Question for Second Amendment supporters only

[poppopfox]

beaucoup

Weren't in Vietnam where you?

Buku - Used by Vietnamese, picked up by the Veterans of the Vietnam War. Means "a lot of" or "many."

 

[TheGoverness]

Sure, we'll "adopt" unicorn farts and happy rainbows too, on that magical day. FFS man, we need SOLUTIONS here.

Banning guns is not a solution. It's a non-started. That shit is never going to happen, and Democrats need to stop touting it as some sort of legitimate solution.

We need a thorough investment in mental health resources. That means greater access to healthcare, that means funding social services, and that means changing our cultural dynamic. This issue is so large that its not going to be solved by just banning guns or whatnot.

 

[RF667799]

Weren't in Vietnam where you?

Buku - Used by Vietnamese, picked up by the Veterans of the Vietnam War. Means "a lot of" or "many."

Look there. An uncredited cut and paste from "urban dictionary".

The Vietnamese picked it up from the French.
I prefer the proper spelling. You and the other poster are free to spell the French word phonetically of course, probably having never seen it in print in its proper form.

You really should have thanked me, if anything. Rather than jumping in thinking, "Oh...I finally got RF on something!"

 

[SMTA]

Weren't in Vietnam where you?

Buku - Used by Vietnamese, picked up by the Veterans of the Vietnam War. Means "a lot of" or "many."

Yet another stupid ****ing post meaning nothing

 

[SMTA]

Look there. An uncredited cut and paste from "urban dictionary".

The Vietnamese picked it up from the French.
I prefer the proper spelling. You and the other poster are free to spell the French word phonetically of course, probably having never seen it in print in its proper form.

You really should have thanked me, if anything. Rather than jumping in thinking, "Oh...I finally got RF on something!"

Exactly correct

 

[RF667799]

Exactly correct

Hilarious that he apparently assumes @PeacefulWarrior is one of his brothers from Vietnam, Republic of.

 

[FreeStorm84]

The right to bear arms isn't dependent upon the existence of the Second Amendment.

Extend-a-dicks are a gift directly from Magic Sky Man?

The same "Sky Man" that gives you the right to disarm people? Or does that right come from somewhere else?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The same "Sky Man" that gives you the right to disarm people? Or does that right come from somewhere else?

Society has every right to protect itself through laws, and maligned Gun Nuts have been wreaking havoc on schools, malls, music events, Navy yards, synagogues, churches, city streets and in every public space imaginable.
Societies my appoint legislative bodies or some other means of establishing and/or enforcing laws. Thats where the "right" comes from my friend.

For those that do not want to be bound by societies laws: we have prisons for the folks like you. Or I would be agreeable if you just go make your own home in the wilderness and live your own way, out away from other people. You could have your own island somewhere....or I would agree to you walling off the Deep South Red State Utopias, and go ahead and have at it. Guns and bibles, no vaccines or fancy schmancy sciencey liberally yucky stuff. Guns, bibles and Budweiser. Welcome, you're home.

 

[FreeStorm84]

Society has every right to protect itself through laws (snip)

No kidding? How do you achieve protection by disarming non-criminals?

and maligned Gun Nuts have been wreaking havoc on schools, malls, music events, Navy yards, synagogues, churches, city streets (snip)

And non criminal gun owners are somehow the ones doing this?

 

[Rucker61]

Great question. I'm certainly not an expert on background checks, although having gone through security clearance I have some idea what the extreme version of such a thing might look like. Anyhow, the interesting thing about "better background check" is that it has nothing to do with the process of actually checking something. What truly matters is the capture of data such that when the check happens, it reveals something. How many times does a person caught doing some wrong (and getting fired) move to another state where they can do the same wrong again? So, in my view, "better background checks" actually means better integrated databases--particularly across state lines--to identify high-risk individuals. This is not likely to happen because both the MAGAs and the Bernies will look upon any such concept as a "police state" anathema, and I personally haven't figured out how to take the one thing in the Universe that the Bernies and the MAGAs agree on and turn it into a wedge between them. But, if you have some ideas, perhaps you can describe them and put them into action!

The NICS database used for background checks for firearm purchases is a federal level database.

 

[Rucker61]

Extend-a-dicks are a gift directly from Magic Sky Man?

I knew it!! Hallelujah and PRAISE GUN!!!!!!!

I'm not a religious person.

 

[Grand Mal]

Weren't in Vietnam where you?

Buku - Used by Vietnamese, picked up by the Veterans of the Vietnam War. Means "a lot of" or "many."

A leftover from the French occupation.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

No, I would not support gun control laws.

Well, your proposal is what is currently in force....and imo its an EPIC #FAIL.
Which is sort of why we're having this discussion to begin with. Time to put our thinking caps on! Follow me, I'll lead the way!

 

[braindrain]

The problem is that our political polarization is so extreme that trying to advocate for common sense practices will run right into a brick wall.

Here's an example: in the 1950s, American airwaves were filled with government funded PSAs about the importance of brushing teeth, seeing one's dentist and good dental health. Why? Because, um, at a societal level that's a good thing.

