That is not relevant to a logical discussion, as we are a nation of laws and our judicial system is 1 of 3 branches of government. I'm not sure why'd you'd even say it.
SCOTUS did rule that the government has no duty to protect you, specifically the police. However I'm not the one who said it here."caught posturing"? What does that mean? Give me an example.
What did I ask for specifically of you? I think a purposed a bet $10 for ever SCOTUS case I can find related to a constitutional duty/power/mention of public safety and security. You pay me ten dollars for every mention of a phrase or concept from the founding documents in a majority decision related to public safety.
Do you want to take the bet or not?
I don't have the time to recheck the thread, if you're not the poster who first said government has no right/duty/power to protect public safety, then I apologize. But that is the specific issue I have been addressing in response to the earlier post.
I fail to understand your case to be honest. You are simply telling me that the SCOTUS agrees with you so there is nothing else to be said. One that is not how the law of the land works and two merit of cases still needs explored. Simply telling me that Hamilton won when he clearly lost is rather absurd as well. I don't really care that some justice said it was so either when history proves him wrong and quoting his nonsense does nothing at all for your case.
All guns registered.
Permits required in all states.
Monthly background checks. If failed, permit revoked; guns collected.
Mandatory 3-day waiting period to purchase.
Automatic sentence of 3 years in prison for being caught with an unregistered gun or w/o a permit. Loses privileges for life.
Anyone who is convicted of a violent crime loses their gun privileges for life.
Anyone who has had a Protection Order put on them loses their gun privileges for life.
Anyone on prescription medication for depression or mood problems loses their gun privileges for five years after they've stopped such medication. (Nor can anyone in their household.) (Drugs like Prozac, Lithium, etc.)
Anyone caught in public with an automatic weapon in public not locked in a gun case sentenced to an automatic 3 years in prison. Loses privileges for life. (Not at home...not at a gun range.)
Your premise is a false one. There is no way that given the military power of the United States Government - not to mention the manpower of all other governmental units in this nation - that some personal weaponry is going to have a chance.
I'm taking a screen shot of OP because Haymarket finally admitted to supporting gun control with his 'like'.Disclaimer: I own a gun. I've taken formal training in home protection. I shoot occasionally. I believe in the right to own guns. I come from a family who reveres gun ownership.
Having said that. Is it not possible that gun owners could lead us toward more responsible gun ownership? Could we not become part of the solution instead of being perceived as most of the problem? "How could they do that," you ask:
- All guns registered.
- Permits required in all states.
- Monthly background checks. If failed, permit revoked; guns collected.
- Mandatory 3-day waiting period to purchase.
- Automatic sentence of 3 years in prison for being caught with an unregistered gun or w/o a permit. Loses privileges for life.
- Anyone who is convicted of a violent crime loses their gun privileges for life.
- Anyone who has had a Protection Order put on them loses their gun privileges for life.
- Anyone on prescription medication for depression or mood problems loses their gun privileges for five years after they've stopped such medication. (Nor can anyone in their household.) (Drugs like Prozac, Lithium, etc.)
- Anyone caught in public with an automatic weapon in public not locked in a gun case sentenced to an automatic 3 years in prison. Loses privileges for life. (Not at home...not at a gun range.)
The objective of my suggestions is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, to put teeth in the laws we currently have on the books, and give law enforcement the tools it needs to get guns off the streets that are owned by crooks.
I know everyone will object to registering guns. But other than our own government turning against us, can you think of any other good reason?
Are these so horrible? There has to be a way to balance our right to own guns against public safety. I think the inexorable tide is moving toward more restrictions. Which, if any, of these suggestions could you support? What restrictions might you add?
Please do not send me through the wood chipper.
SCOTUS did rule that the government has no duty to protect you, specifically the police. However I'm not the one who said it here.
Maggie, all of your proposed requirements are already in place in Connecticut, Connecticut even has an AWB in force, and they didn't stop anything.Why the hell should twenty kindergartners pay the price?
lots of people felt the same way about the colonist's chances against the military power of the British Empire in the 1700s
When we return to 1776 and the colonies again please bring this up as it will then be relevant.
Disclaimer: I own a gun. I've taken formal training in home protection. I shoot occasionally. I believe in the right to own guns. I come from a family who reveres gun ownership.
Having said that. Is it not possible that gun owners could lead us toward more responsible gun ownership? Could we not become part of the solution instead of being perceived as most of the problem? "How could they do that," you ask:
- All guns registered.
- Permits required in all states.
- Monthly background checks. If failed, permit revoked; guns collected.
- Mandatory 3-day waiting period to purchase.
- Automatic sentence of 3 years in prison for being caught with an unregistered gun or w/o a permit. Loses privileges for life.
- Anyone who is convicted of a violent crime loses their gun privileges for life.
- Anyone who has had a Protection Order put on them loses their gun privileges for life.
- Anyone on prescription medication for depression or mood problems loses their gun privileges for five years after they've stopped such medication. (Nor can anyone in their household.) (Drugs like Prozac, Lithium, etc.)
- Anyone caught in public with an automatic weapon in public not locked in a gun case sentenced to an automatic 3 years in prison. Loses privileges for life. (Not at home...not at a gun range.)
The objective of my suggestions is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, to put teeth in the laws we currently have on the books, and give law enforcement the tools it needs to get guns off the streets that are owned by crooks.
I know everyone will object to registering guns. But other than our own government turning against us, can you think of any other good reason?
