what a surprise

Is there something that you would like to discuss Zimmy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll go, I"m sure others like me were thinking it would only be a short time until another (yeah non Muslim, non radicalized) person with a life experience or two recent or past, that would push him or her over the edge. And of course the lucky recipients of their anger are unfortunate that they have access to an arsenal of assault type rifles and even without the advantages of the bump stocks that did so much damage in Vegas, they easily and quickly kill dozens or more.

Like I said in one of the other threads, I'd be worried about someone just like anyone on this board with access to these types of weapons, with a life changing experience putting them in a very dark place with a need to vent that anger. We legislate the amount of fertilizer you can buy, we legislate seat belt laws, the amount of alcohol you can legally have in order to drive, all to save a life or two; I think it's time to legislate some sensible gun laws to save thousands every year.

Our founding fathers just finished a bloody war, against what they viewed as a tyrannical government, which was the reason they penned 27 words to insure they could form a militia and have the arms to do so. Does anyone really see any circumstance in our lifetime or your kids, where we need to take up arms against our own government? Also consider their time and place, where aside from a cannon position from a fort or ship, they were all basically playing on the same single shot playing field.

Imagine your a responsible father or grandfather and your AR's are properly locked away and safe from all.....or so you thought. Like many parents, we are sometimes blindsided by finding out what some of our teens or young sons and daughters are dealing with, be it bullying, drugs, rape, PTSD; you pick a life changing emotional experience. Imagine getting the call at work from the FBI wanting to talk to you, asking you how your son or daughter had access (locks aren't a guarantee) to your AR rifles, then asking if you have seen the news?

Be safe and check your locks boys.

Stop making sense. Please.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now is not the time to discuss gun control.

I'll go,

I think it's time to legislate some sensible gun laws to save thousands every year.



what specifically would you like to see done

Geee - beginning to sound like another lost boy. Gonna be real interesting when we find out his motivation.

Dishonorable discharge so shouldn't have legal access to a firearm, would not pass a federal background check - just like many other people that commit crimes / homicides with illegally procured weapons.

We live in a #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We live in a #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Do not worry. We have strong leadership to give us direction.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now is not the time to discuss gun control.

It really pisses me off when conservatives say that, because if the guy was a Muslim, now WOULD be the right time for conservatives to talk about immigration control.

Another loser whose sick fantasies were obviously fueled by the appearance of his weapon of choice. The rifle was his Facebook profile pic, with a comment something like "she's a nasty little b*tch".

Our moral compass is badly broken, we have huge numbers of kids being raised without dads, we have a major political party that never stops making fun of people who go to church, we have the internet (a place where weirdos can retreat deeper into their fantasies, and get further away from having real connections with real people). And we also have the other major political party making it impossible to have an intelligent conversation about the subject of guns.

To the liberals: everybody in the Dakotas has guns, yet they have almost zero gun crime. So maybe instead of constantly making fun of those people as "bitter clingers" and "deplorable", just maybe, there are some lessons to be learned from that culture, about how to treat others. Maybe we should be encouraging some of those values, instead of mocking them. And we need to talk about curbing the graphic violence that comes out of Hollywood. It's not easy to have a rational conversation with liberals on this subject.

To the conservatives: yes, the gun in this case is an inanimate object. But it's nonsense to act as if the gun played no bigger role in this, than his shoelaces. I have no idea, none whatsoever, what hypothetical law might have stopped this, or at least reduced the body count. But there are some laws that can reduce the body count in some cases, we need to stop pretending that's not the case. It's not easy to have a rational conversation with conservatives on this subject.

People on both sides, as soon as they here anything that doesn't serve their agenda, put their fingers in their ears. No one listens. So the body count keeps raising.

Do not worry. We have strong leadership to give us direction.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's the GOP's fault?

Conservatives won't budge on gun control. Liberals won't budge on the notion that secular progressive values, are morally superior, to traditional family values.

Our moral compass is badly broken, and from where I sit, much of liberalism contributes to that.

At the same time, it's way too easy to get guns/accessories that nobody needs. From where I sit, conservatism contributes to that.

We live in a #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

same as it ever was....

it's way too easy to get guns/accessories that nobody needs.



you are getting closer :btu:

same as it ever was....

I don't know about that Scott. We didn't see these mass shootings a few decades ago. When my parents were young, many people left their doors unlocked at night. I don't think everything is the same. When I was 9 years old, I left my house at 8 AM, with my bike and my baseball glove, and told my parents I was going out to play, and I'd be home for dinner. They didn't know exactly where I was, but they were confident I was fine. That was common. Today, you'd be an absolute maniac to let a 9 year old have that kind of freedom, it's too dangerous.

I'll go, I"m sure others like me were thinking it would only be a short time until another (yeah non Muslim, non radicalized) person with a life experience or two recent or past, that would push him or her over the edge.

I've been reading online about his background. Discharged from the military for domestic abuse to wife and child. Joined with the Antifa movement. Recently converted to Muslim faith. Lots of stuff not being reported by MSM.

From where I sit



Ted kennedy and Jim are both "moderates" :kewl:

I don't know about that Scott. We didn't see these mass shootings a few decades ago. When my parents were young, many people left their doors unlocked at night. I don't think everything is the same. When I was 9 years old, I left my house at 8 AM, with my bike and my baseball glove, and told my parents I was going out to play, and I'd be home for dinner. They didn't know exactly where I was, but they were confident I was fine. That was common. Today, you'd be an absolute maniac to let a 9 year old have that kind of freedom, it's too dangerous.

depends on where you live probably and I don't know that it's that different though the tv constantly tells us how dangerous it is out there...danger around every corner probably

I find it very predictable & ironic that every time political corruption is in the news and being exposed a mass shooting happens to knock it out of the lead story in the news.
As predictable as anyone who exposes the Clinton corruption and afterward the feel the urge to commit suicide.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Joined with the Antifa movement. Recently converted to Muslim faith. Lots of stuff not being reported by MSM.
Did you ever think maybe the MSM isn't reporting it because it's likely made up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump says Texas shooting is a problem of mental health, not guns
called him a deranged individual,

guy kills 8 with a truck Trump calls him Trump referred to terrorism suspect Sayfullo Saipov as an "animal," and called for "swift justice" instead of regular due process.


and Blames visa program and blames political correctness for not addressing the issue


it is amazing to see to verbal gymnastics and how Consertives see the world and solution's so clearly . if its a Muslim or immigrant

But when Terrorism or Muslim or immigrant cant be used or shown involvement in the incident .. and all they have is white guy with a gun they default to its a Mental heath issue ....:faga:

depends on where you live probably and I don't know that it's that different though the tv constantly tells us how dangerous it is out there...danger around every corner probably

We have more knowledge of what goes on now, for sure. But I don't buy that mass shootings took place in the 1950s, but we didn't know because it was only local news. Elementary schools didn't have lockdowns and lessons to kids about not letting strangers touch them. I guess I can't prove it, but I think things are worse. I think things are worse at the bottom. I think the most dangerous ten percent, are worse than they used to be. The breakdown of the nuclear family, not going to church, the internet, it all leads to this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump says Texas shooting is a problem of mental health, not guns
called him a deranged individual,

guy kills 8 with a truck Trump calls him Trump referred to terrorism suspect Sayfullo Saipov as an "animal," and called for "swift justice" instead of regular due process.


and Blames visa program and blames political correctness for not addressing the issue


it is amazing to see to verbal gymnastics and how Consertives see the world and solution's so clearly . if its a Muslim or immigrant

But when Terrorism or Muslim or immigrant cant be used or shown involvement in the incident .. and all they have is white guy with a gun they default to its a Mental heath issue ....:faga:

amazing to see how some will try to turn anything and everything into an incident of racism:hihi:

this is how the base see's it on breitbart


The motive will be attributed to mental illness - not as being directed toward Christians. The liberal mainstream media does not like Christianity. This tragedy will be used by the media and the left to further the case for more gun control legislation.



Just another CIA Deep State orchestrated massacre. Reason behind all this escalation in violence leaked http://www.freepressmatters...
(They're trying to make Trump out to be incompetent so he'll step down)

Trump says Texas shooting is a problem of mental health, not guns
called him a deranged individual,

guy kills 8 with a truck Trump calls him Trump referred to terrorism suspect Sayfullo Saipov as an "animal," and called for "swift justice" instead of regular due process.


and Blames visa program and blames political correctness for not addressing the issue


it is amazing to see to verbal gymnastics and how Consertives see the world and solution's so clearly . if its a Muslim or immigrant

But when Terrorism or Muslim or immigrant cant be used or shown involvement in the incident .. and all they have is white guy with a gun they default to its a Mental heath issue ....:faga:

If you don't consider a man who beats his wife and child deranged then how would you describe him? I would condemn him for that action alone. If he can legally obtain a weapon with his track record then the problem is a lack of sensible laws,no doubt the NRA,along with the conservative base are culpable for these generous liberties.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you ever think maybe the MSM isn't reporting it because it's likely made up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Why no I didn't spence. That thought just never crossed my mind. I'm such a moron.

amazing to see how some will try to turn anything and everything into an incident of racism:hihi:


its a statement of fact solution are provided with great speed and resolve when Terrorism or Muslim or immigrant are present ...

if that equals Racism then thats what it equals

If you don't consider a man who beats his wife and child deranged then how would you describe him? I would condemn him for that action alone. If he can legally obtain a weapon with his track record then the problem is a lack of sensible laws,no doubt the NRA,along with the conservative base are culpable for these generous liberties.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


The NRA has fought for people like him to own a gun the dont want MH issues a 209A to infringe their 2a rights are they culpable .. to a degree but they dont pass laws .. Gun owners need to be part of the solution or change will happen with out them .. but they wont.. they have all ready found a silver lining 1 guy shot back and saved the day ... sadly 26 people were all ready killed but the'll run with it anyway saying it could have been worse.. Really !!

to me they are both animals and cowards..I dont need to know the why they killed it doesn't change the result

Trump he clearly see's a difference

The liberal mainstream media does not like Christianity.

You don't think that's true?

When Obama claimed that we "cling" to our religion because we are bitter, and because we are racist, how many media outlets, besides foxnews, called him out?

When was the last time you heard someone in the mainstream media, concede that pro-life folks are pro-life because of empathy for the baby? Because I never hear that. What I hear, is that we are pro-life because we are anti-woman. That's all I hear.

If you don't consider a man who beats his wife and child deranged then how would you describe him? I would condemn him for that action alone. If he can legally obtain a weapon with his track record then the problem is a lack of sensible laws,no doubt the NRA,along with the conservative base are culpable for these generous liberties.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I read that he was denied an application for guns in Texas. Which is interesting, I presume that's not a place known for being tough to get a gun. I'm curious where he got his sexy "assault rifle".

to me they are both animals and cowards..I dont need to know the why they killed it doesn't change the result




It changes the appropriate response for Gods sake. If Vladimir Putin paid the guy to do this, that's one thing. If he did it for Allah, that's another thing. And if he's a home-grown garden variety nut, that's yet another thing. You don't see that?

Do not worry. We have strong leadership to give us direction.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The world was #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up long before Trump became President. None of "leaders" were able to un#^&#^&#^&#^& it.

As predictable as anyone who exposes the Clinton corruption and afterward the feel the urge to commit suicide.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you talking about the actual fake news about the Haitian official who is still alive or the GOP traitor Smith who was coordinating with Russian hackers?

I'm curious where he got his sexy "assault rifle".

you mean Assault-Style Rifle.....

It changes the appropriate response for Gods sake. If Vladimir Putin paid the guy to do this, that's one thing. If he did it for Allah, that's another thing. And if he's a home-grown garden variety nut, that's yet another thing. You don't see that?

murder is murder motivation only gives people excuses to why it happend.. so they can ignore the hows

you mean Assault-Style Rifle.....

Correct.

Hey (not to hijack the thread) I was wondering what you thought of girls into the Boy Scouts...I work with a guy who is very conservative, and he is a local scout leader, his two boys are both close to Eagle Scout. He's fine with it. He said den meetings and overnight trips will be unisex, and his take was that if the Girl Scouts don't want to change to accommodate parents who want girls to do more than sell cookies, better that the girls learn the good values with the Boy Scouts, then not be exposed to those positive values. I have 3 in cub scouts this year, all having a good time. My wife is getting really involved, she loves it, she is the den leader for the first graders.

You don't think that's true?

When Obama claimed that we "cling" to our religion because we are bitter, and because we are racist, how many media outlets, besides foxnews, called him out?

When was the last time you heard someone in the mainstream media, concede that pro-life folks are pro-life because of empathy for the baby? Because I never hear that. What I hear, is that we are pro-life because we are anti-woman. That's all I hear.

It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
whats thats not a true statement ^^^^ thats what got Trump voted in

No its not true its complete BS the media is not attacking Christians in America... they are not oppressed ... they dont mind being the oppressors

It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
whats thats not a true statement ^^^^ thats what got Trump voted in

No its not true its complete BS the media is not attacking Christians in America... they are not oppressed ... they dont mind being the oppressors

What Obama said is pure bullsh*t, and sentiment like that (and Hilary's deplorables comment) is a big part of why he got elected. Like you, many on th elkeft haven't figured that out yet, and come Next November, you may pay a price for that.

"the media is not attacking Christians in America"

I completely disagree. For example, liberals don't ever concede that Christians who are opposed to abortion, do so out of compassion. Nope, according to the media, we are trying to oppose women's health. The overwhelming majority of religious references in the liberal media, are unfavorable.

"they are not oppressed "

Tell that to the Christian bakers who don't want to participate in gay weddings (which is obviously a first amendment right in some cases), who are attacked.

"they dont mind being the oppressors"

You are actually proving my point better than I ever could. Your animosity towards Christianity is glaring...Out of curiosity, where exactly, are Christians the oppressors today in this country?

Of course Christians are far from perfect, and suffer from all the evil and wickedness that effects everyone else. But in a big picture sense? Christian principles led to the founding of the country, they led to the abolishment of slavery, and they led to the end of segregation. Funny how libs like to forget history, some of it not ancient history, when they describe Christianity. It's pure hate.

Do you really dispute that true Christians (the ones who actually believe what they hear in church, and act accordingly) don't cause fewer problems for society? The people who volunteer at soup kitchen and who read to sick children at the hospital...you don't think they commit less crime, you don't think they abandon their kids at lower rates, than the general public?

QUOTE=Got Stripers;1131128]I'll go, I"m sure others like me were thinking it would only be a short time until another (yeah non Muslim, non radicalized) person with a life experience or two recent or past, that would push him or her over the edge. And of course the lucky recipients of their anger are unfortunate that they have access to an arsenal of assault type rifles and even without the advantages of the bump stocks that did so much damage in Vegas, they easily and quickly kill dozens or more.

I think that environmentalists should prefer mass killings rather than one-at-a-time types. Overpopulation leads to human pollution of the planet. We need more of those human cleansing incidents and conditions--mass killings, abortions, gay marriage, gender displacements, war/pestilence/famine/and hunger, More ideologies like Islam, and restrictive laws to keep us controlled and in place, in order to reduce the population and keep it down.

Assault weapons should be considered a good thing.

Like I said in one of the other threads, I'd be worried about someone just like anyone on this board with access to these types of weapons, with a life changing experience putting them in a very dark place with a need to vent that anger. We legislate the amount of fertilizer you can buy, we legislate seat belt laws, the amount of alcohol you can legally have in order to drive, all to save a life or two; I think it's time to legislate some sensible gun laws to save thousands every year.

The only gun law, sensible or not, that would save thousands of lives a year would be to outlaw, worldwide, the production of guns. Would be kind of hard to enforce without the use of guns. But, the only gun law able to stop thousands or single digits of deaths is to eliminate the existence of guns. That would, without a need for further legislation, disarm everyone including, and especially, all governments.


Our founding fathers just finished a bloody war, against what they viewed as a tyrannical government, which was the reason they penned 27 words to insure they could form a militia and have the arms to do so. Does anyone really see any circumstance in our lifetime or your kids, where we need to take up arms against our own government?

The 2A helps to make sure that we don't have to fight our own government. That's the whole point of it. To ensure government doesn't remove itself from the bonds the Founders placed it. Before the British government tried to change things, the colonists too were in a place where it didn't seem necessary to defend against government tyranny. So they had to scramble to fight against it when it showed up. They learned the hard way the need of prevention, rather than waiting for disaster to occur in order to mobilize against it.

Also consider their time and place, where aside from a cannon position from a fort or ship, they were all basically playing on the same single shot playing field.

So when Gatling guns were created for military use, what happened to the playing field?

Imagine your a responsible father or grandfather and your AR's are properly locked away and safe from all.....or so you thought. Like many parents, we are sometimes blindsided by finding out what some of our teens or young sons and daughters are dealing with, be it bullying, drugs, rape, PTSD; you pick a life changing emotional experience. Imagine getting the call at work from the FBI wanting to talk to you, asking you how your son or daughter had access (locks aren't a guarantee) to your AR rifles, then asking if you have seen the news?

Be safe and check your locks boys.[/QUOTE]

Most of the bad stuff you talk about, to the extent that it can be prevented by government, is avoidable to the greatest extent under dictatorial governments.

Hey (not to hijack the thread) I was wondering what you thought of girls into the Boy Scouts...I work with a guy who is very conservative, and he is a local scout leader, his two boys are both close to Eagle Scout. He's fine with it. He said den meetings and overnight trips will be unisex, and his take was that if the Girl Scouts don't want to change to accommodate parents who want girls to do more than sell cookies, better that the girls learn the good values with the Boy Scouts, then not be exposed to those positive values. I have 3 in cub scouts this year, all having a good time. My wife is getting really involved, she loves it, she is the den leader for the first graders.

I think its idiotic. The BSA already had a coed program called Ventures. They do the same things as the Boy Scouts plus a few more things that the Boy Scouts can't do (i.e. shoot hand guns, snow mobiles).

This was just caving to pressure because people get all butt-hurt over the word "Boy"

Even the Girl Scouts were upset about it. Girl Scouts can do all the things boy scouts can do if they want. I personally know a GS leader that takes her girls Hiking and Camping.

I think its idiotic. The BSA already had a coed program called Ventures. They do the same things as the Boy Scouts plus a few more things that the Boy Scouts can't do (i.e. shoot hand guns, snow mobiles).

It will be good for the kids. The gender disassociation early will lead to stronger adults, less harassment etc...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think its idiotic. The BSA already had a coed program called Ventures. They do the same things as the Boy Scouts plus a few more things that the Boy Scouts can't do (i.e. shoot hand guns, snow mobiles).

This was just caving to pressure because people get all butt-hurt over the word "Boy"

Even the Girl Scouts were upset about it. Girl Scouts can do all the things boy scouts can do if they want. I personally know a GS leader that takes her girls Hiking and Camping.

Can't argue with that either, thanks!

It will be good for the kids. The gender disassociation early will lead to stronger adults, less harassment etc...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, considering it looks like you already disassociated from your gender. The jury is still out on how that's going :rude:

The gender disassociation early will lead to stronger adults,


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:spin:

I've been reading online about his background. Discharged from the military for domestic abuse to wife and child. Joined with the Antifa movement. Recently converted to Muslim faith. Lots of stuff not being reported by MSM.

It isn't being reported because that antifa connection is fake. B.S. Made up. Fabricated. The same way the russians made up hundreds of fake stories to spread on the facebook. God help us. We are doomed.

