U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-07-2015, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,235 posts, read 14,014,262 times
Reputation: 5916

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
The original Militia act, defined that for all those unsure, who the militia was.
As the 2nd amendment says, each person is the militia.

The right of the people? You want it to mean a whole bunch of "people" have access to one gun? Or is it meant for one person to have access to many arms.
A militia by definition means more than one person, I made it simple for you, stick to that.
What are you on about with gun access? I have access to many guns and the 2nd An does not make any mention of numbers of guns, period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-07-2015, 11:26 AM
 
66,317 posts, read 30,202,952 times
Reputation: 8617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
A militia by definition means more than one person, I made it simple for you, stick to that.
A militia wasn't guaranteed the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the people were.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
33,033 posts, read 19,994,918 times
Reputation: 12912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
2A aside, what laws that arent already on the books would you like to see implemented?
discuss without emotion..

Severe psychosis disrupts autonomic thought processing, perceptions, self-auditing and control so severely that the person is not in a normal state of consciousness of reality.

This is not to be confused with mental illnesses. Mentally ill patients are not necessarily more violent. But if they have experienced one single episode of psychosis, then I would say they shouldn't be owning any firearms.

People who are on national security watch list shouldn't be owning guns.

Ex Felons - the non violent ones, should be able to legally own firearms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
7,233 posts, read 4,110,132 times
Reputation: 18094
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
Severe psychosis disrupts autonomic thought processing, perceptions, self-auditing and control so severely that the person is not in a normal state of consciousness of reality.

This is not to be confused with mental illnesses. Mentally ill patients are not necessarily more violent. But if they have experienced one single episode of psychosis, then I would say they shouldn't be owning any firearms.
I can go along with that, provided we have a court process involved (as we do with involuntary commitment). Due process and all that. But in turn, the public has to understand that this won't stop all mental-illness-related mass shootings. Someone can suffer severe homicidal ideation without being psychotic.

Quote:
People who are on national security watch list shouldn't be owning guns.
Can't go along with that one, as there is no due process involved in determining whose name goes on the watch list. A watch list should be used only for watching (in other words, directing the FBI's attention to the person's public actions to see if further measures that would involve getting search warrants are indicated).

Quote:
Ex Felons - the non violent ones, should be able to legally own firearms.
Agree. And people convicted of misdemeanor charges that involve violence should not own guns. The thing to focus on is whether or not the crime involved violence, not how the particular offense is characterized legally. Demonstrably violent people, duly convicted as such in a court of law, should lose the right to possess firearms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Gone
25,235 posts, read 14,014,262 times
Reputation: 5916
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
A militia wasn't guaranteed the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the people were.
Militias are made up of The People, not sure what your Point is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 12:36 PM
 
32,320 posts, read 26,189,545 times
Reputation: 18950
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
discuss without emotion..

Severe psychosis disrupts autonomic thought processing, perceptions, self-auditing and control so severely that the person is not in a normal state of consciousness of reality.

This is not to be confused with mental illnesses. Mentally ill patients are not necessarily more violent. But if they have experienced one single episode of psychosis, then I would say they shouldn't be owning any firearms.
mentally ill people, especially those with a propensity to harm others, should not be allowed to own firearms, but that restriction should only happen AFTER they have been adjudicated as being mentally defective.

Quote:
People who are on national security watch list shouldn't be owning guns.
cant go along with this unless they again have been through the system and adjudicated as being a terrorist. just because some government flunky somewhere decides to put a name on a list, doesnt mean the person in question in fact is a terrorist, or even belongs on a watch list. there is no due process, and thus preventing someone on a watch list from exercising their constitutional rights is unconstitutional.

Quote:
Ex Felons - the non violent ones, should be able to legally own firearms.
there is a process by which felons can get their rights returned to them through the courts. and that is the problem with these "watch lists". the AG generally invokes "national security" concerns, and thus the watch list is made unavailable to be questioned even in court, which again is unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 01:14 PM
 
10,868 posts, read 9,277,206 times
Reputation: 6552
- A national shall-issue pistol carry permit system. The only reasons why a permit could be denied would be a felony conviction or a judicially ejudicated finding of mental incompetency. Anyone with a permit can carry anywhere (concealed or open) where there isn't full barrier security (think airport style security.)

- A complete national preemption of all local and state laws on gun control (based on the 2nd Amendment)

- revocation of the existing gun control acts at the federal level. Silencers and short barreled rifles would be uncontrolled. Automatic weapons would be allowed for anyone holding pistol carry permit. New manufacture of automatic weapons for civilian ownership would be allowed.

- All employers / businesses open to the public must allow people holding carry permits to carry on their premises, unless they implement the type of barrier security for their facilities as described above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 01:16 PM
 
4,986 posts, read 2,658,927 times
Reputation: 2738
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94buickcentury View Post
I don't know if someone mentioned this yet. Since this thread is 17 pages long I am not going to search through them all for it, but just in case if it isn't mentioned yet, lets look at the Second Amendment shall we

"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."

I don't get why people who use the Second Amendment to justify having no gun laws always skip the bolded part. Having guns is a privilege and not a right because for it to be a right, a group has to be a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Random people owning guns does not count as a well regulated militia. Using the Second Amendment as an excuse not to expand on gun laws makes you an imbecile no offense.
Again the militia included every white male 16-60 who were required to own a military weapon and bring with them.

Educate yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,245 posts, read 11,493,700 times
Reputation: 4305
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
NONE


Gun Control Fallacy
  • Thugs, Criminals and Terrorists use guns to break laws. <---- FACT
so
  • Lets create more laws to stop Thugs, Criminals and Terrorists from using guns. <---- The Big FALLACY




(the only argument I have ever gotten against this consisted of insult)
You have gotten plenty of arguments against the above statement, you simply ignore it.



As for the post itself, it is a fallacy.

"criminals, dont follow laws, so why make more laws".

It is however, one of the more curious fallacies, seeing as people dont typically make that argument of speed limits, or drug use pr anything else along those lines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
71,724 posts, read 83,359,825 times
Reputation: 41564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
2A aside, what laws that arent already on the books would you like to see implemented?
without emotion? This is a subject that can rarely be discussed without emotion. Liberals think to stop gun violence all that is needed is more gun control. No one doubts a complete background check is necessary, but even that isn't going to stop someone who wants to blow another or a lot of people up from accomplishing exactly what they want. Just look at Chicago and Ca, both with tough gun laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:48 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top