Gun Legislation

[afterhours]

Originally Posted by spence

If that guy had dark skin someone would have already taken him out.

Really Jeff, it's not about race in MOST instances. Seems the leftist thing to do - tie racism into everything. Again, really?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by afterhours

Really Jeff, it's not about race in MOST instances. Seems the leftist thing to do - tie racism into everything. Again, really?

it's a nervous tic

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's a nervous tic

He's a good little soldier
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

[QUOTE=afterhours;1172514]Really Jeff, it's not about race in MOST instances. Seems the leftist thing to do - tie racism into everything.

[afterhours]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1172522]

Originally Posted by afterhours

Really Jeff, it's not about race in MOST instances. Seems the leftist thing to do - tie racism into everything.

Gee....you don't think that ever happens to white people?

[spence]

Originally Posted by afterhours

Really Jeff, it's not about race in MOST instances. Seems the leftist thing to do - tie racism into everything. Again, really?

Just an observation. Do you disagree?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Just an observation. Do you disagree?

If you've observed all the instances in which "that guy had dark skin" it might be hard to disagree with you. But since you haven't, you're right, it's just an observation--which doesn't amount to much.

[afterhours]

Originally Posted by spence

If that guy had dark skin someone would have already taken him out.

Why would you say that? I seriously doubt anyone else here thought that, but i'm sure that is due to your heightened sense of perceived social awareness. I'd view him as just another guy OC'ing as would most people.

[wdmso]

Strong majorities of Americans from across the political spectrum support laws that allow family members or law enforcement to petition a judge to temporarily remove guns from a person who is seen to be a risk to themselves or others, according to a new APM Research Lab/Guns & America/Call To Mind survey.


Some opposition is likely born out of the general rhetoric around the gun debate related to "serious distrust" and "seizing guns," Swearer explained. One Colorado-based gun rights group, for instance, refers to the state's recently passed red flag law as a "Gun Confiscation Scheme."

it always go back to that

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by afterhours

Looks like a safe place, pretty mass shooter proof. CC is a good thing.

Thats not a picture of Cc thats open carry.. if you want to play soldier join the service ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[afterhours]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Thats not a picture of Cc thats open carry.. if you want to play soldier join the service ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Duhh no chit it's open carry. Just read what I said, two different things.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by afterhours

Duhh no chit it's open carry. Just read what I said, two different things.

I did you think one will cancel out the other. .. i would hate to be a cop responding to an active shooter in that store.. does he shoot everyone with an assault rifle and body armor 1st or wait until its over and arrests the last one standing.. then figure it out..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[afterhours]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I did you think one will cancel out the other. .. i would hate to be a cop responding to an active shooter in that store.. does he shoot everyone with an assault rifle and body armor 1st or wait until its over and arrests the last one standing.. then figure it out..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Glad you think you know what I think, you don't. Just said i'd personally feel safe in an open carry environment......AND i'm for CC. It could be a confusing situation IF an active shooter decided to shoot there (instead of a gun free zone) AND he survived long enough for the police to arrive, I don't think he would.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I never said that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was the quoting of a quoting in response to you and the code got messed up.

Originally Posted by wdmso

I did you think one will cancel out the other. .. i would hate to be a cop responding to an active shooter in that store.. does he shoot everyone with an assault rifle and body armor 1st or wait until its over and arrests the last one standing.. then figure it out..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If there was an active shooter in that store, maybe they wouldn't not be active by the time the cop gets there. You and I both know that if an active shooter was in that store the gamut would run between the shtttshow that would have happened if only the gunman was armed to all resolved before LE showed on scene. Odds are somewhere in the middle but barring a fustercluck, like better than had they not.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution you have the right to own a semi auto high velocity assault weapon.

Yes, the Constitution says we can. It says we have the right to keep arms. Semi auto high velocity weapons are arms. Labeling them "assault" doesn't change anything. And all "arms" can be used to assault.

That's for the people and laws to decide.

They did decide and make a law. The 2A. If the people don't like that, they can amend the Constitution.

They drew the line with full auto quite some time ago and I don't see you beotching about that.

"They" were not "the people" acting by Constitutional Convention. Judicial "interpretations" can, as in this case, be erroneous. And they can be overturned or made null by later decisions. They are not as immutable as constitutional text. And even if that line you speak of were truly and constitutionally drawn, then your semi auto high velocity "assault" weapons would not be prohibited by that line.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"They" were not "the people" acting by Constitutional Convention. Judicial "interpretations" can, as in this case, be erroneous. And they can be overturned or made null by later decisions. They are not as immutable as constitutional text. And even if that line you speak of were truly and constitutionally drawn, then your semi auto high velocity "assault" weapons would not be prohibited by that line.

