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

[snakestretcher]

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.

Britain, and most of the countries I refer to have never been "armed" so the question of "disarming" doesn't arise. There has never been the obsession with mass gun ownership here as there is in the US, and folk simply didn't keep a gun in the house; farmers, sports shooters and gamekeepers were pretty much the only people you ever saw with a gun-usually a shotgun or small calibre rifle for vermin control, and nobody in our cities gave even a second's thought to owning a gun of any description. They simply were not, and are not, needed or wanted, as the total absence of the mention of guns in any political discourse clearly demonstrates. Even our police routinely vote not to carry firearms as a matter of course because instances of firearm-related crime have historically been vanishingly small compared with the US. We do of course have specialist firearms police units.

11,004 Gun Murders in US vs. 26 (equiv. 130) in England Annually | Common Dreams Views

 

[Luther]

The framers of the Constitution are given too much credit. The second amendment is one the vaguest sentences in US history.

Not as vague as the "General welfare" part right?

 

[Luther]

Britain, and most of the countries I refer to have never been "armed" so the question of "disarming" doesn't arise. There has never been the obsession with mass gun ownership here as there is in the US, and folk simply didn't keep a gun in the house; farmers, sports shooters and gamekeepers were pretty much the only people you ever saw with a gun-usually a shotgun or small calibre rifle for vermin control, and nobody in our cities gave even a second's thought to owning a gun of any description. They simply were not, and are not, needed or wanted. Even our police routinely vote not to carry firearms as a matter of course because instances of firearm-related crime have historically been vanishingly small compared with the US. We do of course have specialist firearms police units.

11,004 Gun Murders in US vs. 26 (equiv. 130) in England Annually | Common Dreams Views

But, if the Gov ever turned on the people of England?

Good luck with knives(wink)

It's impossible for the Gov to turn on the people right?

 

[snakestretcher]

But, if the Gov ever turned on the people of England?

Good luck with knives(wink)

It's impossible for the Gov to turn on the people right?

Good luck with a few pop guns against Apache gunships and Abrams tanks, APCs and well-trained and disciplined troops. All the privately owned guns in America wouldn't help.

 

[Luther]

Good luck with a few pop guns against Apache gunships and Abrams tanks, APCs and well-trained and disciplined troops. All the privately owned guns in America wouldn't help.

Did you see how long the wars were in IraQ and Afghanistan(still going)?

 

[snakestretcher]

Did you see how long the wars were in IraQ and Afghanistan(still going)?

Difference being the folk fighting Americans there aren't obese, disorganised armchair warriors who polish their guns for their monthly show and tell down at the range. Those are seasoned guerilla fighters and some of the toughest bastards you'll meet. Nobody since the time of Alexander the Great has managed to subdue Afghanistan, irrespective of how impressive their technology is-as Britain in the time of the Raj, the USSR and America have found to their shame and embarrassment. The Viet Cong are another example.

 

[Luther]

Difference being the folk fighting Americans there aren't obese, disorganised armchair warriors who polish their guns for their monthly show and tell down at the range. Those are seasoned guerilla fighters and some of the toughest bastards you'll meet. Nobody since the time of Alexander the Great has managed to subdue Afghanistan, irrespective of how impressive their technology is-as Britain in the time of the Raj, the USSR and America have found to their shame and embarrassment. The Viet Cong are another example.

You're really stretching your snake today Snakestreatcher(LOL)

 

[jonny5]

This country has become a shooting gallery and the citizens just targets for anyone with a grudge. We have had what, 250 or so mass shootings this year with months to go and no one is doing anything to stop it, only sending their thoughts and prayer to the families of the dead. Last night in Dayton the shooter was killed within one minute of his first shot and yet he killed nine and wounded 26. They said he used a "long gun". With that many dead in a minute it had to be some kind of Semi-automatic. And now in the next few days we will hear we have to do something about this from the politico's and the gun's rights people will be running around saying do not blame the guns and nothing will change until the next shooting when the cycle begins again. We are a pitiful society.

