|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 5, 2019 16:19:39 GMT -8
Arms bearing is a right, driving a car is a privilege. That's the key difference.
There is plenty of legislation, the enforcement is the problem. Think about better enforcement.
Remember that Pelosi & Co were caught saying they want to start going down the slippery slope.
Rights have limits. Nellie can’t buy a functioning tank no matter how close he was to Jacques Littlefield. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. The Supreme Court had a pretty significant interpretation of the second amendment less than 12 years ago. But you have no right to drive a car at all. Congress can pass a legislation that turns the US into Albania of 1975, and here are the cars gone. |
|
|
|
Post by Badger on Aug 5, 2019 16:23:30 GMT -8
Rights have limits. Nellie can’t buy a functioning tank no matter how close he was to Jacques Littlefield. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. The Supreme Court had a pretty significant interpretation of the second amendment less than 12 years ago. But you have no right to drive a car at all. Congress can pass a legislation that turns the US into Albania of 1975, and here are the cars gone. |
|
|
|
Post by Badger on Aug 5, 2019 16:41:52 GMT -8
But you have no right to drive a car at all. Congress can pass a legislation that turns the US into Albania of 1975, and here are the cars gone. So what’s your point? Rights are different than privileges? I agree with you on that. Do you agree rights can have limits? |
|
|
|
Post by Badger on Aug 5, 2019 17:12:00 GMT -8
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Four California voters have sued to block a new state law aimed at forcing Republican President Donald Trump to release his income tax returns. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law last week that requires presidential candidates to file five years of their income tax returns with the California secretary of state. Candidates who don’t comply will not appear on the March 3 presidential primary ballot. The conservative group Judicial Watch announced Monday it had filed a lawsuit last week to challenge the law. The four plaintiffs are two Republicans, one Democrat and one independent. “This is a nonpartisan concern about the state running roughshod and attempting to amend the Constitution on its own,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. The Constitution requires three things of presidents: They have to be born in the U.S.; must be at least 35 and must have lived in the country for at least 14 years. Attorneys for Judicial Watch argue California’s law effectively alters the Constitution by adding a new requirement for tax returns, something they say state governments don’t have the authority to do. California’s law says voters need to know details about presidential candidates’ finances to “better estimate the risks of any given Presidential candidate engaging in corruption.” But Judicial Watch argues that rationale could lead states to demand things like medical and mental health records and eventually things like Amazon purchases, Google search histories and Facebook friends. The organization also argues that by limiting the law to primary elections, it does not apply to independent candidates. Judicial Watch also says the law violates voters’ constitutional rights to associate with presidential candidates and the voters who support them, rights it says are guaranteed under the First and 14th amendments. The lawsuit names Secretary of State Alex Padilla as the defendant because his office is in charge of enforcing the law. Representatives for Padilla and Newsom declined to comment on Monday, saying they have not been officially notified of the lawsuit. When he signed the law last week, Newsom released statements from three lawyers, including the dean of the University of California, Berkeley law school, saying the law is constitutional. Newsom contends Congress has changed aspects of the presidency previously, including limiting presidents to two terms after President Franklin Roosevelt was elected to four terms, and passing anti-nepotism laws after President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert, U.S. attorney general. “If the federal government is not going to act, California needs to act. We’ve always done that,” Newsom said in a video posted to his Twitter account. Citizens have had to pay federal income taxes since 1913, but it wasn’t until 1973 when a U.S. president made his personal tax returns public. Republican Richard Nixon released his tax returns publicly while he was being audited by the IRS. Ever since, U.S. presidents have released at least a summary of their personal income taxes. That includes most major candidates for president, with some exceptions. Former California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown did not release his tax returns when he ran for president in 1992. Trump has refused to release his tax returns, saying they are being audited by the IRS. Trump is lying and the California law is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Post by LordNelson on Aug 5, 2019 17:25:11 GMT -8
the 19 year old Gilroy coward went to Nevada and legally bought a semi-automatic killing machine - but while there, he'd have to wait till 21 to purchase his JUUL vape kit. I believe there can be tighter legislation around gun ownership (especially semi-automatics) and still have a 2nd amendment intact. Does the 2nd amendment also mean I can purchase & legally park a loaded Army tank in my driveway? Is that my freedom too?
One of the few places I go 'left' is on stronger gun controls for the usa. We should all register, insure and annually re-new our guns like the DMV does for our autos. It's so easily possible. The current status quo is far too weak for this nations greater good.
Arms bearing is a right, driving a car is a privilege. That's the key difference.
There is plenty of legislation, the enforcement is the problem. Think about better enforcement.
Remember that Pelosi & Co were caught saying they want to start going down the slippery slope.
- Federal law imposing age 21 restriction on purchasing/registering automatic/semi-automatic firearms in the USA. -
- Full DMV style registration of your firearms. Punishment if you're in possession of a firearm not registered to you. - - law enforcement comes across any unregistered gun, they can legally confiscate it.
