Another Shooting

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,409
Reaction score
5,833
We're all in agreement that private sales are used by criminals for gun trafficking. As NDakota implied, states putting such measures as background checks and records of transactions would drive a lot of gun commerce underground and create a "great market opportunity for an aspiring businessman" in that underground arms sales.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that states that .

Criminals don’t give a crap about your private gun sale rules. People like me get handcuffed by them and have more laws to deal with. MS-13 is going to buy and sell as they wish with a law or no law.

It’s already illegal for them to have the gun if they are say a felon or not legally allowed to hold the gun. This law literally does NOTHING to criminals and creates a huge unnecessary and some would say unconstitutional burden on people like me.

Also, Mayors against guns was a bloomberg organization that notoriously blew up data to show their points.

Our group had the privilege of sitting down with a reporter from the Guardian at NRA. She grew up in a liberal home in the NE with zero gun exposure. Her first job is basically to cover guns and 2A politics. We didn’t agree on everything, but she has come a LONG ways because she is frustrated with the way that Bloombergs organization in particular blows up data to prove their points. Her time with us and the anti-gun crowd has her admitting she has come a long way on her views. She is doing a great job of being objective.

Honest question, as I really don't know. Are gun shows totally unregulated and would a 13-year-old be allowed to buy a gun at one?

Absolutely not. Same rules as a normal gun store apply at the VAST VAST majority of the gun show booths. This is why the loophole rhetoric is nonsense.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Criminals don’t give a crap about your private gun sale rules. People like me get handcuffed by them and have more laws to deal with. MS-13 is going to buy and sell as they wish with a law or no law.

It’s already illegal for them to have the gun if they are say a felon or not legally allowed to hold the gun. This law literally does NOTHING to criminals and creates a huge unnecessary and some would say unconstitutional burden on people like me.

Also, Mayors against guns was a bloomberg organization that notoriously blew up data to show their points.

Our group had the privilege of sitting down with a reporter from the Guardian at NRA. She grew up in a liberal home in the NE with zero gun exposure. Her first job is basically to cover guns and 2A politics. We didn’t agree on everything, but she has come a LONG ways because she is frustrated with the way that Bloombergs organization in particular blows up data to prove their points. Her time with us and the anti-gun crowd has her admitting she has come a long way on her views. She is doing a great job of being objective.



Absolutely not. Same rules as a normal gun store apply at the VAST VAST majority of the gun show booths. This is why the loophole rhetoric is nonsense.

There's plenty of guns available on the street. It's as easy to get a gun as it is weed. Last time I was in NY I was approached more than once in a few hole in the wall bars in Brooklyn. Here in ATL, there are several bars I could drive to within 10 miles and buy one tonight. And they are all in decent neighborhoods/towns. Back in Indy, a few Southside pubs... I don't frequent pubs anymore but I'm sure shit hasn't changed. If you have money, you'll find one. Most cheap revolvers from what I've seen, but I'm sure you find anything you want.

On the other hand, my mother who now in her 70s...... I bought here a Glock 26 a few years back and it was a huge pain. She doesn't even have a parking ticket on her record.

Today's shooting.... kid took his father's revolver and shotgun. Old time crap. Wonder if his dad kept things secured. Orthodox Greek with Nazi symbolism on social media from what I read earlier. I wonder if it has anything to do with the Golden Dawn movement.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Tired of the nonsense from the NRA gun owners. They don't represent gun owners, in general, nor the public.

