Pensacola shooting

[gowlerk 1,901]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

The second amendment IS the law.

And has been interpreted to mean different things. But in any case, the clever little film is still bullshit.

[DJL 232]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

The second amendment IS the law.

And has been interpreted to mean different things. But in any case, the clever little film is still bullshit.

The second amendment was written to provide the loosest interpretation and broadest coverage, this is shown time and time again in the writings of those involved in its inception who wanted to use it to help assure the American colonies that no group of states or citizens would be at the mercy of a federal government to protect themselves from either that government or from smaller security risks.  However, there is no law that rises above public health or cannot be annotated to protect citizens from misuse.  Just as speech is protected but not when it's used to incite illegal acts, weaponry can be restricted if that type poses an undue risk to citizens.  The rest of the discussion is about where we draw that line.

[kallend 1,619]

21 hours ago, DJL said:

And of course you answer your original question too.  The most latest breaking info is that he was able to purchase it even though he's a foreign national and I think we can all agree that the 2nd Amendment didn't get written to let non-citizens purchase firearms so easily.

 

But the 14th Amendment did.  Constitutional protections apply to "persons", not just to citizens.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

But the 14th Amendment did.  Constitutional protections apply to "persons", not just to citizens.

Opinion:  Protections are things that protect persons from harms and illegal acts.  There's a long precedent of non-citizens not having the same privileges as citizens. While this doesn't mean that a non-citizen should not be able to purchase or possess a weapon there's no reason why the process shouldn't be more stringent, just as there's no reason why the process shouldn't be more stringent overall.

[kallend 1,619]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

Opinion:  Protections are things that protect persons from harms and illegal acts.  There's a long precedent of non-citizens not having the same privileges as citizens. While this doesn't mean that a non-citizen should not be able to purchase or possess a weapon there's no reason why the process shouldn't be more stringent, just as there's no reason why the process shouldn't be more stringent overall.

Privileges <> rights.  The Constitution doesn't grant privileges.

I know (at least) one legal gun owner in Illinois who is a resident but not a citizen, and the gun lobby generally considers IL to be a gun restrictive state.

[DJL 232]

13 minutes ago, kallend said:

Privileges <> rights.  The Constitution doesn't grant privileges.

I know (at least) one legal gun owner in Illinois who is a resident but not a citizen, and the gun lobby generally considers IL to be a gun restrictive state.

The Constitution also doesn't dictate the specifics of how the 2nd Amendment is administered.  I don't think this one case requires us to rewrite anything, we're not exposing a real threat.  It could be seen as either exposing a loophole or an example of how little threat "foreigners" pose even if they're scary Muslims considering how isolated this is.  I only bring this up at all because it seems odd that something (firearm ownership) which people practically pray to as a tenet of our country requires no further steps to analyze the background of a person who isn't even a citizen.  The uppercase "HOWEVER" is that this guy went through a government background check so what were they going to find anyway?

Edited December 10, 2019 by DJL

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

44 minutes ago, kallend said:

Privileges <> rights.  The Constitution doesn't grant privileges.

I know (at least) one legal gun owner in

 

Illinois who is a resident but not a citizen, and the gun lobby generally considers IL to be a gun restrictive state.

The rules are federal, not state.

Gun Control Act of 1968, which established the Federal Firearms License and the form 4473. 

Citizens (naturalized & born) and resident aliens (green card holders) are allowed to purchase firearms.

Non-resident aliens are prohibited from purchasing or possessing them. There are certain exceptions, but this guy didn't fall under any of them.

[piisfish 135]

Do I understand correctly, that the military base is basically a gun free zone? 

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

7 minutes ago, piisfish said:

Do I understand correctly, that the military base is basically a gun free zone? 

Pretty much. 

Most US military installations are.

Military Police & security forces are the only ones that have guns, or ready access to them.

Private firearms have to be secured in an armory.
Issue firearms are stored in the armory, are drawn for specific reasons and returned when finished.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, piisfish said:

Do I understand correctly, that the military base is basically a gun free zone? 

Mostly because bored 22 year olds with guns and live ammo leads to stupid shit happening.

[gowlerk 1,901]

11 minutes ago, DJL said:

Mostly because bored 22 year olds with guns and live ammo leads to stupid shit happening.

Yes, the military understands that the tools of war are not toys.

[piisfish 135]

14 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Pretty much. 

Most US military installations are.

Military Police & security forces are the only ones that have guns, or ready access to them.

