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

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

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

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

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


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

From the article: Who here owns 17 Fishing Rods?

:hidin:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Seat belt law does not ban anything"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:huh:

I can't even keep up any more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"No, it's not the same issue"

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

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

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

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

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

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

"No, it's not the same issue"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Yeah, right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


From the article:

Despite steep declines in violent crimes, an estimated 70 million firearms were added to American arsenals the past two decades, according to a new landmark study on gun ownership.

In the last 20 years, Americans bought over 150 million cars. https://www.statista.com/statistics/...es-since-1951/

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or after Irma, USVI actually confiscated them?

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

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

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


those cars are really getting out of control...

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


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1129483]

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

/QUOTE]

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

no- not any(ever)

2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

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


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

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

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

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

Show me where I did that Chris
I'm not paranoid but you are free the assume anything you want
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device