Nothings changed since the last time. When youre ready to blame people and not guns, then we can finally have a real debate.

 

[Acadia]

This country has become a shooting gallery and the citizens just targets for anyone with a grudge. We have had what, 250 or so mass shootings this year with months to go and no one is doing anything to stop it, only sending their thoughts and prayer to the families of the dead. Last night in Dayton the shooter was killed within one minute of his first shot and yet he killed nine and wounded 26. They said he used a "long gun". With that many dead in a minute it had to be some kind of Semi-automatic. And now in the next few days we will hear we have to do something about this from the politico's and the gun's rights people will be running around saying do not blame the guns and nothing will change until the next shooting when the cycle begins again. We are a pitiful society.

Oh for pity sake, stop attacking "thoughts and prayers". Do you think ranting on a political forum helps? It's stuff like this-angry ranting on a keyboard-that has made society sick.
What can we do?
Get out. Go for a walk. Talk to neighbors. Volunteer.
Live for others more than living for just yourself.
Be of service.
Be a productive member of society.
Don't allow screens to raise and babysit your kids.
Fix society.

 

[Acadia]

Nothings changed since the last time. When youre ready to blame people and not guns, then we can finally have a real debate.

Amen. But Democrats and ALL those on the Left will never blame the people, rather, they will blame guns. If stronger background checks are deemed helpful, then sure. let's do that. But my bet is on criminals getting their hands on guns no matter what. Murder is illegal and they still kill people.
Laws do not stop crime!
We must as a society ask ourselves why this is happening and stop focusing on just the guns they use to commit crimes.

And we need to look at ALL gun violence, and that means taking an honest look at an have honest conversations about ramping gun violence in our cities, where we see absolutely no regard for human life.

 

[independentusa]

Amen. But Democrats and ALL those on the Left will never blame the people, rather, they will blame guns. If stronger background checks are deemed helpful, then sure. let's do that. But my bet is on criminals getting their hands on guns no matter what. Murder is illegal and they still kill people.
Laws do not stop crime!
We must as a society ask ourselves why this is happening and stop focusing on just the guns they use to commit crimes.

And we need to look at ALL gun violence, and that means taking an honest look at an have honest conversations about ramping gun violence in our cities, where we see absolutely no regard for human life.

We are not blaming guns, we are blaming PEOPLE with guns which can kill 9 people and hurt 16 more in a minute because the gun they can buy in this country is capable of such rapid fire and with a large magazine. And if it is only because of people, why are we the only country in the world that has had over 250 mass shootings in just over 7 months this year. It is people who have been fed a load of crap from this president. DO you realize that these shooters are being told on the white supremacy web sites that once the whites have taken over they will be released from prison, so why not go out and shoot people up, but they could not do the damage they do without the guns they can buy.

 

[apdst]

We are not blaming guns, we are blaming PEOPLE with guns which can kill 9 people and hurt 16 more in a minute because the gun they can buy in this country is capable of such rapid fire and with a large magazine. And if it is only because of people, why are we the only country in the world that has had over 250 mass shootings in just over 7 months this year. It is people who have been fed a load of crap from this president. DO you realize that these shooters are being told on the white supremacy web sites that once the whites have taken over they will be released from prison, so why not go out and shoot people up, but they could not do the damage they do without the guns they can buy.

Because of the murders that occur in Democrat strongholds, with strict gun control like Baltimore, New York, New Orleans, Chicago and Los Angeles.

 

[jonny5]

Amen. But Democrats and ALL those on the Left will never blame the people, rather, they will blame guns. If stronger background checks are deemed helpful, then sure. let's do that. But my bet is on criminals getting their hands on guns no matter what. Murder is illegal and they still kill people.
Laws do not stop crime!
We must as a society ask ourselves why this is happening and stop focusing on just the guns they use to commit crimes.

And we need to look at ALL gun violence, and that means taking an honest look at an have honest conversations about ramping gun violence in our cities, where we see absolutely no regard for human life.

Not all gun violence. ALL violence.