Private firearms have to be secured in an armory.
Issue firearms are stored in the armory, are drawn for specific reasons and returned when finished.

So how does that 2nd amendment work for them ? 
they are still allowed to own weapons, yet comply with rules to use them, and don’t feel the need to always have 17 guns on them. 
unlike many civilians 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

5 hours ago, piisfish said:

So how does that 2nd amendment work for them ? 
they are still allowed to own weapons, yet comply with rules to use them, and don’t feel the need to always have 17 guns on them. 
unlike many civilians 

Easy buddy, you start waving pins around and you might pop a few balloons.

[DJL 232]

5 hours ago, piisfish said:

So how does that 2nd amendment work for them ? 
they are still allowed to own weapons, yet comply with rules to use them, and don’t feel the need to always have 17 guns on them. 
unlike many civilians 

That hits on a point I like to make in Virginia where open carry is a right but nobody utilizes it.  Even all these people with "Shall not be Infringed" tattoos down their arm don't carry a gun.  It's annoying to carry a gun because it has to dictate every action you make considering that it's pretty unsafe to leave it unattended.  I know only one person who actually carries and he's a huge 2A nut so it's part of his identity.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

3 minutes ago, DJL said:

That hits on a point I like to make in Virginia where open carry is a right but nobody utilizes it.  Even all these people with "Shall not be Infringed" tattoos down their arm don't carry a gun.  It's annoying to carry a gun because it has to dictate every action you make considering that it's pretty unsafe to leave it unattended.  I know only one person who actually carries and he's a huge 2A nut so it's part of his identity.

Last year I had this silly asshole show up with a group to do Tandems packing a Glock on one hip and a Crocodile Dundee battle knife on the other. Already nervous first timers were everywhere in the viewing area. Even the densest second amendment hypno boy should have recognized that was a dumb thing to do. Fortunately we are private property. More fortunately I have cops on staff who are happy to deal with that lame shit. But it shouldn't even be a possibility, that's the problem.

[Rick 67]

6 hours ago, piisfish said:

and don’t feel the need to always have 17 guns on them. 

they may feel the need but don't have the ability legally 

[DJL 232]

2 minutes ago, Rick said:

they may feel the need but don't have the ability legally 

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

[Rick 67]

6 minutes ago, DJL said:

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

that's even more overkill than the 17 guns that many civilians  feel the need to carry on them at all times

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by Rick

[brenthutch 383]

Merry Christmas guys

I hope I didn't "trigger" anyone.

Edited December 11, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 232]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Merry Christmas guys

I hope I didn't "trigger" anyone.

They recently did a thingy with a guy from my DZ.

 

[turtlespeed 212]

16 hours ago, piisfish said:

So how does that 2nd amendment work for them ? 
they are still allowed to own weapons, yet comply with rules to use them, and don’t feel the need to always have 17 guns on them. 
unlike many civilians 

You do realize that the entire base is patrolled with armed security details.

Which makes the base, in essence, a military state.

Or, do you not realize that you are pretty much condoning a military state?

AT LEAST - you are comparing civilian life to a military state.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

You do realize that the entire base is patrolled with armed security details.

So is a city.

[turtlespeed 212]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

So is a city.

I don't think the saturation is quite the same.

I think you realize that too.

[normiss 620]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't think the saturation is quite the same.

I think you realize that too.

It's entirely the opposite.

From my experience on Naval bases, shipyards, nuclear sub bases, and highly secretive research facilities, there are generally significantly more heavily armed persons in a city, than there are on those military facilities.

They tend to be at perimeter gates, and higher security areas within facilities.

Some US cities feel like police states to me. It's a sad statement on our society that we feel the need to have armed police officers at schools, malls, every sporting event, every city celebration or event, parades, seasonal home tours, parks, boat ramps, banks, car shows, motorcycle rallies and events, and all the other places I'm forgetting.

 

[turtlespeed 212]

11 minutes ago, normiss said:

It's entirely the opposite.

From my experience on Naval bases, shipyards, nuclear sub bases, and highly secretive research facilities, there are generally significantly more heavily armed persons in a city, than there are on those military facilities.

They tend to be at perimeter gates, and higher security areas within facilities.

Some US cities feel like police states to me. It's a sad statement on our society that we feel the need to have armed police officers at schools, malls, every sporting event, every city celebration or event, parades, seasonal home tours, parks, boat ramps, banks, car shows, motorcycle rallies and events, and all the other places I'm forgetting.

 

I guess we need to get rid of those pesky law abiding criminals then.