- - If your registered firearm is involved in a crime, wounds or kills someone, with or without you - you're in deep legal shit. - - Full fucking enforcement - no liberal pansy enforcement of new gun laws.
How would any of that infringe on your 2nd amendment rights? Stop if you've heard this before but - your freedoms come with responsibilities. It's a big fucking deal to own a gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by LordNelson on Aug 5, 2019 17:34:57 GMT -8
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Four California voters have sued to block a new state law aimed at forcing Republican President Donald Trump to release his income tax returns. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law last week that requires presidential candidates to file five years of their income tax returns with the California secretary of state. Candidates who don’t comply will not appear on the March 3 presidential primary ballot. The conservative group Judicial Watch announced Monday it had filed a lawsuit last week to challenge the law. The four plaintiffs are two Republicans, one Democrat and one independent. “This is a nonpartisan concern about the state running roughshod and attempting to amend the Constitution on its own,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. The Constitution requires three things of presidents: They have to be born in the U.S.; must be at least 35 and must have lived in the country for at least 14 years. Attorneys for Judicial Watch argue California’s law effectively alters the Constitution by adding a new requirement for tax returns, something they say state governments don’t have the authority to do. California’s law says voters need to know details about presidential candidates’ finances to “better estimate the risks of any given Presidential candidate engaging in corruption.” But Judicial Watch argues that rationale could lead states to demand things like medical and mental health records and eventually things like Amazon purchases, Google search histories and Facebook friends. The organization also argues that by limiting the law to primary elections, it does not apply to independent candidates. Judicial Watch also says the law violates voters’ constitutional rights to associate with presidential candidates and the voters who support them, rights it says are guaranteed under the First and 14th amendments. The lawsuit names Secretary of State Alex Padilla as the defendant because his office is in charge of enforcing the law. Representatives for Padilla and Newsom declined to comment on Monday, saying they have not been officially notified of the lawsuit. When he signed the law last week, Newsom released statements from three lawyers, including the dean of the University of California, Berkeley law school, saying the law is constitutional. Newsom contends Congress has changed aspects of the presidency previously, including limiting presidents to two terms after President Franklin Roosevelt was elected to four terms, and passing anti-nepotism laws after President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert, U.S. attorney general. “If the federal government is not going to act, California needs to act. We’ve always done that,” Newsom said in a video posted to his Twitter account. Citizens have had to pay federal income taxes since 1913, but it wasn’t until 1973 when a U.S. president made his personal tax returns public. Republican Richard Nixon released his tax returns publicly while he was being audited by the IRS. Ever since, U.S. presidents have released at least a summary of their personal income taxes. That includes most major candidates for president, with some exceptions. Former California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown did not release his tax returns when he ran for president in 1992. Trump has refused to release his tax returns, saying they are being audited by the IRS. Trump is lying and the California law is unconstitutional. Or how about we let VOTERS decide if Trumps fucking taxes are a big deal or not. Because I follow it, I find California's politicians 10x more slimy than Trump is. Useless Gavin again caught chasing Trumps tail rather than do a full audit of his $4b Bullet train to Bakersfield. |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 5, 2019 18:01:42 GMT -8
Arms bearing is a right, driving a car is a privilege. That's the key difference.
There is plenty of legislation, the enforcement is the problem. Think about better enforcement.
Remember that Pelosi & Co were caught saying they want to start going down the slippery slope.
- Federal law imposing age 21 restriction on purchasing/registering automatic/semi-automatic firearms in the USA. -
- Full DMV style registration of your firearms. Punishment if you're in possession of a firearm not registered to you. - - law enforcement comes across any unregistered gun, they can legally confiscate it.
- - If your registered firearm is involved in a crime, wounds or kills someone, with or without you - you're in deep legal shit. - - Full fucking enforcement - no liberal pansy enforcement of new gun laws.
How would any of that infringe on your 2nd amendment rights? Stop if you've heard this before but - your freedoms come with responsibilities. It's a big fucking deal to own a gun.
You're so stupid.
Do you understand the 2nd amendment was created to oppose the government seizing of you, to give the opportunity to resist. By giving the location of each and every firearm you make it easy for the government to confiscate stuff. Think, in general, of all the possible abuse the government can create with the full database of all firearms. Then, the absolute majority of gun violence is either by people who pass all these checks, or by people who pass none. If a person can vote, it can own a legal gun.
Besides, the 3rd point violates the 4th and the 4th point violates the 5th amendment.
All that is necessary is proper enforcement. Including inner cities.
Oh, what else is important: denigrating and humiliating the shooters actions. Currently the press makes some gods of thunder out of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 6, 2019 9:13:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by LordNelson on Aug 6, 2019 9:41:37 GMT -8
- Federal law imposing age 21 restriction on purchasing/registering automatic/semi-automatic firearms in the USA. -
- Full DMV style registration of your firearms. Punishment if you're in possession of a firearm not registered to you. - - law enforcement comes across any unregistered gun, they can legally confiscate it.