Well, considering it looks like you already disassociated from your gender. The jury is still out on how that's going :rude:

Have you seen his shoe collection? I
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Have you seen his shoe collection? I
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Legen- (hope your not lactose intolerant)-dairy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It will be good for the kids. The gender disassociation early will lead to stronger adults, less harassment etc...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the worst snipet of BS drivel I've heard in a while. Congratulations. :claps:

A good guy with a gun stopped a madman with a gun.


Horrible atrocity that could have been worse. I say good for the good guy with the AR-15 for shooting back and killing the guy. In case you don't know if you were spoon fed the narrative the news is trying to give us that it was suicide because more firearms were in his car, the guy bled out from his wounds while the 2 good guys waited for police.

When you take on the responsibility of gun ownership, you are obsessive about locks Bob, no need for a reminder to check locks, I suggest arm yourself. The more people that are armed, the better. This isn't the first mass shooting and won't be the last sadly, it is just the latest. And a horrible one at that.

When I was 9 years old, I left my house at 8 AM, with my bike and my baseball glove, and told my parents I was going out to play, and I'd be home for dinner.

Not in my neighborhoods - we went out but ()*#(#*$@ sure locked the doors

Did you ever think maybe the MSM isn't reporting it because it's likely made up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some of it is , some of it isn't, some simply too early to tell.

this is how the base see's it on breitbart



Cough, Salon, cough

If you don't consider a man who beats his wife and child deranged then how would you describe him? I would condemn him for that action alone. If he can legally obtain a weapon with his track record then the problem is a lack of sensible laws,no doubt the NRA,along with the conservative base are culpable for these generous liberties.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It seems he was dishonorably discharged from AF for his domestic violence and it appears Texas denied him a purchase because of DV history.

I read that he was denied an application for guns in Texas. Which is interesting, I presume that's not a place known for being tough to get a gun. I'm curious where he got his sexy "assault rifle".

Unfortunately multiple ways for people that should not have them to get them. One of the reasons why people get them legally - and jump through all the hoops - to provide safety for their loved ones.

I think its idiotic. The BSA already had a coed program called Ventures. They do the same things as the Boy Scouts plus a few more things that the Boy Scouts can't do (i.e. shoot hand guns, snow mobiles).

This was just caving to pressure because people get all butt-hurt over the word "Boy"

Even the Girl Scouts were upset about it. Girl Scouts can do all the things boy scouts can do if they want. I personally know a GS leader that takes her girls Hiking and Camping.

I'm mixed. Opportunity for girls to get Eagle is great, impacts on how it may disrupt the programs now could be a negative. Bring the Eagle to Venture and allow girls to track there?

It will be good for the kids. The gender disassociation early will lead to stronger adults, less harassment etc...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Must remember Spence trolls.

QUOTE=Got Stripers;1131128]I'll go, I"m sure others like me were thinking it would only be a short time until another (yeah non Muslim, non radicalized) person with a life experience or two recent or past, that would push him or her over the edge. And of course the lucky recipients of their anger are unfortunate that they have access to an arsenal of assault type rifles and even without the advantages of the bump stocks that did so much damage in Vegas, they easily and quickly kill dozens or more.

I think that environmentalists should prefer mass killings rather than one-at-a-time types. Overpopulation leads to human pollution of the planet. We need more of those human cleansing incidents and conditions--mass killings, abortions, gay marriage, gender displacements, war/pestilence/famine/and hunger, More ideologies like Islam, and restrictive laws to keep us controlled and in place, in order to reduce the population and keep it down.

Assault weapons should be considered a good thing.

Wow, not much I can say to that, I'm sure the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters of the children killed in this latest AR carnage will find comfort in your empathy. I hope you don't loose the other screws holding you together, I also hope that you too are armed to the teeth, because those are some scary and evil sentiments. Also for one who has such a fear of big government, I'd suggest you better watch what you type, homeland security is looking for text just like that; no doubt those statements fits the profile of many that might be on their radar.

Like I said in one of the other threads, I'd be worried about someone just like anyone on this board with access to these types of weapons, with a life changing experience putting them in a very dark place with a need to vent that anger. We legislate the amount of fertilizer you can buy, we legislate seat belt laws, the amount of alcohol you can legally have in order to drive, all to save a life or two; I think it's time to legislate some sensible gun laws to save thousands every year.

The only gun law, sensible or not, that would save thousands of lives a year would be to outlaw, worldwide, the production of guns. Would be kind of hard to enforce without the use of guns. But, the only gun law able to stop thousands or single digits of deaths is to eliminate the existence of guns. That would, without a need for further legislation, disarm everyone including, and especially, all governments.


Don't read more into what I'm suggesting, I have no issues with handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns or any other legally purchased firearm in the pursuit of what every warm blooded man or women loves to do. I too loved hunting back when I was younger, but aside from fueling a shortage of testosterone, helping someone deal with a little big man issue or making someone like you with such a dismal view of the future feel more secure; what purpose does the AR assault weapon serve?

Our founding fathers just finished a bloody war, against what they viewed as a tyrannical government, which was the reason they penned 27 words to insure they could form a militia and have the arms to do so. Does anyone really see any circumstance in our lifetime or your kids, where we need to take up arms against our own government?

The 2A helps to make sure that we don't have to fight our own government. That's the whole point of it. To ensure government doesn't remove itself from the bonds the Founders placed it. Before the British government tried to change things, the colonists too were in a place where it didn't seem necessary to defend against government tyranny. So they had to scramble to fight against it when it showed up. They learned the hard way the need of prevention, rather than waiting for disaster to occur in order to mobilize against it.

Again, while we are witnessing a lot of scary stuff, I feel sorry that you have such a depressing view of where our government is or could become. Do you really think one leader or some government/military conspiracy to take total control is in the cards, boy how do you sleep at night? And if you do and the possibility that the military in it's entirety will actually sign on (tin foil hat tipped here), do you think the small percentage of AR armed civilians are going to stop that?

Also consider their time and place, where aside from a cannon position from a fort or ship, they were all basically playing on the same single shot playing field.

So when Gatling guns were created for military use, what happened to the playing field?

Imagine your a responsible father or grandfather and your AR's are properly locked away and safe from all.....or so you thought. Like many parents, we are sometimes blindsided by finding out what some of our teens or young sons and daughters are dealing with, be it bullying, drugs, rape, PTSD; you pick a life changing emotional experience. Imagine getting the call at work from the FBI wanting to talk to you, asking you how your son or daughter had access (locks aren't a guarantee) to your AR rifles, then asking if you have seen the news?

Be safe and check your locks boys.

Most of the bad stuff you talk about, to the extent that it can be prevented by government, is avoidable to the greatest extent under dictatorial governments.[/QUOTE]

Again I feel sorry for you and your view of where our government and society is, must be tough on you to see where your kids and grand-kids are in a couple decades. Do I like our government today, not in the least, but I'm not looking at the glass half empty. We need change and I'm 110% convinced term limits is the exact change needed, but if that happens; I'd suggest to you the interpretation of the 2nd amendment will likely change to a more realistic one in light of our time and place and not one living in the past like you.

aside from fueling a shortage of testosterone, helping someone deal with a little big man issue or making someone like you with such a dismal view of the future feel more secure; what purpose does the AR assault weapon serve? . . .

I'd suggest to you the interpretation of the 2nd amendment will likely change to a more realistic one in light of our time and place and not one living in the past like you.

The AR platform meets the 2nd Amendment protection criteria established by SCOTUS better than any other type of firearm.

That criteria is, to boil it down, how well the gun performs in battle, IOW, killing people. To have the possession and use of the gun protected, the gun must be of a type:

In common use at the time by the general citizenry and that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

This protection criteria is a direct outcome of the "right to arms" being linked to militia service.

It has been the intransigence of the collectivist left that has kept the right connected to militia usefulness while the gun rights side has been trying to separate the two for 3/4 of a century now.

Are you saying now, that you want to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so the right to arms can be formally divorced from any militia usefulness standard for arms protection, while you promise that we would be allowed to keep some sporting arms and others that don't offend you?

Why would we (gun rights people) accept such a disingenuous premise? Do you really think you speak from a position of trust, tolerance and respect on the subject of preservation of rights? You obviously hold my rights in disdain and contempt so pardon me while I tell you to KMA.

Thanks for your concern about my manhood and my outlook for the future but I'll just retain my rights, all of them in their current condition, with hopes for expansion.

QUOTE=Got Stripers;1131128]I'll go, I"m sure others like me were thinking it would only be a short time until another (yeah non Muslim, non radicalized) person with a life experience or two recent or past, that would push him or her over the edge. And of course the lucky recipients of their anger are unfortunate that they have access to an arsenal of assault type rifles and even without the advantages of the bump stocks that did so much damage in Vegas, they easily and quickly kill dozens or more.

Originally Posted by detbuch:

I think that environmentalists should prefer mass killings rather than one-at-a-time types. Overpopulation leads to human pollution of the planet. We need more of those human cleansing incidents and conditions--mass killings, abortions, gay marriage, gender displacements, war/pestilence/famine/and hunger, More ideologies like Islam, and restrictive laws to keep us controlled and in place, in order to reduce the population and keep it down.

Assault weapons should be considered a good thing.

Wow, not much I can say to that, I'm sure the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters of the children killed in this latest AR carnage will find comfort in your empathy. I hope you don't loose the other screws holding you together, I also hope that you too are armed to the teeth, because those are some scary and evil sentiments. Also for one who has such a fear of big government, I'd suggest you better watch what you type, homeland security is looking for text just like that; no doubt those statements fits the profile of many that might be on their radar.

Uuhhh . . . my post was, like . . . sarcasm. With a bit of a poke at some greeny contradiction. I apologize if I mislead you. On the other hand, your responses are interesting. A bit myopic, but interesting.

Like I said in one of the other threads, I'd be worried about someone just like anyone on this board with access to these types of weapons, with a life changing experience putting them in a very dark place with a need to vent that anger.

Maybe you should take some pills to help you with your anxiety issue.

We legislate the amount of fertilizer you can buy, we legislate seat belt laws, the amount of alcohol you can legally have in order to drive, all to save a life or two; I think it's time to legislate some sensible gun laws to save thousands every year.


Minor problem is, unlike fertilizer, seatbelts, and alcohol, there is this little thing relating to guns referred to as the Second Amendment. I realize that you believe we should get "sensible" about that Amendment, but that would take another Amendment.

As I said "The only gun law, sensible or not, that would save thousands of lives a year would be to outlaw, worldwide, the production of guns. Would be kind of hard to enforce without the use of guns. But, the only gun law able to stop thousands or single digits of deaths is to eliminate the existence of guns. That would, without a need for further legislation, disarm everyone including, and especially, all governments." Good luck with that.


Don't read more into what I'm suggesting, I have no issues with handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns or any other legally purchased firearm in the pursuit of what every warm blooded man or women loves to do. I too loved hunting back when I was younger, but aside from fueling a shortage of testosterone, helping someone deal with a little big man issue or making someone like you with such a dismal view of the future feel more secure; what purpose does the AR assault weapon serve?


Again, it is unfortunate for your sentiments that the 2A was not about hunting or fueling a shortage of testosterone. Actually, AR assault TYPE weapons would be more effective in helping to accomplish what the 2A is about than the other toys with which you have no issue. Those toys, BTW, kill "thousands" more in this country than the AR does. Still don't understand why there is less of an emotional outrage to those far greater numbers killed than by the AR style guns. But it's your choice about what you get outraged.

Our founding fathers just finished a bloody war, against what they viewed as a tyrannical government, which was the reason they penned 27 words to insure they could form a militia and have the arms to do so. Does anyone really see any circumstance in our lifetime or your kids, where we need to take up arms against our own government?

The 2A is a preventative measure which helps to make sure that we don't have to fight our own government. That's the whole point of it. To ensure government doesn't remove itself from the bonds the Founders placed it. Before the British government tried to change things, the colonists also thought, as you do, that they were in a place where it didn't seem necessary to defend against government tyranny. So they had to scramble to fight against it when it showed up. They learned the hard way the need of prevention, rather than waiting for disaster to occur in order to mobilize against it. You know . . . that ounce of prevention thingy.

Again, while we are witnessing a lot of scary stuff, I feel sorry that you have such a depressing view of where our government is or could become.

No need to feel sorry for me. I'm not depressed. I accept reality. And I'm not scared as you seem to be about "scary stuff." Maybe I should feel sorry for you that you view scary stuff. And aren't you one of those who keep telling us how bad it is having Trump as President? About what dangers and depressing things we might be facing because of that? Hmmm . . . pot /kettle syndrome.

Do you really think one leader or some government/military conspiracy to take total control is in the cards, boy how do you sleep at night?


I am less concerned about that than you seem to be of Trump, and unreasonable conservatives.

And if you do and the possibility that the military in it's entirety will actually sign on (tin foil hat tipped here), do you think the small percentage of AR armed civilians are going to stop that?

I've already spoken to the military takeover thing. Don't feel like doing it over and over. If anything, at least at this time, I think the military may be a wall against the destruction of the Constitution. On my "side" more than yours.


Also consider their time and place, where aside from a cannon position from a fort or ship, they were all basically playing on the same single shot playing field.

So when Gatling guns were created for military use, what happened to the playing field?

Imagine your a responsible father or grandfather and your AR's are properly locked away and safe from all.....or so you thought. Like many parents, we are sometimes blindsided by finding out what some of our teens or young sons and daughters are dealing with, be it bullying, drugs, rape, PTSD; you pick a life changing emotional experience. Imagine getting the call at work from the FBI wanting to talk to you, asking you how your son or daughter had access (locks aren't a guarantee) to your AR rifles, then asking if you have seen the news?

Be safe and check your locks boys.
Most of the bad stuff you talk about, to the extent that it can be prevented by government, is avoidable to the greatest extent under dictatorial governments.

Oh, so now we can imagine some possibility--as long as it isn't about stuff like tyranny, dictatorial government, all that nonsense that just can't happen because it just can't.

Again I feel sorry for you and your view of where our government and society is, must be tough on you to see where your kids and grand-kids are in a couple decades.

Again, you needn't feel sorry for me. I am happy, and very much so, in that I don't need your sympathy, nor anything else from you. The only concern I have about you is that you'll vote for someone who wants to "help" me. If I thought it would matter, I'd ask you to consider what a rare thing our Constitution with its checks and balances is, and to have that always be your concern when you vote. But I understand why you consider that thinking a relic of the past.

Do I like our government today, not in the least, but I'm not looking at the glass half empty. We need change and I'm 110% convinced term limits is the exact change needed, but if that happens; I'd suggest to you the interpretation of the 2nd amendment will likely change to a more realistic one in light of our time and place and not one living in the past like you.

It is possible not to appreciate the past. And to forget it. But it is the only thing you can live in. Everything we've just discussed is now in the past. The future cannot exist. Once "it" appears it is past. The present is so fleeting that it takes the past to realize what it is. I suspect death could be that way. It could be too instantaneous to recognize. And death's future may be so empty that life, that ever present past, cannot be remembered.

So the past is our only teacher. If we do not learn from it, we are truly ignorant.


Changing interpretations of an idea is not "realistic." It is the erasure of the idea. A replacement with another idea, not merely another interpretation of it. I'd suggest right back at ya that interpreting the 2A to mean something other than what it has really meant (is reality realistic?) is actually eliminating it. Same goes for the Constitution as a whole. There is no need to suffer under the illusion of maintaining, and abiding by, the Constitution if you don't believe it is "realistic." I'd suggest to you that what you suggest is its illimination. It's alright, actually honest, to admit that. Otherwise your living an illusion, not realistically.

And, BTW, term limits has to be approved by those who will have to limit their terms. Is it "realistic" to expect that to happen? And if it did, how would that preserve the Constitution? And why would that be an assurance that you would get a government that you like?

The AR platform meets the 2nd Amendment protection criteria established by SCOTUS better than any other type of firearm.

That criteria is, to boil it down, how well the gun performs in battle, IOW, killing people. To have the possession and use of the gun protected, the gun must be of a type:

In common use at the time by the general citizenry and that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

This protection criteria is a direct outcome of the "right to arms" being linked to militia service.

It has been the intransigence of the collectivist left that has kept the right connected to militia usefulness while the gun rights side has been trying to separate the two for 3/4 of a century now.

Are you saying now, that you want to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so the right to arms can be formally divorced from any militia usefulness standard for arms protection, while you promise that we would be allowed to keep some sporting arms and others that don't offend you?

Why would we (gun rights people) accept such a disingenuous premise? Do you really think you speak from a position of trust, tolerance and respect on the subject of preservation of rights? You obviously hold my rights in disdain and contempt so pardon me while I tell you to KMA.

Thanks for your concern about my manhood and my outlook for the future but I'll just retain my rights, all of them in their current condition, with hopes for expansion.

:claps::claps::claps::claps:

The AR platform meets the 2nd Amendment protection criteria established by SCOTUS better than any other type of firearm.

That criteria is, to boil it down, how well the gun performs in battle, IOW, killing people. To have the possession and use of the gun protected, the gun must be of a type:

In common use at the time by the general citizenry and that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

This protection criteria is a direct outcome of the "right to arms" being linked to militia service.

It has been the intransigence of the collectivist left that has kept the right connected to militia usefulness while the gun rights side has been trying to separate the two for 3/4 of a century now.

Are you saying now, that you want to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so the right to arms can be formally divorced from any militia usefulness standard for arms protection, while you promise that we would be allowed to keep some sporting arms and others that don't offend you?

Why would we (gun rights people) accept such a disingenuous premise? Do you really think you speak from a position of trust, tolerance and respect on the subject of preservation of rights? You obviously hold my rights in disdain and contempt so pardon me while I tell you to KMA.

Thanks for your concern about my manhood and my outlook for the future but I'll just retain my rights, all of them in their current condition, with hopes for expansion.
Such spin. The early cases your referring to were decisions in context of militias. Later individual rights cases made no such argument.

This is a complex issue with many opinions and legal contradictions. It's a work in process.

To claim its black and white is just disengenuous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Such spin. The early cases your referring to were decisions in context of militias. Later individual rights cases made no such argument.

This is a complex issue with many opinions and legal contradictions. It's a work in process.

To claim its black and white is just disengenuous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're spin is disingenuous.

Such spin. The early cases your referring to were decisions in context of militias. Later individual rights cases made no such argument.

The Supreme Court has never endorsed a militia dependent right. The right has always been recognized by SCOTUS to be possessed by individual citizens independent of any militia enrollment status or attchment.

Your chronology is backwards. The "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations first appeared in the federal courts in 1942 in two lower (Circuit) court cases. Those two opinions spun US v Miller (1939) on its head and ignored /dismissed the determinations of SCOTUS to arrive at these new "collective right" interpretations.

Those theories held sway in the lower federal courts and state courts until DC v Heller in 2008, where SCOTUS re-affirmed the individual right, relied on US v Cruikshank (1876) and Miller's precedent -- one prong of Miller's protection criteria (in common use) -- to invalidate DC's statutes and 66 years of lower federal court perversions.

This is a complex issue with many opinions and legal contradictions. It's a work in process.

I agree. It will take decades to unwind the dozens of mid-20th Century lower federal court and state court decisions that sustained hundreds of unconstitutional gun control laws.

