tyrannical force? Hand guns and limited magazines? What is the people's power if it is possible, by moderation of law, to limit the people's ability to defend themselves against government force?

Do you say that Democracy is the people's ultimate power? The power to vote? The last and most important resort? (They do vote in dictatorships.) Democracy is rule by the majority. Essentially, in its most negative state, it is mob rule. If the mob is cultivated by the government, educationally, financially, morally, philosophically, politically--as Progressive ideology strives to do--and has persuaded the majority that the ruler's "reasonable" fairness, largesse, and control, is right and just, the power of the vote is sealed into the hands of government. The vote is bought and paid for by that government and sustained by its propaganda of mass justice. "Freedom" in that instance becomes a word, if still even used, to mean what that government says it means. And, what Progressives mean by that word is what they prescribe. And the freedoms they promise, in order to keep the people happy, are government provided "freedoms" FROM such things as want or emotional or physical suffering. They are not freedoms OF something individuals inherently possess . . . and which the government cannot abridge or deny. By "interpreting," thus changing, the word into meaning what Progressives want it to mean, freedom, no longer exists unless they say it does.

If such a state of affairs has already been achieved, it may well be too late for those who believe in the ultimate value of individual rights to resist a benevolent despotism. The only recourse is the inevitable financial collapse of such a society. Which could lead to another revolution to return to a classically liberal one, or for society to further collapse into recent forms of harsher tyranny, or even ancient ones that could last for thousands of years.

Isn't absolute adherence to the Constitution, not a moderate interpretation of it, a means to resist such a collapse?

And isn't the actual purpose of the Second Amendment one of the expressed points in the Constitution meant to give the people the power to resist tyranny? If the people cannot be trusted to support the actual freedom the Constitution gives them because some very few of them might use their freedom to kill others, then the Constitution should, indeed, be a useless relic.

But can they, on the whole, if they understand what freedom really is, be trusted not to misuse the power given to them for defense against tyranny? If they can, so informed, be trusted, what is the danger of the Second Amendment in its actual meaning and intent? Why must it be submitted to the process of moderation, which will become incessant until the Amendment is erased?

I think your other suggestion of returning to moral and other values would greatly limit the abuse of the Second Amendment, as well as the abuse of the Constitution as a whole. We should actually educate our citizens, beginning in childhood, on the real meaning of freedom, why it is necessary for the fulfillment of wonderful notions that are used to despair it such as fairness, equality, and justice. It would help to teach them the value of economics and how economy can work to reign in not only their personal financial destruction, but to reign in government spending into fiscal unsustainability. It would help to teach them in depth the reasoning of and final drafting of the Constitution, how and why it protects real freedom, and the dangers of interpreting it on personal emotions and notions of social justice. And much more teaching of various values that create a successful society of free individuals.

But, in my opinion, avoiding that path because it is deemed too difficult, or because those who teach don't believe any of it anyway, and instead keep tinkering on meanings of words, changing history, marginalizing the Constitution, and embracing government as the answer rather than personal responsibility, furthers the path to tyranny with the constant little "moderations" of law instead of teaching and instilling liberty and right living.

I've listened to your arguments. They seem, to me, to be based on your emotional reactions to events, and a lack of trust in a free people's owning lethal things, especially things that can quickly kill in large numbers. Because some, who are not truly free but possessed by a need for power over others or are mentally deranged, will misuse lethal weapons, all others, who are free of such dangers and believe in and respect the freedom of others must be "moderated" in their desire to own various weapons.

You, and those on "your side", say we don't "need" such things. The "need" argument should not be used in order to restrict freedom. Being reduced to "need" leaves little to be free of and free about. And to further your arguments of need, utility, and danger, you, and "your side," bring in notions of buying nuclear weapons, or tanks, or other behemoth weapons . . . just in case, I guess, that could actually happen. Do you know of anyone who "needs" or even wants such things? Or how it is even possible to legally buy them? Do you "need" moderation of law so badly that you use such examples?

Even it were possible to buy ultra destructive weapons in times of peace, what about another possibility. You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) But if it's possible for common folks in a modern democracy to buy weapons of mass destruction and then use them to kill huge populations, presumably for fun, or madness, or power, why is it not possible for a modern, democratic government, which can interpret and moderate existing law into means of restricting freedom, to also use its weapons to consolidate power in order to totally mandate what freedom is or isn't. If you wish to restrict the vast majority of common citizens in their right to arms for what you consider a noble purpose, how do you restrict a government from using its power, for supposedly benevolent purposes, over the people whom it is supposed to serve?

You want a "reasonable" moderation of law in order to save some lives. What is a reasonable moderation of government power over ALL the people? Is the power of the people to resist tyrannical government reasonable? What reasonable law gives the people such power to resist tyrannical force? Hand guns and limited magazines? What is the people's power if it is possible, by moderation of law, to limit the people's ability to defend themselves against government force?