- - If your registered firearm is involved in a crime, wounds or kills someone, with or without you - you're in deep legal shit. - - Full fucking enforcement - no liberal pansy enforcement of new gun laws.
How would any of that infringe on your 2nd amendment rights? Stop if you've heard this before but - your freedoms come with responsibilities. It's a big fucking deal to own a gun.
You're so stupid.
Do you understand the 2nd amendment was created to oppose the government seizing of you, to give the opportunity to resist. By giving the location of each and every firearm you make it easy for the government to confiscate stuff. Think, in general, of all the possible abuse the government can create with the full database of all firearms. Then, the absolute majority of gun violence is either by people who pass all these checks, or by people who pass none. If a person can vote, it can own a legal gun.
Besides, the 3rd point violates the 4th and the 4th point violates the 5th amendment.
All that is necessary is proper enforcement. Including inner cities.
Oh, what else is important: denigrating and humiliating the shooters actions. Currently the press makes some gods of thunder out of them.
But you're mistakenly giving a pure 18th century interpretation to the 2nd amendment. the idea of a tyrannical federal government marching into your home to physically 'confiscate your stuff' is NOT a common sense worry here in the 21st century. theres 350 million of us now and about the same number of guns out there. Concern about continental soldiers appearing at your door with muskets and torches is stupid, non-rational thinking. You also don't have to host federal soldiers on demand in your home either. Phew! Ha!
Look, registering your guns is NOT unconstitutional. We already do this in a limited way. Creating a federal law for a 21 age limit to buy a firearm is not unconstitutional. background checks are not unconstitutional. When a mentally ill 19 year old can legally buy an assault weapon in a given state, something is terribly WRONG, you dumb shit. Wake up. Start living in the 21st century, current times, and let's apply constitutional gun regulations that will constantly and consistently be ENFORCED. We need change. Fuck the narrow visioned NRA. & Fuck their powerful DC lobby. 6 year olds are getting murdered, for fucks sake.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 6, 2019 10:06:20 GMT -8
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Four California voters have sued to block a new state law aimed at forcing Republican President Donald Trump to release his income tax returns. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law last week that requires presidential candidates to file five years of their income tax returns with the California secretary of state. Candidates who don’t comply will not appear on the March 3 presidential primary ballot. The conservative group Judicial Watch announced Monday it had filed a lawsuit last week to challenge the law. The four plaintiffs are two Republicans, one Democrat and one independent. “This is a nonpartisan concern about the state running roughshod and attempting to amend the Constitution on its own,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. The Constitution requires three things of presidents: They have to be born in the U.S.; must be at least 35 and must have lived in the country for at least 14 years. Attorneys for Judicial Watch argue California’s law effectively alters the Constitution by adding a new requirement for tax returns, something they say state governments don’t have the authority to do. California’s law says voters need to know details about presidential candidates’ finances to “better estimate the risks of any given Presidential candidate engaging in corruption.” But Judicial Watch argues that rationale could lead states to demand things like medical and mental health records and eventually things like Amazon purchases, Google search histories and Facebook friends. The organization also argues that by limiting the law to primary elections, it does not apply to independent candidates. Judicial Watch also says the law violates voters’ constitutional rights to associate with presidential candidates and the voters who support them, rights it says are guaranteed under the First and 14th amendments. The lawsuit names Secretary of State Alex Padilla as the defendant because his office is in charge of enforcing the law. Representatives for Padilla and Newsom declined to comment on Monday, saying they have not been officially notified of the lawsuit. When he signed the law last week, Newsom released statements from three lawyers, including the dean of the University of California, Berkeley law school, saying the law is constitutional. Newsom contends Congress has changed aspects of the presidency previously, including limiting presidents to two terms after President Franklin Roosevelt was elected to four terms, and passing anti-nepotism laws after President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert, U.S. attorney general. “If the federal government is not going to act, California needs to act. We’ve always done that,” Newsom said in a video posted to his Twitter account. Citizens have had to pay federal income taxes since 1913, but it wasn’t until 1973 when a U.S. president made his personal tax returns public. Republican Richard Nixon released his tax returns publicly while he was being audited by the IRS. Ever since, U.S. presidents have released at least a summary of their personal income taxes. That includes most major candidates for president, with some exceptions. Former California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown did not release his tax returns when he ran for president in 1992. Trump has refused to release his tax returns, saying they are being audited by the IRS. Trump is lying and the California law is unconstitutional. Even Governor Moonbeam vetoed this bill because it would be unconstitutional. Newsom is a politician who will ignore the law and the constitution to get what he wants and have the Courts slap him back down. Think back to after the California Supreme Court upheld the law regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and Newsom ignored it and started issuing marriage licenses in San Francisco. This law wants to put in place a new qualification to run for President which is strictly controlled by the U.S. Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 6, 2019 10:24:06 GMT -8
Trump is lying and the California law is unconstitutional. Even Governor Moonbeam vetoed this bill because it would be unconstitutional. Newsom is a politician who will ignore the law and the constitution to get what he wants and have the Courts slap him back down. Think back to after the California Supreme Court upheld the law regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and Newsom ignored it and started issuing marriage licenses in San Francisco. This law wants to put in place a new qualification to run for President which is strictly controlled by the U.S. Constitution. He flings shit up against the wall and waits to see what sticks. The acts of a fool desperate for attention |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 6, 2019 10:33:55 GMT -8
Arms bearing is a right, driving a car is a privilege. That's the key difference.
