What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[DC Tom]

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

Thanks @ALF ? The Village Idiot is out of the pillory.

 

How else is he going to catch Asian Carp?

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

How else is he going to catch Asian Carp?

The Chinese in Chinatown?

[Figster]

19 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

...

 

I presented you with a list of points, each of which will make it very difficult to implement your ideas.

 

I examined your idea, and was considerate enough to think it through, and provide you with a list of very real challenges to it's implementation.

 

I now ask that you reciprocate, and address them, one by one.

 

 

That's not how this works.  You offered a logical fallacy (No True Scotsman) in place of an argument.

 

You've now doubled down with a bare assumption that there is a gun problem (I reject this), and imply that those who disagree on that front, and who disagree that you have the just authority to impose the confiscation/tracking you propose should not be considered law-abiding (I reject this as well).

 

American citizens enjoy the protection of a natural right to bear arms in order to defend their liberty from anyone who might seek to infringe it, be that other individuals or the government.  This right does not come from government.  It is rather completely intrinsic to humanity, and governments can only be legitimate if they propose to protect the natural rights of those individuals they propose to govern through just law.

 

A government which does not propose to protect those rights, but rather chooses to violate them on their own, is tyrannical, and therefore cannot be just or legitimate.

 

Further, the High Law of the land is the US Constitution.  There is no law which can be passed which invalidates or supersedes it.  As such, any law which regulated firearms in the way in which you propose would itself be illegal.

 

The law abiding citizens would be those to held fast to their weaponry, and fought back against your proposed tyranny.  The law breakers would be those violating the Constitution.

 

 

Regulated in the a way I suggest still allows the right to bear firearms.

 

If you want to carry an assault rifle into a heavily populated area shouldn't I have a right to know you are doing it?  

 

 

[Tiberius]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

I suppose some of you guys consider it simply an anal toy, but it is still an assault rifle. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, Figster said:

Regulated in the a way I suggest still allows the right to bear firearms.

 

Your proposition that the government has the just authority to regulate in the way you've described does not preserve the right to bear arms.  It asserts that the government has the right to seize any weapons which individuals refuse to register and chip, and that individuals simply enjoy the privilege of bearing arms, so long as they are in compliance with the government.

 

Rights and privileges are not the same thing.

 

Rights are intrinsic to an individual's humanity, and cannot be separated from him, only violated.

 

Privileges are granted by a benevolent entity, and demand capitulation and subservience.

 

want to carry an assault rifle into a heavily populated area shouldn't I have a right to know you are doing it?

 

Absolutely not.  I have the right to conceal, or to display (open carry), my choice.

 

You have the same choice about your own actions, but you do not enjoy the right to dictate my peaceful decisions.  That's what rights are.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

I suppose some of you guys consider it simply an anal toy, but it is still an assault rifle. 

 

No, it's not.  Assault rifles have burst and full-auto settings, by definition.  The AR-15 does not, only semi-auto, and does not have burst or full-auto settings.  Ergo, it is not an assault rifle.  It is a semi-automatic rifle with a box magazine.  Just like the Barrett M90, the Dragunov SVD, the Bushmaster M17, etc.  

 

Words have meaning.  Use them properly.

[Tiberius]

24 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, it's not.  Assault rifles have burst and full-auto settings, by definition.  The AR-15 does not, only semi-auto, and does not have burst or full-auto settings.  Ergo, it is not an assault rifle.  It is a semi-automatic rifle with a box magazine.  Just like the Barrett M90, the Dragunov SVD, the Bushmaster M17, etc.  

 

Words have meaning.  Use them properly.

It's an assault rifle. You are an idiot 

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

For starters I would put an immediate end to all government programs which result in perverse decisions incentivizing single motherhood.

 

Helluva start. Lost, of course, on most on the left. Especially those stupid enough to think a GPS on a gun will keep another Antifa nutbag from shooting a bunch of people.

 

 

[Figster]

38 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Your proposition that the government has the just authority to regulate in the way you've described does not preserve the right to bear arms.  It asserts that the government has the right to seize any weapons which individuals refuse to register and chip, and that individuals simply enjoy the privilege of bearing arms, so long as they are in compliance with the government.

 

Rights and privileges are not the same thing.

