5 5
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That's one item out of many but a great example of side stepping the issue. My point is that if you'll come at me with this: "Joe - I've clearly stated many actions that IMO should be taken. You've continually inferred that I support unfettered proliferation of assault weapons. That's not correct." And then back up that claim with fill in the blanks and shoulda oughta's you aren't being completely straight. I gave you the opportunity to clearly state and you are unwilling to do so. I don't blame you, actually, because like I pointed out what you claim to want when fleshed out would be serious gun regulations.

It was a straight answer. It's not my fault that you lack the capacity to see or accept that, or if it wasn't good enough for YOU.

Some of the suggestions require an age, or number to be determined. They were purposely stated that way to leave room for a good decision to be made by the lawmakers after proper research/study was done. On the age thing, some have suggested 21, that may be right or it may not be.

Clearly we differ on some restrictions. No problem, we have differing opinions.

Sometimes it seems that you just hate it when we agree on something. 

Copied from the original post:

The only point I've been trying to make is that there are many more firearms, other than the typical AR like rifle, that are a problem. To focus solely on assault weapons is short-sighted and will have, at best, a small impact on gun deaths.

I agree that it's reasonable to limit the typical semi auto hunting rifle to 5 rounds or less.

Raise the age on purchases of non-hunting firearms, tighten up the application process, hammer anyone caught making a straw purchase (maybe some law that says after buying X? firearms a year one has to prove they still have them in their possession, have paperwork documenting the transfer, or if lost or stolen a police report is required), mandatory severe jail time if caught with a stolen firearm, laws requiring owners to be more responsible with managing/storing the weapon, confiscation if mental health becomes an issue, red flag laws, significantly higher training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and ongoing training to keep it, liability laws/exposure for dealers that make errors, strengthen the requirements to obtain and retain an FFL license by requiring a minimum number of transactions per year, special application process for any long gun that can hold more than xx rounds in a magazine, shotguns that hold more than 6 rounds should be considered assault weapons, limit mag capacity with pistols to 10-12 rounds, mandatory prison sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun, etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 minutes ago, billeisele said:

The only point I've been trying to make is that there are many more firearms, other than the typical AR like rifle, that are a problem. To focus solely on assault weapons is short-sighted and will have, at best, a small impact on gun deaths.

While this is true, it's a start. Nobody is saying that is all that needs to be done. Why not start with the low hanging fruit?

Edited by okalb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, billeisele said:

It was a straight answer. It's not my fault that you lack the capacity to see or accept that, or if it wasn't good enough for YOU.

Some of the suggestions require an age, or number to be determined. They were purposely stated that way to leave room for a good decision to be made by the lawmakers after proper research/study was done. On the age thing, some have suggested 21, that may be right or it may not be.

Clearly we differ on some restrictions. No problem, we have differing opinions.

Sometimes it seems that you just hate it when we agree on something. 

Copied from the original post:

The only point I've been trying to make is that there are many more firearms, other than the typical AR like rifle, that are a problem. To focus solely on assault weapons is short-sighted and will have, at best, a small impact on gun deaths.

I agree that it's reasonable to limit the typical semi auto hunting rifle to 5 rounds or less.

Raise the age on purchases of non-hunting firearms, tighten up the application process, hammer anyone caught making a straw purchase (maybe some law that says after buying X? firearms a year one has to prove they still have them in their possession, have paperwork documenting the transfer, or if lost or stolen a police report is required), mandatory severe jail time if caught with a stolen firearm, laws requiring owners to be more responsible with managing/storing the weapon, confiscation if mental health becomes an issue, red flag laws, significantly higher training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and ongoing training to keep it, liability laws/exposure for dealers that make errors, strengthen the requirements to obtain and retain an FFL license by requiring a minimum number of transactions per year, special application process for any long gun that can hold more than xx rounds in a magazine, shotguns that hold more than 6 rounds should be considered assault weapons, limit mag capacity with pistols to 10-12 rounds, mandatory prison sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun, etc. etc.

No it wasn't a straight answer. Asked what value you would place on XX you offer that the value is for lawmakers to figure out. Well, lawmakers didn't make the statement, you did, hence my inquiry into what you thought. So, you'll just need to forgive me if I take your entire list of items as too vague to qualify as anything other than a pretense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

You still haven't said anything about that well-regulated militia part of the Second. While "ignoring the uncomfortable" isn't on your list, maybe it should be.