- Gun rights cannot be limited in any way
- They're going to take our guns away
- We're the patriots
- Scrap background checks. They don't work and are, effectively, a tax burden, and nuisance to the law-abiding citizen
- Enforcement is the problem
- Law enforcement's solution is to make us less free. "They want to sweep right under the carpet the failure of school security, the failure of the family, the failure of America's school systems and even the unbelievable failure of the FBI." (quote by Wayne LaPierre, NRA)
- Dana Loesch, NRA: "It is not our job to follow up on red flags. It is not our job to make sure that states are reporting to the background system."
- We fought for states to make felony reporting optional for states. Only thirty-eight states submit less than eighty percent of felony convictions.
- Criminals will always find ways to get guns
- Regulations only hurt law-abiding citizens
- We should have permitless "constitutional carry"
- Why license dealers?
- Why have restrictions on gun show dealers?
- Everyone over eighteen should be able to buy and possess any weapon except felons and the mentally ill
- Bump stocks and high capacity magazines are our constitutional right
- Republican governors and legislators who pass and sign gun control bills are traitors
- Gun dealers should not be constrained from selling weapons in any amount that find their way to Mexico and in any amount
- It's not the fault of lax gun law states nor on-line websites if guns they sell or facilitate the sales are used in crimes. No regulations!
- Guns don't kill people
- Mass shootings just lead to more money for the NRA and more members
- Law enforcement groups, prosecuting attorneys, physicians, chambers of commerce, all Democrats and many, many other groups are wrong and would violate our rights
- On Democrats - Wayne LaPierre at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference): "I hear a lot of quiet in this room, and I sense your anxiety. And you should be anxious, and you should be frightened. If they seize power, if these so-called 'European socialists' take over the House and the Senate, and God forbid they get the White House again, our Americans freedoms could be lost and our country will be changed forever."
- Plenty of guns in America, easily available, so the only solution is to arm yourself
- Eliminate restrictions on gun commerce. Sellers at gun shows are all law-abiding
- No gun-free zones. Schools, churches, town hall meetings are soft targets and should have armed civilians
- Restrict ATF funding
- Guns should not be temporarily taken away by a court order on the word of a relative or concerned person due to an alleged threat without a full hearing even if a person has threatened to kill someone
- Ted Cruz: "Every time you see a horrific crime, people in the media and Democratic politicians immediately try to leap on it to advance their agenda, and their agenda is stripping the Second Amendment rights away from law abiding citizens."
- We're not part of the problem of gun violence

We'll hear all this again.
 
Last edited:

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,939
Reaction score
6,161
Most of us agree that the NRA takes an extreme stance and is wrong on some of their positions, but in their defense, they're just doing what every lobbyist and advocacy group does: asking for much more than they expect or even think is necessary in order to better their bargaining position.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller v. DC:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Most of us agree that the NRA takes an extreme stance and is wrong on some of their positions, but in their defense, they're just doing what every lobbyist and advocacy group does: asking for much more than they expect or even think is necessary in order to better their bargaining position.

Do you think the NRA as an advocacy group will settle for any compromise without declaring that it violates their rights and freedoms for all?

I agree the NRA does not represent the vast majority of Americans. I'll note those statements I included above with the NRA spokesperson - LaPierre and Loesch - correcting any for the exact wording.
 
Last edited:

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Tired of the nonsense from the NRA gun owners. They don't represent gun owners, in general, nor the public.

- Gun rights cannot be limited in any way
- They're going to take our guns away
- We're the patriots
- Scrap background checks. They don't work and are, effectively, a tax burden, and nuisance to the law-abiding citizen
- Enforcement is the problem
- Law enforcement's solution is to make us less free. "They want to sweep right under the carpet the failure of school security, the failure of the family, the failure of America's school systems and even the unbelievable failure of the FBI." (quote by Wayne LaPierre, NRA)
- Dana Loesch, NRA: "It is not our job to follow up on red flags. It is not our job to make sure that states are reporting to the background system."
- We fought for states to make felony reporting optional for states. Only thirty-eight states submit less than eighty percent of felony convictions.
- Criminals will always find ways to get guns
- Regulations only hurt law-abiding citizens
- We should have permitless "constitutional carry"
- Why license dealers?
- Why have restrictions on gun show dealers?
- Everyone over eighteen should be able to buy and possess any weapon except felons and the mentally ill
- Bump stocks and high capacity magazines are our constitutional right
- Republican governors and legislators who pass and sign gun control bills are traitors
- Gun dealers should not be constrained from selling weapons in any amount that find their way to Mexico and in any amount
- It's not the fault of lax gun law states nor on-line websites if guns they sell or facilitate the sales are used in crimes. No regulations!
- Guns don't kill people
- Mass shootings just lead to more money for the NRA and more members
- Law enforcement groups, prosecuting attorneys, physicians, chambers of commerce, all Democrats and many, many other groups are wrong and would violate our rights
- On Democrats - Wayne LaPierre at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference): "I hear a lot of quiet in this room, and I sense your anxiety. And you should be anxious, and you should be frightened. If they seize power, if these so-called 'European socialists' take over the House and the Senate, and God forbid they get the White House again, our Americans freedoms could be lost and our country will be changed forever."
- Plenty of guns in America, easily available, so the only solution is to arm yourself
- Eliminate restrictions on gun commerce. Sellers at gun shows are all law-abiding
- No gun-free zones. Schools, churches, town hall meetings are soft targets and should have armed civilians
- Restrict ATF funding
- Guns should not be temporarily taken away by a court order on the word of a relative or concerned person due to an alleged threat without a full hearing even if a person has threatened to kill someone
- Ted Cruz: "Every time you see a horrific crime, people in the media and Democratic politicians immediately try to leap on it to advance their agenda, and their agenda is stripping the Second Amendment rights away from law abiding citizens."
- We're not part of the problem of gun violence