There is plenty of legislation, the enforcement is the problem. Think about better enforcement.
Remember that Pelosi & Co were caught saying they want to start going down the slippery slope.
- 1. Federal law imposing age 21 restriction on purchasing/registering automatic/semi-automatic firearms in the USA. -
- 2. Full DMV style registration of your firearms. Punishment if you're in possession of a firearm not registered to you. - - 3. law enforcement comes across any unregistered gun, they can legally confiscate it.
- - 4. If your registered firearm is involved in a crime, wounds or kills someone, with or without you - you're in deep legal shit. - - 5. Full fucking enforcement - no liberal pansy enforcement of new gun laws.
How would any of that infringe on your 2nd amendment rights? Stop if you've heard this before but - your freedoms come with responsibilities. It's a big fucking deal to own a gun.
I will address each point in order. 1. Most mass shooters are over 21 so this accomplishes little to nothing. 2 out of 8 of the mass shootings in 2019 were under 21. If you are old enough to die for your country in the military you should be able to legally purchase a firearm.
2. If the government knows who has firearms then it knows where to go to take your firearms. Not a fan of trusting the Federal government with fundamental rights.
3. This basically already happens. If you are involved in a incident and have a weapon you can all but guarantee it is getting confiscated and you play hell getting it back.
4. Provided there is an exception to when guns are stolen and end up on the black market I have no issue with this.
5. That would be a state by state situation.
Yes, it is a big responsibility to own a gun but it is also one of the few rights specifically set forth in the Constitution with the wording "shall not be infringed". The founding fathers foresaw a Federal Government becoming too powerful and oppressive of it's citizens and wanted to allow for the citizens to be armed sufficiently to defend their rights from not just other citizens but from the government itself. This is where the "You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting." claim falls apart because the Second Amendment isn't there to allow people to just hunt.
We had a ban on assault weapons before and it didn't lower the death rate due to gun violence by any statistically significant amount which was why it was allowed to expire. Even with the mass shootings going on this year there have only been 62 people killed across the country this year. The national average for gun deaths are approximately 33,000 a year. Nearly 2/3rds of that are suicide. So you have 11,000 homicides by firearm of other people a year in a nation of 327 million people.
What I think would be a good step would be to implement a procedure where family members, schools and/or medical doctors can go to the Court to file a petition to have someone's firearms placed in temporary custody until it is determined a person is not a threat to himself or others. Sort of like a 5150 hold but on a person's firearms. The person would have a hearing they can attend and argue as to why such a hold is not necessary. This way due process is guaranteed. Similar to a temporary restraining order. The Dayton shooter was kicked out of school for having a list of people he wanted to kill. The Parkland shooter had given numerous red flags that should have prompted some action by law enforcement and they were ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 6, 2019 10:34:31 GMT -8
Even Governor Moonbeam vetoed this bill because it would be unconstitutional. Newsom is a politician who will ignore the law and the constitution to get what he wants and have the Courts slap him back down. Think back to after the California Supreme Court upheld the law regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and Newsom ignored it and started issuing marriage licenses in San Francisco. This law wants to put in place a new qualification to run for President which is strictly controlled by the U.S. Constitution. He flings shit up against the wall and waits to see what sticks. The acts of a fool desperate for attention Yup. He is 100% planning on running for President within the next 8 years. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 6, 2019 10:49:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by LordNelson on Aug 6, 2019 11:16:34 GMT -8
I will address each point in order. 1. Most mass shooters are over 21 so this accomplishes little to nothing. 2 out of 8 of the mass shootings in 2019 were under 21. If you are old enough to die for your country in the military you should be able to legally purchase a firearm. It acomplishes something making it 21. and bullshit, the US currently has a volunteer military anyways. stupid argument.
2. If the government knows who has firearms then it knows where to go to take your firearms. Not a fan of trusting the Federal government with fundamental rights. Fuck the NRA brainwashing you got. you're head is in the tyrannical 18th Century like Cjelly is. a national gun registry is nothing to fear by normal people. 6 year olds are being murdered by kooks.
3. This basically already happens. If you are involved in a incident and have a weapon you can all but guarantee it is getting confiscated and you play hell getting it back. Good, make it almost impossible.