To claim its black and white is just disengenuous.

Says the guy that says a true examination of the issue is TLDR.

To Detbuch,

I'd never suggest we don't learn from the past. I'd also say evolution always wins it's undeniable, to live in the past without change in order to evolve is just ignorant. I only suggest that current events might suggest arms of mass destruction might be better off left in the hands of the military. You suggest I'm fearful, yet you want your AR's to be ready to militia up if the government goes dictator on you; I don't fear that at all you own that fear.

Modern day militia really; that's the argument you own and as usual it's the final 2nd amendment argument; heard it and read it on every thread that's similar. It's the same old argument, 2nd amendment, we have the right, I get it; but is it reasonable today? It made 110% sense then and there, I'd be standing and giving the founding fathers a standing ovation for those 27 words, but times change and only idiots don't accept that fact.

Please don't insult me by giving me that BS argument that the only reasonable change is to ban all guns, what a crock of crap that statement is. I have no issue with guns, or the right to bear them, but if the nut job didn't have access to the AR type rifle, how many lives would have been lost or saved.

If you think you and a hand full of your friends armed with AR assault rifles in your town and the next one over are going to make a bit of difference, then I want some of what you are smoking. The fact that you actually think that will come to be necessary makes you the guy with the fear factor and frankly i choose to have a much more optimistic view on where we as a society can go.

Don't mix my opinion of Trump with this argument, do I agree with the way Trump is governing, absolutely not; but that has nothing to do with this thread. Don't mix my believe in on environmental changes being a larger threat then many believe; again it has nothing to do with this thread. You fear the government and more regulations, then go do something about it, that's the wonderful thing about being an AMERICAN, we can all believe in different things and do our best to make changes by the way we vote and treat our fellow man.

My glass as always is more than half full.

The Supreme Court has never endorsed a militia dependent right. The right has always been recognized by SCOTUS to be possessed by individual citizens independent of any militia enrollment status or attchment.

Your chronology is backwards. The "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations first appeared in the federal courts in 1942 in two lower (Circuit) court cases. Those two opinions spun US v Miller (1939) on its head and ignored /dismissed the determinations of SCOTUS to arrive at these new "collective right" interpretations.

Those theories held sway in the lower federal courts and state courts until DC v Heller in 2008, where SCOTUS re-affirmed the individual right, relied on US v Cruikshank (1876) and Miller's precedent -- one prong of Miller's protection criteria (in common use) -- to invalidate DC's statutes and 66 years of lower federal court perversions.



I agree. It will take decades to unwind the dozens of mid-20th Century lower federal court and state court decisions that sustained hundreds of unconstitutional gun control laws.



Says the guy that says a true examination of the issue is TLDR.

And what year is it now?

It seems he was dishonorably discharged from AF for his domestic violence and it appears Texas denied him a purchase because of DV history.



Unfortunately multiple ways for people that should not have them to get them. One of the reasons why people get them legally - and jump through all the hoops - to provide safety for their loved ones.





Air force dropped the ball never reported his criminal record to the FBI so it was not in his NCIC NICS check. Hard to cover that up

I and many others are with you 100 percent on term limits. It would be nice, but difficult since they are the ones voting themselves raises, exclusive retirement plans, better than we have health care etc.


As far as government tyranny, open your mind, it's already happening right before our eyes. Learn from history, you do NOT want an unarmed public defenseless against tyrannical government.

Air force dropped the ball never reported his criminal record to the FBI so it was not in his NCIC NICS check. Hard to cover that up


Yes - I saw that since. TX denied him a LTC on a prior application

Heartbreaking, the whole situation



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1091&v=B4HEchh0XD8

And what year is it now?

Who exactly is empowered to decide that certain clauses of the Constitution have reached an expiration date and get thrown in the dumpster?

To Detbuch,

I'd never suggest we don't learn from the past.

What have you learned from the past?

I'd also say evolution always wins it's undeniable, to live in the past without change in order to evolve is just ignorant.

Evolution doesn't require change. It is change. Changes and their direction depend on the mix. Mass shootings are evolutionary results. Dictatorships are evolutionary results. Revolutions are evolutionary actions. These are all the results of conflicts and positive or negative interactions. For evolution to occur, there must be those conflicts, interactions, wars, among the mix of things. And the things must be of some fundamental nature. For there to be change, there has to be a foundation from which change occurs. When there is a change in the foundation, new species "evolve." So far, humans, as we know them, are fundamentally the same as in the Founders time; are the same as in the annals of recorded history. We have not evolved into something else yet. The notion that we can regulate out of existence conflict, war, or interactions we disapprove of, is what's ignorant. If we could, that would be the end of evolution. It is in our fundamental nature to resist regulation that stifles our individual portion of that spectrum of human possibility.

That's why the Constitution is such an evolutionary friendly foundation of government. It allows the greatest scope of freedom to evolve in various directions with the least friction and destruction among individual differences. Of course, it is evidently a portion of our nature to protect ourselves from intrusion into the freedoms it provides. Yet there are those who impose that portion of their human nature which seeks personal satisfaction on others against their will. Some, even to the point of ruling nations. Some, just warring on neighbors. Government restriction against people's ability to protect themselves against either type of war, stifles the freedom of the many to evolve in their preferred and individual way in order to stifle the license of a few. It is anti-evolutionary. The greater the restrictions are in scope and power, the less "peaceful" can there be evolution.

Changing the foundation of the Constitution by interpreting it to mean other than what it does, and to mean that freedom (not license) is limited, restricts peaceful evolution, and evolves into adversary conflict, which can evolve into more authoritarian, less evolutionary government.


I only suggest that current events might suggest arms of mass destruction might be better off left in the hands of the military. You suggest I'm fearful, yet you want your AR's to be ready to militia up if the government goes dictator on you; I don't fear that at all you own that fear.

I see. You don't fear anything. You just make suggestions. Me too. I suggest that current events indeed suggest that the world, as always, is a dangerous place. And I suggest that politicians like Schumer, Hillary, Sanders, Warren (who aren't going to turn limit themselves), haven't made it less dangerous, nor can they. You can suggest yourself into whatever suggestions will save a few lives. Although, I haven't heard any suggestions from you how to do that, it sounds pitiful enough to be worthy of great suggestion.


Modern day militia really; that's the argument you own and as usual it's the final 2nd amendment argument; heard it and read it on every thread that's similar. It's the same old argument, 2nd amendment, we have the right, I get it; but is it reasonable today?

Yes. It is reasonable, and more so, rational. And the militia meant (still does in spite of authoritarians attempt to make it a formal government unit) is the people. And the same old argument is the entire Constitution and freedom vs despotism be it soft or dictatorial.

And the argument you own is some general notion that today is different than yesterday because of evolution. No reason or rationale other than some undefined evolution into some undefined difference.

It made 110% sense then and there, I'd be standing and giving the founding fathers a standing ovation for those 27 words, but times change and only idiots don't accept that fact.

In what fundamental way has human nature changed? "Times" constantly change. So fast now that government, law, that has to suit constant change would not be possible. Laws and systems of government which are fundamentally based on "times" is for "idiots."

Please don't insult me by giving me that BS argument that the only reasonable change is to ban all guns, what a crock of crap that statement is. I have no issue with guns, or the right to bear them, but if the nut job didn't have access to the AR type rifle, how many lives would have been lost or saved.

Don't insult me by misquoting me. I said "The only gun law, sensible or not, that would save THOUSANDS of lives a year would be to outlaw, worldwide, the production of guns. So far, the THOUSANDS of gun deaths in this country aren't caused by using AR types. Most "nut jobs" use hand guns. Or maybe you don't consider criminal killers to be "nut jobs." You only have an issue with nut jobs and AR's. The thousands of more lives taken by hand guns or non AR's are just not as much of a problem as the AR types for you. We shouldn't, therefor, ban hand guns. Just ban AR types.

That sounds like a "crock of crap" as you so nicely put it.

If you think you and a hand full of your friends armed with AR assault rifles in your town and the next one over are going to make a bit of difference, then I want some of what you are smoking. The fact that you actually think that will come to be necessary makes you the guy with the fear factor and frankly i choose to have a much more optimistic view on where we as a society can go.

OK. So you don't fear AR's. You just worry about them. As in when you said "I'd be worried about someone just like anyone on this board with access to these types of weapons, with a life changing experience putting them in a very dark place with a need to vent that anger."

Of course, there is no need to worry enough about someone with life changing experiences in a dark place having an illegal handgun, at least not to the point of banning handguns.

And what makes you special because you have an "optimistic view on where we as a society can go." What makes you think that I don't have an optimistic view of where it CAN go. Sure, I have an optimistic view of where it can go. I'm optimistic about some of the ways it is now going. You said "Do I like our government today, not in the least," There's a lot about it that I don't like. But I still like its foundation more than any other.



Don't mix my opinion of Trump with this argument, do I agree with the way Trump is governing, absolutely not; but that has nothing to do with this thread.

You said I was afraid of big government. Trump is the President of big government. How is your concern, or worry, (since you say you don't fear) about the damage to the country that he will supposedly do, how is that concern not akin to what you accuse me of in this thread?

Don't mix my believe in on environmental changes being a larger threat then many believe; again it has nothing to do with this thread.

Where do you get off telling me what I can mix? That was a sarcastic fictitious (on my part) take on the "numbers" killed issue that you guys keep bringing up about AR's. Don't particularly care if you didn't like it. And I made it something to do with this thread. For fun.

You fear the government and more regulations, then go do something about it, that's the wonderful thing about being an AMERICAN, we can all believe in different things and do our best to make changes by the way we vote and treat our fellow man.

You keep, ad nauseam, referring to my "fear" of something. And that you don't have fears, just suggestions, or worries, or a half full glass. I don't recall saying I feared government or regulations. That's your characterization of me. I try to have rational discussions regarding our system of government. I try to be very reasonable. I don't impose emotional arguments. I back up what I say with historical facts. With what Progressives have actually said and admitted re our constitutional system.

OK. So none of what I have presented makes sense to you. OK. You just believe things could not go in a direction of all powerful government, even though if you read the actual documents of what the founders of Progressivism in this country proposed for governance, which I presented in a factually cited manner, you will see that in effect, and words, that is exactly what they said. That government should not be constrained by the Constitution, but have the unhampered power to do whatever it thinks is right and good. OK. You don't notice how much power the federal government has given itself through the use of unconstitutional regulatory agencies and Court decisions which they admitted were tortuous twisting of the Constitutional original meanings in order to do as they wish. OK. Fine. I accept that--with sorrow, not fear. But I try, as you tell me, to do something about it by having discussions, not just on this forum. Some people understand. Some don't. There seems to be some recognition by more people now of what is happening.

But, as you say. Evolution always wins. I wouldn't put it that way, but I know what you mean. If we evolve into the State in which the authoritarian direction is taking us, then that will be the "winner." But, it can't rationally be denied that it is our evolutionary direction if a course correction is not made. Where we will go from there, only "evolution" will tell us.

My glass as always is more than half full.

Good for you. :cheers:

A good guy with a gun stopped a madman with a gun.


Horrible atrocity that could have been worse. I say good for the good guy with the AR-15 for shooting back and killing the guy. In case you don't know if you were spoon fed the narrative the news is trying to give us that it was suicide because more firearms were in his car, the guy bled out from his wounds while the 2 good guys waited for police.

When you take on the responsibility of gun ownership, you are obsessive about locks Bob, no need for a reminder to check locks, I suggest arm yourself. The more people that are armed, the better. This isn't the first mass shooting and won't be the last sadly, it is just the latest. And a horrible one at that.


didn't take long


they have all ready found a silver lining 1 guy shot back and saved the day ... sadly 26 people were all ready killed but the'll run with it anyway saying it could have been worse.. Really !!

didn't take long


they have all ready found a silver lining 1 guy shot back and saved the day ... sadly 26 people were all ready killed but the'll run with it anyway saying it could have been worse.. Really !!


Had that good guy not stopped the shooter how many more would have been killed ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Had that good guy not stopped the shooter how many more would have been killed ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
All of them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's right, but some dopes don't seem to mind. They glorify these events to suit their agenda. Do you actually think he was going home to read a book instead of going on to slaughter innocent people which was happening without resistance? Many folks owe their life to a man with a gun at the wrong place at the right time. To imply otherwise is the act of a deranged individual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who exactly is empowered to decide that certain clauses of the Constitution have reached an expiration date and get thrown in the dumpster?

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact. Putting limits on those freedoms in the name of public safety, isn't the least bit contradictory to what the founding fathers clearly believed. The same guys who wrote the constitution, passed a rule that no one could possess firearms on the campus of UVA. Your conclusion that any restrictions amount to a trampling of the rights, doesn't pass the common sense test. Should wealthy people be able to buy a nuke?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The new liberal tactic is to attack those who publicly call for prayer. Especially in Hollywood, it's nice to see the liberals stop raping each other long enough to attack people of faith. Are the liberals trying to lose more and more of middle America?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

didn't take long


they have all ready found a silver lining 1 guy shot back and saved the day ... sadly 26 people were all ready killed but the'll run with it anyway saying it could have been worse.. Really !!

Read your post again please. Only a die hard liberal, would fail to see a silver lining, when an ordinary citizen hears a mass shooting, and runs towards it, in this case without stopping to put shoes on. As the shooter fled, the hero flagged down a motorist and said "we must go after him". Only a dedicated liberal could so completely fail to be moved by such an act of love.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

please shut up

That's right, but some dopes don't seem to mind. They glorify these events to suit their agenda. Do you actually think he was going home to read a book instead of going on to slaughter innocent people which was happening without resistance? Many folks owe their life to a man with a gun at the wrong place at the right time. To imply otherwise is the act of a deranged individual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes I ask myself...self...if caught in this situation are my odds of survival better if I and others around me are armed or unarmed?

didn't take long


they have all ready found a silver lining 1 guy shot back and saved the day ... sadly 26 people were all ready killed but the'll run with it anyway saying it could have been worse.. Really !!


ABSOLUTELY really , it is disrespectful to think otherwise

the killer was shooting those already down in the body to be sure they were dead, also shooting cell phones so they could not call for help. One woman shot 4 times in the leg was about to be next when she heard shots from the hero. Her prayers were answered, lucky for her. The other 20 hurt would have been killed so maybe it bothers you that the police were not able to get there faster than a good guy with a gun. The guy had a vest on and was ready for more shooting possibly with police so don't try to say the good guy did not stop many more from dying because that is insane.

Your massive ego is getting in the way of the truth.

please shut up

If you can show me that what I said is wrong, I will admit you are right and I was wrong, and then I will shut up.

It's embarrassing to me when people on my side act like these rights are either perfectly absolute, or they don't exist at all. Let the liberals wallow in that kind of extremism, we are supposed to be the home of common sense.

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact. Putting limits on those freedoms in the name of public safety, isn't the least bit contradictory to what the founding fathers clearly believed. The same guys who wrote the constitution, passed a rule that no one could possess firearms on the campus of UVA. Your conclusion that any restrictions amount to a trampling of the rights, doesn't pass the common sense test. Should wealthy people be able to buy a nuke?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The founders, including Madison and Jefferson who were reputed to be at the meeting which banned guns from their campus, considered the Bill of Rights an absolute limit on the federal government's ability to abridge those rights. Common sense had nothing to do with it.

As far as nukes would have gone, the Founders would not have given wealthy people, or any other class of people or individuals, the right to destroy the property of others in times of peace. In times of war, all bets were probably off.

The founders, including Madison and Jefferson who were reputed to be at the meeting which banned guns from their campus, considered the Bill of Rights an absolute limit on the federal government's ability to abridge those rights. Common sense had nothing to do with it.

As far as nukes would have gone, the Founders would not have given wealthy people, or any other class of people or individuals, the right to destroy the property of others in times of peace. In times of war, all bets were probably off.

"considered the Bill of Rights an absolute limit on the federal government's ability to abridge those rights"

Fine, let the states do it, I agree with you there 100%. My point was, if states impose limits, that's not necessarily trampling upon anyone's constitutional rights.

"Common sense had nothing to do with it."

Common sense is why they thought the campus ban was a good idea.

We also need to make sure any proposed laws, don't make it impossible for people like the hero who lived across the street from the church, to legally obtain firearms. What we don't want, is a scenario where bad guys have guns and good guys don't. That citizen possibly saved a lot of lives.

In my humble opinion, we'd be better off if bump stocks and high capacity magazines, had never been made available to the public. Now that they are out there, I don't know how you ever get that horse back into the barn. But I wish we could do it.

"considered the Bill of Rights an absolute limit on the federal government's ability to abridge those rights"

Fine, let the states do it, I agree with you there 100%. My point was, if states impose limits, that's not necessarily trampling upon anyone's constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court seems to have imposed limits on how far the states can impose limits.

"Common sense had nothing to do with it."

Common sense is why they thought the campus ban was a good idea.

I was referring to the Founders writing of the Bill of Rights. Common sense wasn't what drove them to include that Bill. It was the uncommon foresight to protect the people from tyranny.

We also need to make sure any proposed laws, don't make it impossible for people like the hero who lived across the street from the church, to legally obtain firearms.

He used an AR 15 "assault weapon." It takes comparable firepower to fight back against those who have such firepower. Think "reason for the 2A . . . oh and its not about hunting or sport shooting."

What we don't want, is a scenario where bad guys have guns and good guys don't. That citizen possibly saved a lot of lives.

In my humble opinion, we'd be better off if bump stocks and high capacity magazines, had never been made available to the public. Now that they are out there, I don't know how you ever get that horse back into the barn. But I wish we could do it.

One way to do it is to totally control society and all those who people it. Huxley showed a way to do that in his Brave New World.

One way to do it is to totally control society and all those who people it. Huxley showed a way to do that in his Brave New World.

"One way to do it is to totally control society and all those who people it. "

Yes that's one way. It's also a silly caricature of what people like me are actually saying. I'm pretty sure I'm not in favor of totalitarianism. Again, it's not necessarily one extreme or the other, and you rarely resort to such tactics. Banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines, seriously seems Orwellian to you? Not to me.

"The Supreme Court seems to have imposed limits on how far the states can impose limits."

Absolutely. And I want people in the mold of Scalia, deciding what limits are OK, and what is going too far. All I'm talking about, are the tools that make mass murder easier. It's sad to me that we (as a nation) can't come close to an agreement on that.

"He used an AR 15 "assault weapon." It takes comparable firepower to fight back against those who have such firepower."

We need to prevent them from having such easy access to that firepower, to begin with. That's one of the points of this.

In this case, it looks like we have a sufficient law in place, but the idiots in the Air Force didn't enforce it the way they were supposed to. From what I understand, the assault that got him discharged (he assaulted a baby and his wife) should have precluded him from getting any kind of firearm. We dropped the ball, and paid a massive price.

In this case, it looks like we have a sufficient law in place, but the idiots in the Air Force didn't enforce it the way they were supposed to. From what I understand, the assault that got him discharged (he assaulted a baby and his wife) should have precluded him from getting any kind of firearm. We dropped the ball, and paid a massive price.

so we should legislate more opportunities to drop the ball?

