Texas Shooting

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"not even close to paranoid, history shows their agenda. Some have come out and said it."

Can you list those who have said it, please?

Pelosi, Fienstien, Biden to begin with
but do some homework and read this ,you will get some laughs at this and see who are the ones who are paranoid. I think they forget we already have laws and they are so dumb that they don't realize that just because there is a law against something, doesn't mean it will prevent it from happening.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-polit...o-ban-firearms

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I'm sure my google-fu is not up to par with yours
I could not find the exact thing I was referring to

Perhaps it doesn't exist?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps it doesn't exist?

It was illegal in several western states to collect rainwater, mostly (all?) repealed at state level but IIRC still banned in some local jurisdictions

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

It was illegal in several western states to collect rainwater, mostly (all?) repealed at state level but IIRC still banned in some local jurisdictions

The point was that this is like blaming liberalism for Blue Laws.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I am absolutely certain you do know what I mean. George Soros shouldn't be allowed to be a nuke just because he can afford it.

Remember Jim, it has nothing to do with affordability. Soros isn't allowed a nuke because he can't carry it

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Should governments be allowed to own a nuke? If so, why?"

If the Soviet Union had them, then unfortunately we needed them.

You have it the other way around. We had nukes before the Soviet Union did. And we used them before the USSR had them. By your reasoning, Russia should be justified in having nukes--as a deterrent. So also should NK and Iran be justified in having nukes for the same reason. And, are we, being the first to have and use them, justified in our owning them when we used them not for deterrence against being nuked, but as an offensive military weapon against those that didn't have them? And is everyone else justified in having them as deterrence against us?

They "why", and you already know this so I don't know why you're asking, is for deterrence.

Similar to nukes being a deterrent to a hostile foreign government using them against us, the "why" for the 2A is essentially for deterrence against a government tyrannizing us. But you don't seem to know that, perhaps, because you think its "why" is for hunting, and sports, and self protection from criminals.

"Could you bear (carry) a nuke?"

Maybe. Do they fit in suitcases? Missiles don't, but maybe a bomb does?

So who should own and carry a suitcase nuke?

You're being silly just to be contrarian.

On the contrary, I'm pointing out how silly you are in using ownership of nukes as an instance of how the 2A is not absolute.

" do not know what you mean by the 2A not being absolute in regards to the original 2A"

Yes you know what I mean. I mean there are limits. I should not be allowed to keep and bear a fully automatic rile, and carry it around in a nursery school. Since I presume you agree with that statement, that means we both agree that the 2A is not absolute.

I agree that if a nursery school did not want anyone to bring a gun of any kind onto its property, the 2A does not give me the right to do so. How is that an example of the original 2A being not absolute. The 2A never gave anyone the absolute right to do so. It is inherent in the constitutional framework of rights that such an absolute right does not exist. That there is no absolute right even to enter someone else's property without permission. You're setting up a silly strawman argument.

Pointing out that a constitutional right is not absolute should not be used as an argument that any abrogation of that right is therefor justified. The abrogation must address that right as sui generis and must argue strictly on the constitutional reason for that particular right. Bringing in extraneous comparisons not apropos to the amendment is a means to limit or destroy it outside of constitutional procedure to do so.

We just need to figure out where to draw the line. If we can move that line in a way that doesn't surrender what I would call basic freedoms

Are what you consider "basic freedoms" the same as those freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution? If so, then the line is already drawn. Drawing a new line, moving the goal posts, so to speak, entirely changes the game. Every new line drawn rewrites the rules, creates a new constitution.

(who needs bump stocks or high capacity magazines except for Rambo wannabees), and saves a few lives, we should have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of that.

Your disparaging, sarcastic Rambo wannabees portrayal does not presage a rational discussion. If the old line drawn was that the 2A's reason for existing is to deter tyrannical government from abridging or denying unalienable rights, and the new lines drawn are that the 2A exists as a courtesy which government grants to hunters, sportsmen, and self protection against criminals, then what rational discussion can there be regarding bump stocks and high capacity magazines?

But we can't have a rational conversation, because the pro-2A fanatics claim that if we do that today, then tomorrow we necessarily surrender handguns and hunting rifles and swiss army knives and slingshots. Not even maniacs like Chris Murphy are going that far, there is no chance that will ever happen, and if that's the best argument you can come up with, then you lose the debate, because it's not a rational argument, it's tin foil hat paranoia.

Your disparaging "pro-2A fanatics" characterization is ironic considering your fanaticism on this subject.

The most important pro-2A position is the harmful precedence that changes meaning in constitutional text. It is THAT precedence that makes possible tomorrow the things you say will never happen.

What you pose as a debate is, at heart, whether the Constitution is the rock solid law of the land, or if it is subject to the whims of the moment. If you don't consider that a rational proposition, we have little, if any, grounds for a rational discussion.

And if you propose that destroying the Constitution in order to save one life is noble, or compassionate, or just, or good, then, it would seem to me, that you consider the destruction of freedom for millions, present and future, is justified, noble, compassionate, and good if it saves one life. Those millions, in my opinion, would think that you grossly let your heart rule your brain. And they would not appreciate your compassion, or ultimate lack of it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Pelosi, Fienstien, Biden to begin with
but do some homework and read this ,you will get some laughs at this and see who are the ones who are paranoid. I think they forget we already have laws and they are so dumb that they don't realize that just because there is a law against something, doesn't mean it will prevent it from happening.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-polit...o-ban-firearms

Can you please provide a link to a quote, where Biden said he wants to confiscate all the handguns and hunting rifles that are out there? I couldn’t find it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Detbuch, you agree that nursery schools should be able to prevent people from keeping and bearing arms on their property, then you say you don’t understand how this means the 2a isn’t absolute. We are at an impasse. You can have the last word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

For me its about availability and volume of weapons more guns equal more gun violence and more cars on the road equal more accidents (most multiple death car accidents are not a choice ) if i had my way you could have any gun you want but it would be reregistered it would be a 4 step ladder licensing system based on weapon. background check every 5 years and a home inspection for storage requirements based on what step license your at .. it will never happen but its still better than thoughts and prayers

Gun Manufacturing Has Skyrocketed
The number of guns manufactured in the U.S. has nearly doubled in just a few short years, from nearly 5.5 million in 2010 to nearly 10.9 million in 2013. The overwhelming majority of those guns stay on U.S. soil; around 400,000 firearms were exported in 2013.