4. Provided there is an exception to when guns are stolen and end up on the black market I have no issue with this.
5. That would be a state by state situation.
Yes, it is a big responsibility to own a gun but it is also one of the few rights specifically set forth in the Constitution with the wording "shall not be infringed". The founding fathers foresaw a Federal Government becoming too powerful and oppressive of it's citizens and wanted to allow for the citizens to be armed sufficiently to defend their rights from not just other citizens but from the government itself. This is where the "You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting." claim falls apart because the Second Amendment isn't there to allow people to just hunt.
We had a ban on assault weapons before and it didn't lower the death rate due to gun violence by any statistically significant amount which was why it was allowed to expire. Even with the mass shootings going on this year there have only been 62 people killed across the country this year. The national average for gun deaths are approximately 33,000 a year. Nearly 2/3rds of that are suicide. So you have 11,000 homicides by firearm of other people a year in a nation of 327 million people.
What I think would be a good step would be to implement a procedure where family members, schools and/or medical doctors can go to the Court to file a petition to have someone's firearms placed in temporary custody until it is determined a person is not a threat to himself or others. Sort of like a 5150 hold but on a person's firearms. The person would have a hearing they can attend and argue as to why such a hold is not necessary. This way due process is guaranteed. Similar to a temporary restraining order. The Dayton shooter was kicked out of school for having a list of people he wanted to kill. The Parkland shooter had given numerous red flags that should have prompted some action by law enforcement and they were ignored. If mental health checks were done properly, 20% of gun owners would be eliminated right off the top I believe. Depressing how many kooks currently own automatic weapons out there. We're just waiting for the next one at this point. I think you keep too liberal a definition of 'infringed'. We've got to start better registration restrictions & robust ownership enforcement for the greater good. We can improve as a people here in the 21st century. Our Federal Government is big and stupid but not oppressive. You have the right to bear arms, period. Your last paragraph is good because mental health is a big component rather than just the high number of guns that are out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 6, 2019 11:55:14 GMT -8
- 1. Federal law imposing age 21 restriction on purchasing/registering automatic/semi-automatic firearms in the USA. -
- 2. Full DMV style registration of your firearms. Punishment if you're in possession of a firearm not registered to you. - - 3. law enforcement comes across any unregistered gun, they can legally confiscate it.
- - 4. If your registered firearm is involved in a crime, wounds or kills someone, with or without you - you're in deep legal shit. - - 5. Full fucking enforcement - no liberal pansy enforcement of new gun laws.
How would any of that infringe on your 2nd amendment rights? Stop if you've heard this before but - your freedoms come with responsibilities. It's a big fucking deal to own a gun.
I will address each point in order. 1. Most mass shooters are over 21 so this accomplishes little to nothing. 2 out of 8 of the mass shootings in 2019 were under 21. If you are old enough to die for your country in the military you should be able to legally purchase a firearm.
2. If the government knows who has firearms then it knows where to go to take your firearms. Not a fan of trusting the Federal government with fundamental rights.
3. This basically already happens. If you are involved in a incident and have a weapon you can all but guarantee it is getting confiscated and you play hell getting it back.
4. Provided there is an exception to when guns are stolen and end up on the black market I have no issue with this.
5. That would be a state by state situation.
Yes, it is a big responsibility to own a gun but it is also one of the few rights specifically set forth in the Constitution with the wording "shall not be infringed". The founding fathers foresaw a Federal Government becoming too powerful and oppressive of it's citizens and wanted to allow for the citizens to be armed sufficiently to defend their rights from not just other citizens but from the government itself. This is where the "You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting." claim falls apart because the Second Amendment isn't there to allow people to just hunt.
We had a ban on assault weapons before and it didn't lower the death rate due to gun violence by any statistically significant amount which was why it was allowed to expire. Even with the mass shootings going on this year there have only been 62 people killed across the country this year. The national average for gun deaths are approximately 33,000 a year. Nearly 2/3rds of that are suicide. So you have 11,000 homicides by firearm of other people a year in a nation of 327 million people.
What I think would be a good step would be to implement a procedure where family members, schools and/or medical doctors can go to the Court to file a petition to have someone's firearms placed in temporary custody until it is determined a person is not a threat to himself or others. Sort of like a 5150 hold but on a person's firearms. The person would have a hearing they can attend and argue as to why such a hold is not necessary. This way due process is guaranteed. Similar to a temporary restraining order. The Dayton shooter was kicked out of school for having a list of people he wanted to kill. The Parkland shooter had given numerous red flags that should have prompted some action by law enforcement and they were ignored.100% this. That magic of number 21... To much blackjack? The law restricting purchase of alcohol to 21+ is stupid and achieves nothing. The law restricting purchase of tobacco to 21+ is stupid and achieves nothing. The law restricting purchase of firearms to 21+ is just as stupid and achieves just as nothing.