If you can show me that what I said is wrong, I will admit you are right and I was wrong, and then I will shut up.



your entire "statement of fact(s)" is based on something that you stumbled across in a google search that you think supports whatever point you are attempting to make...and so you keep repeating it no matter how many times it's pointed out that you are in error....it's very odd behavior....I'm confident that you've never actually read anything that Jefferson and Madison said and wrote regarding the Constitution, Bill of Rights, nature of rights, States rights, freedom, liberty, role of government...hint ....hint...it's voluminous...

so we should legislate more opportunities to drop the ball?

See, you're doing it again, you are making the argument that unless a law is perfect, it serves no purpose. I think that argument is flawed.

OJ got away with murder, because the system failed in spectacular fashion. So because such laws are not fool-proof, we should do away with laws making it illegal to stab people to death?

your entire "statement of fact(s)" is based on something that you stumbled across in a google search that you think supports whatever point you are attempting to make...and so you keep repeating it no matter how many times it's pointed out that you are in error....it's very odd behavior....I'm confident that you've never actually read anything that Jefferson and Madison said and wrote regarding the Constitution, Bill of Rights, nature of rights, States rights, freedom, liberty, role of government...hint ....hint...it's voluminous...

No, see, you keep saying again and again that I am in error. That doesn't make it so. Some of the founding fathers were fine with banning guns on campus. I therefore conclude that they never intended the second amendment be absolute. Along the same lines, I have freedom of speech, but I cannot threaten someone or yell "fire", which is (I think) further evidence that limitations on the bill of rights, are not necessarily unconstitutional. I think I make a compelling case. Telling me to shut up, isn't refuting what I am saying. That's what liberals do when they have no cards to play.

See, you're doing it again, you are making the argument that unless a law is perfect, it serves no purpose. I didn't say that...which law are you proposing? the one that didn't work because the ball was dropped or something else I think that argument is flawed.

OJ got away with murder, because the system failed in spectacular fashion. So because such laws are not fool-proof, we should do away with laws making it illegal to stab people to death?

by your logic we should make laws doing away with the type of knife OJ used because the system failed to prosecute

btw...it wasn't the law that was not fool proof....it was the jury that was fooled

Like I said before I have no problem with guns, yes I have issues as I'm sure many do, of illegal handguns getting into the wrong hands; but not legal sale of guns to anyone who can qualify. I'm glad there was a Texan with a handgun ready to stop that nut job from doing more damage then he already had. Same goes for rifles, shotguns and anything else needed to pursue your passion for hunting and shooting.

If we take the argument that you should be able to arm yourself in order to form a militia to defend or defeat a tyrannical government, I think the list needs to include far more than your over the gun counter AR rifle. First the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population might be really good stuff for that next science fiction movie, but that's all it is fiction. Again, if you feel that scenario is actually possible in today's society, I think you have been wearing that foil hat far too long. But lets assume for a minute that it actually a possibility, what percentage of the civilian population are armed and then you have to ask; what percentage of those people will take up arms against the military? Then taking this bizarre scenario further, we have X number of willing civilian militia armed with guns, rifles, shotguns and a smaller percentage with AR style assault rifles, all going against 4 branches of the military; all controlled of course by some mythical leader with unreal power to control and persuade the leaders of the military this is what needs to happen to form the new world order.

WOW, I can't wait for the book and then the movie, I think it's going to be a dynamic read and exciting movie:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

No, see, you keep saying again and again that I am in error. That doesn't make it so. Some of the founding fathers were fine with banning guns on campus. I therefore conclude that they never intended the second amendment be absolute. Along the same lines, I have freedom of speech, but I cannot threaten someone or yell "fire", which is (I think) further evidence that limitations on the bill of rights, are not necessarily unconstitutional. I think I make a compelling case. Telling me to shut up, isn't refuting what I am saying. That's what liberals do when they have no cards to play.

When the big and emotional assault on Second Amendment rights is being argued on the basis of federal power, is demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion.

Otherwise, if you keep plying some unspecified, general limitations on those rights, it gives fuel to the fire of calls for some unspecified power of the federal government to regulate Bill of Rights freedoms. And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Like I said before I have no problem with guns, yes I have issues as I'm sure many do, of illegal handguns getting into the wrong hands; but not legal sale of guns to anyone who can qualify. I'm glad there was a Texan with a handgun ready to stop that nut job from doing more damage then he already had. Same goes for rifles, shotguns and anything else needed to pursue your passion for hunting and shooting.

Why should you be allowed to act on a passion for hunting and shooting if the tools used for your passion can kill thousands of people?

BTW the Texan you refer to used an AR 15 not a handgun.

If we take the argument that you should be able to arm yourself in order to form a militia to defend or defeat a tyrannical government, I think the list needs to include far more than your over the gun counter AR rifle.

The Second Amendment already does that.

First the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population might be really good stuff for that next science fiction movie, but that's all it is fiction.

So because you say it is fiction, it must therefor be fiction. History be damned.

Again, if you feel that scenario is actually possible in today's society, I think you have been wearing that foil hat far too long.

As you might say, "today's society" has evolved (I use that in a metaphorical way, not a scientific way--even metaphorically, mutated might be better than evolved). Has "evolved" from a society that saw possibilities, underscored by actual history, to one that is encouraged to ignore history so is not capable of seeing possibilities. And not even being able to see how powerful and restrictive its government has actually become. And which is spoon fed the diet of fearing each other, but never to suspect a government which steadily separates itself from society, becoming more its master than its servant. And a society which willingly dons a hat which it can no longer see is made of tin foil.

But lets assume for a minute that it actually a possibility, what percentage of the civilian population are armed and then you have to ask; what percentage of those people will take up arms against the military?

If the people no longer take their constitutional rights as inherent and to be protected by the methods that Constitution affords them, and if the federal military no longer is willing to protect and defend the actual Constitution they swore to protect and defend, and if the people and their militaries believe in the supreme power of the federal government and swear allegiance to it, rather than to the Constitution, then your trust in the federal government better be justified.

But if the people still hold and protect constitutional rights, and if so too does the military, then there will be no need to take arms against the military. It would be the federal government, not the people, that would be powerless except to do the people's will and to stay within the bounds that the Constitution affords it.

The federal military is still composed of the sons and daughters of the people at large. Who do you think the military would side with? So, at this time I don't hold to, as you put it, "the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population."

But if the ifs I noted above occur, then yes, the scenario you describe is possible. That you think it isn't possible implies to me that the scope of possibilities you envision is unusually, or deficiently, narrow.

Then taking this bizarre scenario further, we have X number of willing civilian militia armed with guns, rifles, shotguns and a smaller percentage with AR style assault rifles, all going against 4 branches of the military; all controlled of course by some mythical leader with unreal power to control and persuade the leaders of the military this is what needs to happen to form the new world order.

WOW, I can't wait for the book and then the movie, I think it's going to be a dynamic read and exciting movie:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

Those movies have already been made. The books were best sellers, and the movies were box office hits.

BTW, this notion that we have evolved and the Constitution must evolve with us is either stupid on its face, or is just ignorant, or is scientifically sounding propaganda meant to persuade us of its merits.

It typically takes several thousands, if not millions of years for the process of evolution to bring about a fundamental change in biological matter and in the most complex "living" things, including humans. The notion that we have fundamentally evolved in a span of 200 years is not science. Nor even logic. Certainly not fact. Humans are fundamentally the same now as they were in the Founder's time. The Constitutional framework is as relevant now to human nature as it was in their time. It, indeed, was founded on that very human nature that we still entirely possess.

Our "times" may change, but the change is merely mode and fashion, not fundamental. Modes of transportation or weaponry, or technological advances, do not fundamentally change what we are. Our passions, desires, motivations, egos, ability to love or hate, to love beauty and truth or to lie and be ugly, to be good or evil, to wish to be free or be dependent, to rule or be ruled, and so forth, have not changed. And we are still the same political, social beings, or animals if you wish, who form governments which in various ways respond to what we fundamentally are. Those governments range in manner and scope from totalitarian to anarchist. The Constitution is probably the most "centrist" in that it protects individual proclivities in that broad range to function together in the freest most harmonious possible way. When you change our constitutional structure in either direction relative to the range between the totalitarian to the anarchic, you drift in either one of those directions and away from the ideological and harmonious center.

The rights which are inherent to us in the Constitution are the foundation for its existence. The powers in the Constitution which we consent to the government we form are not to create an all powerful government, but for the purpose of protecting our inherent rights. When we, for public safety, or any altruistic or dictatorial purpose, relinquish some inherent right over to expanded government power, under the pretext of public safety, we take a step in the direction of the totalitarian by restricting the vast many in order to somehow restrict the minute few. And we lessen the duty of the central government to protect our inherent rights, giving it, on the contrary, the power to replace some inherent rights with those it prescribes. And thus we begin the process of precedent to go farther and farther down that path.

by your logic we should make laws doing away with the type of knife OJ used because the system failed to prosecute

btw...it wasn't the law that was not fool proof....it was the jury that was fooled

Like many people on your side of this issue, you aren't listening to anything I'm saying, and you certainly aren't responding to what I am saying. I said that the tools of mass murder should probably not be publicly available. I'm not sure a knife qualifies.

I'm not an advocate for regulating knives. But you most certainly said that because laws aren't fool-proof and perfect, they aren't valuable laws to have.

When the big and emotional assault on Second Amendment rights is being argued on the basis of federal power, is demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion.

Otherwise, if you keep plying some unspecified, general limitations on those rights, it gives fuel to the fire of calls for some unspecified power of the federal government to regulate Bill of Rights freedoms. And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. Does that sound reasonable to you?

"demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion."

Agreed. I get careless and say the feds should do this or that, I mean the states...

"And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. "

Yes, that is the road to tyranny.

"Does that sound reasonable to you?"

No, it doesn't. Just because the road exists for the government to become tyrannical, doesn't mean they will. I do not think it's reasonable to assume that my liberties have been trampled upon, if we do away with bump stocks and high capacity magazines. If the feds want to send in Seal Team 6 to kill me and steal my stuff, bump stocks and high capacity magazines aren't going to stop them. They can launch a missile through my bedroom window anytime they feel like it, a bump stock does absolutely nothing to protect me against that. But it makes it easier for me to kill a huge number of innocent people.

But you most certainly said that because laws aren't fool-proof and perfect, they aren't valuable laws to have.

I never said that...you like to state what someone else said and then argue against it...when they never said it...it's very odd

Again, if you feel that scenario is actually possible in today's society, I think you have been wearing that foil hat far too long.

I wonder how many times this has been supposed through human history

"demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion."

Agreed. I get careless and say the feds should do this or that, I mean the states...

"And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. "

Yes, that is the road to tyranny.

"Does that sound reasonable to you?"

No, it doesn't. Just because the road exists for the government to become tyrannical, doesn't mean they will. I do not think it's reasonable to assume that my liberties have been trampled upon, if we do away with bump stocks and high capacity magazines. If the feds want to send in Seal Team 6 to kill me and steal my stuff, bump stocks and high capacity magazines aren't going to stop them. They can launch a missile through my bedroom window anytime they feel like it, a bump stock does absolutely nothing to protect me against that. But it makes it easier for me to kill a huge number of innocent people.

If you agreed to my reasoning of what led to the road to tyranny, and then said it was unreasonable because if the government takes that road there is nothing you can do to stop it, then I don't know what reasonable means to you.

Unless . . . oh . . . unless, since reasonableness can't stop the fed from killing you, reasonableness can give the fed power to stop you from killing others. Yeah, I see a sort of symmetry there. Yeah, tyranny is the only reasonable way to stop killings, except of course, it can't stop government from doing so.

I kind of think that's what I sort of said or implied by references to Brave New World and world wide bans on production of guns which are portrayed as nonsense suggestions.

I never said that...you like to state what someone else said and then argue against it...when they never said it...it's very odd

You said this..."so we should legislate more opportunities to drop the ball?"

Please tell me what you meant by this? I am 100% confident that what you meant is, "laws aren't enforced perfectly, therefore future laws are unlikely to have a positive effect, and will only result in more government bungling, and nothing else".

If that's not what you meant, please tell me what you did mean.

Read your post again please. Only a die hard liberal, would fail to see a silver lining, when an ordinary citizen hears a mass shooting, and runs towards it, in this case without stopping to put shoes on. As the shooter fled, the hero flagged down a motorist and said "we must go after him". Only a dedicated liberal could so completely fail to be moved by such an act of love.



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device. Act of love OMG there a twist... Seems conservative love the needle in a haystack argument. I am not saying the guy didn’t help stop further deaths . But thats not the portrait 2 a or the NRA want to paint .. their solution to the gun issue . is Bad guy with a gun good guy with a gun = no shootings. Once 26 people are killed we are past it could have been worse rationally. The man did a stand up thing no doubt .

people run in to burning houses to save people . We don’t use those examples to not have smoke detectors and suggest we need more people who can smell smoke . but we’ll use the one guy in how many shooting who helped stop a shooting to suggest we need good guys with gun more guns??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am 100% confident that what you meant is,



yes, you are great at divining what I meant...and what Jefferson and Madison "clearly" thought...any thoughts on Monroe or Adams?

. Seems conservative love the needle in a haystack argument. I am not saying the guy didn’t help stop further deaths . But that not the portrait 2 a or the NRA want to paint .. their soulution to the gun issue . Bad guy with a gun good guy with a gun = no shootings. Once 26 people are killed we are past it could have been worse rationally. The man did a stand up thing no doubt . And people run in to burning houses to save people they don’t know . We don’t use those examples to not have smoke detectors but we’ll use the one guy in how many shooting helped stop a shooting to suggest we need more guns??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oooohh...Gun Detectors would be a great idea

"The federal military is still composed of the sons and daughters of the people at large. Who do you think the military would side with? So, at this time I don't hold to, as you put it, "the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population."

Thanks for making my point, a militia isn't ever going to be required, because we have a military comprised of people just like you and I regardless of our differences in opinions. So if the shooter had no AR weapon, and the good Samaritan had none either, how many people would likely be saved?

So if the shooter had no AR weapon, and the good Samaritan had none either, how many people would likely be saved?

I give up...how many?

"The federal military is still composed of the sons and daughters of the people at large. Who do you think the military would side with? So, at this time I don't hold to, as you put it, "the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population."

Thanks for making my point, a militia isn't ever going to be required, because we have a military comprised of people just like you and I regardless of our differences in opinions. So if the shooter had no AR weapon, and the good Samaritan had none either, how many people would likely be saved?

Did you notice the qualifiers "still" and "at this time" in the passage by me that you quoted. The 2A is a preventative, so that the people might have some recourse when the "if"s in the unquoted previous passage above your quoted one might happen: "If the people no longer take their constitutional rights as inherent and to be protected by the methods that the Constitution affords them, and if the federal military no longer is willing to protect and defend the actual Constitution they swore to protect and defend, and if the people and their militaries believe in the supreme power of the federal government and swear allegiance to it, rather than to the Constitution, then your trust in the federal government better be justified."

If enough citizens and military personnel remain who have not become part of those ifs, the 2A can provide some recourse if there is the will and desire to "fight the power."

And if there is not enough will and desire, then, as I said, "your trust in the federal government better be justified." History does not justify such a trust. But we are conditioned to be blind to history, especially if we are not conscious of the signs or trends which should cause us to be wary.

Those signs and trends are so in our face, it is amazing that so many of us don't see them. You call that view a tin foil hat. I call it head in the sand.

It would still be easy to make a course direction by political rather than military means. That is my desire. And no, in spite of the 2A recourse the Constitution gives us, I also see the signs and trends that the Progressive model has been so implanted in the American psyche that recourse to the 2A would probably be a futile bloody mess if there were even enough of those who would rebel.

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

still waiting from way back on page 1 for specifics on what should be done....despite claims of not wanting to ban guns entirely that is logical conclusion, is it not? .... claims of only wanting to limit the deaths and injuries through some "common sense laws" only last till the next incident, then what ???? pat yourself on the back for saving lives that may otherwise have been lost if bump stocks or high capacity magazines were used...... and what do you blame then ? what is your next "common sense law" when these incidents occur after enacting common sense law?... if you read the comments associated with the stories of this tragedy you see that there are a LOT of Americans that believe no one should own a gun....

I'm glad there was a Texan with a handgun ready to stop that nut job from doing more damage then he already had.

I going to guess you got that from one of the left leaning media channels like CNN or MSNBC etc.
As already corrected by detbuch, it was an AR-15 rifle.
Thank God he did not have a handgun or he may have wound up dead also.


Stop wasting energy with wanting reactionary gun laws about this and that since we already have too many already, start working towards those term limits. I am all ears if anyone has and solutions. It will take too long to get enough Libertarians elected so something needs to happen soon.

Like I said before I have no problem with guns, yes I have issues as I'm sure many do, of illegal handguns getting into the wrong hands; but not legal sale of guns to anyone who can qualify. I'm glad there was a Texan with a handgun ready to stop that nut job from doing more damage then he already had. Same goes for rifles, shotguns and anything else needed to pursue your passion for hunting and shooting.

As mentioned, he was stopped by a guy with an AR. A barefoot guy with a handgun, against body armor across the street, would have had even less a chance.

One problem is a lot of people have weapons attained illegally and have no regard for the law. How do we fix that? How do we have an inefficient Government enforce existing laws?

If we take the argument that you should be able to arm yourself in order to form a militia to defend or defeat a tyrannical government, I think the list needs to include far more than your over the gun counter AR rifle. First the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population might be really good stuff for that next science fiction movie, but that's all it is fiction. Again, if you feel that scenario is actually possible in today's society, I think you have been wearing that foil hat far too long. But lets assume for a minute that it actually a possibility, what percentage of the civilian population are armed and then you have to ask; what percentage of those people will take up arms against the military? Then taking this bizarre scenario further, we have X number of willing civilian militia armed with guns, rifles, shotguns and a smaller percentage with AR style assault rifles, all going against 4 branches of the military; all controlled of course by some mythical leader with unreal power to control and persuade the leaders of the military this is what needs to happen to form the new world order.

Fortunately those that served or are serving took an oath to the Constitution, and not to any one person. The likelihood of a military coup or getting behind one person and forgoing the Constitution - IMO - is remote. But it is that Constitution thing again.

So by some reasoning, a civilian population with ARs and deer rifles might be less than what the Founders thought necessary (some civilians had cannon back in the day ; ) ). Perhaps Civies can get Apaches and Abrams now.

Maybe we should just get Mini 14s with wood furniture and the stigma would go away. But no that would be next.

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact. Putting limits on those freedoms in the name of public safety, isn't the least bit contradictory to what the founding fathers clearly believed.

The founders / framers believed to their very core that the federal government only possessed the very limited and specifically delegated powers that the people granted to it via the Constitution. Our rights were considered the "great residuum" of everything NOT conferred to government.

There is no fluid, undefined power to restrain rights, even for the lofty goal of "public safety". Our rights are, "exceptions of powers not granted", interests that were held out from the view / influence / control of government, they are not within the grasp of government.


The same guys who wrote the constitution, passed a rule that no one could possess firearms on the campus of UVA. Your conclusion that any restrictions amount to a trampling of the rights, doesn't pass the common sense test.

The standard of "constitutionality" is not that the restriction is deemed to violate some interpretation of what a right is . . . What makes a law unconstitutional is that it was enacted by the legislature operating outside the powers granted to it.

Should wealthy people be able to buy a nuke?