Do you say that Democracy is the people's ultimate power? The power to vote? The last and most important resort? (They do vote in dictatorships.) Democracy is rule by the majority. Essentially, in its most negative state, it is mob rule. If the mob is cultivated by the government, educationally, financially, morally, philosophically, politically--as Progressive ideology strives to do--and has persuaded the majority that the ruler's "reasonable" fairness, largesse, and control, is right and just, the power of the vote is sealed into the hands of government. The vote is bought and paid for by that government and sustained by its propaganda of mass justice. "Freedom" in that instance becomes a word, if still even used, to mean what that government says it means. And, what Progressives mean by that word is what they prescribe. And the freedoms they promise, in order to keep the people happy, are government provided "freedoms" FROM such things as want or emotional or physical suffering. They are not freedoms OF something individuals inherently possess . . . and which the government cannot abridge or deny. By "interpreting," thus changing, the word into meaning what Progressives want it to mean, freedom, no longer exists unless they say it does.

If such a state of affairs has already been achieved, it may well be too late for those who believe in the ultimate value of individual rights to resist a benevolent despotism. The only recourse is the inevitable financial collapse of such a society. Which could lead to another revolution to return to a classically liberal one, or for society to further collapse into recent forms of harsher tyranny, or even ancient ones that could last for thousands of years.

Isn't absolute adherence to the Constitution, not a moderate interpretation of it, a means to resist such a collapse?

And isn't the actual purpose of the Second Amendment one of the expressed points in the Constitution meant to give the people the power to resist tyranny? If the people cannot be trusted to support the actual freedom the Constitution gives them because some very few of them might use their freedom to kill others, then the Constitution should, indeed, be a useless relic.

But can they, on the whole, if they understand what freedom really is, be trusted not to misuse the power given to them for defense against tyranny? If they can, so informed, be trusted, what is the danger of the Second Amendment in its actual meaning and intent? Why must it be submitted to the process of moderation, which will become incessant until the Amendment is erased?

I think your other suggestion of returning to moral and other values would greatly limit the abuse of the Second Amendment, as well as the abuse of the Constitution as a whole. We should actually educate our citizens, beginning in childhood, on the real meaning of freedom, why it is necessary for the fulfillment of wonderful notions that are used to despair it such as fairness, equality, and justice. It would help to teach them the value of economics and how economy can work to reign in not only their personal financial destruction, but to reign in government spending into fiscal unsustainability. It would help to teach them in depth the reasoning of and final drafting of the Constitution, how and why it protects real freedom, and the dangers of interpreting it on personal emotions and notions of social justice. And much more teaching of various values that create a successful society of free individuals.

But, in my opinion, avoiding that path because it is deemed too difficult, or because those who teach don't believe any of it anyway, and instead keep tinkering on meanings of words, changing history, marginalizing the Constitution, and embracing government as the answer rather than personal responsibility, furthers the path to tyranny with the constant little "moderations" of law instead of teaching and instilling liberty and right living.

"I've listened to your arguments. They seem, to me, to be based on your emotional reactions to events"

Guilty as charged.

"a lack of trust in a free people's owning lethal things, especially things that can quickly kill in large numbers"

My lack of trust isn't entirely a figment of my imagination, is it? There are perfectly innocent people in the ground, some of whom I feel would be alive today, if such things were banned. I would lose no sleep if you had such things, or if my Dad had such things. But there are small number of very sick people out there.

"Because some, who are not truly free but possessed by a need for power over others or are mentally deranged, will misuse lethal weapons, all others, who are free of such dangers and believe in and respect the freedom of others must be "moderated" in their desire to own various weapons. "

Correct. The same logic applies to speed limits. Some drivers are capable of driving 100 mph and never doing any damage. But some can't. We recognize that, and ratified laws to forcibly moderate all drivers, even those who aren't a danger to others.

It has been generally accepted in our history, that the second amendment isn't absolute or limitless. Not many people would support the idea of a citizen being able to buy a stealth bomber or a rail gun or a nuke. The founding fathers were onboard with the notion of limiting the rights of all of us to bring guns on the campus of the University Of Virginia. Which tells me, that they never intended the "right to keep and bear arms" to be without limits.

"You, and those on "your side", say we don't "need" such things. "

Correct.

"Being reduced to "need" leaves little to be free of and free about. '

I disagree, and think you argument here is flawed. No one is suggesting that we ban everything that isn't necessary. I am suggesting we talk about banning things that (1) are not necessary, AND (2) can be used, as intended, to kill large numbers of citizens, in a small amount of time. You left out that second condition of what I would consider banning, and it's an important distinction.

"(whatever your or my "side" is)"

"My" side are those that would consider banning a small number of items in the name of public safety, "your" side, on this issue, are those who refuse. And I think you are more than smart enough to have already known that.

"You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) "

In this country, I'm not that worried. And I fit happened, I fail to see how owning bump stocks can protect you from a newly-totalitarian government that can launch a Hellfire missile through my bedroom window from 1,000 miles away, and choose whether it impacts my side of the bed or my wife's side. There's a better chance that a weapons stockpile in my closet, will keep me safe from zombies, than it will from the US military. If I lived in Nicaragua, I might feel differently.