300 homicides in Chicago this year did nothing to LN, yet one 19-y.o. loonie next door who killed 3 people changed everything.
The key is in enforcement, but the enforcement isn't really there, because any enforcement may turn out to be ... racist.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 6, 2019 11:56:42 GMT -8
Oh, one more thing.
Greater good and government are not compatible. The government is a lesser evil.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2019 12:44:53 GMT -8
Arms bearing is a right, driving a car is a privilege. That's the key difference.
There is plenty of legislation, the enforcement is the problem. Think about better enforcement.
Remember that Pelosi & Co were caught saying they want to start going down the slippery slope.
- Federal law imposing age 21 restriction on purchasing/registering automatic/semi-automatic firearms in the USA. -
- Full DMV style registration of your firearms. Punishment if you're in possession of a firearm not registered to you. - - law enforcement comes across any unregistered gun, they can legally confiscate it.
- - If your registered firearm is involved in a crime, wounds or kills someone, with or without you - you're in deep legal shit. - - Full fucking enforcement - no liberal pansy enforcement of new gun laws.
How would any of that infringe on your 2nd amendment rights? Stop if you've heard this before but - your freedoms come with responsibilities. It's a big fucking deal to own a gun.
Even I can only agree with points 4 and 5 also with the caveat Haywood mentioned that there needs to be stipulation(s) for stolen firearms. And yes, creation of a national registry of gun owners is a very bad idea for two reasons. First is the potential, albeit remote, that the government can decide to round up all guns and gun owners. Second - do you really trust the federal government to keep that information confidential and secure once they have it? TRO |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2019 12:54:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 6, 2019 13:13:09 GMT -8
I will address each point in order. 1. Most mass shooters are over 21 so this accomplishes little to nothing. 2 out of 8 of the mass shootings in 2019 were under 21. If you are old enough to die for your country in the military you should be able to legally purchase a firearm. It acomplishes something making it 21. and bullshit, the US currently has a volunteer military anyways. stupid argument.
2. If the government knows who has firearms then it knows where to go to take your firearms. Not a fan of trusting the Federal government with fundamental rights. Fuck the NRA brainwashing you got. you're head is in the tyrannical 18th Century like Cjelly is. a national gun registry is nothing to fear by normal people. 6 year olds are being murdered by kooks.
3. This basically already happens. If you are involved in a incident and have a weapon you can all but guarantee it is getting confiscated and you play hell getting it back. Good, make it almost impossible.
4. Provided there is an exception to when guns are stolen and end up on the black market I have no issue with this.
5. That would be a state by state situation.
Yes, it is a big responsibility to own a gun but it is also one of the few rights specifically set forth in the Constitution with the wording "shall not be infringed". The founding fathers foresaw a Federal Government becoming too powerful and oppressive of it's citizens and wanted to allow for the citizens to be armed sufficiently to defend their rights from not just other citizens but from the government itself. This is where the "You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting." claim falls apart because the Second Amendment isn't there to allow people to just hunt.
We had a ban on assault weapons before and it didn't lower the death rate due to gun violence by any statistically significant amount which was why it was allowed to expire. Even with the mass shootings going on this year there have only been 62 people killed across the country this year. The national average for gun deaths are approximately 33,000 a year. Nearly 2/3rds of that are suicide. So you have 11,000 homicides by firearm of other people a year in a nation of 327 million people.
What I think would be a good step would be to implement a procedure where family members, schools and/or medical doctors can go to the Court to file a petition to have someone's firearms placed in temporary custody until it is determined a person is not a threat to himself or others. Sort of like a 5150 hold but on a person's firearms. The person would have a hearing they can attend and argue as to why such a hold is not necessary. This way due process is guaranteed. Similar to a temporary restraining order. The Dayton shooter was kicked out of school for having a list of people he wanted to kill. The Parkland shooter had given numerous red flags that should have prompted some action by law enforcement and they were ignored. If mental health checks were done properly, 20% of gun owners would be eliminated right off the top I believe. Depressing how many kooks currently own automatic weapons out there. We're just waiting for the next one at this point. I think you keep too liberal a definition of 'infringed'. We've got to start better registration restrictions & robust ownership enforcement for the greater good. We can improve as a people here in the 21st century. Our Federal Government is big and stupid but not oppressive. You have the right to bear arms, period. Your last paragraph is good because mental health is a big component rather than just the high number of guns that are out there.