Again, the Constitution is a charter of conferred powers. Those interests that "We the People" have surrendered control over we can not claim as a right. The power to acquire, maintain and deploy the weapons of indiscriminate warfare was conferred to the federal government through the warmaking clauses. Neither the people or the states can claim any power / right to those weapons.

There is no claimable right to own NBC WMDs or fighter jets or missiles -- for at least as long as the people consent to be governed.

If you can show me that what I said is wrong, I will admit you are right and I was wrong, and then I will shut up.

You have had the constitutional principle and the law explained to you multiple times and you persist making this profoundly erroneous point. I have no doubt you will continue on this path.

Fine, let the states do it, I agree with you there 100%. My point was, if states impose limits, that's not necessarily trampling upon anyone's constitutional rights.

Of course it is.

We already experimented with the idea of states having unfettered powers to write gun control laws and in 1868 an Amendment was added to the Constitution, it said:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

14th Amendment
Until 2010, the 2nd Amendment was not held to be incorporated under the 14th Amendment. In 2010 the right to arms was held to be a fundamental right and enforceable upon the states.

We also need to make sure any proposed laws, don't make it impossible for people like the hero who lived across the street from the church, to legally obtain firearms.

Well, the fact is he responded and shot the murderer with a modern AR platform rifle with an extended magazine, so I'm not sure how you reconcile the above statement with your past statements with the facts of this incident . . . I'll just say my opinion is that they are irreconcilable.

And I want people in the mold of Scalia, deciding what limits are OK, and what is going too far.

Scalia isn't the greatest RKBA / 2ndA authority. Heller should have been 3 pages long, simply relying on SCOTUS precedent and sparing us the useless and dangerous textual analysis. You keep harping on the fact that the RKBA isn't absolute but you forget that, as Scalia did say correctly, "the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table".

Just because we agree the right isn't absolute does not mean that I must agree that all gun control propositions are "on the table".

All I'm talking about, are the tools that make mass murder easier. It's sad to me that we (as a nation) can't come close to an agreement on that.

And we never will when gun control supporters refuse to consider what can legally be done when making their demands of what they want to be done.

Why should gun rights people even acknowledge such foolishness, let alone engage in a "conversation" about ideas that are baldly unconstitutional?

We need to prevent them from having such easy access to that firepower, to begin with. That's one of the points of this.

And as we have seen, there were laws and regulations in force that would have frustrated his legal acquisition of guns but the people entrusted and charged with making the laws work didn't do their jobs . . . And your answer is to give these incompetent jackasses more power?

what percentage of the civilian population are armed

Numbers of gun owners range from 65 to 80 million. With an adult population of 250,000,000 that gives us a crude percentage of 26% - 32%.

and then you have to ask; what percentage of those people will take up arms against the military?

Before the 1775 Revolution it was said that 3% were committed to oust the British. I think it would be higher today and possibly much higher, depending on the actions of government.

Then taking this bizarre scenario further, we have X number of willing civilian militia armed with guns, rifles, shotguns and a smaller percentage with AR style assault rifles, all going against 4 branches of the military; all controlled of course by some mythical leader with unreal power to control and persuade the leaders of the military this is what needs to happen to form the new world order.

Yeah, that's the idea. It hasn't changed at all from 1788 when Madison laid out the principle in the Federalist 46. Madison recognized that the biggest standing army that could be supported amounted to just 1% of the nation's population (3 million people at the time = 30,000 troops).

Madison said that if those troops "entirely at the devotion of the federal government" ever acted against the liberties of the citizen, those troops would be "opposed" by 500,000 armed citizens -- a ratio of 17 citizens "with arms in their hands" opposing each soldier.

Today the ratio's are pretty much in alignment . . . 320 million total population, just under 3 million active duty and reserve "standing army" and say 75 million citizens with arms in their hands. That gives us a ratio of 25 armed citizens vs each soldier in modern times.

IMNSHO, all the 2nd Amendment was intended to do was preserve this beneficial numerical superiority of armed citizens vs "standing army" and to ensure that they had useful weapons if the ugly scenario ever materialized . . . And it is clear that by how Madison framed the scenario, that AR's and other military style guns are indisputably protected arms.

Just for info's sake, here's Madison's exposition (paragraph breaks added):"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands . . . It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . .

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

James Madison, Federalist 46

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

It demonstrates that Progressives / Liberals are so invested in their agenda they can not allow themselves to engage in reasoned discussion.

They have their demands flowing from positions grounded only in emotional constructs. That's why they react with either anger or hateful derision when simply challenged on a legal / constitutional basis. Such a challenge is processed as an attack of their feelings and as such can not be rebutted with reason and facts.

Heartstrings and virtue signalling are completely immune to Supreme Court citation.

As the old debate maxim says, you can't reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

It demonstrates that Progressives / Liberals are so invested in their agenda they can not allow themselves to engage in reasoned discussion.

They have their demands flowing from positions grounded only in emotional constructs. That's why they react with either anger or hateful derision when simply challenged on a legal / constitutional basis. Such a challenge is processed as an attack of their feelings and as such can not be rebutted with reason and facts.

Heartstrings and virtue signalling are completely immune to Supreme Court citation.

As the old debate maxim says, you can't reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.


Talk about living in a bubble ...

Talk about living in a bubble ...

some great stuff in there....you should read it twice :hihi:

People dont have a right to an AR or an AK they just want one .. its the rambo effect .. just look how their marketed buy the gun lobby and the makers .. look at some picks of the open carry states .. walking around looking like I did in Iraq but they are in Mc Donalds ...

Have as many guns as you what register all of them have them on a searchable data base.. and admit that theirs a gun problem in America .. But they wont they'll just run and hide behind the 2a and the NRA ..

some great stuff in there....you should read it twice :hihi:


I did .... just changed it


ReelinRod is so invested in his agenda he can not allow himself to engage in reasoned discussion. AKA bubble

I did .... just changed it


ReelinRod is so invested in his agenda he can not allow himself to engage in reasoned discussion. AKA bubble

I assume that ReelinRod is invested in more than one agenda. Some may be more important to him than others. You know . . . like getting and eating the right foods (whatever he considers right), maintaining his home and autos, taking care of his family. His agenda in this thread seems to be defending the Constitution. You know . . . the thing you swore to protect and defend.

I'm sure you have some important agendas. Would defending them be considered by you to be in a bubble?

ReelinRod has certainly engaged the discussion here with informed reason in response (in discussion) to other posts (discussions). His discussion is actually what can rhetorically be called "argument." Your response in this post is not argument. It is simply ad hominem abuse. A sort of name-calling slander. A sort of dirty politics.

ReelinRod is so invested in his agenda he can not allow himself to engage in reasoned discussion. AKA bubble

Reasoned Discussion :rotf3: :rotf2:

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showpost.php?p=1131298&postcount=95Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you notice the qualifiers "still" and "at this time" in the passage by me that you quoted. The 2A is a preventative, so that the people might have some recourse when the "if"s in the unquoted previous passage above your quoted one might happen: "If the people no longer take their constitutional rights as inherent and to be protected by the methods that the Constitution affords them, and if the federal military no longer is willing to protect and defend the actual Constitution they swore to protect and defend, and if the people and their militaries believe in the supreme power of the federal government and swear allegiance to it, rather than to the Constitution, then your trust in the federal government better be justified."

If enough citizens and military personnel remain who have not become part of those ifs, the 2A can provide some recourse if there is the will and desire to "fight the power."

And if there is not enough will and desire, then, as I said, "your trust in the federal government better be justified." History does not justify such a trust. But we are conditioned to be blind to history, especially if we are not conscious of the signs or trends which should cause us to be wary.

Those signs and trends are so in our face, it is amazing that so many of us don't see them. You call that view a tin foil hat. I call it head in the sand.

It would still be easy to make a course direction by political rather than military means. That is my desire. And no, in spite of the 2A recourse the Constitution gives us, I also see the signs and trends that the Progressive model has been so implanted in the American psyche that recourse to the 2A would probably be a futile bloody mess if there were even enough of those who would rebel.

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

So many if's and and's in your immaginary government/military coo to happen, that foil hat is really messing with you.

So many if's and and's in your immaginary government/military coo to happen, that foil hat is really messing with you.

The 2A is contingency driven. If's are contingencies. Most laws suppose an "if." Everything you do involves an "if." Life depends on "so many" ifs.

"And" merely connects a few "ifs."

If you think there are too many "ifs," regardless of what material your hat is made of, it is a dunce.

Numbers of gun owners range from 65 to 80 million. With an adult population of 250,000,000 that gives us a crude percentage of 26% - 32%.



Before the 1775 Revolution it was said that 3% were committed to oust the British. I think it would be higher today and possibly much higher, depending on the actions of government.



Yeah, that's the idea. It hasn't changed at all from 1788 when Madison laid out the principle in the Federalist 46. Madison recognized that the biggest standing army that could be supported amounted to just 1% of the nation's population (3 million people at the time = 30,000 troops).

Madison said that if those troops "entirely at the devotion of the federal government" ever acted against the liberties of the citizen, those troops would be "opposed" by 500,000 armed citizens -- a ratio of 17 citizens "with arms in their hands" opposing each soldier.

Today the ratio's are pretty much in alignment . . . 320 million total population, just under 3 million active duty and reserve "standing army" and say 75 million citizens with arms in their hands. That gives us a ratio of 25 armed citizens vs each soldier in modern times.

IMNSHO, all the 2nd Amendment was intended to do was preserve this beneficial numerical superiority of armed citizens vs "standing army" and to ensure that they had useful weapons if the ugly scenario ever materialized . . . And it is clear that by how Madison framed the scenario, that AR's and other military style guns are indisputably protected arms.

Just for info's sake, here's Madison's exposition (paragraph breaks added):"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands . . . It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . .

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

James Madison, Federalist 46


Once again, the thought of our president or enough of the upper ecchilon having the support of all the branches of the military is absurd, I’d have better odds of winning mass millions.

In our forefathers days the militia was necessary and would have and was very effective, I just think our country has evolved past the point that will ever be required.

I realize that I’m debating this point with the wall, the arguments don’t change. This board is as always a circular discussion, inevitably leading back to were it began.

I guess we are a microcosm of the politics in the White House and while I’m neither an evil Dem as they are so foundly refereed to, or a republican; my views of where I’d like to see our country and our world for that matter just don’t fly on this board.

If we could do a rewind and no AR assault rifles were available to either the bad guy or good guy, I have to belief there might have been less loss of life. Consider that maybe less fire power might have made him less bold to begin with.

And now back to your previously schedule stance, time for Detbach to choose a color and set me straight. I hope you are self employed and spending all this time making a legal argument on your nickel and not your employers. I’m retired and frankly can’t take the time to read all the counter arguments; in fact I think it’s time for me to sign off this thread as I’m getting dissy of the circular thought process.

Beam me up Scotty, there must be common sense somewhere in the universe!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once again, the thought of our president or enough of the upper ecchilon having the support of all the branches of the military is absurd, I’d have better odds of winning mass millions.

In our forefathers days the militia was necessary and would have and was very effective, I just think our country has evolved past the point that will ever be required.

Good for you. My post was not trying to convince you that such a thing is possible or probable today, all I was doing was bringing some factual, historical background to the discussion. The history shows us "the thought" was not an outlier or fringe consideration.

I realize that I’m debating this point with the wall, the arguments don’t change. This board is as always a circular discussion, inevitably leading back to were it began.

My "wall" is only the truthful philosophical, legal and historical record that I present to rebut policy ideas that are dismissive or violation of the Constitution. Correct, my arguments don't change and I can understand why you might feel like you beating your head against a wall.

Your choice when up against such a wall is either:
1) present reasoned supported argument that proves me wrong
2) modify your positions / proposals to align with the Constitution
3) throw up your hands and say there's nothing to discuss
4) just come clean and admit you hold the Constitution in disdain and contempt and would support the government ignoring the Constitution and demand government to enact and enforce law that violates the rights of the citizenry.

I am always open to option 1. I beg for it; I throw a large amount of information out there and try my best to present clear and understandable statements. I know liberals vehemently disagree with me but I rarely get reasoned, supported argument back.

I expect option 2 to occur on rare occasions but it never does.

Option 3 is the usual response unless they are so defeated they just abandon the thread.

Option 4 is of course the true and core belief of modern liberals but they don't demonstrate the honesty to admit it. Everyone knows it to be true which is why the citizens who do cherish and respect the Constitution will never give up our guns -- BECAUSE, liberals want that government that would take up arms against us . . . exactly the kind of government that you claim has been evolved out of existence.

Your statement that "government has evolved beyond that" is laughable for it is precisely that kind of government that appears in leftist utopian fantasies of gun rights people being blown to bits.

Beam me up Scotty, there must be common sense somewhere in the universe!!!!!!

Your passive/aggressive claim of intellectual and cognitive superiority is weak and impotent given the complete lack of supported argument coming from you.

.

1) present reasoned supported argument that proves me wrong

To think your argument is right from the start.. if only the world was as black and white as you seem to think it is.

So as a time machine Conservative what year do want to travel Back to? For your Utopia views on the Constitution in America when every American reads it the same way ?

because that statement below explains much. Is that your example of " your reasoned approach "?..


the citizens who do cherish and respect the Constitution will never give up our guns -- BECAUSE, liberals want that government that would take up arms against us . . . exactly the kind of government that you claim has been evolved out of existence.

To think your argument is right from the start.. if only the world was as black and white as you seem to think it is.
Remember, this is a religion to some.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

1) present reasoned supported argument that proves me wrong

To think your argument is right from the start.. if only the world was as black and white as you seem to think it is.

So as a time machine Conservative what year do want to travel Back to? For your Utopia views on the Constitution in America when every American reads it the same way ?

because that statement below ex plains much. Is that your example of " your reasoned approach "?..


the citizens who do cherish and respect the Constitution will never give up our guns -- BECAUSE, liberals want that government that would take up arms against us . . . exactly the kind of government that you claim has been evolved out of existence.

So what is your point? Are you saying Reelin is wrong? Are you saying you're right? Are you saying there is no right or wrong? That everything depends on "interpretation"?

If everything depends on personal "interpretation," then where do you get off criticizing his point of view? Is your opinion "right from the start"?

That is the problem with this thread,very predictable reactions based on nothing except the party line. Simple minds that are working hard I guess.🤷🏽#^&♂️
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

1) present reasoned supported argument that proves me wrong

To think your argument is right from the start.. if only the world was as black and white as you seem to think it is.

If I encounter a statement that I feel is wrong I precisely quote it and rebut it. I do not expect different treatment; if you believe what I say is wrong I would expect to be rebutted.

One thing I believe to the core of my being is that a position isn't worth anything if it isn't worth an ardent defense. Why should I take your opinion to be anything but hot air if you make no effort to present argument to support your position?

You can keep saying that things aren't black and white but you never explain the grey or explain why black is wrong and white is right . . . Just calling my position names ain't gonna cut it.

So as a time machine Conservative what year do want to travel Back to? For your Utopia views on the Constitution in America when every American reads it the same way ?

The Constitution hasn't changed meaning. If there are differing views on what the COTUS means or directs, usually only one side is correct. You saying I don't see the different meanings is just another useless statement that has no value in the discussion. I know there are different opinions, tearing them apart is what I enjoy.

because that statement below explains much. Is that your example of " your reasoned approach "?..


the citizens who do cherish and respect the Constitution will never give up our guns -- BECAUSE, liberals want that government that would take up arms against us . . . exactly the kind of government that you claim has been evolved out of existence.


In the context of Got Stripers statement that I was replying to? Sure.

That is the problem with this thread,very predictable reactions based on nothing except the party line. Simple minds that are working hard I guess.����#^&♂️
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yours is a very predictable comment from someone who hasn't said anything of value in this thread.

Here, you want outside the established boundaries discussion?

I would enjoy a discussion of how the general anti-RKBA / 2nd Amendment agenda meshes with the foundational theory for penumbral rights.

The "penumbral rights theory" is how generalized "privacy' rights were recognized and how abortion, reproductive / contraceptive and sexual orientation rights are secured.

For those that do not know, the origin of those rights has been found in the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the rights expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The theory was outlined (without being named) in a dissent written by Justice Harlan in Poe v Ullman. These unenumerated rights also rely on the principle embodied in the 9th Amendment. The case where penumbral rights became evident was Griswold v Connecticut:

"[The] specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion).

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Justice O'Connor, quoted below, expressly elevated Harlan's dissent to the opinion of the Court:

"Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U. S. Const., Amend. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (ellipsis in original)
Some questions for discussion:

How does anti-gunner's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment fit into the right to keep and bear arms being a link in the "rational continuum" of individual liberty protected from federal (and state) injury by the Bill of Rights?

Can a right that is found to exist in the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights be more respected, more vital and more secure than a right that is actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

Can anti-gunner's hostility for the RKBA and their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment actually call into question the legitimacy of the penumbral rights theory, securing the rights to abortion and other reproductive choices or even the gains made in LGBT rights?

IOW, if the "rational continuum" does not exist -- since there is a "right" that doesn't belong to individuals in the series, how can the penumbral rights theory be valid?

.

Point of information, I support the penumbral rights theory. I believe it to be a usable work-around to Slaughterhouse, which gutted the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. I would prefer Slaughterhouse to be revisited by SCOTUS and overturned, it is universally considered a wrongly decided case.

Thank you for making my point.
But do you think that changes anybody's mind?
Will that discussion cause anyone here to rethink their personal view?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank you for making my point.
But do you think that changes anybody's mind?
Will that discussion cause anyone here to rethink their personal view?


If you think that makes your point it is obvious you do not understand what I wrote.

Only those pro-choice anti-gunner's that possess some degree of intellectual honesty will test their position.

That the theory that created the right to abortion can not be valid if the anti-gunner's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is true, might lead some to reevaluate their position on the right to keep and bear arms.

I am not here to change your position on any issue, I also ask no explanation from you. Obviously you are passionate,so let that be your cause. Enjoy your perspective and allow others the same courtesy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am not here to change your position on any issue, I also ask no explanation from you. Obviously you are passionate,so let that be your cause. Enjoy your perspective and allow others the same courtesy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Uhhhhh, No. This isn't a 'live and let live' situation.

Why should I just silently suffer those who are thieves?

The flaws in law and logic of those who support the theft of liberty should always be exposed. If your position is so bankrupt that you decide not to defend it, that's fine with me but when I read utter crap I will call it out.

Just look at posts 54 and 56 in this thread. In 54 spence quotes me and offers the rote 2nd Amendment lies. I correct him in 56 and the next time this whack-a-mole pokes his head up is 120 with a substanceless BS comment.

If you think I post to change the position of the person I quote, you are wrong. Sure, I pine for anti's to reply but it really doesn't matter.

Threads on guns are always the highest page view threads on any board. I posted 51 and 56 for the lurkers, people who are interested in the subject. I'm under no illusion the vocal anti's will ever change but if the anti's statements are ritually, religiously torn apart and the correct info is right there, someone who is on the fence might choose the right path. I'll predict that not one anti will take-up any aspect of 124 . . . they have absolutely no intellectual integrity and it is always enjoyable to point that out.

If exposing their lies and inconsistencies saves one mind and there's one less vote for a Constitution shredding liberal, it's worth it . . .

