I thought you said the Trump administration is bad for gun manufacturers...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There’s that pesky “Context” thing again....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was kindofa dumb enough proposition that I can fully understand how he thought over-legislative Progressives would have done it.



"Arms" is man portable, light, single person weapon and is what is supported by 2A. Not difficult. 2A does not guarantee your right to own a tank (though that would be cool ; ) )



In most states (including ours') you DO have to make a background check during a purchase or in designated years.

So - most of us have more than 2 finish rods with different pieces for different roles. You would not bring a 10' conventional surfrod to Lilly's Liilly Pond for sunfish. Not would you take a lever action 22 to shoot skeet.


The left never intends or threatens or intimates it will take your guns. Cough, cough.


:tooth:

Shhhh! You are disrupting the narrative

he voted for gun control, did he not? that is his agenda

if you check his record, he also voted against some gun control laws

...

This is my point. There is a big difference between supporting "gun control", and supporting the confiscation of every firearm out there. I have never heard anyone in Congress support the notion of confiscating all firearms, but you are suggesting that's what they're doing.

I support the banning of bump stocks. I would never, not in a million years, support the confiscation of legally owned handguns and hunting rifles.

Almost everyone is for some degree of gun control. We disagree, obviously, on where to draw the line. I don't know a single elected official in DC who wants to grab all the guns. Those are two very, very different things.

Almost President...

“The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.” - Hillary Clinton

Hahaha - here is an interesting opinion piece that basically states that most left leaning Gun Control positions are false (we agree) and that the only solution is to repeal the 2A (good luck with that)

Worth a read from both sides of the aisle (and the radical middle ; ) )

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/o...dment-nra.html

And most of his assertions are wrong.

Call it the "Gun Show Loophole" or the "Private Seller Loophole" and you still have the same issue of unlicensed sellers and no background checks.

As we've discussed many times on this site, be it an Assault Rifle or Assault weapon the killing power comes from the similarity between the weapons rather than the differences...and the availability.

As to the homicides via handguns argument, just counting bodies doesn't factor in the damage done to society. Kids who don't feel safe in school aren't responding to a gang killing in a far away city.

The 40% background check isn't necessarily wrong, it's just an out dated study. Regardless, I think we'd all agree that even 22% is still too high.

NRA campaign contributions aren't how they influence politics. It's about how they try to bias voters based on a wedge issue and threaten candidates who don't sell their message.

Citing a single buyback study from one US city as evidence the Australian buyback didn't work is pretty sloppy. The buyback was combined with other restrictions that dropped the incidents of mass shootings and homicides.

His last point is really bizarre. So background checks won't be effective in reducing homicide because these guns aren't in the hands of their owners??? Isn't the point of background checks to increase traceability and impede the flow if illegal weapons?

If CNN’s reporting is accurate, since 2009 the land of the free and the home of the scared school kids, has had 288 school shootings and the next country’s total is 8, tell me why we shouldn’t be taking gun violence more seriously? Our schools are like the Wild West at times, but sadly they aren’t shooting kids with colt six shooters. I don’t buy into the argument that the government wants to take all your weapons, but clearly we need to do something to curb this crap. Parenting is a big problem, help for troubled teens, severe penalty for bullies and some common sense gun regulation to keep weapons out of the hands of those people (teens, mentally ill, combat vets with issues), along with limited access to school grounds without hindering escape when needed for any emergencies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If God commands you to pray or take communion, are those commandments absolute? Can you do them in homes or places where the owners don't want you to? Can people reasonably discuss and regulate them?

Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land?

The 2A is part of the structure of the Constitution. Each part of that structure is absolute in its specific right. But no parts can contradict or trump any other part.

The 2A says (if you read it carefully and read what the reason for its existence is as was argued in the debates leading to the creation of the Constitution) that a citizen of sound mind can absolutely own the type of weapons that a common soldier is equipped with for the purpose of resisting a tyrannical government.

The 2A does not say, nor imply, that you can bring your weapons into a home or other private place where the owners do not allow it. Rights referred to and implied in the Constitution are "unalienable," that is they are absolute against infringement by government. Nor can they infringe each other. The absolute right to own weapons does not trump the absolute right to own property. You have the right to own your gun and I have the right to deny you from bringing it to my house. Or, as Justice Holmes said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I don't find that difficult to understand. Rights are absolute within the structure of the Constitution--absolute in their own right, but constrained against trespassing others.