What does the 21 year old age limit accomplish? Nothing. You trust the Federal Government to not infringe on your rights? They do it every step of the way. I am sure the people in Nazi Germany bought into the claims that taking everyone's guns was for everyone's safety. Didn't work out so well for the Jews did it? By this same argument you must agree that the government should be able to listen to every conversation you have with anyone because it is for the greater good and you have nothing to fear if you didn't do anything wrong? Why limit it there? Let's just give them the right to search your home without a warrant anytime they want. "6 year olds are being murdered by cooks". This is nothing new. Violent crime rates are drastically lower than they were in the 70's and 80's. We just didn't have 24/7 news channels reporting every shooting anywhere in the country back then. The media in this country love to overstate the dangers of everything because fear drives viewers which drives advertisers. In short, fear = money. If it bleeds it leads. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 6, 2019 13:14:01 GMT -8
Give the Government an inch and they will take a mile. History has proven this time and again. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 6, 2019 13:16:19 GMT -8
I dont trust either. btw is that a new Avatar? May we have the back story behind this one? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2019 13:35:00 GMT -8
I dont trust either. btw is that a new Avatar? May we have the back story behind this one? It is a new avatar. It’s a sort of cross between the Iron Front symbol and the Doug Flag (aka Cascadian Flag).  I wish I could say it’s my design but it is a local artist who designed it. TRO |
|
|
|
Post by LordNelson on Aug 6, 2019 13:41:22 GMT -8
I don't claim to have all the right answers and I've learned things from reading this thread. But I firmly believe some tightening action needs to happen. I believe we can have better enforcement and better laws specifically around assault weapons and still keep the 2nd amendment.
On KGO radio this afternoon, they were having a serious call-in discussion about abolishing the 2nd amendment because it is outdated. amazing how liberal the bay area is. 15,000 non-sucide gun homicides in the USA is amazing. I get Dems must realize there's more to the equation than just trying to eliminate guns everywhere. must do a better job enforcing gun LAWS, but in this twisted mind of DC beltway politicos, strict Law enforcement of urban areas is racist. Politicans just want to end jail over-crowding and leave the inner cite brothas to their own gansta-lands. throw buckets of water at the cops to show 'you-da'man'. de Blasio will give you a medal for it. See how it's all connected, and yet we're sniffing down the wrong 'ban all guns' hole. Again.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 6, 2019 13:42:58 GMT -8
No big deal right? Just a member of Congress publicly doxing his constituents who support a political candidate he doesn't like.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 6, 2019 13:50:49 GMT -8
I don't claim to have all the right answers and I've learned things from reading this thread. But I firmly believe some tightening action needs to happen. I believe we can have better enforcement and better laws specifically around assault weapons and still keep the 2nd amendment.
On KGO radio this afternoon, they were having a serious call-in discussion about abolishing the 2nd amendment because it is outdated. amazing how liberal the bay area is. 15,000 non-sucide gun homicides in the USA is amazing. I get Dems must realize there's more to the equation than just trying to eliminate guns everywhere. must do a better job enforcing gun LAWS, but in this twisted mind of DC beltway politicos, strict Law enforcement of urban areas is racist. Politicans just want to end jail over-crowding and leave the inner cite brothas to their own gansta-lands. throw buckets of water at the cops to show 'you-da'man'. de Blasio will give you a medal for it. See how it's all connected, and yet we're sniffing down the wrong 'ban all guns' hole. Again.
Enforcement is the MAJOR problem. The South Carolina church shooter should not have been able to purchase the gun he used because of his criminal record but the paperwork to place him on the no sell list got lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. The Parkland shooter should have had police intervention involved before the shooting but the School didn't report to the authorities what had been reported to him. Someone literally called the FBI and said they were worried the kid was going to shoot up a school BEFORE THE INCIDENT and nothing was done. Let's actually enforce the laws on the books before looking to pass knee jerk regulations. All we hear from the media and the Dems after a shooting is we need "reasonable gun control reform." They never go into specifics. After Sandy Hook nothing the Dems proposed would have actually prevented the shooting from happening. Today they are blasting Mitch McConnell for blocking 2 House passed gun control measures but neither of those would have made a difference in either the El Paso or Dayton shootings. |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 6, 2019 15:02:38 GMT -8
I don't claim to have all the right answers and I've learned things from reading this thread. But I firmly believe some tightening action needs to happen. I believe we can have better enforcement and better laws specifically around assault weapons and still keep the 2nd amendment.
On KGO radio this afternoon, they were having a serious call-in discussion about abolishing the 2nd amendment because it is outdated. amazing how liberal the bay area is. 15,000 non-sucide gun homicides in the USA is amazing. I get Dems must realize there's more to the equation than just trying to eliminate guns everywhere. must do a better job enforcing gun LAWS, but in this twisted mind of DC beltway politicos, strict Law enforcement of urban areas is racist. Politicans just want to end jail over-crowding and leave the inner cite brothas to their own gansta-lands. throw buckets of water at the cops to show 'you-da'man'. de Blasio will give you a medal for it. See how it's all connected, and yet we're sniffing down the wrong 'ban all guns' hole. Again.
You create a federal registry and allow the Feds to take the assault weapons away.
Next they decide anything that can have more than 6 rounds must go. Now they have the registry to come and take it away.
All the way until they leave you with something like a pellet gun or maybe even an arquebus.
