0
gowlerk

A very bad night in Dallas

Recommended Posts

normiss

Can you point out the open carry portion of the second?
I think I missed it.




If the population is going to armed, open carry is better than concealed carry in my mind.

He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to feel. -Townes Van Zandt
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Can you point out the open carry portion of the second?
I think I missed it.



Right after you show me where written language on Something other than paper is mentioned in the 1st.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Paper???
Have you even read the amendment?
LOL



Yes, and here it is to refresh your memory:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

All they had for the press was paper. no computers, no internet, no TV, no Radio . . . Yet by some basic understanding, all of this is logically included and covered by "freedom of the press", as part of the first amendment.

Infringing on that right would be to limit the venues available, or the transmission type, or distribution means of the information.


The second amendment is as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringing would be not allowing carrying the arms. Or, do you believe the 2nd should state the conditions by which any arms may be held?

In which case it would be logical to assume that you believe that any past, present and fugue technologies that are to be covered under the first amendment shall also be called out and specifically referred to in the amendment.

So your comment about open carry is negated.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Infringing would be not allowing carrying the arms. Or, do you believe the 2nd should state the conditions by which any arms may be held?



So then, why is is alright to prohibit fully automatic weapons? Why are only AR-15s allowed and not M16s? Why are these outrageous laws allowed to exist in the face of your 2nd amendment rights?
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

Quote

Infringing would be not allowing carrying the arms. Or, do you believe the 2nd should state the conditions by which any arms may be held?



So then, why is is alright to prohibit fully automatic weapons? Why are only AR-15s allowed and not M16s? Why are these outrageous laws allowed to exist in the face of your 2nd amendment rights?



You assume that I agree with them.

Some people are scared. They need to be in a safe space.

It's because of those people, and criminals, that those laws exist.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So then, why is is alright to prohibit fully automatic weapons? Why are only AR-15s allowed and not M16s? Why are these outrageous laws allowed to exist in the face of your 2nd amendment rights?



I suppose the same reason you can't yell "fire" in a crowded building, but you can protest a soldier's funeral.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glitch

Its perfectly legal to own a fully automatic weapon, provided your vetted by the feds and you pay your tax stamp.




But they are so severely restricted as to make it very uncommon. Are those laws not an infringement on the right of the people to bear arms?
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

Quote

Infringing would be not allowing carrying the arms. Or, do you believe the 2nd should state the conditions by which any arms may be held?



So then, why is is alright to prohibit fully automatic weapons? Why are only AR-15s allowed and not M16s? Why are these outrageous laws allowed to exist in the face of your 2nd amendment rights?



Because of a rather odd Supreme Court ruling back in the 30s.

One where the defendant wasn't represented at the SC in any way.

One where the District Court found the NFA unconstitutional.

One where the US Government argued that the 2nd protected a citizens right to own military hardware. They defended the NFA by claiming that the items named in the NFA weren't in that category (which could have easily been refuted).

LINK

And open carry is pretty well covered by the statement "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The SC has made it clear that "reasonable restrictions" are allowed. But where that line is has never been determined. Most states and even Congress have been prevented from testing the limits. This is because they are unwilling to pay the political price to try, or they are against the principle.

As I have said before, a small majority, but a majority nonetheless, of Americans are willing to pay nearly any price in violence to maintain their gun rights.

This is democracy in action.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

As I have said before, a small majority, but a majority nonetheless, of Americans are willing to pay nearly any price in violence to maintain their gun rights.

This is democracy in action.



Actually it's a minority. It's a vocal, determined and dedicated minority, but it's a minority.

And most are not "willing to pay any price in violence." I'm certainly not.

I'd support ideas that will actually reduce violence, not simply take rights away.

It's just that I have yet to see a measure proposed that will do anything. Most of what is proposed is in the "Do something, do anything to make me feel safe" category (I've said this before).

Background checks for every transfer? How many recent high profile shootings happened with weapons that the owner acquired through a dealer with a check? (virtually all of them)

Magazine capacities? The shooters at Columbine had 10 round mags. Bigger ones were too expensive. The shooter in DC used a shotgun.

Ban "Assault Weapons"? VA Tech, the Giffords shooting in AZ, Ft Hood and numerous others used pistols.

Everyone who vilifies the NRA forgets or ignores the things they have done to go after criminals in ways that don't restrict the rights of the rest of the population. Remember "3 Strikes"? That was pushed hard by the NRA. It turned out to be a bad idea, but at least it was a "go after the criminals, not the guns" idea.
The "Project Exile" in VA was another one. Federal prosecutors would file charges in many "gun involved" crimes. 5 years minimum, and the charges couldn't be plea bargained away. It worked to a certain degree. NRA supported it.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

***As I have said before, a small majority, but a majority nonetheless, of Americans are willing to pay nearly any price in violence to maintain their gun rights.

