Repealing the 2nd

[VanceMack]

The US really doesn't have much to say as to how another country runs their own country, and as long as they are destabilizing the region, I figure.


"bring 2 million un-vetted Muslims into this country from countries identified by Obama and the Obama DOJ as being incapable or unwilling to properly vet those refugees?"

So that'd be committing Merkel suicide then, I figure.

Lets not forget...these are their home grown brethren....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-goes-mission-behead-police-004305604.html

But people like Calamity think its a great idea to bring in a few million more Muslims. A GREAT idea. In fact...we would have to be racist to not let them all in.

 

[eohrnberger]

Lets not forget...these are their home grown brethren....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-goes-mission-behead-police-004305604.html

But people like Calamity think its a great idea to bring in a few million more Muslims. A GREAT idea. In fact...we would have to be racist to not let them all in.

Yeah, I know. Open Borders crowd. :roll:

To be clear, without controlling its borders, a nation is no longer a nation.
This applies to illegal immigration as well. Without controlling illegal immigration a nation is no more a nation than if it didn't control its borders.

A nation has the right to control who they accept into their nation. There is no obligation of a nation, nor of it's people, to accept anyone into the country as an immigrant. Those that are accepted as an immigrant should be those that will assimilate and become one with the great melting pot. Those that don't, don't have to be here.

E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. What's the 'one' in this case if there are immigrants that don't culturally assimilate? (At least to some extent)
When they don't support the common values and laws of the nation of freedom and liberty?

Where in the US is Sharia law a commonly held value? It's not. Sharia law is in direct conflict with common values and laws of this nation.

Those that wish Sharia law can go to a nation that practices them. There is no need to import or promote them here.

 

[calamity]

"angry men" would disqualify you it seems. how the hell do you create constitutionally sound way of creating bans based on "angry" men

btw its illegal to carry a gun while drunk

It's not illegal to handle one at home while drunk though--is it?

 

[Rucker61]

It's not illegal to handle one at home while drunk though--is it?

How would such a law be enforceable?

 

[calamity]

How would such a law be enforceable?

Several ways. Tack on aggravating charges when something bad happens with a gun while drunk, even if if happens at home. Lifetime gun bans for anyone convicted of alcohol or drug related offenses, especially misuse of gun while intoxicated type offenses. That kind of thing.

 

[Rucker61]

Several ways. Tack on aggravating charges when something bad happens with a gun while drunk, even if if happens at home. Lifetime gun bans for anyone convicted of alcohol or drug related offenses, especially misuse of gun while intoxicated type offenses. That kind of thing.

So actually committing a real crime, rather than just handling a gun while drunk at home?

 

[calamity]

So actually committing a real crime, rather than just handling a gun while drunk at home?

If the wife or someone calls the cops, then I'd say charge the guy for handling a gun while drunk. So, IMO, handling a gun while drunk should be a crime, regardless where it occurs.

 

[Rucker61]

If the wife or someone calls the cops, then I'd say charge the guy for handling a gun while drunk. So, IMO, handling a gun while drunk should be a crime, regardless where it occurs.

Would it still be a crime if it was unloaded? What would the acceptable BAC be? The one for driving is set as the level at which the average person couldn't drive safely enough.

 

[Lursa]

lol...writing an essay is way unnecessary in this thread.

Since you seem to have more time to respond to your thread again:

What 'further' criteria would you place on being eligible (get a license) to buy a gun?

Now:
--18 yrs of age (unless parental consent)
--convicted felons, no
--mental health diagnosis (differs between states)

 

[Lursa]

Several ways. Tack on aggravating charges when something bad happens with a gun while drunk, even if if happens at home. Lifetime gun bans for anyone convicted of alcohol or drug related offenses, especially misuse of gun while intoxicated type offenses. That kind of thing.

That's not "enforceable." That's reactive. It doesnt stop it.

And it's not much of a deterrent, since people are at home, and have a right to privacy.

 

[polgara]

Yeah, I know. Open Borders crowd. :roll:

To be clear, without controlling its borders, a nation is no longer a nation.
This applies to illegal immigration as well. Without controlling illegal immigration a nation is no more a nation than if it didn't control its borders.

A nation has the right to control who they accept into their nation. There is no obligation of a nation, nor of it's people, to accept anyone into the country as an immigrant. Those that are accepted as an immigrant should be those that will assimilate and become one with the great melting pot. Those that don't, don't have to be here.

E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. What's the 'one' in this case if there are immigrants that don't culturally assimilate? (At least to some extent)
When they don't support the common values and laws of the nation of freedom and liberty?

Where in the US is Sharia law a commonly held value? It's not. Sharia law is in direct conflict with common values and laws of this nation.

Those that wish Sharia law can go to a nation that practices them. There is no need to import or promote them here.