We'll hear all this again.

I'm more curious as to where you come up with the time on a Sunday afternoon to write a post like this moreso I am about your opinions on the NRA/ gun owners.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,409
Reaction score
5,833
Most of us agree that the NRA takes an extreme stance and is wrong on some of their positions, but in their defense, they're just doing what every lobbyist and advocacy group does: asking for much more than they expect or even think is necessary in order to better their bargaining position.

Many in the gun community are fed up with the NRA for not taking a hard enough stance and doing enough. Many young people are fed up with the Fudds on the board and trying to drive change.
Which of their positions is extreme?

At what rate must one concede freedom to not be extreme?

For example, if a reasonable legislature had passed all of the proposals made by the gun control lobby after Parkland, then this shooting occurs. Then what? Not one would have stopped him.
Do we go further? Do we dismantle 2A piece by piece until we focus on knives?
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Many in the gun community are fed up with the NRA for not taking a hard enough stance and doing enough. Many young people are fed up with the Fudds on the board and trying to drive change.
Which of their positions is extreme?

At what rate must one concede freedom to not be extreme?

For example, if a reasonable legislature had passed all of the proposals made by the gun control lobby after Parkland, then this shooting occurs. Then what? Not one would have stopped him.
Do we go further? Do we dismantle 2A piece by piece until we focus on knives?

A pretty wonderful display of how it's impossible to have a gun conversation without someone immediately jumping to, essentially, "it's a slippery slope and eventually they'll ban everything."
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
A pretty wonderful display of how it's impossible to have a gun conversation without someone immediately jumping to, essentially, "it's a slippery slope and eventually they'll ban everything."

DC in general, and certainly the extremes on both sides have lost any credible means of convincing the American people that there can be honest compromise, and that hot topics like this one are not a "slippery slope".

He makes a fair point that not one of the proposed laws would have impacted the latest shooting. The kid took his parents shotgun and revolver. So let's say all the proposed legislation and common sense measures do get passed, and something like this happens again. Then what? Does the gun control crowd stay content with what has been passed, or do they just push for more laws and regs? You know the answer.

It's truly a sad day when this stuff happens. Where are the people outraged that the parents didn't secure the guns well enough. Where are the people outraged at the lack of school security that allowed a kid with multiple guns to enter a school.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Many in the gun community are fed up with the NRA for not taking a hard enough stance and doing enough. Many young people are fed up with the Fudds on the board and trying to drive change.
Which of their positions is extreme?

At what rate must one concede freedom to not be extreme?

For example, if a reasonable legislature had passed all of the proposals made by the gun control lobby after Parkland, then this shooting occurs. Then what? Not one would have stopped him.
Do we go further? Do we dismantle 2A piece by piece until we focus on knives?

The gun community.... Three out of ten Americans own guns. One out of five gunowners belong to the NRA. The NRA represents about six percent of Americans. So the "many in the gun community" who are "fed up with the NRA for not taking a hard enough stance" is a very, very small percent of Americans.