This is democracy in action.



Actually it's a minority. It's a vocal, determined and dedicated minority, but it's a minority.

And most are not "willing to pay any price in violence." I'm certainly not.

I'd support ideas that will actually reduce violence, not simply take rights away.

It's just that I have yet to see a measure proposed that will do anything. Most of what is proposed is in the "Do something, do anything to make me feel safe" category (I've said this before).

Background checks for every transfer? How many recent high profile shootings happened with weapons that the owner acquired through a dealer with a check? (virtually all of them)

Magazine capacities? The shooters at Columbine had 10 round mags. Bigger ones were too expensive. The shooter in DC used a shotgun.

Ban "Assault Weapons"? VA Tech, the Giffords shooting in AZ, Ft Hood and numerous others used pistols.

Everyone who vilifies the NRA forgets or ignores the things they have done to go after criminals in ways that don't restrict the rights of the rest of the population. Remember "3 Strikes"? That was pushed hard by the NRA. It turned out to be a bad idea, but at least it was a "go after the criminals, not the guns" idea.
The "Project Exile" in VA was another one. Federal prosecutors would file charges in many "gun involved" crimes. 5 years minimum, and the charges couldn't be plea bargained away. It worked to a certain degree. NRA supported it.


You are not willing to take concrete measures to reduce the number of guns in your society. That is the only fix. You are part of the population that is unwilling to give up gun rights for decreased gun violence. Guns are made to shoot people. That's what they were invented for and that is what they will be used for because that is all they are good for.

All the dancing around and rationalizations will never change that basic fact. The only way to reduce gun violence is to reduce guns. America does not accept that basic truth. If you are not willing to reduce gun rights you are part of the problem. And you are part of the majority I speak of.

You are basically all the same. You want to have your cake and eat it too. The reason you have not seen any ideas that will work is simple. THERE ARE NONE. Except reducing gun rights and therefore reducing guns.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Background checks for every transfer? How many recent high profile shootings happened with weapons that the owner acquired through a dealer with a check? (virtually all of them)



Why limit it to high profile shootings? I think any law that makes it harder for a criminal to get a gun will reduce violent crime. If the law would reduce violent crime but not infringe on 2nd amendment right, I don't understand the objection. I don't believe background checks for private sales infringe on the 2nd. If they do, the logical argument is that background checks are unconstitutional for any transfer. Accepting background checks for FFL transfers implies that there is nothing unconstitutional about background checks.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

You are not willing to take concrete measures to reduce the number of guns in your society. That is the only fix.

No it's not. We have already cut the gun homicide rate in half during the last 20 years even tho we have more guns per person now than we did back when the rate was double.

Recently Dekker made a good point that if we banned guns, it still might take 30 years before we start seeing results. So why would we ban guns when we can keep doing what we've doing along with imposing some minor additional restrictions and implementing more programs suggested by the CDC to reduce the burden of violence overall - both gun-related and non gun-related?

gowlerk

Guns are made to shoot people.


...and animals too. The majority of guns are used for hunting and target practice. They will come in handy during the impending financial collapse that you spoke of - or any other type of crisis/attack, cyber or otherwise, that has a detrimental effect on the economy.

gowlerk

The only way to reduce gun violence is to reduce guns. America does not accept that basic truth.

Because it's not truth, but rather truthiness you use to beat over the heads of people you don't like, namely, law abiding U.S gun owners that have nothing to do with murdering people in cold blood.

gowlerk

If you are not willing to reduce gun rights you are part of the problem. And you are part of the majority I speak of.

You are basically all the same. You want to have your cake and eat it too. The reason you have not seen any ideas that will work is simple. THERE ARE NONE. Except reducing gun rights and therefore reducing guns.


Again, there ARE ideas that actually DO work - the CDC has given us plenty, but people like you refuse to listen because it takes the focus off those you insist on blaming - those you don't like.

Sometimes I wonder if "canuck" is the sound heard when knocking on a thick skull.
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blah, blah ,blah.....all the rationalizations. Guns are tools, they are tools invented and perfected to kill people. Your country has a gun death rate 5 times Canada's. And Canada's is rather high because we live next to you and it's easy to smuggle guns.

But like I keep saying, you will just keep blathering away that "guns don't kill people" despite the fact that they do. You've made your decision, hopefully you or a loved one will not be one of the victims. But you can be sure there will be victims. Over and over again and again. Just the same tomorrow as it today and was yesterday. If you have guns, you will use guns. You are people, and that's one of the things people do.

And then you accuse ME of having a thick skull? Enjoy your powerful killing machine toys.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

Blah, blah ,blah.....all the rationalizations. Your country has a gun death rate 5 times Canada's.