Imagine that same government-funded PSA today. The left would decry it as racist and exclusionary because impoverished communities cannot afford toothpaste and visits to the dentist. The right and, particularly the MAGAs such as yourself, would be up in arms about the government "telling you what to do with your teeth" and marching to protest your God-given right to rotting teeth. That PSA would never air today.

So, back to violence. It's no secret the root behaviors of much of our violence. Economic insecurity. Scarcity. Inequity. Broken families. Parents failing to raise their children properly. Glorification of violence. And the list goes on--there is no one reason, there are only a great many of them. These are the things we need to address.

But how? That PSA about dental health.... well that model won't work today. Someone like yourself will immediately lambast it as "woke" or "leftist filth" or whatever else earns you points with your MAGA soldiers. And your opposition will indeed err to the "woke" extreme and attempt to convert pragmatic ideas into something so convoluted it would never yield positive results. You and your opposition would fight it out in your 50-50 Senate to a deadlock, and nothing would happen. But the passionate rhetoric that you and your enemies adopt would at best only further reinforce the feeling of helplessness and anger that some disenfranchised person is feeling as the first step on their road toward picking up a gun and murdering a bunch of people.

Yeah so I don't have any solutions. You don't have any solutions. Your perceived enemies don't have any solutions.

The good news is that on a deaths-per-guns basis, the United States is a fairly safe country, and the idiots who choose violence tend to have a short life expectancy in a nation that rather loves violence.

It’s rather funny seeing you complain about political polarization and then go and attack and insult someone you see as being in the other side.

Perhaps you should go look in a mirror.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Society has every right to protect itself through laws,

For this particular discussion, "gun control laws", no power whatsoever was ever conferred to the federal government that would allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.

"Society" does not have "every right", it actual has no right to condition, qualify or restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

and maligned Gun Nuts have been wreaking havoc on schools, malls, music events, Navy yards, synagogues, churches, city streets and in every public space imaginable.
Societies my appoint legislative bodies or some other means of establishing and/or enforcing laws. Thats where the "right" comes from my friend.

You are toying with the idea of "means-end interest balancing" which certain jurisdictions have enjoyed for some time but the entire theory and process has been invalidated and can no longer be used to justify gun laws.

​

For those that do not want to be bound by societies laws: we have prisons for the folks like you.

You are just a fountain of authoritarianism and tyranny aren't you! You suggest society "has every right" to enact unconstitutional laws and then if anyone believes those laws are illegitimate and ignores them (as SCOTUS accepts as proper and expected*) you would ship them off to the gulag.

Who's "we", you and the frog in your pocket?

*

"The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation.​

​

It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.​

​

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.​

​

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.​

​

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void."​

​

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).​

​

.​

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

"Society" does not have "every right", it actual has no right to condition, qualify or restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Sez you. I'm overruling you right now on that.

dis - M I S S E D ! ! !

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Sez you. I'm overruling you right now on that.

dis - M I S S E D ! ! !

A child believing in Santa Claus has a more supported and compelling argument than what you present.

EVERYTHING you say about the Constitution and "rights" is wrong.

 

[RF667799]

A child believing in Santa Claus has a more supported and compelling argument than what you present.

EVERYTHING you say about the Constitution and "rights" is wrong.

A reading of Kipling's description of the Bander-log is informative of the presentation he makes with his posts.

 

[jamesrage]

If "the right of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement" was not in our Constitution, would you support any gun control laws, and if so, which restrictions would you accept?

This question is specifically aimed at people whose only reason to oppose gun control laws is a strong belief they are all unconstitutional, not any statistics showing the majority of gun owners are good with them or having guns themselves.

None of the above. Your question would be like me asking those who support legalized abortion "What restrictions on abortion would you support if abortion became illegal?". This is why only those who are anti-2nd amendment voted for the restrictions.

 

[Gaius46]

I believe gun death rates are calculated based on population size, number of humans, not number of guns. LOL. But OK.

But you didn't even post the per capita rate. Just raw "all causes" numbers. How about per capita murders where guns are used. In the US 60% of gun deaths are suicides.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

No, I would not support gun control laws. Least not seriously restrictive ones.

You are a liberal, so that obviously is a lie.

 

[Gaius46]

Well, wait a minute------that ISN'T in our constitution. Maybe that is the problem = seeing something that ain't there....?? You can't just skip 2/3 of the amendment and make a case....right?

View attachment 67427084

In the colonial world justification clauses were not interpreted as limiting. The 2A is afaik the only statute where the justification has been read as a limit on a right.

Not being limiting stands to reason. People in colonial times, especially away from cities would have needed arms for hunting and self defense. The framers were not unaware of that and yet chose not to include them as justifications because the clause was never meant to be a limit.

 

[TheGoverness]

You are a liberal, so that obviously is a lie.

Lol, what?

You don't know my reputation on here. I've quite clearly always been a steadfast supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

Maybe don't make silly assumptions.

 

[Moon]

Extend-a-dicks are a gift directly from Magic Sky Man?

I knew it!! Hallelujah and PRAISE GUN!!!!!!!

Penis reference in post 5. Might be a record.

 

[TheGoverness]

Penis reference in post 5. Might be a record.

A girthy record.