With rights come responsibilities. Gun ownership and gun commerce can be rightfully regulated. Over three fourths of Republicans and nine of ten Democrats favor background checks at all gun shows and for private sales. Is that what you consider extreme? Other views by Rep/Lean Rep only - 54% of Reps/Lean Reps are for banning assault weapons, 56% of Reps/Lean Reps are for a federal database to track gun sales, 47% of Reps/Lean Reps are for banning high capacity magazines. Dems are higher, making majorities of Americans in favor (Source)

Those few hard core NRA members make their appeals painted with fear and victimization, loss of freedoms, defense of you and your family, and dismantling the Constitution. You've defined yourself and given us a picture of what an extreme position is.

How about this vision of America at the verge of destruction from Wayne LaPierre before the 2016 elections:

When I said Barack Obama would come for our guns and do everything in his power to sabotage the Second Amendment, they savaged me. They called me a liar. But every one of those predictions came true. As soon as it was politically convenient, he exploited a horrible tragedy to launch a blizzard of gun bans, magazine restrictions, and gun registration schemes against law-abiding gun owners all across the country.

I stood in front of the country and said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” I said our children deserve at least the same level of protection that surrounds our jewelry stores, banks, office buildings, celebrities, and the political and media elite. They attacked me like never before. But you stood your ground, and you told me to stand mine.

While radical Islamic terrorists shot, bombed, and butchered innocent Americans on our own soil, Barack Obama attacked you harder than he attacked ISIS. He used the terrorism his own weaknesses and failures made possible to try to gut your right to shoot back at the terrorists he refused to kill. Thank God we stopped him in his tracks. But while his term ends in a matter of months, his two Supreme Court appointees, easily among the worst justices to ever sit on that bench, will come after our guns for the rest of their lives. Eight years of his policies have laid waste to the America we remember. Through a deliberate lack of prosecution, he has transformed America into a sanctuary nation for felons, criminal gangbangers, drug dealers, repeat offenders, and illegal aliens. Our inner cities now rank among the most dangerous places in the world. Teenage girls are trafficked in sex trade that begins south of our porous border and ends up right under the noses of the elites in cities like Washington, D.C.

His foreign policy enabled and inspired ISIS, handed nuclear bombs to the Iranian mullahs who dream of killing us all, emboldened Russia, China and North Korea, and left Europe on the brink of absolute implosion. Even the weakest leaders of third-rate countries feel free to publicly mock and disrespect our president while the world’s most cunning, power-hungry negotiators played him for a fool.

Our economy is on life support. Health care is an utter failure. Our schools have never been worse. You can see the despair in every parent's eyes. Eight years; that's all it took for our country to completely unravel. I told you exactly what he would do. The media said I was nuts. But in the end, America knows I was right.

So feel free to mark my words: If, God forbid, Hillary Clinton is elected, she will launch an all-out war on the Second Amendment. She will come for your guns, she will attack your right to carry, she will attack your most basic right to defend your family with a firearm in your home. And she will continue the disastrous policies of this administration to their inevitable conclusion: the creation of a new, post-freedom America that you won’t even recognize.

There is no red line President Hillary Clinton will not cross when it comes to attacking your rights and forcibly taking your guns. She dreams of twisting a knife into the heart of the one freedom that separates us from the rest of the world. The only thing that can stop her is you. The NRA's 5 million members are history’s most committed, most elite defenders of freedom. You are the Special Forces that swing elections, and I need you now more than ever.

Fight with me; stand by my side like you have at all these years. If you cherish the freedom that was won for you at Lexington and Concord and on the shores of Normandy, if you believe that this freedom makes America better and stronger than every other country, if you refuse to witness the self-destruction of the greatest nation the world has ever known, then join me: Arm in arm, shoulder to shoulder, we will fight for each other, for our children and for future generations, and for our shared dream that American can and will be great again. On November 8th, you are freedom's safest place.

You ask which position - the NRA's or those Americans who want background checks at all gun shows/private sales, etc., etc. - is extreme?

