crickets...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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".

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?