More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[BIGUN 1,042]

7 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Try this: You've just been appointed King of America. You have one year to reduce by 1/2 the numbers of deaths indisputably linked to both mental health problems and gun proliferation but you can only work on one of the two. And it's super serious for South Carolina because if you fail they are going to cancel both Hannity and Judge Judy. Which do you choose?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju-lptJweTc

[kallend 1,618]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

We've been talking about the 2nd Amendment and gun bans. 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/05/us/california-gun-ban-overturned/index.html

Apparently the judge can't see a difference between a Swiss army knife and an AR-15.

I wonder what he's been smoking.

[billvon 2,379]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Apparently the judge can't see a difference between a Swiss army knife and an AR-15.

Well, there was that recent school knifing where 20 kids and 6 teachers were killed with a Swiss army knife.  Right?  I mean, it sounds right. 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

38 minutes ago, billvon said:

Well, there was that recent school knifing where 20 kids and 6 teachers were killed with a Swiss army knife.  Right?  I mean, it sounds right. 

"Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment," he wrote. This is just hilarious but also may explain a lot. It must be that these folks believe you start defending your home from somewhere down the street and then gradually retreat to your bedroom where you grab your shotgun.

[kallend 1,618]

 Judge Benitez wrote. The firearms that the California legislature had deemed "assault weapons" are actually "ordinary, popular, modern rifles,"

 

So popularity and ordinariness are now the keys to interpreting the Constitution.

[BIGUN 1,042]

31 minutes ago, kallend said:

Judge Benitez wrote. The firearms that the California legislature had deemed "assault weapons" are actually "ordinary, popular, modern rifles,"

So popularity and ordinariness are now the keys to interpreting the Constitution.

Aside from his silly comments, it was a 2nd amendment decision. This should be a wake-up call to the liberal left that your strategy for attacking the 2nd is not and will not work and your focus should be on "Well-regulated." One can go out an buy an M2 Browning Machine Gun that shoots 1,300 rounds per minute with a max effective range of ~2,000 yds.   Yes, you too can own one of these.

But, you cannot own one unless you're willing to fill out the paperwork, lotsa paperwork, get the tax stamps, etc. To own one of these is not only bureaucratically filled with mind-numbing paperwork, but costs lotsa money, and time (talk about your waiting period), and the penalties for not doing it is more time than one gets for murder.  The question becomes if for machine guns, why not for weapons that can become machine guns with some easy garage re-tooling. 

Give a guarantee that you'll leave the 2nd alone in exchange for more regulation like the machine gun tax law. Or, are you guys just going to keep bitching about it on the internet every time there's another incident. The right is NEVER going to do anything about it, cause they're winning.       

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

Well, I would think his point is that the demonizing of military style semi auto rifles is not accurate.

Many of the comments made during the enactment of the AWB back in 94 were pretty off the wall. 

The functional difference between an AR type rifle and a Ruger Mini-14 is virtually nonexistent. Yet one was banned by the AWB and one was not. 

I think the 'Swiss Army Knife' comment comes from the versatility and modularity of it. You can swap around parts and make an AR just about anything. From a long distance sniper rifle (within the capabilities of the cartridge) to a 'close quarters' carbine. Calibers from a 22 Long Rifle up to a 450 Bushmaster. 

If you read the 2nd A that the 'right of the people' means the actual people (same as in 8 of the other 9 amendments), and that 'militia' means the 'whole of the citizenry', as was the meaning when the 2nd was written, then the ruling makes sense.

If you tack on the SC ruling in the Miller case, then the idea that the 2nd A gives the ordinary citizen the right to 'keep & bear' weapons appropriate to the 'milita', then the ruling makes even more sense.

I won't deny we have a huge problem with gun violence in this country. I have no clue how to address it. Taking away over 300 million guns from the citizenry simply won't happen. 
I also won't pretend that the 'taking away the guns is a precursor to taking away our freedom'. The UK, Australia & New Zealand have all enacted very strict gun controls in the past few decades and haven't seen any real loss of 'freedom'.

Kinda funny that the US has come closer to an autocracy/dictatorship in the past 5 years than in the past 245, all supported by the 'gun rights equal freedom' crowd. 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Aside from his silly comments, it was a 2nd amendment decision. This should be a wake-up call to the liberal left that your strategy for attacking the 2nd is not and will not work and your focus should be on "Well-regulated." One can go out an buy an M2 Browning Machine Gun that shoots 1,300 rounds per minute with a max effective range of ~2,000 yds.   Yes, you too can own one of these.

But, you cannot own one unless you're willing to fill out the paperwork, lotsa paperwork, get the tax stamps, etc. To own one of these is not only bureaucratically filled with mind-numbing paperwork, but costs lotsa money, and time (talk about your waiting period), and the penalties for not doing it is more time than one gets for murder.  The question becomes if for machine guns, why not for weapons that can become machine guns with some easy garage re-tooling. 