Alright, well keep up the good work. Way to make a difference. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Carry on soldier of justice. I have to go shoot eggs!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last time I heard someone hissing so wretchedly about lies and thieves I think I was watching Lord of the Rings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last time I heard someone hissing so wretchedly about lies and thieves I think I was watching Lord of the Rings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and post election Hillary :rotflmao:

Alright, well keep up the good work. Way to make a difference. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Carry on soldier of justice. I have to go shoot eggs!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did I mention how fun it is too?

Not quite as much fun as it was back in the mid-90's to early 2000's when the anti side had the law on its side. At least then some good debates could be had.

Now it's this crap; snide on-liners, unwarranted arrogance and passive-aggressive posturing.

Last time I heard someone hissing so wretchedly about lies and thieves I think I was watching Lord of the Rings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh look, there he is again . . . saying nothing of value.

https://preview.ibb.co/kPhdsb/Serpentine_Remote_Baiji_max_1mb.gif

Not quite as much fun as it was back in the mid-90's to early 2000's when the anti side had the law on its side. At least then some good debates could be had.
I'm astounded that with your absolute conviction and fact based correctness you couldn't have found a similar level of joy.

Oh, that was the same Constitution by the way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, that was the same Constitution by the way.

Absolutely correct. The Constitution chugged along unchanged while the law, as set-out in the lower federal courts beginning in 1942* went on a 66 year long acid trip. The Supreme Court slapped them back into the constitutional fold in 2008.

* U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) inserting the "state's right" and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) inserting the "militia right" in the federal courts.

I'm astounded that with your absolute conviction and fact based correctness you couldn't have found a similar level of joy.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He actually said his level of joy (fun) was greater then.

"Did I mention how fun it is too?"

It is fun now, as well as being constitutionally faithful (having the law on his [constitutional] side).

"Not quite as much fun as it was back in the mid-90's to early 2000's when the anti side had the law on its side. At least then some good debates could be had."

But not as much fun (joy, per you) now as it was when the left could provide good debates since it had the law (not the Constitution) on its side.

"Now it's this crap; snide on-liners, unwarranted arrogance and passive-aggressive posturing."

Now it's not as much fun because the anti- side has neither the law, nor the Constitution on its side. But still fun to point that out. And cannot be rebutted except with crappy, pointless, one liners, or longer emotional rather than legally correct responses.

the constitution is successful because people can't agree on what it means... which promotes dialogue




Americas are losing patience with the Gun lobby they are tired of the mass loss of life .. I have said more than once you can help craft joint solutions to the Gun Problem in America , or get rolled over by the solution .. but the days of hiding behind the 2nd and the NRA are getting shorter and shorter

Absolutely correct. The Constitution chugged along unchanged while the law, as set-out in the lower federal courts beginning in 1942* went on a 66 year long acid trip. The Supreme Court slapped them back into the constitutional fold in 2008.

* U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) inserting the "state's right" and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) inserting the "militia right" in the federal courts.
Ahhh, so Heller affirmed the right to own a fully automatic weapon? Of course it didn't.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the constitution is successful because people can't agree on what it means... which promotes dialogue


On its face, this is one of the most absurd statements I have ever, ever, read.

But, like some of the cryptic things Trump says, maybe there is some rationale, even truth, in what you say. Can you please explain what you mean here, because your statement, as it is, makes no sense. It is totally divorced from sense. It verges, if it doesn't actually get there, on lunacy.

Did I mention how fun it is too?

Not quite as much fun as it was back in the mid-90's to early 2000's when the anti side had the law on its side. At least then some good debates could be had.

Now it's this crap; snide on-liners, unwarranted arrogance and passive-aggressive posturing.

You do seem smitten. It really comes out in your writing. You have more in common with Spence and Wayne than you realize. Very predictable regardless of topic and not the best with comprehension. That is what happens when you close your mind,the eyes and ears follow. Again, thank you for proving my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On its face, this is one of the most absurd statements I have ever, ever, read.

But, like some of the cryptic things Trump says, maybe there is some rationale, even truth, in what you say. Can you please explain what you mean here, because your statement, as it is, makes no sense. It is totally divorced from sense. It verges, if it doesn't actually get there, on lunacy.

He means that it is like the Bible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post

the constitution is successful because people can't agree on what it means... which promotes dialogue


Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

On its face, this is one of the most absurd statements I have ever, ever, read.



"A"....for originality...and comedy

He means that it is like the Bible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Chris FTW.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I find it hard to believe that there has not been a single mention of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The original intent of the NFA was to outlaw the machine guns (full automatic weapons) that had been outgunning the lawmen throughout Prohibition era. It was an act of Congress, has some flaws, has been successfully challenged on some fronts, and is where this discussion must be held in this nation. Not the Second Amendment.

I find it hard to believe that there has not been a single mention of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The original intent of the NFA was to outlaw the machine guns (full automatic weapons) that had been outgunning the lawmen throughout Prohibition era. It was an act of Congress, has some flaws, has been successfully challenged on some fronts, and is where this discussion must be held in this nation. Not the Second Amendment.

wasn't the "original intent" of the NFA to tax all firearms and create a national gun registry?

Ahhh, so Heller affirmed the right to own a fully automatic weapon? Of course it didn't.

OK, so I want to acknowledge that I have read your post but I'm unsure how to reply.

Do I respond as if you are serious that fully automatic weapons were really at issue in the cases I mentioned or Heller?

Or do I just assume that this post is just a bag of crap you have left on fire on my doorstep?

I'm going with bag of flaming crap.

You do seem smitten. It really comes out in your writing. You have more in common with Spence and Wayne than you realize. Very predictable regardless of topic and not the best with comprehension. That is what happens when you close your mind,the eyes and ears follow. Again, thank you for proving my point.

And another substanceless, ad hom post.

Gotta love it when superficial thinkers who haven't said anything of value in a thread get on their high horse and critique someone. Can you please link to a post where your unique and unpredictable knowledge is on display for rebuttal and /or criticism?

All I have seen you post are snide comments and insults.

PLONK

wasn't the "original intent" of the NFA to tax all firearms and create a national gun registry?

Yes and no. As with many bills being penned for congressional approval, other interests get represented in the drafting and negotiating process. It was at one point going to encompass all rifles, shotguns AND pistols and revolvers. Pistols and revolvers were dropped, and long guns were only included if under a minimum 16 inch barrel length. (obvious attempt to outlaw sawed off weapons) Silencers were included, and taxed, more so because it was a newer technology. Tax stamp on autos/machine guns was set at $200.00. (approx. $3500 in 2017 dollars) The registry was poorly written and continues to be less than effective, when looked at from a recording point of view, not a regulatory one. (The salt water fishing license is light years ahead of the gun registry.....)

I call it constructive criticism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And, the stamp for a single NFA weapon is still $200.00..... Getting the Form 4 processed is more of a challenge IMO. I believe there could be untold numbers of home built short barreled rifles out there. Like the bump stock, there are many work arounds......

On its face, this is one of the most absurd statements I have ever, ever, read.

But, like some of the cryptic things Trump says, maybe there is some rationale, even truth, in what you say. Can you please explain what you mean here, because your statement, as it is, makes no sense. It is totally divorced from sense. It verges, if it doesn't actually get there, on lunacy.

So are you suggesting everyone who helped craft it agreed . On its all its details ... history says no.. 2017 and people are still seeking answers on its intent in the modern world .. so yes sea dangle is correct it's like the bible you see what you want to see

Do I respond as if you are serious that fully automatic weapons were really at issue in the cases I mentioned or Heller?
Isn't that the point? Heller acknowledged for the moment the individual right to a gun for defense, but not a universal right to any weapon for any reason.

I don't think you'll find many on this board who want to take away handguns from law abiding people. The context of this thread is mass shootings...which are increasing dramatically and usually involve an assault weapon.

Here's a good piece written by a friends cousin.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/guns-we-cannot-accept-the-status-quo_us_5a090de1e4b0e37d2f385988?ncid=engmodushpmg0 0000003

Drove by the Mandalay Bay last week...haunting.

So are you suggesting everyone who helped craft it agreed . On its all its details ... history says no..

Of course there was disagreement. It was a convention in order to hammer out a constitution. Everyone had opinions on what would make the best constitution. But they did not disagree on the meaning of the words. There was disagreement by some, the Anti-Federalists, on how much power the proposed constitution gave to the federal government. If anything, those who initially, or finally, opposed ratification, did so on the grounds that the central government would be too strong. But compromises were made, and, in the end, only three delegates did not choose to sign on to ratification.

So the signers all finally agreed to the Constitution. They agreed on what the words meant. They agreed on its checks and balances. They agreed on which powers the central government should and would have. They even, post ratification, included, per compromise, the insertion of a Bill of Rights--again, to make certain that the central government could not abridge those rights. They agreed that the people and the states would retain the vast residuum of rights which were not granted to the central government.

Again, the disagreements were not on meaning. They were on how much power the central government would have. Those who disagreed with the Constitution on that ground, would be the very ones whose arguments would absolutely oppose any power the central government could have to restrict any natural right. They wouldn't have wanted the central government to have much, if any, more power than it had in the articles of confederation. And the rest, who signed on to ratification, agreed that the federal government would have, and only have, those powers enumerated to it in the Constitution. And they all agreed as to the meanings of the words that spelled out those enumerations of power. And those meanings stood up, as intended, for a century or more, before Progressivism started to "interpret" those words.

So don't go to the "Founders disagreed" notion as some justification for loose interpretation of the Constitution.

2017 and people are still seeking answers on its intent in the modern world .. so yes sea dangle is correct it's like the bible you see what you want to see

This "seeking answers on its intent in the modern world" notion is a result of an "intent" other than that of the Framer's Constitution. It is the intent of Progressives to impose layer upon layer of legislation upon and against the text of the Constitution in order to legally justify what is not "interpretation" but actually a rewriting of it, or, by proxy or deception, the creation of a new unwritten constitution. One whose meaning and intent run counter to the text of the Constitution.

The "intention" of the Constitution was to impose restrictions on the "intentions" of those in government who would, for whatever reason, good or ill, dictate rules and regulations which would deny the people their natural rights.

Those natural rights were based not on technological advances or the fashions of the day. They were based on human nature. On how humans assert power. On how humans desire freedom. The intention of the Constitution is to limit the power some humans can have over other humans. To assure the optimum freedom of individuals REGARDLESS OF WHICH TIME IN WHICH THEY LIVE. The "times" are fleeting, the nature of man, so long as humans exist, abides.

As far as I know, humans have not yet evolved into something other than they were in the 18th century. And the same desire of some to rule others, as witnessed in "our time," has not changed.

And if you pay attention to what Progressive doctrine has been since its inception, unless, as Sea Dangles would say, you are "smitten" by its promises, you will see that it has nothing to do with actual constitutional governance. Quite the contrary, it is about circumventing or gradually replacing that governance with an unlimited rule of supposed experts.

And no, it's not like the Bible. It's not about rules for getting to heaven. It is about life on earth. About human interaction with humans written by humans for humans. It is about "Caesar's" power not God's. Since God did not hold a convention, we don't have an actual written document of disputes and resolutions related by actual witnesses to the event. The Bible requires belief in that which cannot be known.

The Constitution is secular law. Such law cannot be "successful because people can't agree on what it means" as you put it. That is nonsense. If there is no agreement on what secular law means, then no-one would know how to comply with such law. Such law would not only be useless, it would contradict the very nature of law.

The context of this thread is mass shootings...which are increasing dramatically and usually involve an assault weapon.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9DLGTYd5wE

listen to this video, the answers are here as to possible reasons they are increasing and what can be done to deter it because banning guns is not the answer, guns don't shoot themselves.

I don't think you'll find many on this board who want to take away handguns from law abiding people.


You should not be able to find ANY!!!

listen to this video, the answers are here as to possible reasons they are increasing and what can be done to deter it because banning guns is not the answer, guns don't shoot themselves.
Perhaps positioning the gun is an accomplice would lead to a more holistic approach.

Great points made in that video, the news sensationalizes these events, whether it's a domestic violence shooting, road rage or these mass shootings. Very valid and I believe spot on, however I also believe bad gun vs good gun, or bad hunting rifle vs good hunting rifle would have lessened the head counts on many of these incidents.

I never suggested, nor would I see a need to limit the sales of guns, rifles, shotguns, you name it; I would however agree with legislation that either eliminates these assault rifles, accessories that allow them to increase the ammo they can discharge per clip or the rate it can be discharged. Our founding fathers limited the sales of arms, gun powder and who could own them; legislating for the public's safety is not a new idea.

The other point in this video is that these nuts want their 15 minutes of fame because they are sick, off their meds or are having problems dealing with some crisis in their lives, getting them mental health help isn't something we should be making harder to get. Not all will take advantage or if they do benefit from it, but it should be available like the free mental health program MGH supports for veterans.

Society and the government view the drug problem as an epidemic with 59,000+ deaths in 2016, why would the deaths from gun violence not be viewed the same way? Ok, now back to your regularly scheduled 2a program.

Great points made in that video, the news sensationalizes these events, whether it's a domestic violence shooting, road rage or these mass shootings. Very valid and I believe spot on, however I also believe bad gun vs good gun, or bad hunting rifle vs good hunting rifle would have lessened the head counts on many of these incidents.

I never suggested, nor would I see a need to limit the sales of guns, rifles, shotguns, you name it; I would however agree with legislation that either eliminates these assault rifles, accessories that allow them to increase the ammo they can discharge per clip or the rate it can be discharged. Our founding fathers limited the sales of arms, gun powder and who could own them; legislating for the public's safety is not a new idea.

The other point in this video is that these nuts want their 15 minutes of fame because they are sick, off their meds or are having problems dealing with some crisis in their lives, getting them mental health help isn't something we should be making harder to get. Not all will take advantage or if they do benefit from it, but it should be available like the free mental health program MGH supports for veterans.

Society and the government view the drug problem as an epidemic with 59,000+ deaths in 2016, why would the deaths from gun violence not be viewed the same way? Ok, now back to your regularly scheduled 2a program.


Nor would I ... But the 2a people will always argue and only hear confiscation. unless you agree with them 100%

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/11/11/abc-news-firearm-confiscation-orders-part-of-solution-to-mass-public-attacks/

Nor would I ... But the 2a people will always argue and only hear confiscation. unless you agree with them 100%

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/11/11/abc-news-firearm-confiscation-orders-part-of-solution-to-mass-public-attacks/

Agreed. On this issue you see a lot of conservatives (not any here I don't think, but definitely on the TV) who act like if you think that there should be any restrictions, then you are necessarily in favor of trashing the constitution and imposing tyranny. It's very difficult to have a rational conversation on this topic with many conservatives. I don't believe (obviously) my side is irrational on a lot of issues, but on this one...a lot of scare tactics from my side.

Nor would I ... But the 2a people will always argue and only hear confiscation. unless you agree with them 100%

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/11/11/abc-news-firearm-confiscation-orders-part-of-solution-to-mass-public-attacks/

There is NOTHING in the article that says this is the ONLY thing the writers hear. It is A thing they reported, and which YOU called to our attention. Thank you. Wouldn't have known about it if you hadn't pointed it out.

Nor would I ... But the 2a people will always argue and only hear confiscation. unless you agree with them 100%

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/11/11/abc-news-firearm-confiscation-orders-part-of-solution-to-mass-public-attacks/
Well, remember also the mission of Breitbart is primarily to stir the pot and push conspiracy theories...or just outright lie.

Thank god nobody from that organization ever had their hands in US policy.

Well, remember also the mission of Breitbart is primarily to stir the pot and push conspiracy theories...or just outright lie.

Thank god nobody from that organization ever had their hands in US policy.

Actually, I remember the mission of Breitbart to be different than your BS portrayal. Nor is your BS relevant to my response to wdmso.

Actually, I remember the mission of Breitbart to be different than your BS portrayal. Nor is your BS relevant to my response to wdmso.
What, to destroy the GOP establishment and replace it with a corrupt, anti-American, racist, bigoted and misogynistic perversion of a party?

Sounds like a great mission.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What, to destroy the GOP establishment and replace it with a corrupt, anti-American, racist, bigoted and misogynistic perversion of a party?

Sounds like a great mission.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Breitbart is not racist, corrupt, anti-American, bigoted, or misogynistic. The GOP and much more so the Democrat parties have been corrupted from what used to be American into a globalist, elitist, authoritarian cabal. I understand from your posts that you are enamored of such corruption. It makes you a bigot in support of it.

Breitbart is not racist, corrupt, anti-American, bigoted, or misogynistic. The GOP and much more so the Democrat parties have been corrupted from what used to be American into a globalist, elitist, authoritarian cabal. I understand from your posts that you are enamored of such corruption. It makes you a bigot in support of it.

The original brietbart wasnt. The Steve bannon version is most of those things.

How does the NWO fit in to your rant?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The original brietbart wasnt. The Steve bannon version is most of those things.

How does the NWO fit in to your rant?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bannon is not the whole of Breitbart. But, OK, fill me in on how he is most of those things. And my "rant" was in response to Spence's rant. Like begets like.

Yes and no.

the answer is "YES"....the original intent of the NFA was to tax, regulate and create a National Registry for all firearms...not to "outlaw machine guns"

What, to destroy the GOP establishment and replace it with a corrupt, anti-American, racist, bigoted and misogynistic perversion of a party?

Sounds like a great mission.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you forgot homophobic, xenophobic, nativist, capitalist, sexist, ageist, fundamentalist, radical, extremist....wait...I think you've been predicting the destruction of the GOP establishment for like 15 years...are you suggesting we're finally here?

So are you suggesting everyone who helped craft it agreed . On its all its details ... history says no.. 2017 and people are still seeking answers on its intent in the modern world .. so yes sea dangle is correct it's like the bible you see what you want to see

neither were written to confuse....but to clarify....those "seeking answers" regarding "intent" are usually seeking ways around the "intent" :hihi:...but, hey...here in the "modern world" where we see what we want to see....of what matter is "intent"

There is NOTHING in the article that says this is the ONLY thing the writers hear. It is A thing they reported, and which YOU called to our attention. Thank you. Wouldn't have known about it if you hadn't pointed it out.


I guess you missed (Firearm Confiscation ) in the lead banner

The comment section is a hoot ..

What, to destroy the GOP establishment and replace it with a corrupt, anti-American, racist, bigoted and misogynistic perversion of a party?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great post.

That sleazy group is trying their hardest to dig up dirt on Moore's accusers. I wonder if they will come up with a video?

Great post.

That sleazy group is trying their hardest to dig up dirt on Moore's accusers.

they should put Hillary in charge..she needs a job and has experience :hihi:

Perhaps positioning the gun is an accomplice would lead to a more holistic approach.

I'm not sure what you are saying here but perhaps not since you don't make sense at all.

We don't position Budweiser an accomplice in drunk driving accidents and deaths now do we? Yet there are some who want to blame manufacturers for cause of deaths and it is going on in CT. but that is a different case

I guess you missed (Firearm Confiscation ) in the lead banner

The comment section is a hoot ..

Having an opinion, no matter how strong your opinion is, does not mean that you have not heard the other side, or sides. It means you believe your "side" is right.

Great post.

That sleazy group is trying their hardest to dig up dirt on Moore's accusers. I wonder if they will come up with a video?

Sleazy is in the eye of the beholder. Some eyes would behold digging up dirt on Moore was sleazy.

Isn't that the point?

No. Is there a initiative worthy of noting to do away with any NFA-34 regulations other than removing suppressors from Title II? Is there any court case pending that is challenging the NFA-34 restrictions on machine guns?