"If you wish to restrict the vast majority of common citizens in their right to arms"

I am confident that the data shows that the overwhelming majority of citizens have exactly zero interest in gun stocks and high capacity magazines. And as I have said, I feel their "right" to own such things, is a matter of opinion, rather than a constitutional certainty.

"Is the power of the people to resist tyrannical government reasonable?"

Yes. And in our country, the courts (and the constitution) give us all kinds of protection against tyranny. A couple of rifles in my basement, provide very little protection against tyranny. The feds can kill us all if they wanted, and there would be precious little we can do about it, armed or unarmed. If you want to convince me that I'm safer from tyranny if I get my Dad's Marlin .22 and keep it under my bed, well, that makes exactly zero sense to me.

"Democracy is rule by the majority. Essentially, in its most negative state, it is mob rule"

Correct. Which is why we don't have that, we have a Republic, which is restricted by the Constitution.

I want to discuss banning the weapons of war. I am not going to be persuaded against having that conversation, because of your elegantly-worded fears that it would lead to cultural, economic, historical ruin of our nation.

Every criminal law on the books, restricts the choices that we can make. In my opinion, it would be a good idea to increase the restrictions, or further decrease liberty if that's how you prefer to frame it, if even one life can be saved, and very little (in my opinion, obviously many disagree) is given up in return.

We can probably put this to bed, until the next one.

Imagine the heads that explode when the gun store owner refuses to sell a gun to a gay man or woman over “religious beliefs”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I've listened to your arguments. They seem, to me, to be based on your emotional reactions to events"

Guilty as charged.

"a lack of trust in a free people's owning lethal things, especially things that can quickly kill in large numbers"

My lack of trust isn't entirely a figment of my imagination, is it?

I said "trust in a free people". I have said over and over what I mean by freedom as opposed to license. I suggest that the figment of your imagination isn't free people. Rather it is your lack of trust in those who are not free. Who do not respect the freedom of others, and are slaves to their sick desire of having the power to determine the life or death of others.

There are perfectly innocent people in the ground, some of whom I feel would be alive today, if such things were banned.

There are millions more in the ground, or were cremated, or were disposed of in various ways who were not able to defend themselves from their own government or from sick, armed, criminals. It would be wonderful if the world population decided to produce no more firearms or WMDs. Then we could go back to killing each other with swords, spears, arrows, clubs, either in war or peace. Mass killings would be less likely in that way. Things were better and safer then in the days when such were the weapons of choice. Notwithstanding that ancient battles often resulted in thousands or tens of thousands of death.

No, actually, things were not better then. Something else happened to make things better. Not perfect, as you say, but better--even though worse weapons have been produced and used. Maybe, in some way, because they were produced. Unfortunately, a worldwide ban on the production of guns is not yet feasible. It could begin if all governments would disarm. That's not likely soon, or ever. But armed governments ruling disarmed citizens has led to various tyrannies in history. And we have, on one hand, a chance that it might work here, but an equal, or more likely chance that it won't.

The thing that happened which made things better for the masses was their empowerment to control the governing process. If we give that process back to the rulers, as Progressives would have us do, they would have to be the angels that Madison said humans are not. I agree with Madison. And the progressive march to disarm us does not help us to maintain control of the governing process. Not at this time.

I would lose no sleep if you had such things, or if my Dad had such things. But there are small number of very sick people out there.

Yet the private property rights of the massive majority of those you can trust to own what is explicitly, constitutionally, protected against regulation, must be judged and restricted because of that small number of very sick people.

"Because some, who are not truly free but possessed by a need for power over others or are mentally deranged, will misuse lethal weapons, all others, who are free of such dangers and believe in and respect the freedom of others must be "moderated" in their desire to own various weapons. "

Correct. The same logic applies to speed limits. Some drivers are capable of driving 100 mph and never doing any damage. But some can't. We recognize that, and ratified laws to forcibly moderate all drivers, even those who aren't a danger to others.

Speeding on public roads is not constitutionally protected. Nor does it help us to control the governing process.

It has been generally accepted in our history, that the second amendment isn't absolute or limitless.

Being generally accepted is not a mark of being right or good. What is generally accepted does not even remain the same, decade to decade, or to weeks, or to days, or to hours.

The Second Amendment is not only an expressed right, not to be abridged, to own arms, it also involves a natural right to own a property. Natural rights are considered absolute, and the Second Amendment removes that particular property even further from being restricted. You can't be more absolute than that.

Now, if you want to terminate an absolute right, first begin with emotional arguments regarding extreme events. After succeeding by using that to gain some smaller victory for restriction, then chip away with appeals to fear over less extreme events which, none-the-less cause emotional distress. All the while preaching that some law, or anything else for that matter, is not absolute, not limitless, and never has been. Back that claim up with not quite parallel arguments or examples, often even with totally false parallels, and keep appealing to emotions and fears. Over time, when enough people, especially in educational, media, and political (usually party policy) places come over to your way of thinking, you can begin to marginalize your opponents, as kooks, crazies, conspiracists, extremists, or heartless, mindless supporters of stupidity and cruelty.

Not many people would support the idea of a citizen being able to buy a stealth bomber or a rail gun or a nuke.