In the end, a culture that welcomes dialogue and discussion on issues of public safety and seeks solutions to protect its citizens, which may vary throughout the nation, is one that moves forward in making their citizens safer.
 
Last edited:

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,409
Reaction score
5,833
Those few hard core NRA members make their appeals painted with fear and victimization, loss of freedoms, defense of you and your family, and dismantling the Constitution. You've defined yourself and given us a picture of what an extreme position is.

You ask which position - the NRA's or those Americans who want background checks at all gun shows/private sales, etc., etc. - is extreme?

In the end, a culture that welcomes dialogue and discussion on issues of public safety and seeks solutions to protect its citizens, which may vary throughout the nation, is one that moves forward in making their citizens safer.

If people are trying to ban things owned in my home, is that not someone taking my rights away?

If someone is trying to tax and regulate the sale of private property, is that not someone taking my rights away?

If someone is trying to restrict accessories that have a negligible appearance in crime statistics because it makes them feel safer, is that not taking my rights away?

If I lose the ability to carry a weapon for defense of me and mine, is that not someone taking my rights away?

People in this community view these efforts as accomplishing little and losing a lot. "Do-Something ism" means that we can ban things from people who generally vote the other way and have this false sense of accomplishment that we are helping victims.

So no, I don't view it as extreme to oppose private party background checks when straw purchases, prohibited possession, and a myriad of other regulations are already in place. Not to mention, the VAST majority of gun sales are already covered by background checks.

I welcome talk about making our schools safer. I would love to see a handful of trained teachers in every building with access to a firearm. Anti-gun school districts that leave these schools wide open but want to ban things are rejecting reality. Solving this problem is bigger than a rule or two from a legislator. It is a culture that has zero regard for others and puts these shooters pictures up like they are rock stars. We swipe left and right on people like they are nothing, watch porn where they are abused, and bash each other online like they are objects. We have a culture issue that banning guns and chipping away at the freedom of our people won't fix.

The delusional never stop.
knifeban.jpg
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
DC in general, and certainly the extremes on both sides have lost any credible means of convincing the American people that there can be honest compromise, and that hot topics like this one are not a "slippery slope".

He makes a fair point that not one of the proposed laws would have impacted the latest shooting. The kid took his parents shotgun and revolver. So let's say all the proposed legislation and common sense measures do get passed, and something like this happens again. Then what? Does the gun control crowd stay content with what has been passed, or do they just push for more laws and regs? You know the answer.

It's truly a sad day when this stuff happens. Where are the people outraged that the parents didn't secure the guns well enough. Where are the people outraged at the lack of school security that allowed a kid with multiple guns to enter a school.

Hey YJ,. Long time no speak.

Well I can think of several things to do that would make an impact over time. But to the bolded, you make it criminal to allow unauthorized access to your guns. If your gun is used in a crime, you are liable. End of story. Bye bye go straight to jail. I bet the minute someone goes to jail over the fact their kid took their guns and committed crimes, we will see a big change in accessiblity. Also, if you sell a gun that is used in a crime, you are also liable like a bartenders serving alcohol. That would straighten up the gun shows and legal avenues of purchasing really quick as well. And lo and behold you end up later with a populace that is much more upstanding with gun ownership, much like people are with telling your friend to not drink and drive.... There are many possibles and the slippery slope argument is pathetic anyway becasue no on will ever own a Warthog or rail gun or tactical nuke to use against that terrible government oppressors.

Also, laws are not supposed to completely eradicate ALL events. This is the biggest strawman of all the arguments and its pointless to even argue against it or for it IMO so I suggest for arguments sake that people stop using it. If you look at what drunk driving laws have done, we still have 10,000's of incidents an fatalities per year, but the number per billion miles driven is getting smaller every year. With safety features in cars we lose less people in normally fatal accidents. People are now very aware of the problems with drunk driving and for the most part the population is doing pretty good precisely becasue of the stiff penalties and obvious pitfall of dying in an accident or committing vehicular manslaughter.