Give a guarantee that you'll leave the 2nd alone in exchange for more regulation like the machine gun tax law. Or, are you guys just going to keep bitching about it on the internet every time there's another incident. The right is NEVER going to do anything about it, cause they're winning.       

Fellow Lefties, this is reality. And truly, it would be a damn fine result. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Aside from his silly comments, it was a 2nd amendment decision. This should be a wake-up call to the liberal left that your strategy for attacking the 2nd is not and will not work and your focus should be on "Well-regulated." One can go out an buy an M2 Browning Machine Gun that shoots 1,300 rounds per minute with a max effective range of ~2,000 yds.   Yes, you too can own one of these.

But, you cannot own one unless you're willing to fill out the paperwork, lotsa paperwork, get the tax stamps, etc. To own one of these is not only bureaucratically filled with mind-numbing paperwork, but costs lotsa money, and time (talk about your waiting period), and the penalties for not doing it is more time than one gets for murder.  The question becomes if for machine guns, why not for weapons that can become machine guns with some easy garage re-tooling. 

Give a guarantee that you'll leave the 2nd alone in exchange for more regulation like the machine gun tax law. Or, are you guys just going to keep bitching about it on the internet every time there's another incident. The right is NEVER going to do anything about it, cause they're winning.       

Hi Keith,

Lots of good thoughts there.

Re:  your focus should be on "Well-regulated"

This why I keep coming back to the position that one ( in this country ) can own any type of weapon they want ( no anti-tank stuff, thank you ) as long as it can only hold one bullet.  I have said before, and I still believe this, that this will pass the 'smell test' for the 2nd Amendment.

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 383]

Now Californians will be able to place their thumb opposite their trigger finger and adjust the length of pull on their ARs.  Sounds absolutely terrifying.

https://images.app.goo.gl/LPfokh1Kke67ccHB9

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Keith,

Lots of good thoughts there.

Re:  your focus should be on "Well-regulated"

This why I keep coming back to the position that one ( in this country ) can own any type of weapon they want ( no anti-tank stuff, thank you ) as long as it can only hold one bullet.  I have said before, and I still believe this, that this will pass the 'smell test' for the 2nd Amendment.

Jerry Baumchen

The solution isn't definitional. The solution is political and politically this country, will for the foreseeable future, have a right to keep and bear arms not limited to a single shot. The reality is that even a general agreement amongst the majority of Americans on reasonable restrictions and regulations would be an uphill fight. The only path forward that has a hope in hell of working is trying for something like Keith proposes. If that happens then we let time do it's job.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

23 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The solution isn't definitional. The solution is political and politically this country, will for the foreseeable future, have a right to keep and bear arms not limited to a single shot. The reality is that even a general agreement amongst the majority of Americans on reasonable restrictions and regulations would be an uphill fight. The only path forward that has a hope in hell of working is trying for something like Keith proposes. If that happens then we let time do it's job.

Hi Joe,

You may be right, you may be wrong. *

I would like to see just one state pass a law with my 1-bullet argument & see what happens.

I am for a multi-pronged attack on our current status.

Jerry Baumchen

* If we were go down the path that Keith proposes, then let's tax the hell out of it; and the ammo, also.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

You may be right, you may be wrong. *

I would like to see just one state pass a law with my 1-bullet argument & see what happens.

I am for a multi-pronged attack on our current status.

Jerry Baumchen

* If we were go down the path that Keith proposes, then let's tax the hell out of it; and the ammo, also.

One shot is fine for gophers and woodpeckers but not desirable when you kick two roosters out of a fence row. On that basis alone I'd say it's a non starter. The thing is, if we are going to get anywhere under the current legal interpretations we need to ask for a helluva lot less than a complete ban, which I oppose, on anything. I don't know if I agree 100% with Keith, for example I'd be for regulating ammo in a serious way, but I totally agree with the idea of increasing the amount of paperwork and expenses for certain firearms. I also completely agree with the idea of limiting expectations. 

[kallend 1,618]

11 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

One shot is fine for gophers and woodpeckers but not desirable when you kick two roosters out of a fence row. On that basis alone I'd say it's a non starter. The thing is, if we are going to get anywhere under the current legal interpretations we need to ask for a helluva lot less than a complete ban, which I oppose, on anything. I don't know if I agree 100% with Keith, for example I'd be for regulating ammo in a serious way, but I totally agree with the idea of increasing the amount of paperwork and expenses for certain firearms. I also completely agree with the idea of limiting expectations. 

I'm in favor of regulating the militia.  If you're unwilling to train once a month, then you are no longer a member of the militia and the 2nd doesn't apply.

[brenthutch 383]

4 minutes ago, kallend said:

I'm in favor of regulating the militia.  If you're unwilling to train once a month, then you are no longer a member of the militia and the 2nd doesn't apply.