Good one. I forgot to mention using the tactic of positing extreme hypotheticals that are improbable.

The founding fathers were onboard with the notion of limiting the rights of all of us to bring guns on the campus of the University Of Virginia. Which tells me, that they never intended the "right to keep and bear arms" to be without limits.

Sigh . . . let me try to put it in another way which might break its way into your consciousness. Probably not, but worth the discussion.

The Constitution cannot contradict itself. Its various parts work in concord. Each part is a simple microcosm regarding the expansive domain of its subject. It would be impossible, if not futile, to express every microscopic detail of intent and effect, every legalistic keyhole, and every connection to every part of the whole document. And yet it must not contradict itself.

For example, if the Constitution guarantees the right to own and bear something, and it also guarantees the right to own property, it may appear to contradict the right to bear arms, for instance, in a place whose owner bans arms from his property. It appears that, indeed, there is a limitation on bearing arms. Well . . . no, there is no contradiction. If one considers the Constitution as a whole, then it is obvious that the right to bear arms as expressed in the Second Amendment does not include your right to carry on the property of someone who does not wish you to do so. The Constitution frames the right to bear arms within the context of the whole, within the congruence of all rights and restrictions that the document grants or denies. There is no limitation on the right to bear arms in the context of the whole Constitution. It is obvious that the expressed right, if it is congruent with the right to own property, that the right to carry does not apply to violating property rights, or any other rights in the Constitution. The right to own arms is not affected or abridged by your Virginia University example. And the right to carry is not abridged by that example. The right to carry on the property whose owner bans guns there was never included, due to Constitutional congruence, in the Second Amendment.

"You, and those on "your side", say we don't "need" such things. "

Correct.

"Being reduced to "need" leaves little to be free of and free about. '

I disagree, and think you argument here is flawed. No one is suggesting that we ban everything that isn't necessary. I am suggesting we talk about banning things that (1) are not necessary, AND (2) can be used, as intended, to kill large numbers of citizens, in a small amount of time. You left out that second condition of what I would consider banning, and it's an important distinction.

Where does the federal government get the power to ban things that are not necessary? You do realize that getting the foot in the door of one type of "unnecessary" creates the precedent for banning another type. If you have paid attention to how the Supreme Court has worked to change constitutional meaning you would have seen that such method of "interpretation" has been used. The ACA is one powerful current example of using bad precedent on taxation to restrict our right in another area, health care and our right not to buy insurance and to impose draconian rules on insurance companies. And that now gives precedent, if and when the government chooses, to restrict our right not to buy anything else it wants to force us to buy.

That is a mighty power indeed. Wow . . . I'm overwhelmed by the havoc that could be wreaked, personally and economically, if government began banning "unnecessary things.

And I did not leave out the second condition of what you consider banning. I stated it in this very post to which you are responding.

And the talk about banning has been going on for a long time. The notion that we haven't had, or have not even started to have, a conversation on gun control is ridiculous. Instead of talking about not talking, how about just stating what you think can be done. About things that have been done which haven't stopped mass shootings. The worst in our history just occurred in spite of all that has been done. Several things have been suggested which most agree would not stop the shootings. There is no ban on coming up with a solution. Go for it.

"(whatever your or my "side" is)"

"My" side are those that would consider banning a small number of items in the name of public safety, "your" side, on this issue, are those who refuse. And I think you are more than smart enough to have already known that.

It sounds as if there is a discussion, but a lack of agreement. It looks like you believe that "your side" is smarter and "my side" must agree with you.

"You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) "

In this country, I'm not that worried. And I fit happened, I fail to see how owning bump stocks can protect you from a newly-totalitarian government that can launch a Hellfire missile through my bedroom window from 1,000 miles away, and choose whether it impacts my side of the bed or my wife's side. There's a better chance that a weapons stockpile in my closet, will keep me safe from zombies, than it will from the US military. If I lived in Nicaragua, I might feel differently.

You colorfully fleshed out what I said. Thank you. But your kooky characterization is beside the point. The point of the Second Amendment (and the Constitution as a whole) is to dissuade the federal government from ever getting to that position. And if it ever arrived the war would not be as simple as you portray it. There would be those in the military who would prefer to launch hellfire missiles in the other direction. There would be those who would be willing to disperse weapons to as many civilians as was possible. If the majority of people were armed, and willing to fight, it would be difficult for the military remaining on the tyrannical side to defeat them. And there would not be enough hellfire missiles and fighter planes, etc. to wipe out a determined populace. That is the intention of the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

But if the people are not armed. And if enough of them are dependent on the government, and have been conditioned by media and schools, then, like the British with the Tories, the patriots would have a difficult time, no doubt. We are probably at such a point now where there is not enough conviction, or even belief, in constitutional principles to fight for them. And the dependence on government has gotten so large that numbers are in its favor. So the Second Amendment, what is left of it, is just one piece of resistance. The battle now is for peacefully, democratically, retaining what is left of the founding freedoms and to restore them before we quietly allow the fundamental transformation to become the law (indeterminate as it will be) of the land.

That is a conversation some, many, are not willing, interested in, or capable of having.