 

[jonny5]

We are not blaming guns, we are blaming PEOPLE with guns which can kill 9 people and hurt 16 more in a minute because the gun they can buy in this country is capable of such rapid fire and with a large magazine. And if it is only because of people, why are we the only country in the world that has had over 250 mass shootings in just over 7 months this year. It is people who have been fed a load of crap from this president. DO you realize that these shooters are being told on the white supremacy web sites that once the whites have taken over they will be released from prison, so why not go out and shoot people up, but they could not do the damage they do without the guns they can buy.

Case in point. Your concerned about people with GUNS, not people. When youre ready to move beyond using guns as a talking point to win elections, then we can have a real debate.

 

[Acadia]

We are not blaming guns, we are blaming PEOPLE with guns which can kill 9 people and hurt 16 more in a minute because the gun they can buy in this country is capable of such rapid fire and with a large magazine. And if it is only because of people, why are we the only country in the world that has had over 250 mass shootings in just over 7 months this year. It is people who have been fed a load of crap from this president. DO you realize that these shooters are being told on the white supremacy web sites that once the whites have taken over they will be released from prison, so why not go out and shoot people up, but they could not do the damage they do without the guns they can buy.

What's the definition of "mass shooting" in those other countries you are comparing?

 

[Acadia]

Case in point. Your concerned about people with GUNS, not people. When youre ready to move beyond using guns as a talking point to win elections, then we can have a real debate.

When people are willing to take a cold, hard look at why this has been happening since Columbine, then MAYBE we can start to heal the problem. It's a people and society problem so much more than a gun problem.

 

[bluesmoke]

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.

There are a number of states with various combination of gun safety measures that have resulted in reduced gun deaths, meaning not just murder but also suicide and accidental death. So, no, it isn’t just about murder though that is what grabs the headlines. And there is study after study that show states with more gun safety legislation have lower gun death rates. Those are the facts.

I forgot to add minimum purchase age and “may-issue” laws (which give police discretion in issuing concealed-carry permits).
to the list I gave. I would never expect all of these to get enacted. But a few would be a good start, especially universal background checks, bans on violent offenders purchasing guns, and “may-issue” laws which together have been found most effective:

The 3 Gun-Control Laws That Work Best in the U.S. - CityLab

 

[bluesmoke]

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.

"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."


If that’s what you think, then you don’t understand Heller. And, if what you say was so, the Maryland decision would have been taken-up for hearing, but it wasn’t, was it? The Maryland decision was in complete respect of Heller.

I agree with the Heller decision. The DC law to require lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the 2nd Amendment. It was a lousy law and a good decision. Primarily, though, it confirmed the 2nd was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

However, the decision also spoke to opening up all than gun laws COULD do: “…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." For instance, gun registration, owner licensing and banning military-type weapons are within the rights of government regulation.

Stupid is when you say things that are false on their face with but cursory review would reveal the facts ignored.

 

[TurtleDude]

There are a number of states with various combination of gun safety measures that have resulted in reduced gun deaths, meaning not just murder but also suicide and accidental death. So, no, it isn’t just about murder though that is what grabs the headlines. And there is study after study that show states with more gun safety legislation have lower gun death rates. Those are the facts.

I forgot to add minimum purchase age and “may-issue” laws (which give police discretion in issuing concealed-carry permits).
to the list I gave. I would never expect all of these to get enacted. But a few would be a good start, especially universal background checks, bans on violent offenders purchasing guns, and “may-issue” laws which together have been found most effective:

The 3 Gun-Control Laws That Work Best in the U.S. - CityLab

red states have more veterans and retirees than blue states. And that leads to higher suicide rates which are included in the gun deaths.

May issue is unconstitutionally arbitrary and has been used by racists to deny minorities carry permits.

 

[TurtleDude]

"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."


If that’s what you think, then you don’t understand Heller. And, if what you say was so, the Maryland decision would have been taken-up for hearing, but it wasn’t, was it? The Maryland decision was in complete respect of Heller.