Heller acknowledged for the moment the individual right to a gun for defense, "The Second Amendment says that: “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.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). "

DC v. HELLER, 478 F. 3d 370, 2008 (Breyer, S., dissenting)
Essentially the 4 Heller dissenters signed on to two opinions that said the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right and Breyer's dissent (which the other three dissenters signed) states that individual right interpretation is a continuance of the Court's precedent. So, your "for the moment" is actually "forever".

but not a universal right to any weapon for any reason.

Correct. The right to possess and use arms that fail the protection criteria is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. These are sometimes refereed to "dangerous and unusual" arms which is a legally specific term, not an descriptor that the government gets to argue for restrictions, see Aymette v State as cited in Miller.

I don't think you'll find many on this board who want to take away handguns from law abiding people.

Congratulations! Of all the questions about the constitutionality of "gun control", that one, "taking away the handguns from law-abiding people" has been answered unequivocally.

If you are saying that to try to assuage gun rights supporter's fears that you don't want "too" much, well I'll just say, good for you, at least you're gonna save yourself that embarrassment.

The context of this thread is mass shootings...which are increasing dramatically and usually involve an assault weapon.

Semi-auto detachable magazine rifles -- sometimes refereed to as "assault weapons"-- are NOT machineguns under any applicable law . . . Which again forces me to ask, why are you bringing full-auto guns into the conversation?

Here's a good piece written by a friends cousin.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/guns-we-cannot-accept-the-status-quo_us_5a090de1e4b0e37d2f385988?ncid=engmodushpmg0 0000003


It certainly is a pro-gun control commentary.

I appreciate that for some detrimental public issues it is acknowledged that we should do "everything we can do" to stop some problems. If only that was applied to the criminal misuse of guns. Of course all that's proposed to reduce gun misuse is the same-old-same-old, demanding laws we already have and doing stuff that's already mandated in law.

Yawn.

The context of this thread is mass shootings...which are increasing dramatically and usually involve an assault weapon..

Agreed. This is a totally different topic from garden-variety street crime.

These mass shootings are often carried out (when not acts of Islamic jihad) by warped, frustrated weirdos. Obviously, the sexy look of these guns appeals to the Rambo-wannabe psyche of these people. The gun manufacturer counts on that...that's why these guns (which don't function like machine guns) are made to resemble military weaponry, as much as humanly possible. If these guns function like boring rifles, there is a very specific reason the manufacturers do everything they can, to make them look like assault rifles.

The visual appearance of these weapons, fuels the fantasies, of a lot of us. This is exactly why so many people buy these AR-15 type rifles, instead of buying a rifle that functions the same way, but looks a lot more boring. Some of those fantasies, most in fact, are harmless. Some are very wicked.

To deny this, is to be incapable of rational thought on the issue.

I don't think I'd support a ban on "rifles that are intended to look like assault rifles but really are not", probably because there are so many already out there, a ban would have little impact. I would support a ban on accessories that modify the functionality of these weapons, to make them function more like military weaponry. I absolutely support those bans, (bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc) and that doesn't come close to meaning that I'm in favor of shredding the constitution and imposing tyranny.

To deny this, is to be incapable of rational thought on the issue.




you crack me up :rotf3:

We don't position Budweiser an accomplice in drunk driving accidents and deaths now do we? Yet there are some who want to blame manufacturers for cause of deaths and it is going on in CT. but that is a different case
In that case the beer is the emotional issue and the car the weapon. Hence why we have laws against drunk driving regardless if you hurt another person or not.

I absolutely support those bans, (bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc) and that doesn't come close to meaning that I'm in favor of shredding the constitution and imposing tyranny.
Nope, you're now a flaming liberal.

In that case the beer is the emotional issue and the car the weapon. Hence why we have laws against drunk driving regardless if you hurt another person or not.

We have laws against shooting people too, both are about equally as effective. Keeps the people who know better from doing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Semi-auto detachable magazine rifles -- sometimes refereed to as "assault weapons"-- are NOT machineguns under any applicable law . . . Which again forces me to ask, why are you bringing full-auto guns into the conversation?
Because a court finding for an individual right doesn't validate anything and certainly doesn't justify inaction on solving a very real public health issue.

You can cut and paste all day long, the problem is just getting worse as you spin around and around.

Because a court finding for an individual right doesn't validate anything and certainly doesn't justify inaction on solving a very real public health issue.

You can cut and paste all day long, the problem is just getting worse as you spin around and around.

Doing something about health problems is either preventing them or curing them. So, since you frame gun deaths as a health issue, what should be done to cure or prevent the even greater "very real public health issue" of gun deaths and injuries due to hand guns?

Doing something about health problems is either preventing them or curing them. So, since you frame gun deaths as a health issue, what should be done to cure or prevent the even greater "very real public health issue" of gun deaths and injuries due to hand guns?
It's just like fisheries management. Need a systems driven solution. The problem is the true believers would rather kill the debate than level up and drive any change.

Hey . . . wdmso, you don't like verbal gymnastics . . . how about this doozie provided by Spence?:

"In that case the beer is the emotional issue and the car the weapon. Hence why we have laws against drunk driving regardless if you hurt another person or not."

Ooops . . . wdmso . . . you gotta like this one!! should be worth a 10 on the Olympic verbal gymnastics scale (again, provided by the ever reliable Spence):

"It's just like fisheries management. Need a systems driven solution. The problem is the true believers would rather kill the debate than level up and drive any change."

We have laws against murder also. If those were prosecuted and sentenced accordingly, then maybe it would help as a deterrent but murderers go free and law abiding citizens have the screws put to them.

Spence , you are not going to solve the human condition with that kind of wordsmithing.

We have laws against murder also. If those were prosecuted and sentenced accordingly, then maybe it would help as a deterrent but murderers go free and law abiding citizens have the screws put to them.
Extreme hyperbole.

Spence , you are not going to solve the human condition with that kind of wordsmithing.
Expand on the human condition in this context.

Ooops . . . wdmso . . . you gotta like this one!! should be worth a 10 on the Olympic verbal gymnastics scale (again, provided by the ever reliable Spence):

"It's just like fisheries management. Need a systems driven solution. The problem is the true believers would rather kill the debate than level up and drive any change."
Takes gymnast to recognize a gymnast
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Takes gymnast to recognize a gymnast
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In one brief stroke of the keyboard you admit that Spence is a verbal gymnast AND that you also are one since you recognize gymnasts AND that you are also a hypocrite who calls out someone for the very thing you are.

In one brief stroke of the keyboard you admit that Spence is a verbal gymnast AND that you also are one since you recognize gymnasts AND that you are also a hypocrite who calls out someone for the very thing you are.

Pot meet kettle.

Pot meet kettle.

Right back at ya. I was already identified as a kettle or pot by another kettle or pot--so welcome to the huddle. You can be a pot or a kettle. Or both--meet yourself--look in mirror.

Right back at ya. I was already identified as a kettle or pot by another kettle or pot--so welcome to the huddle. You can be a pot or a kettle. Or both--meet yourself--look in mirror.

You sound a lot like Jeff Sessions testifying before Congress today.

OK, so the Mini-14 is safe then

OK, so the Mini-14 is safe then

at this time, for now :hidin:

Didn’t take long for another nut with a semi auto rifle to add to the death toll for November’s carnage. I guess we can all this one a “mini” mass murder, I guess he’s just a bad shot or not good under pressure.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because a court finding for an individual right doesn't validate anything and certainly doesn't justify inaction on solving a very real public health issue.

That's a peculiar phrasing. It demonstrates a profound ignorance of the law.

I'm not arguing the "individual right" determination validates anything or that it justifies inaction. I argue that it invalidates the BS theories that justified gun control action. Whatever inaction is forced is simply respecting the limits of governmental power inherently demanded by the Constitution.

You can cut and paste all day long, the problem is just getting worse as you spin around and around.

How pathetic.

No matter how you spin it, me proving you to be wrong is not perpetuating the problem of criminal gun use.

You can denigrate my proof as mere cut-n-paste, you can call it spin, but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong, irreconcilably wrong on the law. It's past time to admit you have no argument that the Constitution or the law supports you or your gun control agenda.

You need to come up with solutions that do not implicate the right to arms . . . Or you need to come clean and admit that you don't give a crap about the Constitution and you would eagerly vote for people who would violate their oaths to uphold it.

.

Didn’t take long for another nut with a semi auto rifle to add to the death toll for November’s carnage. I guess we can all this one a “mini” mass murder, I guess he’s just a bad shot or not good under pressure.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


The point being a "Mini" doesn't look like a black effing gun so people leave it alone.

Didn’t take long for another nut with a semi auto rifle to add to the death toll for November’s carnage. I guess we can all this one a “mini” mass murder, I guess he’s just a bad shot or not good under pressure.

California has nearly every law on the gun controllers wish-list.

Permit to buy then a 10 day waiting period to take possession of the gun, full gun and owner registration, "assault weapon" and hi-cap magazine ban, restricted carry laws, universal background checks / no private sales.

All those laws but no actual people with the balls to actually get guns out of the hands of bad people who are legally forbidden to own them.

It's so much easier to pass another law that only impacts those least likely to do anything wrong with a gun . . .

California has nearly every law on the gun controllers wish-list.

Permit to buy then a 10 day waiting period to take possession of the gun, full gun and owner registration, "assault weapon" and hi-cap magazine ban, restricted carry laws, universal background checks / no private sales.

All those laws but no actual people with the balls to actually get guns out of the hands of bad people who are legally forbidden to own them.

It's so much easier to pass another law that only impacts those least likely to do anything wrong with a gun . . .



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nail squarely struck on head.

California has nearly every law on the gun controllers wish-list.
And last time I checked had one of the lowest firearm death rates of any state.

That's a peculiar phrasing. It demonstrates a profound ignorance of the law.
It's an application of the thought process to justify an outcome...or lack of one thereof.

No matter how you spin it, me proving you to be wrong is not perpetuating the problem of criminal gun use.
Ha, OK Jim. Are you dressed all in white as well? :hihi:

You can denigrate my proof as mere cut-n-paste, you can call it spin, but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong, irreconcilably wrong on the law. It's past time to admit you have no argument that the Constitution or the law supports you or your gun control agenda.

You need to come up with solutions that do not implicate the right to arms . . . Or you need to come clean and admit that you don't give a crap about the Constitution and you would eagerly vote for people who would violate their oaths to uphold it.
If the law was so clear there would be no debate. The bigger issue is that the idea of "arms" is not a monolithic thing...yet it's treated as one by some to maintain a divine sensibility intended to kill all progression.

First, you have to admit there's a problem you want to change.

And last time I checked had one of the lowest firearm death rates of any state.

and Yet.....

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/14/shooting-near-red-bluff-is-latest-in-a-long-list-of-firearm-assaults-in-california/

and Yet.....

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/14/shooting-near-red-bluff-is-latest-in-a-long-list-of-firearm-assaults-in-california/
Certainly not immune...the rate of mass shootings is going up nationwide.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

"Twenty-seven percent of the mass shootings occurred in workplaces, and 1 in 8 took place at schools. Others took place in religious, military, retail and restaurant or other locations. California has had more mass shootings than any other state, with 21. While some locations have simply become shorthand for the tragedies that occurred there, others have added tragic phrases to the national vocabulary."

Laws are already in place should have prevented the last two mass shootings....texas murderer should not have been allowed to purchase firearms by law. and the other murderer from ca had a restraining order against him, was arrested for stabbing a woman in January and supposedly was recently firing many rounds in his neighborhood - I think there were many laws on the books to keep this chithead from possessing firearms. what would more unenforced laws on the books do?

State firearm death rates, 2013. Rate per 100,000 population. National firearm death rate is 10.64.[2][3]

Alabama 17.79
Alaska 19.59
Arizona 14.20
Arkansas 16.93
California 7.89
Colorado 11.75
Connecticut 4.48
Delaware 10.80
Florida 12.49
Georgia 12.63
Hawaii 2.71
Idaho 14.08
Illinois 8.67
Indiana 13.04
Iowa 8.19
Kansas 11.44
Kentucky 14.15
Louisiana 19.15
Maine 11.89
Maryland 9.75
Massachusetts 3.18
Michigan 12.03
Minnesota 7.88
Mississippi 17.55
Missouri 14.56
Montana 16.94
Nebraska 8.99
Nevada 14.16
New Hampshire 7.03
New Jersey 5.69
New Mexico 15.63
New York 4.39
North Carolina 12.42
North Dakota 11.89
Ohio 11.14
Oklahoma 16.41
Oregon 11.76
Pennsylvania 11.36
Rhode Island 5.33
South Carolina 15.60
South Dakota 9.47
Tennessee 15.86
Texas 10.50
Utah 11.69
Vermont 10.37
Virginia 10.46
Washington 9.07
West Virginia 15.10
Wisconsin 9.93
Wyoming 17.51

Who compiled that list?
Illinois is below average while Alaska and Montana are double the average, something seems fishy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who compiled that list?
Illinois is below average while Alaska and Montana are double the average, something seems fishy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's because its firearm deaths. Suicides and accidental are included.

State firearm death rates, 2013. Rate per 100,000 population. National firearm death rate is 10.64.[2][3]

Alabama 17.79
Alaska 19.59
Arizona 14.20
Arkansas 16.93
California 7.89
Colorado 11.75
Connecticut 4.48
Delaware 10.80
Florida 12.49
Georgia 12.63
Hawaii 2.71
Idaho 14.08
Illinois 8.67
Indiana 13.04
Iowa 8.19
Kansas 11.44
Kentucky 14.15
Louisiana 19.15
Maine 11.89
Maryland 9.75
Massachusetts 3.18
Michigan 12.03
Minnesota 7.88
Mississippi 17.55
Missouri 14.56
Montana 16.94
Nebraska 8.99
Nevada 14.16
New Hampshire 7.03
New Jersey 5.69
New Mexico 15.63
New York 4.39
North Carolina 12.42
North Dakota 11.89
Ohio 11.14
Oklahoma 16.41
Oregon 11.76
Pennsylvania 11.36
Rhode Island 5.33
South Carolina 15.60
South Dakota 9.47
Tennessee 15.86
Texas 10.50
Utah 11.69
Vermont 10.37
Virginia 10.46
Washington 9.07
West Virginia 15.10
Wisconsin 9.93
Wyoming 17.51

The more populous a state is the lower the percentage of every death is of the population. So it will take more deaths in a high population state than the number of them in lower population states to equalize the percentage.

By those numbers (calculated on the basis of per 100,000) that you cite, New York would have had approximately 8 times (800%) more gun deaths than Alaska.

Nor does that list differentiate between types of guns used. I'm guessing that most of New York's gun deaths occurred in NY city and most were done with hand guns.

So one of the strictest gun law cities had far more gun deaths than one of the least strict states.

And, then, which type of gun is the most culpable in terms of total gun death numbers, hand guns or semi-automatic? So, which type, logically, is the bigger problem?

DB, the chart alleges per 100,000
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

"Twenty-seven percent of the mass shootings occurred in workplaces, and 1 in 8 took place at schools. Others took place in religious, military, retail and restaurant or other locations. California has had more mass shootings than any other state, with 21. While some locations have simply become shorthand for the tragedies that occurred there, others have added tragic phrases to the national vocabulary."
California has double the population of every state but Texas...um...

So one of the strictest gun law cities had far more gun deaths than one of the least strict states.
People love to say this, toss out Chicago etc... which makes little sense.

Localized restrictive gun laws likely have more to do with giving the police more tools to prosecute crime than to create a weapons vacuum when you can just drive outside of the city to purchase a gun.

And, then, which type of gun is the most culpable in terms of total gun death numbers, hand guns or semi-automatic? So, which type, logically, is the bigger problem?
This is where you have to decompose the issues. A suicide may be different than a mass murder suicide. Different weapons, different considerations.

People love to push the stats around, see, see most deaths are by handgun not assault weapon etc...this just kills the dialogue.

Do we want to reduce gun violence or just ignore it?

People love to say this, toss out Chicago etc... which makes little sense.

Localized restrictive gun laws likely have more to do with giving the police more tools to prosecute crime than to create a weapons vacuum when you can just drive outside of the city to purchase a gun.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/guns-n-y-crimes-bought-states-article-1.2843521

Attorney general report shows 74% of firearms used in New York crimes were bought in states with weak gun laws

ALBANY — A new report proves what has long been suspected — the bulk of gun crimes committed in New York involve weapons that originated from out of state.

And even more frightening is how quickly they make it to New York.

Thousands of guns between 2010 and the end of 2015 found their way to the Big Apple and other parts of the state within a year of their last known purchase. And thousands more within three years, the report by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office says.

Of the 30,606 guns found with complete transaction histories, law enforcement officials recovered 5,873 within three years of the last known recorded purchase, including 2,437 within one year.

And a hefty one-in-five guns recovered after use in crimes were recently trafficked into New York.

The low “time-to-crime” number, the report says, is a strong indication that the weapons were purchased “with the intent to be diverted to criminal use.”

In New York City, 91% of the low "time-to-crime" guns originated out-of-state, the analysis found. That's the largest percentage in the state. Long Island came in second at 58%.

Feds can fight gun crime by fixing flaws in background checks

Schneiderman's office pointed to a Buffalo murder where a 9-mm. pistol was recovered in September 2012. The firearm was initially purchased in Ohio in February 2012 before making its way into New York.

“The data makes one thing abundantly clear: New York’s strong gun laws are being undermined at every turn by lax laws in other states,” Schneiderman said. “Even as we work to make our streets safer, the illegal guns most often used in violent crimes continue to pour into our state.”

Using federal data, Schneiderman’s office analyzed the transaction history of all 52,915 guns connected to crimes and recovered by law enforcement from 2010 through the end of 2015.

The report, “Target on Trafficking: Analysis of New York Crime Guns,” is the first statewide law enforcement agency to obtain and analyze such comprehensive crime gun data provided by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Schneiderman said.

Pols say N.Y.'s tough laws can't stop guns from entering state

Of the 46,514 crime guns recovered by police with a known state of origin, an incredible 74%, or 33,344, were first sold to someone in another state.

That influx of out-of-state guns soars above the 29% national average, the report found.

Of the total recoveries, 75% were handguns, the weapon of choice among violent criminals, the report says. Of the 39,491 handguns recovered, 86% originated out-of-state.

“When you look at the illegal crime gun problem, it’s the handgun that’s killing people every day,” Schneiderman said.

A minuscule 6%, or 3,208, of the crime guns recovered belonged to the person who originally purchased the weapon, the report found.

New York in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre enacted a series of gun control measures. They included expanding the ban on automatic weapons, banning the sale of high capacity magazines, and creating a system designed to keep the mentally ill from buying guns.

But even with the tougher laws, guns from states with weak gun control laws are wreaking havoc in New York, Schneiderman says.

The bulk of the illegal weapons come from six states that make up what’s known as the “Iron Pipeline” — Pennsylvania, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Ohio is also identified as a big supplier.

All have one thing in common — lax gun control laws, the report says.

The bulk of the guns come from Pennsylvania, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Ohio is also a big supplier. (Bryan Pace/for New York Daily News)

With 4,216, New York City has the highest concentration of likely-trafficked guns from Iron Pipeline states. Between 2010 and the end of 2015, guns that originated in Virginia made up 19% of all recoveries in the city, followed by Pennsylvania and Georgia, both at 13%, the report says.