"If you wish to restrict the vast majority of common citizens in their right to arms"

I am confident that the data shows that the overwhelming majority of citizens have exactly zero interest in gun stocks and high capacity magazines. And as I have said, I feel their "right" to own such things, is a matter of opinion, rather than a constitutional certainty.

The overwhelming majority of citizens have exactly zero interest in many things. That doesn't discount the interest of the small number who are interested. Nor does lack of interest in something make that thing wrong. Should there be a consensus of what are the things we have a right to own? What is your version of a constitutional certainty other than and if all rights are limited?

"Is the power of the people to resist tyrannical government reasonable?"

Yes. And in our country, the courts (and the constitution) give us all kinds of protection against tyranny. A couple of rifles in my basement, provide very little protection against tyranny. The feds can kill us all if they wanted, and there would be precious little we can do about it, armed or unarmed. If you want to convince me that I'm safer from tyranny if I get my Dad's Marlin .22 and keep it under my bed, well, that makes exactly zero sense to me.

If all constitutional rights are limited and can be "interpreted" as needing further restrictions, what are all these kinds of protection against tyranny that the courts and Constitution give us? You have not seen court decisions that restrict freedoms? Have you seen an end to the plethora of federal restrictions, or have you seen the continuation, compounding, and expanding of various restrictions? Has the Progressive drive to restrict and transform stopped at some midway point, or does it continue to "improve" its restrictions with even more? Do you see a trajectory, as Spence might put it, in the direction of totally changing or eliminating that which is initially restricted with seemingly, as you say, very little given up in return?

"Democracy is rule by the majority. Essentially, in its most negative state, it is mob rule"

Correct. Which is why we don't have that, we have a Republic, which is restricted by the Constitution.

The republic is not restricted by the Constitution. The republican form of government is guaranteed against becoming a democracy or a dictatorship of any kind. The Constitution, as originally composed, restricts the federal government from transforming us from a republic into a centralized form of all powerful government. As it is progressively and incrementally being "interpreted," rather than restricting the federal government from becoming omnipotent, it encourages it in that direction. Trump, if nothing else, needs to be able to nominate originalist textualists who get appointed to the court. That's another fragile protection available, if realized, to reverse the Progressive direction.


I want to discuss banning the weapons of war. I am not going to be persuaded against having that conversation, because of your elegantly-worded fears that it would lead to cultural, economic, historical ruin of our nation.

If I were to persuade you against having a conversation, I wouldn't be having this conversation. Somehow, it is you that is expressing some fear, or discomfort of this conversation. I don't fear that your conversation would lead to what you say I fear. Why do you imply, again, that no-one wants to discuss your opinions, that you should shut up? Do you prefer that I shut up?

Every criminal law on the books, restricts the choices that we can make. In my opinion, it would be a good idea to increase the restrictions, or further decrease liberty if that's how you prefer to frame it, if even one life can be saved, and very little (in my opinion, obviously many disagree) is given up in return.

We can probably put this to bed, until the next one.

Criminal law and Constitutional law are different things. Among other differences, the main one is that criminal law limits the people, and constitutional law limits the government, especially the federal government. And you do it again. You use one type of law as a transferrable example of how to impose another type. There is no confluence between criminal law and constitutional law. You cannot rightly use criminal law as a precedent for constitutional law.

Robertson is the author of New World Order. A conspiracy on par with Roswell. Tin foilers unite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


And it has been quoted and stamped on by many others before, after, and unrelated to that crank Robertson

Jim quote = "You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) "

In this country, I'm not that worried. And I fit happened, I fail to see how owning bump stocks can protect you from a newly-totalitarian government that can launch a Hellfire missile through my bedroom window from 1,000 miles away, and choose whether it impacts my side of the bed or my wife's side. There's a better chance that a weapons stockpile in my closet, will keep me safe from zombies, than it will from the US military. If I lived in Nicaragua, I might feel differently.



detbuch quote = You colorfully fleshed out what I said. Thank you. But your kooky characterization is beside the point. The point of the Second Amendment (and the Constitution as a whole) is to dissuade the federal government from ever getting to that position. And if it ever arrived the war would not be as simple as you portray it. There would be those in the military who would prefer to launch hellfire missiles in the other direction. There would be those who would be willing to disperse weapons to as many civilians as was possible. If the majority of people were armed, and willing to fight, it would be difficult for the military remaining on the tyrannical side to defeat them. And there would not be enough hellfire missiles and fighter planes, etc. to wipe out a determined populace. That is the intention of the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

But if the people are not armed. And if enough of them are dependent on the government, and have been conditioned by media and schools, then, like the British with the Tories, the patriots would have a difficult time, no doubt. We are probably at such a point now where there is not enough conviction, or even belief, in constitutional principles to fight for them. And the dependence on government has gotten so large that numbers are in its favor. So the Second Amendment, what is left of it, is just one piece of resistance. The battle now is for peacefully, democratically, retaining what is left of the founding freedoms and to restore them before we quietly allow the fundamental transformation to become the law (indeterminate as it will be) of the land.