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

Why are we so often put in a position of justifying our immigration laws to outsiders? :2mad: The people who entered our Country legally through Ellis Island in the early 1900s had no intention of changing our laws; they were just happy to escape the hellholes they left! They weren't promised one dime of government aid when they got here either - they were expected to work and make a new life on their own, and though it wasn't easy, millions upon millions of immigrants did exactly that! :thumbs:

Those today who do not agree with our Constitution and Bill of Rights should STHU and go elsewhere instead of illegally sneaking in here! They can whine somewhere else, IMO, since we aren't here to allow those who enter our country that want to change our laws to suit themselves; too many have died to protect the freedoms we enjoy. Sharia law isn't going to work here, since watching what is going on in the EU countries is sufficient reason to say NO! Enough is enough!

 

[soylentgreen]

Thanks for the reply; I had no idea of what is/isn't allowed in NZ as far as firearms.

I have lived in the US my entire life & I am pro gun, pro 2nd Amendment, etc.

The US certainly has a problem with gun violence but IMO it stems from a lack of respect for firearms, specifically by a criminal element, that has no regard for others.

Myself; I would only use a firearm against another person in a defensive manner, only if I needed to protect my life, or the life of another individual.

I agree it is the attitude with guns that is the problem not the gun itself.

I woukld disagree that the problem can be pushed onto the criminal element. It is the attitude of every day people who have been taught to fear criminals and their government and even worse being taught that a gun is a solution.

With your own comment, how often have you had to defend yourself? More than once and then we need consider that there is something seriously wrong with your society that needs more attention than guns. But more likely it has never happened and is simply a dreamed up excuse.

But the attitude that you have a right to kill is the problem. If it is truly self defense then you have a right. But the bar on what is considered self defense in america is so low that innocent people die for no other reason than they had a phone in their hand. It is not the guns fault it is the fault of the person willing to shoot because he thinks that is his right.
That is why i am anti the second. Because many misttake it not only for the right to bear arms but also the right to kill.

 

[soylentgreen]

Gun safety is a law here as well. Do something unsafe with a gun and you can be prosecuted. How is that any different?

No actually it is not. Gun safety is merely a suggestion. There are enough documented scenes of people dieing because gun safety was not followed and no one being prosecuted for it. For example
Kentucky Child Kills Sister With Gun - Business Insider

Kristian's rifle was kept in a corner of the mobile home, and the family didn't realize a bullet had been left in it
White said the shooting had been ruled accidental, though a police spokesman said it was unclear whether any charges will be filed.

So please explain to me what safety rule was being followed when the parents that are in a house full of children can leave a gun within the childs reach and still say they did not know if the gun was loaded.
In any other country that would be negligent homicide. In america the law scratches its head and wonders if it can prosecute.

 

[eohrnberger]

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

Why are we so often put in a position of justifying our immigration laws to outsiders? :2mad: The people who entered our Country legally through Ellis Island in the early 1900s had no intention of changing our laws; they were just happy to escape the hellholes they left! They weren't promised one dime of government aid when they got here either - they were expected to work and make a new life on their own, and though it wasn't easy, millions upon millions of immigrants did exactly that! :thumbs:

Those today who do not agree with our Constitution and Bill of Rights should STHU and go elsewhere instead of illegally sneaking in here! They can whine somewhere else, IMO, since we aren't here to allow those who enter our country that want to change our laws to suit themselves; too many have died to protect the freedoms we enjoy. Sharia law isn't going to work here, since watching what is going on in the EU countries is sufficient reason to say NO! Enough is enough!

Greetings, Polgara. :2wave:

The most recent immigrants also left hellholes behind, however, some arriving here appear to demand that their new home land comply with what their previous hellholes did.

I agree with the sentiments that you've expressed, a mirror of my own.

 

[TurtleDude]

It's not illegal to handle one at home while drunk though--is it?

that's a fourth amendment issue not a second amendment one

 

[calamity]

that's a fourth amendment issue not a second amendment one

It's a 2nd Amendment issue when cops are called because drunk guy was waving his gun around and scaring the hell out of the wife and kids...if he doesn't actually kill them, that is.

 

[TurtleDude]

It's a 2nd Amendment issue when cops are called because drunk guy was waving his gun around and scaring the hell out of the wife and kids...if he doesn't actually kill them, that is.

aggravated menacing
Drunk and Disorderly
possessing a weapon while intoxicated
second degree douchebaggery

 

[calamity]

aggravated menacing
Drunk and Disorderly
possessing a weapon while intoxicated
second degree douchebaggery

THe punishment for which should include a permanent gun ban.

 

[TurtleDude]

THe punishment for which should include a permanent gun ban.

perhaps

 

[cuban smokes]

I agree it is the attitude with guns that is the problem not the gun itself.

I woukld disagree that the problem can be pushed onto the criminal element. It is the attitude of every day people who have been taught to fear criminals and their government and even worse being taught that a gun is a solution.

With your own comment, how often have you had to defend yourself? More than once and then we need consider that there is something seriously wrong with your society that needs more attention than guns. But more likely it has never happened and is simply a dreamed up excuse.

