More thoughts, more prayers and more dead, it will never end!

[bluesmoke]

You could do all that, and it won't save nearly as many lives as merely restoring the 55mph national speed limit, or making drunk driving a felony.

Yes. And environmental pollution kills more people globally than AIDS, malaria, war, natural disasters, and famine. But Trump is doing all he can to deregulate environmental protection, including the direct release of toxins, that could otherwise save lives. As long as there are other measures that can be taken that save more lives than gun safety legislation is no excuse to not take gun safety measures. What a sad standard to set.

BTW, bodily injury or death caused by a driver under the influence or a 4th DUI violation is a felony depending on the state. California, for instance.

 

[beerftw]

They were talking about muskets. Everyone can have a musket.

Let's say you disagree and this includes all future weapons.

Ok, so why can't I own grenades, a flamethrower, a bazooka or tank? Can I buy c4?

It seems clear that it's not practical to allow all future weapons.

At the time of the founders, there were repeating rifles with dual 7 round mags aka 14 round capacity, revolvers had already existed and even before the second amendment was written the idea of automatic weapons existed, belton sold the idea of a fast firing musket to the continental congress in 1777, and even had it capable of firing 20 shots in 5 seconds, the congress approved then later rescinded the order due to cost, he made a bid with the british after the war who too rejected it likely due to cost, after that he went on improving repeater designs with his partner focusing on more marketable arms like modified repeaters.

there were also puckle guns and organ guns existing long before the amendments as well.

 

[bluesmoke]

United States v. Lopez. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) tossed your "Workplace/school weapons ban." The Federal District Court found New York's restrictions on magazine capacity to be in violation of the Second Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) tossed your idea of an "Assault weapons ban of civilian ownership." Not only does a national gun registry, or maintaining any gun ownership records, or fingerprints, infringe on the Second Amendment, it also violates the Fourth Amendment and the The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986.

Are there any other violations of individual rights you would like to try? Such a stereotypically leftist fascist post.

“United States v. Lopez. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) tossed your ‘Workplace/school weapons ban.’ “

Wrong. Guns can be banned from school and workplace. Congress rewrote the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. The revised law has been upheld and none of the convictions occurring under the revised law have been overturned as a result of the Lopez decision.

“The Federal District Court found New York's restrictions on magazine capacity to be in violation of the Second Amendment.”

That was because the court found that a limit of 7 rounds to be unreasonable considering the fact that so many semi-automatic pistols had larger capacity magazines as standard. The ruling did not make limitations of magazine capacity illegal, per say. California has a ban on magazines of over 10 rounds and that law has stuck.

“District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) tossed your idea of an 'Assault weapons ban of civilian ownership' "

Wrong. Heller found just the opposite. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals cited the Heller case in finding in favor of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines saying,

“We are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are ‘like’ M-16 rifles — ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’ — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach”

“Not only does a national gun registry, or maintaining any gun ownership records, or fingerprints, infringe on the Second Amendment, it also violates the Fourth Amendment and the The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986.”

The NRA maintains a “national gun registry”. California maintains gun ownership records which it checks against criminal records. There are numerous situations that require fingerprinting. You can’t cite a court case to back up what you say.

“Are there any other violations of individual rights you would like to try? Such a stereotypically leftist fascist post.”

Are there anymore unfounded claims for which you have no supporting evidence you’d like to throw against the wall and watch slide down? Very stereotypical of y'all to make false claims with no proof, or even citing evidence that actually disproves what you say. What a laugh.

 

[TurtleDude]

All we need is an amendment allowing the government to put restrictions on gun ownership. I am not talking about all guns, but military style weapons might help. How could a person kill what, nine or ten and wound 16 more in a minute without such a weapon as happened in Dayton. But I am a realist and know that it will never happen. Instead as I have said, more thoughts, prayers and dead. How many people need to die before people like you, who seem more worried about guns than people, see what is right before eyes and join with us that something actually needs to be done.

civil war material there. such an amendment would not pass and if it did, there would be widespread disobedience

why do you that want to ban guns use the term Military style when none of the guns involved were ever used by our military? do you think that calling them that make the low wattage sheeple more likely to support your side? it is like gun banners calling weapons that are lacking the one feature that made a rifle useful for military assault, an "assault weapon" because the gun banners want people to think of "Criminal assault"

 

[TurtleDude]

Maybe because it's 2019 not 1787? How many private gun owners are in a militia?