 

Rights are intrinsic to an individual's humanity, and cannot be separated from him, only violated.

 

Privileges are granted by a benevolent entity, and demand capitulation and subservience.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely not.  I have the right to conceal, or to display (open carry), my choice.

 

You have the same choice about your own actions, but you do not enjoy the right to dictate my peaceful decisions.  That's what rights are.

I concede, 

 

my idea would face an uphill battle, one practically impossible to win.

 

Thanks for the patience/ good explanation.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

20 minutes ago, Figster said:

I concede, 

 

my idea would face an uphill battle, one practically impossible to win.

 

Thanks for the patience/ good explanation.

Well played. Honorable.

 

"You just went up a notch in my book. You're at notch one."

-Huggy Bear 

[Koko78]

5 hours ago, Figster said:

I'm not sure why any law abiding citizen would have a problem helping eliminate guns ending up in the wrong hands or going where the gun was not intended. ( IMO)

 

Who decides which hands are the "wrong hands", or who is "intended" to get a firearm?

 

The same people who think that everyone who disagrees with them is a white supremacist, racist, actual literal super mecha-Nazi ?

 

3 hours ago, bdutton said:

Also... poor trigger discipline. 3/10 would not bang.

 

What trigger?

[B-Man]

The American people ARE the militia. The individual right OF THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/yaf

 

[GaryPinC]

7 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'd like you to clarify which poor argument you're making, in order to take it apart for you.

 

Are you arguing that the High Law of the Land is not the Constitution itself, but rather that Constitutional Lawyers are?  Or is your argument that the SCOTUS is incapable of making improper, unconstitutional decisions?  Or maybe it's that the extremely narrow language used in Heller is actually overly broad, and all encompassing, meaning that any bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President intended to regulate gun ownership supersedes the Second Amendment's explicit decree "shall not be infringed"?  Or perhaps your argument is that the current or future Courts cannot overturn prior rulings which run afoul of Origionalism?

 

 

Nope, all your attempts to characterize my argument are completely off point and irrelevant.

The SCOTUS, the final legal authority on interpreting the Constitution, has ruled that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms and that governments have the right to regulate them and already do.

 

No matter what you think, this IS the legally correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment until that amendment is revoked/changed or a future supreme Court strikes it down.  Which just isn't going to happen.

 

Here's an easy link summarizing federal regulation efforts of guns:https://m.dw.com/en/8-facts-about-gun-control-in-the-us/a-40816418

 

Obviously there's many more state and local laws.  I rejoiced in 2008 with DC vs Heller because SCOTUS finally stepped up and shot down the left's "only for militia" argument and set a legal precedent every lower court must follow.  

 

Requiring training for licensing to buy a gun is not unconstitutional as per the SCOTUS decisions (Heller, McDonald vs Chicago) making your argument 100% wrong.

[GaryPinC]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

The American people ARE the militia. The individual right OF THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/yaf

 

But they can be regulated as necessary.  As interpreted by the SCOTUS, allowed under article 3 of the Constitution.

[whatdrought]

3 hours ago, Figster said:

I concede, 

 

my idea would face an uphill battle, one practically impossible to win.

 

Thanks for the patience/ good explanation.

 

This is good ***** right here, and not just cause you’re ceasing an argument I disagree with. I assume you still have your ideas and your presuppositions, like tasker has his, but you’re not gonna beat a dead horse past the conversation and into oblivion. You two don’t have to agree to walk away friends. Seriously well done.

[LikeIGiveADarn]

26 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

This is good ***** right here, and not just cause you’re ceasing an argument I disagree with. I assume you still have your ideas and your presuppositions, like tasker has his, but you’re not gonna beat a dead horse past the conversation and into oblivion. You two don’t have to agree to walk away friends. Seriously well done.

 

***** you! I want blood!!

[whatdrought]

9 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

 

***** you! I want blood!!

 

Start a thread asking if Trump colluded and or obstructed. 

[Hedge]

 

 

 

Incoming: the suspect identified as a white supremacist.

 

[ALF]

Trump had phone call with NRA’s LaPierre in wake of massacres

 

President Trump had a phone conversation with the National Rifle Association Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre on Tuesday,  just days after two mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton,  Ohio.