AS to the security issue, there are so many doors becasue of building codes require it. So... short of changing the INTERNATIONAL Building Codes it is impractical to stage a security guard at every conceivable entrance to every school. This is also a terrible point to try and argue, because these incidents are actually less risky than a possible fire or natural disaster are so the number of egress doors is required by law. So essentially take to the extreme, this argument means we should make schools like prisons and for most sane people, this is not an option either.
 
Last edited:

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
6 Facts About Texas Gun Laws And Young People

4. Adults are criminally liable for gun activity by minors
The Texas penal code holds adults responsible if a minor gains access to a “readily dischargeable firearm” (i.e. one that is loaded) and fires it. The penalties are even stiffer if a person is shot by the minor.

This means that adults can be held liable for something like a school shooting by a minor if it can be proven that they were criminally negligent with regard to that minor’s access to weapons.

The laws here are nuanced, but there is a chance an adult might be held at least partially responsible for today’s events, along with the shooter.

Just fyi...this was the first non-pdf in my google search so TIFWIW
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,409
Reaction score
5,833
Hey YJ,. Long time no speak.

W
Also, laws are not supposed to completely eradicate ALL events. This is the biggest strawman of all the arguments and its pointless to even argue against it or for it IMO so I suggest for arguments sake that people stop using it. If you look at what drunk driving laws have done, we still have 10,000's of incidents an fatalities per year, but the number per billion miles driven is getting smaller every year. With safety features in cars we lose less people in normally fatal accidents. People are now very aware of the problems with drunk driving and for the most part the population is doing pretty good precisely becasue of the stiff penalties and obvious pitfall of dying in an accident or committing vehicular manslaughter.
.

Which part of the bill of rights are drunk driving laws infringing upon? The comparison is highly flawed because we are not taking away someone's freedom to drink and drive. That wasn't a right and isn't because it is a public safety issue with no added value to the public. Restricting weapons is an attack on the law-abiding so the fact that these laws don't make us any safer is very relevant.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Which part of the bill of rights are drunk driving laws infringing upon? The comparison is highly flawed because we are not taking away someone's freedom to drink and drive. That wasn't a right and isn't because it is a public safety issue with no added value to the public. Restricting weapons is an attack on the law-abiding so the fact that these laws don't make us any safer is very relevant.

The right to life and liberty. Drunk drivers take away this right of other people driving responsibility when they abuse alcohol and get in the car and kill them. The same way a person using a gun to murder does. Your right to a gun is just as dependent upon to others rights as your own. And you also do not have the right own certain weapons already. This is elementary stuff. There are limitations to all the enumerated rights of man. You just think for some reason the 2nd Amendment is immune to them which is quite erroneous.
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Anti-gun school districts that leave these schools wide open but want to ban things are rejecting reality. Solving this problem is bigger than a rule or two from a legislator. It is a culture that has zero regard for others and puts these shooters pictures up like they are rock stars. We swipe left and right on people like they are nothing, watch porn where they are abused, and bash each other online like they are objects. We have a culture issue that banning guns and chipping away at the freedom of our people won't fix.

The delusional never stop.
knifeban.jpg

In a way, I agree. We do have a small minority of guns rights citizens who are intransigent to any changes and would decrease regulations. After a nationwide dialogue among citizens, Australia achieved a consensus on reasonable weapon restrictions, despite a history similar to ours. Their communal decisions have united their country. The history of the NRA, for instance, once was more moderate and recognized those regulations, which they have since fought against. We have been unable to attain that level of agreement in our culture with increasing polarization. The discussions among the rest of us are often inhibited by that few, who resist SCOTUS decisions on the limitations of the 2nd Amendment with distrust of the federal government - the historical Anti-Federalist viewpoint that gave rise to the Bill of Rights.

As federal laws and regulations that are common sense to most of us, have been blocked, the legislative fights have switched to the states often pitting urban vs rural. Cities - mayors and law enforcement for instance - want more laws and regulations to fight gun violence.

The states with a trifecta of power - governor, both branches of the legislature - in the hands of Republicans have passed laws that state law pre-empt all local regulations by the cities as well as pass laws that undercut prosecution and enforcement. These pre-emption restrictions by states on their cities may include registrations, permitting, background checks at private sales, open carry, bump stock bans, assault weapons, firearm transfer sales records, over 21 age limits for firearms, etc. Texas gun laws.