You're just highlighting the problem with the amendment as it is written. I agree though, we should scrap it and amend.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're just highlighting the problem with the amendment as it is written. I agree though, we should scrap it and amend.

Well . . If you scrap it, there is nothing left to amend.

I don't have a problem with how the Amendment or the Constitution as a whole is written. I understand "why" the Constitution was written. Progressives no long believe that "why" is valid.

That is why they prefer that the Constitution should be scrapped. Of course, it is not feasible at this time to do that, so they peck away at it by "interpretation."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well . . If you scrap it, there is nothing left to amend.

Any amendment will be seen as scrapping by some.

I don't have a problem with how the Amendment or the Constitution as a whole is written. I understand "why" the Constitution was written. Progressives no long believe that "why" is valid.

That is why they prefer that the Constitution should be scrapped. Of course, it is not feasible at this time to do that, so they peck away at it by "interpretation."

That's what the Judicial Branch does. It's why we have decisions that are obvious and that are controversial. If it was so easy judges would be more like bookkeepers.

[Got Stripers]

When the NRA and big money owns our policies it doesn’t even matter that over 90% of ALL Americans want the universal background check legislation passed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

When the NRA and big money owns our policies it doesn’t even matter that over 90% of ALL Americans want the universal background check legislation passed.

Original, fundamental rights (and the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right -- see McDonald v Chicago) are not subject to the ignorant whims of public opinion. The "majority" does not get to impose its disdain of certain rights on anyone, simply because they are the majority.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Original, fundamental rights (and the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right -- see McDonald v Chicago) are not subject to the ignorant whims of public opinion. The "majority" does not get to impose its disdain of certain rights on anyone, simply because they are the majority.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)

I’m certain country wide universal background checks and closing gun show and private sales loopholes isn’t going to impact anyone’s right to keep and bear arms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I’m certain country wide universal background checks and closing gun show and private sales loopholes isn’t going to impact anyone’s right to keep and bear arms.

You say that as if you feel the federal government exceeding the powers granted to it under the Constitution is no big deal.

That's the crux of the issue. You feel that the only thing that matters is that over 90% of ALL Americans want the universal background check legislation passed . . .

You feel that such a "mandate" from a majority demands the government act without regard to what the government is actually allowed to do . . . and you expect me to believe you when you say there's no threat to my rights.

You're funny!

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

You say that as if you feel the federal government exceeding the powers granted to it under the Constitution is no big deal.

That's the crux of the issue. You feel that the only thing that matters is that over 90% of ALL Americans want the universal background check legislation passed . . .

You feel that such a "mandate" from a majority demands the government act without regard to what the government is actually allowed to do . . . and you expect me to believe you when you say there's no threat to my rights.

You're funny!

Wasn’t meant to be funny, but if you are a gun owner and have already purchased and passed a background check, then my statement is true; those changes in and of themselves do NOT impact your ability to arm yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I’m certain country wide universal background checks and closing gun show and private sales loopholes isn’t going to impact anyone’s right to keep and bear arms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bob, gun shows and private sales are not loopholes, you are being mislead plain and simple.

[Slipknot]

take the time to really listen with an open mind and not a snarky biased attitude and you may be enlightened because what you are supporting is lazy. Problems don't just go away by writing a law banning an object.





like he says, it is a cultural problem and if you don't think so, you are kidding yourself.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Bob, gun shows and private sales are not loopholes, you are being mislead plain and simple.

It depends on the state but there certainly is a loophole.

[wdmso]

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And the absurdity of you arguing that the 2nd Amendment right to arms is cemented in the 18th Century by using the 1st Amendment secured right to hit keys on an electronic device and sending the words across time and space on waves of light and having them appear on my screen, is lost on you.

Please rewrite your message using quill pen on parchment and give it to a postal worker and have him deliver it to me on horseback.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

And the absurdity of you arguing that the 2nd Amendment right to arms is cemented in the 18th Century by using the 1st Amendment secured right to hit keys on an electronic device and sending the words across time and space on waves of light and having them appear on my screen, is lost on you.

Please rewrite your message using quill pen on parchment and give it to a postal worker and have him deliver it to me on horseback.

Seems you've missed the point.. i wont waste time explaining it to you.. you already got it figured out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

As I predicted, you can’t say why those changes impact your ability to arm yourself, tough trying to win an argument you can’t possibly win.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device