 

The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, reported that LaPierre told Trump that endorsing tougher background checks -- which the president has reportedly done in private since the February 2018 massacre in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 dead, would not be popular with his voter base.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-had-phone-call-with-nras-lapierre-in-wake-of-massacres

[Nanker]

 Much of his base not only support background checks, required training, and responsible ownership, but have done and are actively improving their own gun safety education. The NRA is a key component of that. I’ve taken several. NRA gun safety classes. I also had background checks, photo ID, and fingerprinting done in MA, and NJ. Though NJ didn’t do a photo ID. Both states issuing body is the local Police Department. 

 

In in spite of me and hundreds of thousands of others doing that, thou SS of criminals circumvent the law and the processes because they don’t care. 

[Joe Miner]

What's the difference between a background check and a tougher background check?

[Nanker]

1 hour ago, Joe Miner said:

What's the difference between a background check and a tougher background check?

Obviously, one's tougher than the other, obviously.

 

NJ requires one to reveal if they have ever had any mental issues and sought professional help. They'll did into your medical records.

The police interview at least two of your non-related references. It can take MONTHS after applying to actually receive your firearms purchase ID.

 

[BeginnersMind]

3 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Obviously, one's tougher than the other, obviously.

 

NJ requires one to reveal if they have ever had any mental issues and sought professional help. They'll did into your medical records.

The police interview at least two of your non-related references. It can take MONTHS after applying to actually receive your firearms purchase ID.

 

 

I only know the NJ process but yes that's it. 

 

Owning certain kinds of weapons should require a higher standard and renewals. This is only one piece of any solution but if you want a firearm that has no hunting purpose, the standard for getting it should be a lot higher than what it is for buying a pump action shotgun or bolt action rifle. The levels of differentiation can be debated in some legislature but certain weapons should not be so easy to get your hands on.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

15 hours ago, ALF said:

 

So how would you solve this problem ?

Hey Alf-

 

Don't want to hound you, but about an hour before you replied here I replied to one of your earlier posts. 

 

I really am interested in your reply, mostly because I think my perspective is very reasonable. I mean, truly the way many non-gun-loving-ok--with-reasonable-legislation-but-interested-in-protecting-the-family Americans look at this issue. 

 

100 times out of 100, a guy with Task's perspective doesn't concern me. I know many guys like him, and if the $h$t hits the fan at the local mall I'm hoping he's the next game over at Dave and Busters. 

 

See, at the end of the day, I think a guy like me is as big an impediment to what folks like you are suggesting, and I really have never gotten a reply that makes me want to move into your voting column on gun control. I try, I just usually get some vague shoulder shrug or the conversation ends. And, to repeat, I've never owned a gun nor had a major desire to own one. 

 

If you get a moment, let me know your thoughts. If you prefer not to, well, that's fine as well. 

 

I am perplexed, btw, that at this stage of my life, I had to start a post with the words "Hey Alf", and I will never forgive you for that.

[dpberr]

4 hours ago, ALF said:

Trump had phone call with NRA’s LaPierre in wake of massacres

 

President Trump had a phone conversation with the National Rifle Association Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre on Tuesday,  just days after two mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton,  Ohio.

 

The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, reported that LaPierre told Trump that endorsing tougher background checks -- which the president has reportedly done in private since the February 2018 massacre in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 dead, would not be popular with his voter base.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-had-phone-call-with-nras-lapierre-in-wake-of-massacres

 

If I were Trump, I wouldn't care whatsoever what LaPierre or the NRA thinks.  Besides being a corrupt organization that doesn't serve its membership well, the leadership has been on the wrong side of the gun debate for a long time.  (opinion of a former long time member)

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by dpberr

[DC Tom]

11 hours ago, GaryPinC said:

But they can be regulated as necessary.  As interpreted by the SCOTUS, allowed under article 3 of the Constitution.

 

The militia, the people, or guns?

 

You can read the 2nd either of those three ways.  Furthermore, it doesn't say who does the regulating...federal or state?  As the "militia" is invariably state-based, there's a cogent argument that the federal government is specifically prohibited from regulating arms.

9 hours ago, Hedge said:

 

 

 

Incoming: the suspect identified as a white supremacist.

 

 

And owned an assault knife.