Wendy P.

Just imagine the discombobulation of the mind for the AR-15 a-totin republican. Who would have to join a militia to own a gun. That the state itself would then "well regulate" their conduct. The horror..the horror.

4 minutes ago, Slim King said:

Obviously you don't know what the words "Well Regulated" meant over 200 years ago. That's why I provide a dictionary from the time period to every school I give Constitutions to ... perhaps you need to actually crack a book and see what it actually means.... it's really pretty basic. Since the government has bad @ss weapons then you also should have bad @ss weapons to protect yourselves from a tyrannical government. The guys who wrote it had just done that.

Makes perfect sense. A .50 cal minigun in a armored vehicle. Better yet a manpad in case you feel that FOX has made the case to shoot down Air-force One.

Its so obvious Wendy. You just don't know your constitution. Please now hang your head in shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only said you hadn't commented on it. If you'll recall from your undoubtedly extensive research, part of the justification for the Constitution was the Shays Rebellion, where the federal government couldn't, in fact, control the armed populace. And if militia was how the military was handled in 1789, why should that change, if "well regulated" didn't?

It's just not as simple as either liberals or conservatives would like it to be. And, again from your undoubtedly extensive research, Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention weren't published in part because the Founders wanted the statutes to be interpreted according to need, rather than according to the specific discussion in the convention

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, mostly private schools. Only Jr. High was in public school. I did look up what well regulated meant; in good operating order, not necessarily "equipped." That "equipped" could be a part of good operating order is a matter of interpretation.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

And he'll never admit it.

You're right. Its central to the conservative tribal identity. That conservative alt right has self taught, self corrupted the constitution for several decades now.

They solely interpret it to fit their personal views In a self fulfilling prophecy they mix white identities, religion-christian religion of course, guns and conservationism in equal amounts. They teach it to themselves in their universities, in their forums, their discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

I am still wondering why armed insurrection is against the law if owning firearms is in the constitution to overthrow the government ...

It's only illegal if you don't succeed.

Or, in the case of the Confederacy, if the losers are forgiven and allowed to stay in positions of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Slim King said:

ROTFLMAO.... Love to see that link....

His campaign has admitted it.  Steve Bannon, who of course was the Trump campaign CEO and chief strategist (and now convicted criminal) came right out and said it.   He said the press was the real enemy and "the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit."

Which Trump did admirably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Slim King said:
Constitution of the United States

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.

We can own Cannons if we want to.

Sorry.  Nowhere in that statement is the word "gun."  Perhaps try reading it again and see if you can find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, billvon said:

Sorry.  Nowhere in that statement is the word "gun."  Perhaps try reading it again and see if you can find it.

Well, part of the reason for that is the Battle of Lexington & Concord.
The one where Paul Revere supposedly called out the milita by shouting "The British are coming!!!" (the reality is a bit different from the legend, of course).

The reason the Brits were going there was to confiscate cannons owned by the local militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Slim King said:
Constitution of the United States

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.

We can own Cannons if we want to.

In most other countries, the term "militia" refers to army reserve.

I served in the Canadian Army Reserve, Sherbrooke Hussars, Sector Est Milice, Mobile Command, etc. and we reported all the way up the chain of command to the Queen of Canada. Canadian Army Reservists wear the same uniforms, fire the same weapons, follow the same Queen's Rules and Regulations, etc. as regular army soldiers. When a regular army regiment is assigned an overseas task (e.g. United Nations peacekeeping) they often take along 40 percent reservists to top off the ranks, because few regiments are at full-strength during peacetime.

I guess that the word "milice" makes more sense in French.

 

Trivia question: What do you call a North American who speaks English and French? What do you call a North American who speaks English and Spanish? What do you call a North American who only speaks English?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Slim King said:

“Flood the zone with $H/t”: How misinformation overwhelmed our democracy

Looks like VOX is guilty of calling the US a democracy again ...ROFLMAO... THANKS FOR PROVING MY POINT!!!!

They're saying the US has democracy, which is entirely and completely 100% accurate.

  • Like 2

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.

5 5