I guess you missed two important facts-the supreme court has held that right is independent of militia service and the entire premise of the second amendment denies such a requirement.

 

[Glitch]

At the time of the founders, there were repeating rifles with dual 7 round mags aka 14 round capacity, revolvers had already existed and even before the second amendment was written the idea of automatic weapons existed, belton sold the idea of a fast firing musket to the continental congress in 1777, and even had it capable of firing 20 shots in 5 seconds, the congress approved then later rescinded the order due to cost, he made a bid with the british after the war who too rejected it likely due to cost, after that he went on improving repeater designs with his partner focusing on more marketable arms like modified repeaters.

there were also puckle guns and organ guns existing long before the amendments as well.

The founders (Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in particular) were also part of the Age of Enlightenment, and counted on future advancements in technology. This is the period when they started applying the scientific method that we use today.

 

[TurtleDude]

Slippery slop is fallacy ttwtt. So your desire to "do nothing" at least on guns, is admitted to be slippery slope. How depressing.

really-if you and people who think like you were in power-what would happen to our second amendment rights?

 

[TurtleDude]

You can have an assault rifle if you are part of a well-regulated militia. Every state can have a militia and members can have an assault rifle.

more idiocy that clearly ignores constitutional scholarship and the intent of the founders. You can have free speech if you are a member of the press too. same sort of silly thinking.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, and its interpretation has been argued over since it was written.

Not true-it wasn't argued until FDR tried to ignore it

 

[TurtleDude]

Make Federal law:
Universal background check for gun and ammo purchase
National gun registry
Lengthy gun safety and training classes that must be completed before gun purchase with license issuance
Ballistics record of test-fired round
3-day waiting period
No sales to violent criminals, stalkers, abusers
Cross check annually criminal and gun ownership records
Fingerprinting owners
Limit magazine capacity
Workplace/school weapons ban
Assault weapons ban of civilian ownership
Expand mental health treatment under ACA
Redouble law enforcement review of social media and online sites

Most important are public attitude. Whatever legislation can be shown effective is more to do with public attitude of "I've had enough and I'm not going to take it anymore" than it is the passage and enforcement of the law itself. After all, it's public attitude that gets, or does not get, legislation passed and enforcement kept up.

unconstitutional feel good nonsense. The waiting period did NOTHING to decrease violent crime when it was in place. magazine capacity is designed to continually shrink by gun banners

none of that will stop criminals-it is all designed to harass lawful gun owners

this is a clue-if almost everyone who supports gun restrictions -and by that I mean laws that ONLY Change what law abiding gun owners can do-is from one side of the political aisle, it is an almost iron clad proof that the reason for gun control is as a political weapon, not as a tool to reduce crime. Almost everyone wants less violent crime but almost no conservatives-even ones who don't own guns-support the anti gun schemes that liberals crave.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why does the 2a even mention militias if they are not contingent on the people keeping and bearing arms?

why do liberals think the federal government should be able to control arms when there is absolutely no hint of that power in the constitution.

 

[TurtleDude]

You're making the assumption that the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms.

It doesn't. . . . . The 2nd Amendment only prohibits Lawmakers from infringing on that right.

Even if the 2nd Amendment were repealed entirely, Americans still have a natural right to defend ourselves. . . .A natural right cannot be taken away or revoked.

didn't you vote in a poll that you supported a complete ban on firearms?

Ban US citizens from owning any firearm - confiscate those already purchased 34.17%
HumblePi, queenmandy85, SkyChief

 

[TurtleDude]

So the part that follows is dependent on the prefatory clause. The modern militia is the National Guard, so the need for personal arms is obsolete.

“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”

that was dicta by Scalia to placate Erratic Justice Kennedy. Stevens lobbied Kennedy by claiming that Scalia wanted to strike down all state laws that prevented concealed carry and to strike down federal laws that banned felons from having guns.

 

[TurtleDude]

“United States v. Lopez. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) tossed your ‘Workplace/school weapons ban.’ “

Wrong. Guns can be banned from school and workplace. Congress rewrote the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. The revised law has been upheld and none of the convictions occurring under the revised law have been overturned as a result of the Lopez decision.

“The Federal District Court found New York's restrictions on magazine capacity to be in violation of the Second Amendment.”