Of the pipeline states and Ohio, only Pennsylvania requires background checks for private sales or at gun shows — and that’s only for handguns, the report says.

And only North Carolina of the seven states requires a permit to purchase a handgun.

“From New York's vantage point, the correlation between state and local laws and the source of trafficked guns is undeniable,” the report says.

“We believe the weakness of the gun laws in the Iron Pipeline states and Ohio, combined with direct access to New York via interstate highways and public transportation, has made them become the source-of-choice among gun traffickers running guns into New York.”

Schneiderman recommends the federal government close the so-called gun show loophole and require universal background checks, something Congress has refused to do.

He also urged the feds to make gun trafficking a crime and that states require all handgun owners to have a license.

Even New York can take action, the report found. Schneiderman wants passage of a gun kingpin bill that has been introduced that would make it a felony to illegally sell or possess 10 or more firearms.

The bill by Sen. Jeffrey Klein (D-Bronx) and Assemblywoman Amy Paulin (D-Westchester County) would carry a 25-years to life sentence for the illegal sale or possession of over 20 firearms.

“The Legislature should pass it and send a message to traffickers who think New York is an attractive market for illegal gun sales to think again,” the report says.

Schneiderman’s office on Tuesday is also unveiling an online analytics platform that will allow law enforcement and the public to track gun trafficking patterns in their individual communities.

Tom King, an NRA board member from New York and president of the state Rifle and Pistol Association, said he wanted to see the Schneiderman report before commenting.

New Yorkers Against Gun Violence also had no comment, preferring instead to wait for the release of the report.

Gov. Cuomo, who pushed for passage of the 2013 gun control law, has repeatedly called on Congress to help stem the flow of illegal guns into New York.

"Washington needs to act, pass reasonable gun safety laws, and stem this bloodshed once and for all — and this report is one more reason why,” Cuomo said of Schneiderman’s findings.

“New York proudly passed the strongest gun laws in the nation, but when someone can hop into a car, buy a gun just over the border and bring it back to commit a crime, Congress has failed in its prime responsibility to protect its citizens,” he said.

https://www.chicagocriminallawyerblog.net/2017/09/where-do-all-illegal-guns-from-chicago.html


September 26, 2017

Where Do All The Illegal Guns In Chicago Come From?

by James G. Dimeas, Esq.


The gun violence in Chicago has been a great source of concern among the citizens and politicians in Illinois for a long time. Every day we are inundated with news of shootings and homicides throughout the City. When the weather heats up we know that the number of shootings will go up. On Monday morning we open the paper to find out how many people were shot and how many were killed over the weekend. In the effort to come up with a way to stop all the shootings, we need to understand how illegal guns are making their way to the streets of Chicago. Illinois has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States. To own a gun in your home, Illinois requires that you get a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) Card which requires that a thorough background search be conducted by the Illinois State Police. FOID cards can be revoked for good cause by the Illinois State Police. Citizens are generally not allowed to carry a gun outside their home unless they have an FOID Card and are legally transporting it, or they obtain a Conceal and Carry Permit. To obtain a Conceal and Carry Permit you have to apply to the Illinois State Police, submit to a thorough background search and supply your fingerprints, and attend and complete gun training classes. Illinois was the last state to allow conceal and carry, and that was only after the Federal Courts ordered Illinois to do this.

In spite of some of the nation’s strictest gun laws, Chicago has established a reputation as America’s deadliest city. Chicago Police report that in 2015, over 2,900 people were shot and 470 people were murdered. In 2016, there were 762 homicides, 3,550 shooting incidents and 4,331 shooting victims. 2016 was the deadliest year in Chicago in 20 years. Chicago recently saw it’s 500th murder of 2017. These statistics, coupled with the strict Illinois gun laws, have become an example cited by gun rights activists to argue that gun control legislation doesn’t work. But a closer look at some of the evidence concerning where these guns are coming from tells us a different story.

According to the FBI, roughly 60% of guns used in crimes in Illinois were from out of state. The overwhelming number of those guns flow into Illinois from states that have much less restrictive gun laws. Most of those out of state guns came from Indiana, which is next to Illinois. Second place goes to Mississippi and third place goes to Wisconsin. The FBI data suggests that there’s lots of trafficking of guns within Illinois but point out that it’s very difficult to trace those guns once they get into the state because Illinois does not require registration of guns, does not license or regulate gun dealers, doesn’t limit how many guns can be sold at one time and does not require background searches on gun sales that are not conducted at a gun show. Indiana has really lax gun laws. Gun dealers are required to perform a very basic background search while a vendor can sell their “private collection” to anyone at a gun show without any background search whatsoever. So someone can buy an assault rifle at a Crown Point Indiana gun show without any background search, and drive an hour into Chicago, where assault rifles are banned. A 2015 study by the University of Chicago suggested that only 11% of guns involved in crimes in Chicago were purchased through federally licensed gun dealers, which require background searches. In 2014 the Chicago Police reported that roughly 60% of guns used and recovered from crime scenes between 2009 and 2013 were purchased outside of Illinois. Exact figures are hard to pin down but it is clear that the vast majority of guns making their way to the streets of Chicago are coming from outside of Illinois.

The significance of these figures is that unless national standards are imposed, there’s no law or amount of regulation in Illinois that is going to stop guns from making their way into Chicago and being used in shootings and murders. Instead of gun rights activists pointing to Illinois strict gun laws to argue that they don’t work, they should point to states that have lax gun laws as an example of why such stricter laws are needed to stop, or at least slow down, the rising numbers of shootings and murders in Chicago.

DB, the chart alleges per 100,000
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was not specified in the post, but I did calculate the numbers on that basis. I edited the post to specify that. I did not note in the post how I arrived at the numbers. I actually considered the populations of NY and Alaska and used those in figuring out the per 100,000 stats.

People love to say this, toss out Chicago etc... which makes little sense.

Localized restrictive gun laws likely have more to do with giving the police more tools to prosecute crime than to create a weapons vacuum when you can just drive outside of the city to purchase a gun.

regardless of where the gun comes from, handguns are the gun of choice in most killings.

regardless of where the gun comes from, handguns are the gun of choice in most killings.
But generally not the most deadly.

This is where you have to decompose the issues. A suicide may be different than a mass murder suicide. Different weapons, different considerations.

People love to push the stats around, see, see most deaths are by handgun not assault weapon etc...this just kills the dialogue.

Do we want to reduce gun violence or just ignore it?

No, pointing out that most gun deaths or injuries are by handguns, does not kill the dialogue. It expands and clarifies the dialogue. The dialogue that you propose is strictly about AR types or large magazine capacity. It is that dialogue that deflects from and kills the larger dialogue of what to do about gun violence. It is that larger dialogue which has gone on for a long time but has been compressed to the AR dialogue because AR types create a greater (unwarranted) emotional impact. Emotionally driven dialogue is more effective in achieving the desired outcome of the overall "problem" of gun violence than is the mere recitation of statistical numbers.

The current mantra, which you and others have repeated over and over, is that "no one" wants to take away hand guns. Just the scary ones. Look how much the scary ones can kill at one time!

Logically speaking, hand guns, re the gun violence problem, are the bigger problem. Emotionally speaking, the scarier types are a more effective way of riling up enough of the population to persuade lawmakers to "do something."

But the descending order of types of guns needed to be gotten rid of in order to solve the overall problem goes something like: OK, we took care of the fully automatics, now lets take it one notch lower on the scary scale and get rid of the semi automatic, then, because the overall problem will remain virtually the same after we get that done, we can get back to dealing with those nasty but bigger problem, the hand guns.

But generally not the most deadly.

Dead is dead. The greater number of deaths, by far, are caused by using handguns.

From that article I posted above.

"People killed in mass shootings make up less than half of 1 percent of the people shot to death in the United States. More than half of gun deaths every year are suicides. In 2015, more than 12,000 people have been killed by guns, according to the Gun Violence Archive."

From that article I posted above.

"People killed in mass shootings make up less than half of 1 percent of the people shot to death in the United States. More than half of gun deaths every year are suicides. In 2015, more than 12,000 people have been killed by guns, according to the Gun Violence Archive."

I think you're perhaps missing the really obvious, completely apparent and totally significant point...

While suicide is tragic, it doesn't make the masses look over their shoulders wondering if and when they're going to be involved in the next atrocity.

And last time I checked had one of the lowest firearm death rates of any state.

You haven't even bought a ticket on your own train of thought, have you?

You're the one who brought up all the firearm deaths. So now we're back to mass shootings? Can you make up your mind please
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're perhaps missing the really obvious, completely apparent and totally significant point...

While suicide is tragic, it doesn't make the masses look over their shoulders wondering if and when they're going to be involved in the next atrocity.

I remember a few years back when gun control advocates where more open about further regulations on hand guns even to the point of banning them in whole cities or states, and at the time suicide was named as one of the important reasons for the ban. Back then, we were supposed to be horrified by the number of suicides, and the greater ease of doing so, by handguns.

Now since that notion seems to have died out, we must still find emotional reactions based on horror to keep the public pressure up against gun ownership. NO, no, we won't ban hand guns, just the scary ones.

And if you subtract the number of suicides by gun from the total number of gun deaths, the number deaths by hand gun still dwarf the number by AR types.

Handguns are likely never going to be banned, nor do I think they need to be, but the laws in states making it easy to pick them up and bring them to chicago or NYC where individuals can't meet muster need to be tightened up.

Health care ties into all of this, because the suicide rates could come down if the proper care was available and the drug issue goes hand in hand as well.

The assault rifle discussion is logical, as it's the only likely ban that could even be considered; although I'm guessing the lobbying power of the NRA will make even that a long shot.

Handguns are likely never going to be banned, nor do I think they need to be, but the laws in states making it easy to pick them up and bring them to chicago or NYC where individuals can't meet muster need to be tightened up.

The only way that can be tightened up is to ban handguns in every state. Still would leave smuggling from other countries.

Health care ties into all of this, because the suicide rates could come down if the proper care was available and the drug issue goes hand in hand as well.

Those issues are their own, and controlling guns does not heal mental health or stop drug abuse.

The assault rifle discussion is logical, as it's the only likely ban that could even be considered; although I'm guessing the lobbying power of the NRA will make even that a long shot.

As I said, the AR type with its more potent emotional reaction is the next logical step down from fully automatic to semi-automatic. After that is accomplished, and the number of gun deaths is barely reduced, what's next?

All illegal guns were once legal.. lost or stolen or bought by someone else.... the issue is volume . It's not hard to get a gun in any state

In one brief stroke of the keyboard you admit that Spence is a verbal gymnast AND that you also are one since you recognize gymnasts AND that you are also a hypocrite who calls out someone for the very thing you are.

Heres a thought Don't involve me in your disagreements with another member . And then there's no need cry about the response... with the I am rubber your glue argument :btu:

Heres a thought Don't involve me in your disagreements with another member . And then there's no need cry about the response... with the I am rubber your glue argument :btu:

Here's a thought, respond to my actual thoughts and discussions rather than merely characterizing them in some disparaging way or by changing the subject. You do that a lot. And that signals that you are not logically able to continue the discussion and must invoke some irrelevant stupidity to deflect your way out of being wrong or illogical.

Here's another thought, don't assume that your suggestion here means anything to me. I rub your nose into your own poop of characterizing me as a verbal gymnast, then you cry, telling me not to do it again. :btu:

The original brietbart wasnt. The Steve bannon version is most of those things.

How does the NWO fit in to your rant?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For RI (and I think Nebe might actually like the Bannon in this interview), there are other sources, beside the Salon type or the left wing mainstream outlets such as NYT or WAPO etc. or their counterpart TV stations CNN etc., that describe a different portrait of Bannon than the one you seem to have. I've checked many of the sources that characterize Bannon as sexist, racist, homophobe, anti-Semite, etc., and they basically all repeat the same limited set of sources with the same 15 or whatever number of claims, with only one that I read or heard that might seem sexist, but involved a bitter divorce which may have slanted what Bannon actually said or meant. The rest were stretched interpretations of quotes or titles of articles which didn't prove anything, rather they created innuendos without actual substance. As I say, there are more serious articles that prove Bannon to be the opposite than the picture that left wing sources promote.

I just saw this video, an interview with Bannon by the author of a new biography of Bannon: Steve Bannon: Always the Rebel. Please watch it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g4nRKfaMUE

It's an application of the thought process to justify an outcome...or lack of one thereof.

That is not a rebuttal to what I said; it's just your rationalization for maintaining an indefensible position.

Ha, OK Jim. Are you dressed all in white as well? :hihi:

Sigh. Sounds like someone who has nothing left in the brainbank to write a debate check.

If the law was so clear there would be no debate.

That leftists believe and recite fairy tales doesn't really make for a debate. What point have you made that is legally, constitutionally correct? Where is the "debate" if only one side is presenting facts and citations of verifiable legal decisions?

I guess now you will say my idea of debate is old and outdated and nobody uses facts anymore.

The bigger issue is that the idea of "arms" is not a monolithic thing...yet it's treated as one by some to maintain a divine sensibility intended to kill all progression.

Speech isn't a monolithic thing either, the term is used as a catch-all for a myriad of expression -- some of which isn't even audible. Arms is a perfectly acceptable term that does not facially limit, qualify, condition or define what is protected . . . As it should be!

Someday you might realize / accept / understand that the right is not created, given, grated or established by the words chosen to secure it and you will stop trying to make the right dependent on words it does not depend upon.

The right to arms is not what can be squeezed from the words of the 2nd Amendment. The right is the silence in the body of the Constitution -- what it doesn't say -- granting any power to the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

First, you have to admit there's a problem you want to change.

I recognize that a problem exists; I just do not agree that the way to solve it is to enact laws that impact those who are not responsible for the problem (and violate fundamental rights in the process).

State firearm death rates, 2013. Rate per 100,000 population. National firearm death rate is 10.64.[2][3]

Alabama 17.79
Alaska 19.59
Arizona 14.20
Arkansas 16.93
California 7.89
Colorado 11.75
Connecticut 4.48
Delaware 10.80
Florida 12.49
Georgia 12.63
Hawaii 2.71
Idaho 14.08
Illinois 8.67
Indiana 13.04
Iowa 8.19
Kansas 11.44
Kentucky 14.15
Louisiana 19.15
Maine 11.89
Maryland 9.75
Massachusetts 3.18
Michigan 12.03
Minnesota 7.88
Mississippi 17.55
Missouri 14.56
Montana 16.94
Nebraska 8.99
Nevada 14.16
New Hampshire 7.03
New Jersey 5.69
New Mexico 15.63
New York 4.39
North Carolina 12.42
North Dakota 11.89
Ohio 11.14
Oklahoma 16.41
Oregon 11.76
Pennsylvania 11.36
Rhode Island 5.33
South Carolina 15.60
South Dakota 9.47
Tennessee 15.86
Texas 10.50
Utah 11.69
Vermont 10.37
Virginia 10.46
Washington 9.07
West Virginia 15.10
Wisconsin 9.93
Wyoming 17.51

Just looking at statewide stats doesn't give much useful data.

Homicide is a city / metro thing and suicide is a suburban / rural thing. 60 percent of U.S. firearm homicides occur in the 62 cities of the country’s 50 largest metros . . . Only 27 percent of suicides do.

People love to push the stats around, see, see most deaths are by handgun not assault weapon etc...this just kills the dialogue.

Do we want to reduce gun violence or just ignore it?

But the mass shooting hysteria that drives the left's gun control agenda is like being hysterical about the dangers of electricity and only discussing lightning.

Gun rights people aren't the ones who are ignoring the real causes of gun violence. We are shouted down and demonized when we mention anything about it.

If the entire nation were murdered with guns at the same rate as Black males, 15 -24 years old (70.6/100K), there would be over 225,000 gun murders a year. 1.1% of the population comprises 20.3% of the gun homicides (2015 CDC stats).

What ideas do you have to reduce that horrible statistic?

Just a hint; making it harder for me, a 56 year old retired White guy living in the sticks, to acquire, possess and use a gun, is a non-starter.

the number deaths by hand gun still dwarf the number by AR types.

The FBI doesn't break out "assault weapons" from the overall rifle category but ALL rifles represent 1.87% of all murder weapons and 2.62% of gun homicide weapons.

Knives, blunt objects and Hands and feet are each used to kill more people than ALL rifles:

https://image.ibb.co/m0bEJR/murderweapon.jpg

(Screengrab from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_w eapon_2011-2015.xls

the laws in states making it easy to pick them up and bring them to chicago or NYC where individuals can't meet muster need to be tightened up.

Are you under the impression that running guns is legal?

The laws are there, multiple purchase forms are sent to ATF which then sends them to local law enforcement for follow-up.

Except in leftist hell-holes like Philly where the city told the ATF to stop sending the reports because they didn''t do anything with them and the costs of mandated destruction were too high.

As I said, the AR type with its more potent emotional reaction is the next logical step down from fully automatic to semi-automatic. After that is accomplished, and the number of gun deaths is barely reduced, what's next?

The program has been in continuous operation for 3 decades.

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

Are you under the impression that running guns is legal?

The laws are there, multiple purchase forms are sent to ATF which then sends them to local law enforcement for follow-up.



I was listening to a gun discussion on the radio yesterday between a former RI state Rep and a current RI State Rep...the moderator asked the about the gun violence in the urban areas of RI(Providence)....the former rep's response was that "guns were too easily available and Congress needs to help with more laws"..."someone can drive to Mississippi or New Hampshire and load their car up with AK47's and bring them back to RI".......

sadly the time was up and the current rep who was on the other side of the fence on the issue was unable to respond to that nonsense......

Here's a thought, respond to my actual thoughts and discussions rather than merely characterizing them in some disparaging way or by changing the subject. You do that a lot. And that signals that you are not logically able to continue the discussion and must invoke some irrelevant stupidity to deflect your way out of being wrong or illogical.

Here's another thought, don't assume that your suggestion here means anything to me. I rub your nose into your own poop of characterizing me as a verbal gymnast, then you cry, telling me not to do it again. :btu:
Can your skin get any thinner?. how's the view from your high horse
:crying::crying::crying:

you two are cute :love:

Can your skin get any thinner?. how's the view from your high horse
:crying::crying::crying:

Your usual nonsense.

And on another note, Pres. Trump tweeted about the wrong massacre.

And on another note, Pres. Trump tweeted about the wrong massacre.

Thoughtfulness is not a strength of his.

He had a great moment on Veterans Day, actually hugging a former SEAL from the Vietnam War who broke down addressing the media. And he apparently helped out the idiotic UCLA basketball players who got caught shoplifting in China. Not exactly what Hitler would have done.

Referring to the wrong massacre, is like Obama saying there are 57 states. When everything you say is recorded, you will put your foot in your mouth. Trump will do it more often than Obama, though.

He tweeted it. Doesn't get the same level of leniency as a person who misspeaks in an interview. The president needs to double check and edit before addressing something so serious in writing. Looking forward to President Biden's more trivial gaffs in three years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He tweeted it. Doesn't get the same level of leniency as a person who misspeaks in an interview. The president needs to double check and edit before addressing something so serious in writing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yeah...well...send him a letter and let him know how you feel :rotf2:

Looking forward to President Biden's more trivial gaffs in three years.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not so fast...Google "Biden Groper"