But the attitude that you have a right to kill is the problem. If it is truly self defense then you have a right. But the bar on what is considered self defense in america is so low that innocent people die for no other reason than they had a phone in their hand. It is not the guns fault it is the fault of the person willing to shoot because he thinks that is his right.
That is why i am anti the second. Because many misttake it not only for the right to bear arms but also the right to kill.

sorry, but that is the attitude of law enforcement in the US; they shoot first & ask questions after you are dead ........... how can a corpse reply to a question?

you do seem fairly judgmental of the idea that folks shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with lethal force

I will offer you an example: I lived in DFW for 15 years & during that time a 'road rage' incident occurred one morning rush hour. Words were exchanged, things got a bit heated, and one driver left his vehicle on foot & approached another vehicle in a threatening manner, albeit he had no weapon. The person was however using threatening language, flailing his arms around, making a scene, and all of this just beside the window of a driver within his own vehicle. The driver that was in his own vehicle became very concerned for his own safety & felt threatened, with good reason. He shot & killed the person that approached him. A grand jury 'no billed' him & rightly so. If the idiot that has gotten out of his vehicle & approached the other person would have just stayed in his vehicle, he would still be alive today, instead of being a 'poster corpse' for the concealed carry folks in Texas. Actually, I'm glad the guy was shot & was killed; he was a jackass ...............

 

[BretJ]

No actually it is not. Gun safety is merely a suggestion. There are enough documented scenes of people dieing because gun safety was not followed and no one being prosecuted for it. For example
Kentucky Child Kills Sister With Gun - Business Insider



So please explain to me what safety rule was being followed when the parents that are in a house full of children can leave a gun within the childs reach and still say they did not know if the gun was loaded.
In any other country that would be negligent homicide. In america the law scratches its head and wonders if it can prosecute.

And what law would have prevented it from occurring? What he did is already against the law. Authorities chose not to prosecute. Gun safety is law here and people who do not observe it are prosecuted regardless of this instance.

 

[soylentgreen]

sorry, but that is the attitude of law enforcement in the US; they shoot first & ask questions after you are dead ........... how can a corpse reply to a question?

you do seem fairly judgmental of the idea that folks shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with lethal force

I will offer you an example: I lived in DFW for 15 years & during that time a 'road rage' incident occurred one morning rush hour. Words were exchanged, things got a bit heated, and one driver left his vehicle on foot & approached another vehicle in a threatening manner, albeit he had no weapon. The person was however using threatening language, flailing his arms around, making a scene, and all of this just beside the window of a driver within his own vehicle. The driver that was in his own vehicle became very concerned for his own safety & felt threatened, with good reason. He shot & killed the person that approached him. A grand jury 'no billed' him & rightly so. If the idiot that has gotten out of his vehicle & approached the other person would have just stayed in his vehicle, he would still be alive today, instead of being a 'poster corpse' for the concealed carry folks in Texas. Actually, I'm glad the guy was shot & was killed; he was a jackass ...............

I am not saying that people should not be able to defend themselves. In fact i have said they have every right to. What i have said is that they have no right to a claim of self defense if it turns out that there was no actual attack or and what seems to be especially the case in america there was no reasonable grounds for assuming self defense was needed.

Your example is a good example of no real self defense issue. It is also a good example of americans belief that they have a right to kill. In america it is acceptable to kill a person because they behave in a manner another finds offensive.
You have just gven a good example of my arguement that americas problem is not with guns but with the use of guns.

 

[soylentgreen]

And what law would have prevented it from occurring? What he did is already against the law. Authorities chose not to prosecute. Gun safety is law here and people who do not observe it are prosecuted regardless of this instance.

Sigh! No real understanding then.

No law would have prevented the kind of stupidity that has a legal gaurdians of children leave a gun within reach of children and then give the excuse that they did not know it was loaded. Your question is nothing more than an admission that a lack of safety is neither a law or something to be prosecuted over.

If it was against the law then why did they not prosecute. Do you not understand your own legal system and the difference between law and justice. Laws must be obeyed while it is up to the justice system to decide what will be the result. Your police, if the law is actually there, should have had no choice but to prosecute. But they did not, they either broke there own laws or the law is not there.

Your arguement is nothing more than an attempt to deny what was clearly stated. Try again.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am not saying that people should not be able to defend themselves. In fact i have said they have every right to. What i have said is that they have no right to a claim of self defense if it turns out that there was no actual attack or and what seems to be especially the case in america there was no reasonable grounds for assuming self defense was needed.

Your example is a good example of no real self defense issue. It is also a good example of americans belief that they have a right to kill. In america it is acceptable to kill a person because they behave in a manner another finds offensive.
You have just gven a good example of my arguement that americas problem is not with guns but with the use of guns.

completely wrong. you clearly are ignorant of the affirmative defense of self defense in American criminal law

 

[soylentgreen]

completely wrong. you clearly are ignorant of the affirmative defense of self defense in American criminal law

You are so clueless. I am pointing out the flawed way american laws are concerning the self defense issue.