That was because the court found that a limit of 7 rounds to be unreasonable considering the fact that so many semi-automatic pistols had larger capacity magazines as standard. The ruling did not make limitations of magazine capacity illegal, per say. California has a ban on magazines of over 10 rounds and that law has stuck.

“District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) tossed your idea of an 'Assault weapons ban of civilian ownership' "

Wrong. Heller found just the opposite. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals cited the Heller case in finding in favor of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines saying,

“We are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are ‘like’ M-16 rifles — ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’ — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach”

“Not only does a national gun registry, or maintaining any gun ownership records, or fingerprints, infringe on the Second Amendment, it also violates the Fourth Amendment and the The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986.”

The NRA maintains a “national gun registry”. California maintains gun ownership records which it checks against criminal records. There are numerous situations that require fingerprinting. You can’t cite a court case to back up what you say.

“Are there any other violations of individual rights you would like to try? Such a stereotypically leftist fascist post.”

Are there anymore unfounded claims for which you have no supporting evidence you’d like to throw against the wall and watch slide down? Very stereotypical of y'all to make false claims with no proof, or even citing evidence that actually disproves what you say. What a laugh.

Clinton appointed Judge King who upheld the Maryland law wrote one of the most stupid decisions ever-his son-an AUSA in Cincinnati, noted that even he thought his father was hoping to get the USSC to take up the case. It was a complete disrespect of Heller.

 

[Mach]

really-if you and people who think like you were in power-what would happen to our second amendment rights?

With Mitch/R controlled Senate, nothing.
Not doing a something concrete now, because you are concerned 12 bills later could potentially happen that you don't want, is fallacy. Sorry Turtle. It's where Republciasn become obstructionists, rather than work together to figure out best-fit solutions.
Work on a sensible bill in a bi-partisan fashion? Hell no, slipper slope!

 

[TurtleDude]

With Mitch/R controlled Senate, nothing.
Not doing a something concrete now, because you are concerned 12 bills later could potentially happen that you don't want, is fallacy. Sorry Turtle. It's where Republciasn become obstructionists, rather than work together to figure out best-fit solutions.
Work on a sensible bill in a bi-partisan fashion? Hell no, slipper slope!

'you seem to be unable to actually respond to what I wrote

I said what would happen to our gun rights if people like you and those who THINK LIKE YOU were in power?

 

[Mach]

'you seem to be unable to actually respond to what I wrote
I said what would happen to our gun rights if people like you and those who THINK LIKE YOU were in power?

No Kimber 45's, probably ban your Katanas too. Not everyone, just yours stuff. Here come the gun banners, be afraid, gun banning utopia is one slipper slope away.

 

[Glitch]

So the part that follows is dependent on the prefatory clause. The modern militia is the National Guard, so the need for personal arms is obsolete.

“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”

Incorrect. The prefatory clause merely explains the necessity of the operating clause. The individual right to keep and bear arms has nothing to with being in a militia, as the Supreme Court has said. Furthermore, according to Title 10 of the US Code militia members are all able-bodied males between the ages of 16 and 45, and all female National Guard members. As long as there is a need for self-defense there will always be a need for arms.

 

[Glitch]

With Mitch/R controlled Senate, nothing.
Not doing a something concrete now, because you are concerned 12 bills later could potentially happen that you don't want, is fallacy. Sorry Turtle. It's where Republciasn become obstructionists, rather than work together to figure out best-fit solutions.
Work on a sensible bill in a bi-partisan fashion? Hell no, slipper slope!

Actually, it is reality, supported by a very long history of repeated attempts by the fascist left to ban all privately-owned firearms, beginning with the unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934. There can never be bipartisanship when leftists want only to violate individual rights. If you applied any of your so-called "sensible" solutions to the First Amendment or Fourth Amendment instead of the Second you would be appalled by much you are infringing on the rights of every American. Yet the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments all include the exact same "the right of the people" phrase.

 

[Glitch]

“United States v. Lopez. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) tossed your ‘Workplace/school weapons ban.’ “

Wrong. Guns can be banned from school and workplace. Congress rewrote the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. The revised law has been upheld and none of the convictions occurring under the revised law have been overturned as a result of the Lopez decision.

Really? What law did they enact after the Supreme Court tossed the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990? Cite the actual Public Law.