Good luck with that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[kallend 1,618]

More sacrifices:

https://www.local10.com/news/local/2021/06/06/corrections-officer-identified-as-victim-in-deadly-shooting-that-left-3-dead-6-injured/

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

More sacrifices:

https://www.local10.com/news/local/2021/06/06/corrections-officer-identified-as-victim-in-deadly-shooting-that-left-3-dead-6-injured/

Leaving the Hookah Lounge at 2am, what could possibly go wrong? 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Leaving the Hookah Lounge at 2am, what could possibly go wrong? 

Obviously they had it coming. Good thing someone brought their guns. 

[brenthutch 383]

9 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Obviously they had it coming. Good thing someone brought their guns. 

As everyone knows, the Hookah Lounge is a gun free zone, yet this tragedy still occurred. It’s almost as if criminal elements refuse to obey the law.

[headoverheels 291]

Mom shoots at loose puppy, hits her 5 year old son in the abdomen.

https://www.fox19.com/2021/06/02/mother-accidentally-shoots-5-year-old-son-trying-to-shoot-dog/

 

[wmw999 2,114]

Ya know, I'd feel a lot more like it's not just about wanting more guns if some of the militantly pro-gun crowd were to be for a means of disallowing people involved in these kinds of actions from owning guns. You know -- the "punish the wrong-doers" thing. Even though we don't really have a good mechanism to enforce it, that doesn't stop them from postulating all kinds of other stuff.

I know that there aren't a lot of people in Speaker's Corner who fit that description, and even fewer who post, but I don't think I've ever heard that suggested. Even if it's just a "the police are taking your guns, now you have to spend money to buy more."

Wendy P.

[BIGUN 1,042]

17 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

This why I keep coming back to the position that one ( in this country ) can own any type of weapon they want ( no anti-tank stuff, thank you ) as long as it can only hold one bullet.  I have said before, and I still believe this, that this will pass the 'smell test' for the 2nd Amendment.

Morning, Jerry. 

I applaud you for thinking outside the left box, but a single round isn't very likely. Most of the weapon manufacturers aren't going to re-tool their factories to "fit" a one round solution. They design/build their weapons for the militaries and police forces of the world.  

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Ya know, I'd feel a lot more like it's not just about wanting more guns if some of the militantly pro-gun crowd were to be for a means of disallowing people involved in these kinds of actions from owning guns. You know -- the "punish the wrong-doers" thing. Even though we don't really have a good mechanism to enforce it, that doesn't stop them from postulating all kinds of other stuff.

I know that there aren't a lot of people in Speaker's Corner who fit that description, and even fewer who post, but I don't think I've ever heard that suggested. Even if it's just a "the police are taking your guns, now you have to spend money to buy more."

Wendy P.

Do you mean stuff like Project Exile?

In the late 90s, Virginia, mainly Richmond started a program where people who used a gun in a crime faced enhanced punishment. One big change was that the 'gun charges' weren't plea bargained down. 
When it became clear that this was going to be followed through, gun crimes dropped. 

How about punishing 'straw purchasers'? Those are the people who can legally buy guns and do so for people who cannot.
One recent prominent one is the guy who bought the rifle for the underage Kyle Rittenhouse, who then used it to kill 2 people in Kenosha. The straw purchaser has been charged and is facing significant time. 

One thing that should happen but rarely does is prosecuting people who can't buy firearms but try to.
A false statement on the 4473 application to purchase a gun from a FFL dealer is a crime. It says so right on the form. 
The folks who are in favor of background checks always love to proclaim how many ineligible people were denied their purchase, but never seem to care that virtually none of them are prosecuted. I know a few are unaware that they shouldn't have a gun, but that's a pretty small number. 
You want to 'get tough on illegal gun purchasers'? Get tough on those who try to get a gun. 

[gowlerk 1,901]

This is what America's love affair with the tools of war brings. Ordinary people carry guns and then when they get angry the sometimes use them to get even. Road rage is common enough everywhere. The 2nd Amendment allows this stuff to happen all too often. I will never understand why so many Americans embrace gun rights as an essential part of the nation. 

https://us.cnn.com/2021/06/07/us/california-road-rage-arrests/index.html

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

This is what America's love affair with the tools of war brings. Ordinary people carry guns and then when they get angry the sometimes use them to get even. Road rage is common enough everywhere. The 2nd Amendment allows this stuff to happen all too often. I will never understand why so many Americans embrace gun rights as an essential part of the nation. 

https://us.cnn.com/2021/06/07/us/california-road-rage-arrests/index.html

Ken, you take it too far. Guns are used in war but so are knives and sticks and stones. Who knows what firearm was used in the assault? It could have been a pistol like cops use for all we know at this point. When I worked in Canada I once gifted someone a nice rifle I bought at the Winnipeg Cabela's. He's a First Nations guy who loves to hunt. Are you in favor of disarming the First Nations people of their tools of war?

Edited June 7, 2021 by JoeWeber