Are these so horrible? There has to be a way to balance our right to own guns against public safety. I think the inexorable tide is moving toward more restrictions. Which, if any, of these suggestions could you support? What restrictions might you add?
Please do not send me through the wood chipper.
When we return to 1776 and the colonies again please bring this up as it will then be relevant.
I think it is relevant. No matter what you claim the chances are, it does not take away from the fact that revolt, even violent revolt, remains a proper tool of the People should their government grow too far out of control and work against their rights and liberties.
Why the hell should twenty kindergartners pay the price??
Forbidding people on mood altering drugs from owning guns is not gun-grabber legislation. Neither is forbidding those who have mental illness. What specific ones are you objecting to so vehemently?
seems like personal weapons have been doing a pretty good job against the military power of the US govt in Iraq as well. good enough that we left
I understand that such paranoia is what motivates and drives the right on this issue. I would like to see a survey of the American people in which they are asked if we should keep the NRA interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms just in the remote chance that you need to go to war against your own nation and its own government. I suspect very few people would jump on that train as it leaves the station.
I understand that such paranoia is what motivates and drives the right on this issue. I would like to see a survey of the American people in which they are asked if we should keep the NRA interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms just in the remote chance that you need to go to war against your own nation and its own government. I suspect very few people would jump on that train as it leaves the station.
See, I basically agree with this. But still. Avid gun owners like you and Turtle and so many others on this site, should lead the way not block the road. Are background checks a good thing? I say they are, absolutely. So. Then what good is a background check if it only takes place once every five years? And if someone fails it, the only thing that happens is they get to own their current guns illegally. Makes no sense.
I just think that every responsible gun owner would demand that others be responsible as well.
I still firmly believe that the reason we have so many young white males pulling this **** is because of the violence they've been subjected to all of their lives . . . and the fact that many of them have been or were on mood-altering drugs. I find it interesting that whether or not these shooters are on Prozac/Lithium/AllTheRest isn't widely covered in the news. It should be the very first question authorities ask -- and the very first thing reported to the public at large.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But revolution remains proper tool of the People. It is the right and duty of the People to replace their government should it grow too abusive and grievous towards the free exercise of our rights and to replace it with a government better built to preserve and proliferate our liberty. This is a fundamental.
I understand that such paranoia is what motivates and drives the right on this issue. I would like to see a survey of the American people in which they are asked if we should keep the NRA interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms just in the remote chance that you need to go to war against your own nation and its own government. I suspect very few people would jump on that train as it leaves the station.
Sorry. But I am not willing to allow classrooms of children to die periodically to entertain the paranoid delusions of the far right.
Then they would ignorant of history and living in a dream world where governments do not only get more powerful and in time need to be put down. I find it dangerous to not only allow the militaries of the world to get as powerful as they are, but to also restrict the use of people to defend themselves from them. If we must deal with the militaries of the world as they are its imperative that we not restrict the people from holding their own if need be.
The rifle used in the school shooting was registered, that didn't stop the crime.All guns registered.
The owner had all the proper documentation for her guns, to include permits. That didn't stop this crime.Permits required in all states.
The gun owner would have passed all such background checks. This would not have stopped this crime.Monthly background checks. If failed, permit revoked; guns collected.
The rifle used in this crime was not perchessed within 3 days of the crime, so this requirement wouldn't have stopped this crime.Mandatory 3-day waiting period to purchase.
The shooter was in posessin of a rifle not registered to him, nor did the shooter have any kind of permit. Please keep us informed of how his trial and sentencing goes.Automatic sentence of 3 years in prison for being caught with an unregistered gun or w/o a permit. Loses privileges for life.
I agree, the shooter should lose his 2A rights for the rest of his life.Anyone who is convicted of a violent crime loses their gun privileges for life.
The owner of the rifle used in this crime did not have any protection orders against her. This regulation would not have stopped this crime.Anyone who has had a Protection Order put on them loses their gun privileges for life.
We don't know that the owner of the rifle used in this crime was on any form of medication.Anyone on prescription medication for depression or mood problems loses their gun privileges for five years after they've stopped such medication. (Nor can anyone in their household.) (Drugs like Prozac, Lithium, etc.)
Anyone caught in public with an automatic weapon in public not locked in a gun case sentenced to an automatic 3 years in prison. Loses privileges for life. (Not at home...not at a gun range.)
The objective of my suggestions is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, to put teeth in the laws we currently have on the books, and give law enforcement the tools it needs to get guns off the streets that are owned by crooks.
I know everyone will object to registering guns. But other than our own government turning against us, can you think of any other good reason?
Yes, they're quite bad, actually.Are these so horrible?
I would support a requirement to store guns in a rated safe which only the gun legal owner can access. So far I can tell from the story, the shooter had easy access to these weapons prior to beginning his murder spree. He shot his mother while she was laying in bed, presumably sleeping in. There are no reports of a struggle between them, where he forced her to give him access to the guns. Even if the rifle had a trigger lock, the shooter evidently had access to the key, since no damage to the rifle has been reported and that's a detail which would have stood out.What restrictions might you add?
And I'm not willing to have fundamental rights revoked for low probability events that can likely be better addressed through other avenues.
And if it were you personally who paid the price for that stance, I would have respect for it. Sadly, you do not. Others pay the ultimate price for you. And we do not even have the common courtesy to build a monument to the innocents thanking them for their sacrifice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?