That is a conversation some, many, are not willing, interested in, or capable of having.



-----------------------------

Jim, they are picking away little by little until they reach their goal, can't you see that? I say there are enough laws already, the tyranny in this state I live in is appalling, it is telling that they can get a law passed thru the house in a week when it is a panic reactionary law about guns, yet they waffle on any number of bills that would help as a positive impact if they just looked at the real problem.

The 2nd amendment says that right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. The same guys who wrote that, drafted a rule that banned guns on campus. Therefore, they very clearly did not mean that the amendment was absolute. Because they themselves, passed a rule limiting the right to bear arms. If they were fine limiting the right to bear, by what logic would you assume they were not OK with limiting the right to "keep"?

I would argue that Jefferson would never link the right secured by the federal 2nd Amendment with the arms restriction enforced on the grounds of the University of Virginia.

Why? The 2nd Amendment had no force upon state or local gun laws.

The argument that University of Virginia's weapons ban means Jefferson and Madison felt weapon bans were agreeable with the 2nd Amendment, is only extending the author's constitutional ignorance onto Madison and Jefferson.

We see the same disingenuous argument used by gun control supporters in reference to concealed weapon bans. Those statements only utter half of the doctrine; they proclaim loudly:

BANS ON CONCEALED WEAPONS WERE NEVER CONSIDERED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

But they never state the simple, unremarkable reason; the 2nd Amendment was not enforceable on state or local law.

.

Criminal law and Constitutional law are different things. Among other differences, the main one is that criminal law limits the people, and constitutional law limits the government, especially the federal government.

Nurturing that mingling of criminal with constitutional law is a prime directive of the progressive agenda.

Criminalizing the simple exercising of protected activity and the possession and use of protected property is a daily endeavor.

The mutation and reforming of language is another; the redefining of what a "right" is has been ongoing for 75 years.

Today, social, cultural and economic rights which have no presence in, or legitimacy under, the COTUSA, enjoy a higher status than the original, fundamental retained rights recognized and secured in the Bill of Rights.

I've enjoyed your posts in this thread.

The argument that University of Virginia's weapons ban means Jefferson and Madison felt weapon bans were agreeable with the 2nd Amendment, is only extending the author's constitutional ignorance onto Madison and Jefferson.

We see the same disingenuous argument used by gun control supporters in reference to concealed weapon bans. Those statements only utter half of the doctrine; they proclaim loudly:

BANS ON CONCEALED WEAPONS WERE NEVER CONSIDERED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

[/I].

.

I guess I'm not sure I follow you.

Some of the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also crafted the ban at the university. Which necessarily means, the founding fathers did not intend for the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, to be absolute. Some limitations were considered in keeping with the amendment. Same thing with all of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, those rights are not without limit.

I guess I'm not sure I follow you.

Some of the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also crafted the ban at the university. Which necessarily means, the founding fathers did not intend for the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, to be absolute. Some limitations were considered in keeping with the amendment. Same thing with all of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, those rights are not without limit.
I don't think this is really that complicated. The 2nd Amendment was written in context of a militia...period. After the Civil War the NRA was founded not because of individual liberties but because Union generals were disgusted with poor marksmanship skills. It really wasn't until the 1960s/70s and Civil Rights movement that the NRA got political seeking to get attention for the Second Amendment as the rest of the Bill of Rights was being pushed by a more progressive agenda.

I don't think this is really that complicated. The 2nd Amendment was written in context of a militia...period. After the Civil War the NRA was founded not because of individual liberties but because Union generals were disgusted with poor marksmanship skills. It really wasn't until the 1960s/70s and Civil Rights movement that the NRA got political seeking to get attention for the Second Amendment as the rest of the Bill of Rights was being pushed by a more progressive agenda.

As you so eloquently put it, what a crock.

I guess I'm not sure I follow you.

Some of the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also crafted the ban at the university. Which necessarily means, the founding fathers did not intend for the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, to be absolute. Some limitations were considered in keeping with the amendment. Same thing with all of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, those rights are not without limit.

Jim, at the time that the university ban was crafted, it was understood that the second amendment restricted only the federal government. As ReelinRod said "The 2nd Amendment had no force upon state or local gun laws." Which "necessarily means," as you put it, that the Second Amendment was absolute vis a vis the federal government, not for the States. Therefor Jefferson and Madison would not have objected to the university ban, but they would have objected to a federal government ban. That is a huge difference. What is being called for by present day gun controllers are federal bans.

Since Madison's and Jefferson's time, the federal government has snuck its foot into state territory and is now having some say in the matter. That's why I avoided the States Rights issue and explained the matter in terms of Constitutional congruity. But I see now, as is your wont to do, when you refuse to accept something, that's the end of the discussion for you.

Jim, at the time that the university ban was crafted, it was understood that the second amendment restricted only the federal government. As ReelinRod said "The 2nd Amendment had no force upon state or local gun laws." Which "necessarily means," as you put it, that the Second Amendment was absolute vis a vis the federal government, not for the States. Therefor Jefferson and Madison would not have objected to the university ban, but they would have objected to a federal government ban. That is a huge difference. What is being called for by present day gun controllers are federal bans.