City Rights in an Era of Preemption:: A State-by-State Analysis (National League of Cities)

Vermont, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, Rhode Island and Ohio are some of the states that have or had state pre-emption laws that are being reconsidered or are in court by the gun lobby suing the cities in those states that have passed sensible gun and accessory restrictions. The intent of those who do see common sense in gun regulations now run up against state pre-emption laws which have been the sole ownership of states Republican Parties. Losing control of those legislatures is now something that alarms the NRA as a political force.

Yeah, the delusional never stop.
 
Last edited:

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,128
Reaction score
11,077
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In response to school shooting in Texas, Hugh Hewitt proposes a ban on trench coats <a href="https://t.co/h6A18x8VdP">https://t.co/h6A18x8VdP</a> <a href="https://t.co/2CNCWFAzWT">pic.twitter.com/2CNCWFAzWT</a></p>— Media Matters (@mmfa) <a href="https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/998593804012843009?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

But the only thing that can stop a bad guy in a trench coat is a good guy in a trench coat, so not sure how you can infringe on trench coat rights tbh.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Hmm. Heard this before somewhere.

Oliver North Blames ‘Culture of Violence’ for Mass Shootings

Just two days after a school shooting in Santa Fe, Tex., left 10 dead, the incoming president of the National Rifle Association appeared on television on Sunday to blame mass shootings on a “culture of violence” and the drug Ritalin, adding that “taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens” would not stop the carnage.

“The problem that we’ve got is we’re trying like the dickens to treat the symptom without treating the disease,” the next president, Oliver L. North, said on the program “Fox News Sunday.” “And the disease in this case isn’t the Second Amendment. The disease is youngsters who are steeped in a culture of violence.”

Register video games, not guns?
 
Last edited:

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,409
Reaction score
5,833
The right to life and liberty. Drunk drivers take away this right of other people driving responsibility when they abuse alcohol and get in the car and kill them. The same way a person using a gun to murder does. Your right to a gun is just as dependent upon to others rights as your own. And you also do not have the right own certain weapons already. This is elementary stuff. There are limitations to all the enumerated rights of man. You just think for some reason the 2nd Amendment is immune to them which is quite erroneous.

Life and liberty trumps 2A? Never said it’s immune to restrictions. What I’m saying is that adding another round of restrictions accomplishes nothing but make people who want to dismantle the 2A feel safer while imposing unnecessarily on the rights of the people.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Life and liberty trumps 2A? Never said it’s immune to restrictions. What I’m saying is that adding another round of restrictions accomplishes nothing but make people who want to dismantle the 2A feel safer while imposing unnecessarily on the rights of the people.

Yes. Absolutely. There is ZERO difference between you exercising a right OR a privilege that deprives me of my rights, namely being able to live.

Restrictions do not equate to dismantling the Amendment. Sensible limitations exist on all of our enumerated rights.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
3,266
Yes. Absolutely. There is ZERO difference between you exercising a right OR a privilege that deprives me of my rights, namely being able to live.

Restrictions do not equate to dismantling the Amendment. Sensible limitations exist on all of our enumerated rights.

Holding a seller of a good, who sells his good legally, criminally liable for a subsequent crime committed with that good isn't sensible or reasonable. Even the most moderate gun owner or gun supporter would be insane to hand that kind of power to the judicial system. Within minutes, we'd have forum shopping scumbag attorneys looking for the right judge to litigate gun sellers out of business. Nobody would be able to afford to sell a gun.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,409
Reaction score
5,833
Yes. Absolutely. There is ZERO difference between you exercising a right OR a privilege that deprives me of my rights, namely being able to live.

Restrictions do not equate to dismantling the Amendment. Sensible limitations exist on all of our enumerated rights.

I would agree that current limitations in most states can be agreed upon as sensible. What is not sensible is driving the newest and greatest ban at all times until the right is meaningless. That is not sensible nor does it have any benefit to public safety.