I agree with the Heller decision. The DC law to require lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the 2nd Amendment. It was a lousy law and a good decision. Primarily, though, it confirmed the 2nd was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

However, the decision also spoke to opening up all than gun laws COULD do: “…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." For instance, gun registration, owner licensing and banning military-type weapons are within the rights of government regulation.

Stupid is when you say things that are false on their face with but cursory review would reveal the facts ignored.

YOu still think Dicta in Heller is the controlling language.

 

[jonny5]

When people are willing to take a cold, hard look at why this has been happening since Columbine, then MAYBE we can start to heal the problem. It's a people and society problem so much more than a gun problem.

It happened before Columbine too. But yes, its a problem with humanity and culture. And our current societal climate is too factional and lazy to deal with it.

 

[bluesmoke]

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.

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

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.

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?

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

That I cited Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 (amended 1995) should be a strong enough hint. Too bad you have to strain your fingers and click-navigate your way through Google or Bing to find the law, a part of the 1990 Crime Act. Be sure you’re well-nourished before you begin the harrowing journey of actually reading and, my Lord, comprehending the act.

“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?”

Yes, the law exists and has so for nearly 30 years. I don’t know about the Alaska laws. Maybe you can give a link or a citation I can Google. It’s your claim, the burden of proof is on you.

“Your deliberate lies are very obvious.”

Hey, maybe the Gun Free Act is a lie. Like the moon landing. But the Act is not a lie. You just missed it.

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

The court block on the magazine ban has not yet been stayed. I don’t necessarily disagree. Many semi-auto pistols have as standard a 14-round clip. In addition, the microstamping requirement of the law has been challenged and is going to the SC. Because of that law, two gun manufacturers, including S&W, have stopped shipping semi-autos to CA. But, no, the CA law is not, on the whole, unconstitutional.

“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.”

No, Sherlock, you’re the original claim-maker, that Heller tossed the idea of an 'Assault weapons ban of civilian ownership'. So, the burden of proof is on you. Back up your own words. If you can’t provide the evidence, your claim is then unfounded. I don’t even have to debate the point without you providing evidence. If you provide evidence, then I’m next in line and it’s my turn.



“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?”


In other words, I’m right and your claims are unfounded and, without proof, dismissed. You do realize that a private organization could accept volunteer national registry, don’t you? And that your other claims are unfounded, right?

 

[bluesmoke]

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, 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.

“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.”

Maybe you. Alone. The vast majority who want no gun safety legislation could care less. I could be wrong. Make drunk driving a felony and lower the maximum highway speed to 55 mph and then gun legislation gets passed. Yeah, sure.

“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.”

So, what you’re saying is gun legislation can only be passed if tied-in with vehicle speeding and DUI law. It’s OK to put “restrictions on our freedom” to do with guns as long as we in addition put “restrictions on our freedom” to do with vehicle law. Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket. I’ll allow you to restrict my freedom, as long as you restrict other freedom of mine. That’s the deal.

 

[bluesmoke]

red states have more veterans and retirees than blue states. And that leads to higher suicide rates which are included in the gun deaths.

May issue is unconstitutionally arbitrary and has been used by racists to deny minorities carry permits.

“red states have more veterans and retirees than blue states. And that leads to higher suicide rates which are included in the gun deaths.”

What is your point? Teens and the young constitute greater numbers of suicides than do veterans. Red states have the most veterans, but I don’t see any stats that show red states have the most elderly/retirees, whom are the most susceptible to suicide and are many in number.

“May issue is unconstitutionally arbitrary and has been used by racists to deny minorities carry permits.”

You do realize that this “unconstitutionally arbitrary” law is currently law in a number of states, yes? Then it is not unconstitutionally arbitrary, is it? I do, though, have reservations. MLK, Jr.’s home was bombed, blown up. He went to get a permit to carry a handgun. The sheriff had the right to deny gun permits based on “mental condition”, which he did. Good ol’ Alabama. Oh well.

 

[bluesmoke]

YOu still think Dicta in Heller is the controlling language.

It is not the controlling language of the case. It is guiding language going forward that will have courts citing such dicta in support of new legislated law that results in such cases being tested before appellate and supreme courts. That's what dicta does.