Since Madison's and Jefferson's time, the federal government has snuck its foot into state territory and is now having some say in the matter. That's why I avoided the States Rights issue and explained the matter in terms of Constitutional congruity. But I see now, as is your wont to do, when you refuse to accept something, that's the end of the discussion for you.

So what the two of you seem to be saying, is that at the time the Bill Of Rights was crafted, it only limited what the feds could do? The United States Constitution did not apply to the states? States were free to violate the constitution as they saw fit? I majored in math, not history, but that doesn't sound right at all. You're saying a state could pass a law banning Christianity, and the United States Constitution would not have trumped that state law?

"when you refuse to accept something, that's the end of the discussion for you"

Not so. I asked a question for the specific purpose of continuing the conversation. The supremacy clause is in the original draft of the constitution, I think, Article 6. It says pretty clearly that the US Constitution is the law of the land, "and that "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."

That suggests to me, that the state of VA was prohibited from passing any laws which didn't comply with the Constitution. The fathers thereby agreed that the campus ban, was not a violation of that amendment.

We don't need to argue over the second amendment as a litmus test for the constitutionality of limits on protected freedoms. The freedom of speech does not include threatening or child pornography. There are therefore limits to the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional. That's all I am saying.

Jim, hahahahahaha...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what the two of you seem to be saying, is that at the time the Bill Of Rights was crafted, it only limited what the feds could do? The United States Constitution did not apply to the states? States were free to violate the constitution as they saw fit? I majored in math, not history, but that doesn't sound right at all. You're saying a state could pass a law banning Christianity, and the United States Constitution would not have trumped that state law?

I said several times in various threads re the Constitution, including, I think, this one, that the enumerations of the Constitution grant unlimited (supreme) power WITHIN THOSE ENUMERATIONS. That is, within the limited powers that the Constitution grants to the federal government. That is what is meant by the phrase in article VI "in pursuance thereof." That is, as the article says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States [When the Consitution refers to the United States it is referring to the federal government--when it refers to the separate states it says the "several States]which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;"--in that sentence, if you follow the punctuation, thereof refers to the Constitution, in pursuance thereof means according to that Constitution. In essence, the article makes supreme any United States law THAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. That is, Any law that falls within the enumerated powers given to it.

Those powers of legislation that are not included in the enumerated powers granted to the United States, are reserved to the several States and their people. There is no enumeration in the Constitution which gives the federal government power to regulate the people's right to own guns.

It has only been in recent SCOTUS decisions, if I remember correctly, that much of the Bill of Rights have been deemed to apply to the several States as well as the United States. But, certainly, in Madison's and Jefferson's time, the 2nd Amendment's restriction against government regulation did not apply to the several States.

"when you refuse to accept something, that's the end of the discussion for you"


Not so. I asked a question for the specific purpose of continuing the conversation. The supremacy clause is in the original draft of the constitution, I think, Article 6. It says pretty clearly that the US Constitution is the law of the land, "and that "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."

Yes, the Constitution is the law of the land in regard to what government can or cannot do and that referred mostly to the United States at the time it was written. It is (was) not the law of the land in instances of criminal and other legal matters which was left to the several States to create and apply. And United States law is supreme over the laws of the several States so long as U.S. law is within bounds of constitutional limitations. That is, within the scope of the enumerated powers the Constitution gives to the federal government.


That suggests to me, that the state of VA was prohibited from passing any laws which didn't comply with the Constitution. The fathers thereby agreed that the campus ban, was not a violation of that amendment.

No, the state of VA was not prohibited at that time from passing gun laws, nor was it subject to federal legislation re the ownership or carrying of arms. The U.S. government had no constitutional power, at that time, to regulate gun ownership. And the Constitution did not prohibit the several States from passing such laws.

We don't need to argue over the second amendment as a litmus test for the constitutionality of limits on protected freedoms. The freedom of speech does not include threatening or child pornography. There are therefore limits to the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional. That's all I am saying.

Freedom of speech did not refer to all speech in every place. Certainly, speech which threatened or restricted others rights would have been contrary to all founding principles, especially the Declaration of Independence which is a legally referred to document re constitutional questions. The right to life and liberty are not to be denied or threatened by words or guns. So, yeah, as I mentioned in the previous responses to you, in which I also cover child porn, the Constitution cannot contradict itself. There is a congruence in which all "rights" work together. And yeah, there is that internal limitation on rights. You have often said that your rights end at my nose or something like that. But federal government rights do not stop at your nose--so long as they are within constitutional limits.

BTW, if the Supremacy Clause meant what you think it does, then the Constitution, the "supreme law of the land" would be very short and of no need for articles and clauses and amendments. It could say something like "There shall be elections to determine the rulers of the land who have the supreme power to subject the citizens to any law they see fit." There would be no room for State laws, nor any need for the states to exist.

So what the two of you seem to be saying, is that at the time the Bill Of Rights was crafted, it only limited what the feds could do? . . . You're saying a state could pass a law banning Christianity, and the United States Constitution would not have trumped that state law?