Restrictions currently being driven by the far left are intended to curb gun ownership and to chip away at the 2A piece by piece.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,010
Holding a seller of a good, who sells his good legally, criminally liable for a subsequent crime committed with that good isn't sensible or reasonable. Even the most moderate gun owner or gun supporter would be insane to hand that kind of power to the judicial system. Within minutes, we'd have forum shopping scumbag attorneys looking for the right judge to litigate gun sellers out of business. Nobody would be able to afford to sell a gun.

Preach Brother.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Holding a seller of a good, who sells his good legally, criminally liable for a subsequent crime committed with that good isn't sensible or reasonable. Even the most moderate gun owner or gun supporter would be insane to hand that kind of power to the judicial system. Within minutes, we'd have forum shopping scumbag attorneys looking for the right judge to litigate gun sellers out of business. Nobody would be able to afford to sell a gun.

Word.

On the other hand, requiring gun owners to also have gun safes and holding them accountable (to a degree) if their gun is then used in a crime is something I don't think is unreasonable.

You want an AR-15? Cool, show me your certified gun safe.

*21 to buy a gun
*8-round clip law
*Pass a mandatory national background check (no violent crimes)
*Must own a gun safe
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Holding a seller of a good, who sells his good legally, criminally liable for a subsequent crime committed with that good isn't sensible or reasonable. Even the most moderate gun owner or gun supporter would be insane to hand that kind of power to the judicial system. Within minutes, we'd have forum shopping scumbag attorneys looking for the right judge to litigate gun sellers out of business. Nobody would be able to afford to sell a gun.

I've noted incidents in which U.S. citizens who are gun sellers violate existing laws and are subject to federal and state crimes. The point of sensible gun law proposals is not to eliminate mass shootings, domestic violence murders or homicides, etc but to decrease gun violence by separating law-abiding gun owners and responsible gun dealers from those who want to obtain guns for illegal purposes, disguise their purchases or transfers, and to trace gun ownership used in crimes. Such proposals that have become state laws decrease crime, homicide rates, murders in domestic violence, and enforcement against gangs and felons. But the portrayal of gun owners as victims of branches of our government as totalitarian arms of a government that will end in confiscating all weapons is a tool that appeals to a small minority of citizens. The rest of us understand that there are constitutional limitations on gun possession, availability, and we see the lack of controls on a threat to public safety. We realize, for instance, that private sales at gun shows, on-line marketplaces or other are at this time a legitimate source of gun trafficking. We are moderates and not the "Far Left". That's why the extremists in the gun lobby are so afraid of losing political power through the democratic process. Scumbag lawyers are always inhibited by legal precedent.

Scalia for the majority in Heller vs DC:
“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.”

The federal government exercises its authority over gun sales with the Commerce clause of the Constitution as states can in state law. While politics at a federal and state levels is a concern for the NRA, etc, one of their main reasons for existence is to protect gun commerce. That is the battleground behind the straw men they use - limitations on gun accessibility proposals vs expansion of gun commerce.

Scalia in the Heller decision:
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

Not a scumbag lawyer.
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Holding a seller of a good, who sells his good legally, criminally liable for a subsequent crime committed with that good isn't sensible or reasonable. Even the most moderate gun owner or gun supporter would be insane to hand that kind of power to the judicial system. Within minutes, we'd have forum shopping scumbag attorneys looking for the right judge to litigate gun sellers out of business. Nobody would be able to afford to sell a gun.

They already do with bartenders. I have seen numerous bartenders and bar owners he charged with manslaughter when knowingly serving alcohol to intoxicated or underage people. How much has that quelled sales of alcohol? None.

If you want to sell lethal weapons you should be held to the standard of those who use it. It would also help with secondary points of sale. People would be less apt to sell a gun to someone thy don’t know or trust.
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
I would agree that current limitations in most states can be agreed upon as sensible. What is not sensible is driving the newest and greatest ban at all times until the right is meaningless. That is not sensible nor does it have any benefit to public safety.

Restrictions currently being driven by the far left are intended to curb gun ownership and to chip away at the 2A piece by piece.

I think you are taking the piss . I abhor guns but I will never call for their outright ban.
 
Top