You can't, because no such law exists. Since there is no such law, nothing was ever enforced and there were never any convictions on this imaginary law. The public high schools built in Anchorage after 1977 all have indoor gun ranges built into them, and both students and teachers alike bring firearms to Alaskan schools on a daily basis. Where is the enforcement of this imaginary law of yours?

Your deliberate lies are very obvious.

“The Federal District Court found New York's restrictions on magazine capacity to be in violation of the Second Amendment.”

That was because the court found that a limit of 7 rounds to be unreasonable considering the fact that so many semi-automatic pistols had larger capacity magazines as standard. The ruling did not make limitations of magazine capacity illegal, per say. California has a ban on magazines of over 10 rounds and that law has stuck.

Incorrect, the unconstitutional California law has been challenged. It just hasn't been decided yet.

“District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) tossed your idea of an 'Assault weapons ban of civilian ownership' "

Wrong. Heller found just the opposite.

Then cite Heller. You can't because the Supreme Court never said what you claimed they said. Yet another deliberate lie by you. I do believe we are witnessing a pattern of deliberate deception on your part.

“Not only does a national gun registry, or maintaining any gun ownership records, or fingerprints, infringe on the Second Amendment, it also violates the Fourth Amendment and the The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986.”

The NRA maintains a “national gun registry”. California maintains gun ownership records which it checks against criminal records. There are numerous situations that require fingerprinting.

In case you weren't aware, the NRA is a private organization and not subject to the Bill of Rights. There is never a situation where violating my Fourth Amendment rights is required. But I know that is something the fascist left love doing all the time - violating the rights of others. Why don't you go after my Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights while you are at it? Why stop with violating two or three rights when you can violate them all?

 

[independentusa]

I tend to skip over your posts because your formatting sucks and you're a little looney.

The point still holds. If you don't like the constitution you can try to change it. If not, I would stfu and stop whining about it.

You do realize calling names can get you kicked off this board, but I will say having someone like you call me names makes me laugh. And I will never stfu because someone like you tells me too. I have earned my right to say what I want, bet you haven't. If you can not discuss something logically, maybe you should get off the board. What is the old saying, if you can not stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.

 

[independentusa]

That (bolded above) is my point - how, exactly, is it moot?

You were arguing with someone else about the second amendment and you got it right because SCOTUS said you did. Arguing with someone who thinks otherwise is a waste of time making the argument moot.

 

[independentusa]

By "adapt" I suspect you mean disarming the law abiding. That is simply not going to happen here. People are not going to surrender their right to self defense. Banning any type of weapons is also fairly useless as we have hundreds of millions of guns in circulation already. People intent on crime, whether it be mass shootings or simply theft, are going to accomplish those acts most times. In most all cases, law enforcement arrives for clean up and investigation. They don't prevent much of anything. As such, people will not give up the instruments necessary to protect themselves and their families.

There was a case here in Florida recently where 4 armed men invaded a home. The homeowner was armed and killed two of the invaders while the other two were arrested. Without the means to defend his home, that guy and his family might well be dead.

I think your argument that hand guns can kill as easily and quickly as an AK-47 or an AR-15 is totally wrong and my proof is the killings in Dayton. I do not think you could kill 9 nd wound 16 more in less than a minute with a handgun.

 

[TurtleDude]

No Kimber 45's, probably ban your Katanas too. Not everyone, just yours stuff. Here come the gun banners, be afraid, gun banning utopia is one slipper slope away.

Good luck with that. It must suck living in Texas and being so afraid of your neighbors all packing.

 

[Noodlegawd]

As long as there are other measures that can be taken that save more lives than gun safety legislation is no excuse to not take gun safety measures. What a sad standard to set.

No, the really sad standard is Democrats' standard of proposing restrictions on our freedom, but only as long as it won't affect them personally. When they seriously and just as vigorously propose much more serious criminal statutes for something that would potentially affect them, like speeding or drunk driving, I'll believe they are sincere in their desire to save lives.

BTW, bodily injury or death caused by a driver under the influence or a 4th DUI violation is a felony depending on the state. California, for instance.

BTW, pointing a gun at someone, in most cases when you don't even fire it, is already a felony -- 1st offense. If you really want to make it proportional to what Dems are proposing (e.g. making it a felony to build a semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip or to possess an 11-round magazine), at the very minimum DUI should be a felony on the 1st offense. And probably speeding too.