Only law enforcement can solve it, and each cry "racist" must be answered with "fuck you". So far only the POTUS dares to do that publicly.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 6, 2019 15:03:27 GMT -8
I don't claim to have all the right answers and I've learned things from reading this thread. But I firmly believe some tightening action needs to happen. I believe we can have better enforcement and better laws specifically around assault weapons and still keep the 2nd amendment.
On KGO radio this afternoon, they were having a serious call-in discussion about abolishing the 2nd amendment because it is outdated. amazing how liberal the bay area is. 15,000 non-sucide gun homicides in the USA is amazing. I get Dems must realize there's more to the equation than just trying to eliminate guns everywhere. must do a better job enforcing gun LAWS, but in this twisted mind of DC beltway politicos, strict Law enforcement of urban areas is racist. Politicans just want to end jail over-crowding and leave the inner cite brothas to their own gansta-lands. throw buckets of water at the cops to show 'you-da'man'. de Blasio will give you a medal for it. See how it's all connected, and yet we're sniffing down the wrong 'ban all guns' hole. Again.
Enforcement is the MAJOR problem. The South Carolina church shooter should not have been able to purchase the gun he used because of his criminal record but the paperwork to place him on the no sell list got lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. The Parkland shooter should have had police intervention involved before the shooting but the School didn't report to the authorities what had been reported to him. Someone literally called the FBI and said they were worried the kid was going to shoot up a school BEFORE THE INCIDENT and nothing was done. Let's actually enforce the laws on the books before looking to pass knee jerk regulations. All we hear from the media and the Dems after a shooting is we need "reasonable gun control reform." They never go into specifics. After Sandy Hook nothing the Dems proposed would have actually prevented the shooting from happening. Today they are blasting Mitch McConnell for blocking 2 House passed gun control measures but neither of those would have made a difference in either the El Paso or Dayton shootings. I would love a deeper investigation of Hodgkinson shooting and the assault on the Oregon detention facility. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 6, 2019 15:41:09 GMT -8
I don't claim to have all the right answers and I've learned things from reading this thread. But I firmly believe some tightening action needs to happen. I believe we can have better enforcement and better laws specifically around assault weapons and still keep the 2nd amendment.
On KGO radio this afternoon, they were having a serious call-in discussion about abolishing the 2nd amendment because it is outdated. amazing how liberal the bay area is. 15,000 non-sucide gun homicides in the USA is amazing. I get Dems must realize there's more to the equation than just trying to eliminate guns everywhere. must do a better job enforcing gun LAWS, but in this twisted mind of DC beltway politicos, strict Law enforcement of urban areas is racist. Politicans just want to end jail over-crowding and leave the inner cite brothas to their own gansta-lands. throw buckets of water at the cops to show 'you-da'man'. de Blasio will give you a medal for it. See how it's all connected, and yet we're sniffing down the wrong 'ban all guns' hole. Again.
You create a federal registry and allow the Feds to take the assault weapons away.
Next they decide anything that can have more than 6 rounds must go. Now they have the registry to come and take it away.
All the way until they leave you with something like a pellet gun or maybe even an arquebus.
Only law enforcement can solve it, and each cry "racist" must be answered with "fuck you". So far only the POTUS dares to do that publicly.
Say the Feds decide that anyone who has posted anything deemed hate speech online should have his firearms removed from his property "for the greater good." Then slowly but surely the definition of hate speech begins to change to anything people find offensive. Facts that show blacks commit the majority of the murders but are a small minority in the Country? Anyone posting that is hate speech. We have already seen members of Congress this year saying anyone making fun of them online should be prosecuted. Suddenly anyone criticizing the Feds in any way starts to get labeled hate speech and they decide those people should have their guns removed as well. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 6, 2019 15:53:45 GMT -8
You create a federal registry and allow the Feds to take the assault weapons away.
Next they decide anything that can have more than 6 rounds must go. Now they have the registry to come and take it away.
All the way until they leave you with something like a pellet gun or maybe even an arquebus.
Only law enforcement can solve it, and each cry "racist" must be answered with "fuck you". So far only the POTUS dares to do that publicly.
Say the Feds decide that anyone who has posted anything deemed hate speech online should have his firearms removed from his property "for the greater good." Then slowly but surely the definition of hate speech begins to change to anything people find offensive. Facts that show blacks commit the majority of the murders but are a small minority in the Country? Anyone posting that is hate speech. We have already seen members of Congress this year saying anyone making fun of them online should be prosecuted. Suddenly anyone criticizing the Feds in any way starts to get labeled hate speech and they decide those people should have their guns removed as well. 13% of the population commits ~50% of violent crime in this country. Is it racist the point this out? Why is it that this fact is not allowed to be discussed at all? Who does it really serve to ignore this? Public school teachers (vast majority are woman that vote D) must be very racist because how else can we explain how black children and black males in particular do so poorly in school at the earliest age? |
|