[B-Man]

 

 

CHRIS BUSKIRK: Everything They’re Telling You About Mass Shootings Is Wrong. 

 

“Allow me to propose a radical thought: Rushing important legislation that affects people’s most fundamental rights based on what’s trending on Twitter is not the best way to run a serious country.”

 

 

Glenn Reynolds: A cave on gun-rights could make Trump a one-termer, the way caving on taxes did for George H.W. Bush. Democrats and the media know this, which is why they’re trying to get him to cave.

 

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

12 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

CHRIS BUSKIRK: Everything They’re Telling You About Mass Shootings Is Wrong. 

 

“Allow me to propose a radical thought: Rushing important legislation that affects people’s most fundamental rights based on what’s trending on Twitter is not the best way to run a serious country.”

 

.

 

We're not a serious country.

[ALF]

49 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Hey Alf-

 

Don't want to hound you, but about an hour before you replied here I replied to one of your earlier posts. 

 

I really am interested in your reply, mostly because I think my perspective is very reasonable. I mean, truly the way many non-gun-loving-ok--with-reasonable-legislation-but-interested-in-protecting-the-family Americans look at this issue. 

 

100 times out of 100, a guy with Task's perspective doesn't concern me. I know many guys like him, and if the $h$t hits the fan at the local mall I'm hoping he's the next game over at Dave and Busters. 

 

See, at the end of the day, I think a guy like me is as big an impediment to what folks like you are suggesting, and I really have never gotten a reply that makes me want to move into your voting column on gun control. I try, I just usually get some vague shoulder shrug or the conversation ends. And, to repeat, I've never owned a gun nor had a major desire to own one. 

 

If you get a moment, let me know your thoughts. If you prefer not to, well, that's fine as well. 

 

I am perplexed, btw, that at this stage of my life, I had to start a post with the words "Hey Alf", and I will never forgive you for that.

 

I don't have a problem with responsible gun owners. I was in the military but never owned a gun.  It's a real dilemma that makes me over react after a tragedy. The following article about see something , say something does not work is very frustrating. 

 

Exclusive: El Paso suspect's mother called police concerned about gun

 

 

The mother contacted police because she was worried about her son owning the weapon given his age, maturity level and lack of experience handling such a firearm, attorneys Chris Ayres and R. Jack Ayres said.

During the call, the mother was transferred to a public safety officer who told her that -- based on her description of the situation -- her son, 21, was legally allowed to purchase the weapon, the attorneys said. The mother did not provide her name or her son's name, and police did not seek any additional information from her before the call concluded, they added.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-paso-crusius-gun-warning/index.html

Edited August 8, 2019 by ALF

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, ALF said:

 

I don't have a problem with responsible gun owners. I was in the military but never owned a gun.  It's a real dilemma that makes me over react after a tragedy. The following article about see something , say something does not work is very frustrating. 

 

 

Plus there's the whole "see something, say something, get called a white supremacist if you're wrong" thing.

 

I'll never report anything suspicious again.  

[plenzmd1]

21 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

CHRIS BUSKIRK: Everything They’re Telling You About Mass Shootings Is Wrong. 

 

“Allow me to propose a radical thought: Rushing important legislation that affects people’s most fundamental rights based on what’s trending on Twitter is not the best way to run a serious country.”

 

 

Glenn Reynolds: A cave on gun-rights could make Trump a one-termer, the way caving on taxes did for George H.W. Bush. Democrats and the media know this, which is why they’re trying to get him to cave.

 

 

 

.

so the last 10 mass shootings , or the shootings over the last 10 years..is reacting to Twitter? Might be the dumbest statement statement i have ever heard. At what should the conversation be had? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

I don't have a problem with responsible gun owners. I was in the military but never owned a gun.  It's a real dilemma that makes me over react after a tragedy. The following article about see something , say something does not work is very frustrating. 

 

Exclusive: El Paso suspect's mother called police concerned about gun

 

 

The mother contacted police because she was worried about her son owning the weapon given his age, maturity level and lack of experience handling such a firearm, attorneys Chris Ayres and R. Jack Ayres said.

During the call, the mother was transferred to a public safety officer who told her that -- based on her description of the situation -- her son, 21, was legally allowed to purchase the weapon, the attorneys said. The mother did not provide her name or her son's name, and police did not seek any additional information from her before the call concluded, they added.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-paso-crusius-gun-warning/index.html

So, if I'm reading you correctly, in the calm light of day, you don't advocate the ban/involuntary surrender of firearms like the AR15 on a national level?