Gun-Owning Households On The Decline

The number of armed households has actually declined to about 1 in 3. So an ever larger number of guns is concentrated in a shrinking number of homes:

Seems the Nra and supporters just keep forming a smaller and smaller circle .. I have said this before they need to be part of the answer or the answer will be provided for them ..

people put out maybe statements from Pelosi, Fienstien, Biden but this guy says this and because he's in the NRA camp their good with it ..

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick on Sunday said school shootings aren't happening because of an issue with guns. Rather, he blamed the tragedies on a litany of other reasons, including abortions and violent video games.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick on Sunday said school shootings aren't happening because of an issue with guns. Rather, he blamed the tragedies on a litany of other reasons, including abortions and violent video games.

well...sort of...watch the video

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8361006.html

[Sea Dangles]

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

well...sort of...watch the video

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8361006.html

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

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

The point was that this is like blaming liberalism for Blue Laws.

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

Originally Posted by spence

Remember Jim, it has nothing to do with affordability. Soros isn't allowed a nuke because he can't carry 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 ; ) )

Originally Posted by wdmso

For me its about availability and volume of weapons more guns equal more gun violence and more cars on the road equal more accidents (most multiple death car accidents are not a choice ) if i had my way you could have any gun you want but it would be reregistered it would be a 4 step ladder licensing system based on weapon. background check every 5 years and a home inspection for storage requirements based on what step license your at .. it will never happen but its still better than thoughts and prayers

Gun Manufacturing Has Skyrocketed
The number of guns manufactured in the U.S. has nearly doubled in just a few short years, from nearly 5.5 million in 2010 to nearly 10.9 million in 2013. The overwhelming majority of those guns stay on U.S. soil; around 400,000 firearms were exported in 2013.

Gun-Owning Households On The Decline

The number of armed households has actually declined to about 1 in 3. So an ever larger number of guns is concentrated in a shrinking number of homes:

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.

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seems the Nra and supporters just keep forming a smaller and smaller circle .. I have said this before they need to be part of the answer or the answer will be provided for them ..

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

Originally Posted by wdmso

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick on Sunday said school shootings aren't happening because of an issue with guns. Rather, he blamed the tragedies on a litany of other reasons, including abortions and violent video games.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

Shhhh! You are disrupting the narrative

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Can you please provide a link to a quote, where Biden said he wants to confiscate all the handguns and hunting rifles that are out there? I couldn’t find it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

For me its about availability and volume of weapons more guns equal more gun violence and more cars on the road equal more accidents (most multiple death car accidents are not a choice ) if i had my way you could have any gun you want but it would be reregistered it would be a 4 step ladder licensing system based on weapon. background check every 5 years and a home inspection for storage requirements based on what step license your at .. it will never happen but its still better than thoughts and prayers so you basically are admitting the current system of justice and imprisonment clearly does not do enough to solve criminals from getting guns to use for violence, especially considering the judges who set violent criminals free. More volume of guns in law abiding peoples homes and safes is not comparable to more cars equals more accidents.

Gun Manufacturing Has Skyrocketed
The number of guns manufactured in the U.S. has nearly doubled in just a few short years, from nearly 5.5 million in 2010 to nearly 10.9 million in 2013. The overwhelming majority of those guns stay on U.S. soil; around 400,000 firearms were exported in 2013.

Gun-Owning Households On The Decline

The number of armed households has actually declined to about 1 in 3. if that number is accurate, I will also say that the majority of the other two thirds of households also believe in the right to bear arms, and if the others do not, then they are clearly lacking an understanding of why we have a constitution in the first place. So an ever larger number of guns is concentrated in a shrinking number of homes:

Seems the Nra and supporters just keep forming a smaller and smaller circle .. I have said this before they need to be part of the answer or the answer will be provided for them ..

people put out maybe statements from Pelosi, Fienstien, Biden but this guy says this and because he's in the NRA camp their good with it .. me? , a maybe statement about those three?it has nothing to do with NRA it has to do with their agenda as elected officials and it is fact.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick on Sunday said school shootings aren't happening because of an issue with guns. Rather, he blamed the tragedies on a litany of other reasons, including abortions and violent video games.

...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

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

[JohnR]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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)

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?

[Got Stripers]

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Isn't the point of background checks to increase traceability and impede the flow if illegal weapons?

No
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Detbuch, you agree that nursery schools should be able to prevent people from keeping and bearing arms on their property, then you say you don’t understand how this means the 2a isn’t absolute. We are at an impasse. You can have the last word.
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"?

[scottw]

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

[scottw]

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....

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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.

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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.

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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.

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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.

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Said Every Union Shop Ever

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Ohhh - and not a crazy culture helps too

Originally Posted by spence

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?

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.

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

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....

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

WOW what an analogy... John feel free to keep your head in the sand 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.”

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

WOW what an analogy... John feel free to keep your head in the sand 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.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

This is citing obscure laws from when these western states were being settled and water rights were a huge issue for ranchers. Has nothing to so with progressive policy and I believe most laws have been updated.

watch this
new laws not obsure

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

watch this
new laws not obsure

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