See, you just refuse to listen. Those aren't rationalizations, they are facts.

You're talking about merely reducing guns, but you'd have to get rid of practically every gun to reduce the gun homicide rate, because as long as there are guns out there, criminals will get there hands on them - just like drugs.

As a rational human being, do you think taking away practically every gun out of society is realistic?

Do you think that inner city blacks are incapable of living peacefully? The CDC most certainly thinks they can. . .

Personally, I think your argument about reducing guns is probably more suited to address the suicide rate in suburban/rural areas, but I'd bet you're one of those liberals that supports the right to die, amirite?
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Again, there ARE ideas that actually DO work - the CDC has given us plenty, but
>people like you refuse to listen because it takes the focus off those you insist on
>blaming . . .

And the NRA refuses to listen as well - in fact, they do their best to cut any funding the CDC needs to study gun violence. They managed to ban ANY research by the CDC into gun violence for almost 20 years, and made sure that the CDC knew that any attempt to work on those ideas would result in them getting their funding cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Again, there ARE ideas that actually DO work - the CDC has given us plenty, but
>people like you refuse to listen because it takes the focus off those you insist on
>blaming . . .

And the NRA refuses to listen as well - in fact, they do their best to cut any funding the CDC needs to study gun violence. They managed to ban ANY research by the CDC into gun violence for almost 20 years, and made sure that the CDC knew that any attempt to work on those ideas would result in them getting their funding cut.



That doesn't negate CDC recommendations that already work. If we can focus on creating a better economy with better education that addresses our violent culture, we can create more productive generations that have hope and an incentive to live peacefully, just like rest rest of us gun nuts with millions of firearms - hell, it might even help reduce the suicide rate along with the 30-40% of murders that aren't gun related.
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>That doesn't negate CDC recommendations that already work.

It places doubt on whether they are really good ideas or not.

If you prohibit someone from studying math, the recommendations based on statistics they are trying to analyze may not be all that useful.

>If we can focus on creating a better economy with better education that addresses
>our violent culture, we can create more productive generations that have hope and an
>incentive to live peacefully.

Agreed there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>That doesn't negate CDC recommendations that already work.

It places doubt on whether they are really good ideas or not.

If you prohibit someone from studying math, the recommendations based on statistics they are trying to analyze may not be all that useful.

>If we can focus on creating a better economy with better education that addresses
>our violent culture, we can create more productive generations that have hope and an
>incentive to live peacefully.

Agreed there.



Well, that pretty much sums up CDC's recommendations, so doubt no more.
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You are not willing to take concrete measures to reduce the number of guns in your society. That is the only fix. You are part of the population that is unwilling to give up gun rights for decreased gun violence. Guns are made to shoot people. That's what they were invented for and that is what they will be used for because that is all they are good for.



http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Data-Gun-Deaths-Plunge-Firearm/2016/07/13/id/738434/

"The firearm homicide rate in 1993 of 6.6 per 100,000 dropped by more than half by 2014, to 3.43 per 100,000."

"The number of privately owned guns ballooned from 192 million in 1994 to 357 million in 2013."

Maybe the issue is not a simple as you think it is. Firearm homicides cut by almost half while the number of guns almost doubled in the same time period.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coreeece

***Blah, blah ,blah.....all the rationalizations. Your country has a gun death rate 5 times Canada's.




See, you just refuse to listen. Those aren't rationalizations, they are facts.

You're talking about merely reducing guns, but you'd have to get rid of practically every gun to reduce the gun homicide rate, because as long as there are guns out there, criminals will get there hands on them - just like drugs.

As a rational human being, do you think taking away practically every gun out of society is realistic?

Do you think that inner city blacks are incapable of living peacefully? The CDC most certainly thinks they can. . .

Personally, I think your argument about reducing guns is probably more suited to address the suicide rate in suburban/rural areas, but I'd bet you're one of those liberals that supports the right to die, amirite?


Dude, it works in every other western nation. All of them. America stands alone in tolerating the death rate. Those are facts. Less people with guns equals less shooting. No, in Canada the criminals generally DO NOT have guns. Some do, because they stole them or smuggled them. Law abiding citizens often do have guns. But they store them safely at home, they don't need to walk around armed to feel safe. The police here DO NOT have to assume that everyone they deal with is armed. Very few are. Those are the facts. You are deluding yourselves with silly arguments that are rooted in the politics of fighting against gun control.

Criminals are stupid people. They only have guns because you make it so effing easy for them to have them. You have not only poisoned your country with the toys of war, you have poisoned your mind with irrational justifications that you need them. It is madness. The whole world knows that the gun situation in America is straight out madness.


Wake up to reality.

You have made your bed, now go lie in it. But at least tell yourself the truth instead of sprouting the lies you have been taught.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0