Correct, the Bill of Rights did not have any weight on state law. This fact is what made the 14th Amendment necessary. After the Civil War, the Southern States enacted and enforced with brutality the Black Codes which forbade Blacks from owning arms. The "official" state militias were the enforcers of these laws and violated the rights of Freemen to the point that the 39th Congress disbanded the militias of several states. Of course, the violence continued; the militia members just put on hoods and continued harassing and killing Freemen.

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to finally enforce the federal amendments on the states and the right to arms was a primary reason.

Of course this was frustrated by the Supreme Court in 1873 where it gutted the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. This only left "due process" and "equal protection" as the mechanism to enforce the Bill of Rights on the states.

This begat the "Selective Incorporation" doctrine because each claim of rights injury had to be painstakingly examined and the resulting decisions narrowly applied certain clauses of the 1st or the 4th or the 5th Amendments over many decades . . . The 2nd Amendment was not applied to the states -- "incorporated" against state law -- until 2010.

What's that saying? Justice delayed is justice denied. . .


That suggests to me, that the state of VA was prohibited from passing any laws which didn't comply with the Constitution. The fathers thereby agreed that the campus ban, was not a violation of that amendment.

The doctrines of supremacy and preemption cover conflicts in claims of power.

We don't need to argue over the second amendment as a litmus test for the constitutionality of limits on protected freedoms. The freedom of speech does not include threatening or child pornography. There are therefore limits to the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional. That's all I am saying.

The right to arms has exactly the same kinds of "restrictions" . . . One can't brandish or threaten the use of a weapon, one can't shoot at someone without justification, one can not kill another person without justification.

Gun controllers are arguing for a much different "restriction" schedule to be pressed for guns . . . Broad proscriptions on simple ownership, registration with the government to exercise a right including licensing. Enacting bans on certain types of commonly owned arms and endorsing absolute bans on all operable guns based on geography.

Your equivalency fails, to put the kind of restrictions you want for guns on any other right would be laughed off as prior restraint.

So what the two of you seem to be saying, is that at the time the Bill Of Rights was crafted, it only limited what the feds could do?



making my hair hurt

I don't think this is really that complicated. The 2nd Amendment was written in context of a militia...period.

which means what? "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ....is somehow affected or diluted by that?

The freedom of speech does not include threatening or child pornography. There are therefore limits to the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional. That's all I am saying.

for this to be a valid comparison you'd have to take away the vocal cords and cameras....get it?

making my hair hurt

Scott, the supremacy clause, very clearly limits what states can do. States may not pass a law which violates the US Constitution.

I get what detbuch is saying about a list of enumerated powers to the feds, and all else goes to the states. I'm not disputing that.

All I am saying, is that there are limits to the freedoms in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional.

Correct, the Bill of Rights did not have any weight on state law. This fact is what made the 14th Amendment necessary. After the Civil War, the Southern States enacted and enforced with brutality the Black Codes which forbade Blacks from owning arms. The "official" state militias were the enforcers of these laws and violated the rights of Freemen to the point that the 39th Congress disbanded the militias of several states. Of course, the violence continued; the militia members just put on hoods and continued harassing and killing Freemen.

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to finally enforce the federal amendments on the states and the right to arms was a primary reason.

Of course this was frustrated by the Supreme Court in 1873 where it gutted the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. This only left "due process" and "equal protection" as the mechanism to enforce the Bill of Rights on the states.

This begat the "Selective Incorporation" doctrine because each claim of rights injury had to be painstakingly examined and the resulting decisions narrowly applied certain clauses of the 1st or the 4th or the 5th Amendments over many decades . . . The 2nd Amendment was not applied to the states -- "incorporated" against state law -- until 2010.

What's that saying? Justice delayed is justice denied. . .




The doctrines of supremacy and preemption cover conflicts in claims of power.



The right to arms has exactly the same kinds of "restrictions" . . . One can't brandish or threaten the use of a weapon, one can't shoot at someone without justification, one can not kill another person without justification.

Gun controllers are arguing for a much different "restriction" schedule to be pressed for guns . . . Broad proscriptions on simple ownership, registration with the government to exercise a right including licensing. Enacting bans on certain types of commonly owned arms and endorsing absolute bans on all operable guns based on geography.

Your equivalency fails, to put the kind of restrictions you want for guns on any other right would be laughed off as prior restraint.

"The right to arms has exactly the same kinds of "restrictions" . . . One can't brandish or threaten the use of a weapon, one can't shoot at someone without justification, one can not kill another person without justification."

I don't think that's exactly true. Again, when some of the founding fathers were on the board of governors at the University Of Virginia, they passed a rule saying no guns were allowed on campus. They didn't say you could have a gun as long as you weren't threatening someone...they said you could not possess a gun on campus at all. The founding fathers apparently did not believe that such a ban was a violation of the second amendment.

I'm not someone who thinks the constitution is a living, evolving document. I prefer to think of what they meant, at the time it was crafted. The evidence seems compelling to me (we can disagree obviously), that they felt that certain restrictions in the name of public safety, are well within the intent of the second amendment.