 

As for the mother of the suspect and law enforcement reply, well, that pushes me more in the direction of 'maybe I oughta get one because at the end of the day, there is no rhyme or reason to who is in the wrong place at the wrong time'. 

 

Thanks for the follow up.

[LB3]

8 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

so the last 10 mass shootings , or the shootings over the last 10 years..is reacting to Twitter? Might be the dumbest statement statement i have ever heard. At what should the conversation be had? 

Rushing legislation based on emotion is the dumbest thing you've ever heard? You must not have been here for Skelton for Mario or my crusade against anyone who didn't think Ryan Nassib () was a great QB.

Edited August 8, 2019 by LBSeeBallLBGetBall

[B-Man]

18 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

so the last 10 mass shootings , or the shootings over the last 10 years..is reacting to Twitter? Might be the dumbest statement statement i have ever heard. At what should the conversation be had? 

 

 

You read it incorrectly.

 

Rushing legislation (see NYS SafeAct) based on twitter's response to shootings  is a poor reaction .

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[plenzmd1]

1 hour ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

Rushing legislation based on emotion is the dumbest thing you've ever heard? You must not have been here for Skelton for Mario or my crusade against anyone who didn't think Ryan Nassib () was a great QB.

the shootings have been going on and increasing in occurrences for twenty years..to say people want to see changes because this one shooting occurred is dumb with a capital D. Is because they KEEP occurring

 

So is there a required time since the last mass shooting before changes should occur? Is that 6 months from last shooting? 12 months? 

 

 

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

You read it incorrectly.

 

Rushing legislation (see NYS SafeAct) based on twitter's response to shootings  is a poor reaction .

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

well, I agree doing anything based on Twitter response is dumb...but the conversation about guns,  gun control , background checks, gun shows etc has to occur sometime no? 

[Tiberius]

 

Mass Shootings in America

NRA warns Trump after he signals he is open to extensive background checks 

The NRA's chief executive told President Trump that such a move would not be popular among his supporters.

• By Josh Dawsey and Seung Min Kim

 

 

 

 

Im surprised the gun barons at the NRA took time away from counting their money to even bother. So corrupt

[LB3]

7 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

the shootings have been going on and increasing in occurrences for twenty years..to say people want to see changes because this one shooting occurred is dumb with a capital D. Is because they KEEP occurring

 

So is there a required time since the last mass shooting before changes should occur? Is that 6 months from last shooting? 12 months? 

 

 

well, I agree doing anything based on Twitter response is dumb...but the conversation about guns,  gun control , background checks, gun shows etc has to occur sometime no? 

The conversation occurs frequently. People who are running hot on emotions just don't accept any conversation that doesn't end with them getting exactly what they want.

[Figster]

19 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Who decides which hands are the "wrong hands", or who is "intended" to get a firearm?

 

The same people who think that everyone who disagrees with them is a white supremacist, racist, actual literal super mecha-Nazi ?

 

 

What trigger?

By wrong hands I mean stolen. The FBI Database (in 2016) suggested over 2 million firearms were lost or stolen in the US over the last decade and a high number of them are used to commit more violent crimes. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Figster

[keepthefaith]

Very complicated issue.  Constitutional rights, states rights, federal jurisdiction over some of it and very few facts in the public debate.  The issue or the challenge of reducing these incidents deserves a thorough look and if we can come up with some new rules that will help reduce gun crimes while not impeding the rights of citizens then those changes should be determined, supported by good data and implemented. 

[GaryPinC]

5 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

The militia, the people, or guns?

 

You can read the 2nd either of those three ways.  Furthermore, it doesn't say who does the regulating...federal or state?  As the "militia" is invariably state-based, there's a cogent argument that the federal government is specifically prohibited from regulating arms.

 

 

Considering separation of powers, and the fact that SCOTUS had ruled the 2nd amendment to be an individual right, I doubt the feds do much regulating of state national guards, considering the feds have banned automatic weapons and assault rifles at various times, plus prohibit felons from owning guns, I'd say it's both guns and people they can regulate.