Your open-ended claim that the 2A is not absolute implies that nothing about it is absolute, therefor all of it can be regulated or denied. I asked you if there is "some point at which it IS absolute and which no more compromise is possible except to finally revoke it?" Do you have an answer to that? Or do you believe that after every new restriction on it, still newer ones can be imposed, since it will always be "not absolute"?

let's make a list of the "right's" that the left believes ARE absolute that don't appear in the Constitution :)

had to laugh this morning as a reporter reporting on the shooting at the restaurant in Oklahoma made it clear near the end of his report that reporters were working hard and questioning the sheriff's department to find out if the hero had a permit for his firearm...no mention if they were similarly working to find out if the criminal had a permit for his....

A small group of people, in some states (half?) that allow the private sale of firearms. If you buy firearms in order to sell and make a profit you need a FFL license - federal law. If you are selling a few guns at a gun show (think more like a flea market than your trunk show ; ) ) because you are clearing out some space - in some states - this is the private sale part. Many states like our do not allow it.

The short version is this is not where most guns are traded illegally - that is the gun version of your local drug dealer - let me know how that worked out.

A nice AR is like a VS200 on a Lami 120-1M - it is a versatile, comfortable, tool that can have a "good enough" ability across multiple needs. It can do target shooting, hunting, plinking, to home defense, much like the surf combo can do the back beaches, breachways, canal, to rock hopping. Versatility. It just does it better (or more scarily to some people) because it is semi-automatic - a technology around for over 100 years.

Absolutely true. We are in agreement. No part of society has paid a higher price due to gun violence than the inner cities. It is also a shame that the political bigwigs have not felt that violence was enough to deserve attention before the school shootings.

No - the 40% is wrong and has been for some time. If 22% is close to accurate now that would be a result of gun control. I would prefer no background check. I'm stable, I am not going to commit crimes. But I understand the need because of others. Now to be clear, 100% of all buyers of AR15 style rifles (that have not circumvented the system) have gone through a background check. EVERYONE. Sometimes the NICS check is done of the spot, other times it is done in conjunction with a harder to get permit. But you get a check.

Of course that would not impact the illegal trade in firearms.

Said Every Union Shop Ever

Ohhh - and not a crazy culture helps too

No - the reason for background checks is to prevent / reduce access to guns from people that should not have them: fellons and people with M/H issues as well as to raise the minimium standards to get a firearm.

Background checks generally are applied to the people willing to go through the system legally. Wait til the Pot Smokers have gotten their dealers legalized, maybe they will move to the gun market next.


The Right that all people not only go along with what they say but must also believe with ferver and woke?

Yes. I saw people commenting last night that the shooter was leaving the restaurant after shooting the first too, therefore it was over and wrong for him to be stopped. And if there were gun laws banning all guns the shooting would not have happened in the first place.

WOW what an analogy... John feel free to keep your head in the sand :kewl: why do 2a anything goes supporters ignore

Justice Antonin Scalia, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Yawn, Wayne.

I am not looking for LAWS rockets for home. I am looking at a durable, lightweight, semi-automatic, & reasonably accurate rifle that shoots a light caliber round. It is a good all around rifle, analogous to a120-1M for the suds. Compare it to a Toyota 4Runner, a good all around Off-Road vehicle, or a Ford Fusion, a good all around sedan.

watch this
new laws not obsure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jl4Tn3zIY0

Just be glad Mass has plenty of rainfall, I don't think the western states water usage control is just to upset people. More that if they didn't do it they would run out and then nobody could take a shower or flush.
She is also putting a little spin on consumption since new toilets cannot use more than 1.6 gallons and energy star washers 15 gallons.
It's sort of like limits on the number of fish you can catch.
https://www.currentresults.com/Weath...cipitation.php

Ya, no kidding Pete,
that's not the point and yes the 1.6 gallon to the mentioned 3 gallon is framed that way for the same reason and tactic liberals do, big deal. Didn't liberals spin Trump winning the election to we are going to die? SPin the bottle of water, this is rediculous.Water is water. Instead of controlling people, control the influx of people maybe, if they run out of water, no kidding they won't flush. Find a solution like get more water, that state is so wealthy, make water from the ocean if you have to, but to rule with forced conservation? bad idea. Watering the lawn bans are one thing, telling people they can't shower is another. Crap in the streets what the heck right

Can I have the ten seconds it took me to debunk this video back please?

Just like those liberals invented fish limits, just let people starve.
Give Trump a chance, will ya? He's not done yet.
He was complaining that Canada has a tariff on milk, I wish we had the dairy compact that they do. If you drive from Franklin County, Vermont to Quebec, you go from a place that used to have thriving 80-150 cow farms to one that still does. The town I live in located in the Champlain Valley used to have 10 dairy farms and now has none. The next town over had many more and a store, businesses and a growing school, etc. All gone, now they are bedroom towns or old people.

That certainly is Trumps fault.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just saying that open trade is not the answer for everything.
Who knew that trade could be so complicated?

Government regulation makes it so complicated.

I think a lot of us try to simplify things that we have no clue about.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device