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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-26-2019, 07:35 AM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
9,308 posts, read 8,092,757 times
Reputation: 3941

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Sure, and if a car drives by my home, it is only blue once I declare it to be. The car's color is dependent upon my declaration.

You really don't seethe flaw in your logic, do you? Here is a question for you, then: where would the court get the motivation to declare a law unconstitutional if it were not unconstitutional? Do they sit there on the bench and examine the law, and then say something to the effect of this? "Hmmm, well gee, this law is constitutional at this point. But let's declare it unconstitutional. Then it will be unconstitutional from that point forward... unless we declare it constitutional again."

Rational people, ESPECIALLY those sorts of legal minds, don't do such silly things very often. They have to have a reason to declare something unconstitutional... presumably, because IT WAS, not because it wasn't. Now of course, it is possible to make mistakes and/or intentionally bad choices. But laws are not suddenly unconstitutional. Either they are or they are not. "Recognizing it" doesn't change the fact. You can declare that a blue car is green all day long... and it is still blue. Calling it green doesn't change its "blueness." Your thinking on this matter is just another example of leftist subjectivity.


No, it's an example of the inherent subjectivity of our system. If the Court says a thing in unconstitutional, it is. Period. If a later Court reverses that decision, it's now wholly constitutional again. Period.


Whether you, or I, or Clarence Thomas feel something is unconstitutional is irrelevant. The court rulings are the only thing that define it, legally, and that's what's under discussion here.


Something cannot be objectively within the bounds of the constitution if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-26-2019, 07:43 AM
 
10,651 posts, read 6,410,099 times
Reputation: 5921
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
ok lets start with more rules a regulations on the AR15 =https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ngs/339519002/
So you mean , more rules regulations on all semi auto mag fed rifles ? Or just ones that fit a certain description ? If AR's were pink instead of black, would it make them less scary ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 07:48 AM
 
7,180 posts, read 2,604,873 times
Reputation: 3911
Understand where the cultural and political narrative is trying to go with this - if you outlaw all semiautomatics under the heading "military assault weapons" and all bolt action rifles as "sniper rifles", then all you have left is pump shotguns and revolvers to outlaw before you've simply outlawed all firearms in the US.

Not exactly sure under what scary heading you'd classify shotguns an revolvers to make everyone think they are WMDs, but I never thought people would believe the lie that a barrel shroud, adjustable stock or muzzle brake make a weapon more lethal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 07:55 AM
 
8 posts, read 751 times
Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom View Post
I can't tell anyone what they can or cannot own. But there are people who can, and those are the people we're reaching out to.

There are lots of laws in this country that tell people what they can or cannot do or own. Like it or not. Your natural rights end where my natural rights begin. Wish we weren't all connected, but we are. What everyone in this country does affects everyone else. Therefore, laws and regulations have to be passed that protect the majority of the citizens, inconvenient as that may sound to you.
Ma’am, I can see and understand your point. This is a HUGELY complicated issue though.

One fact we have to deal with: there are millions of firearms in circulation in the US. In many states, such as Florida, it is a felony for anyone, including the government, to keep a list of firearms and those that own them. I think we can agree that a buy-back or confiscation will not solve the problem.

Regarding your natural rights - we all have the constitutional right to own firearms. Many choose not to own them. The ones who do own them are not infringing on the rights of those who do not. If someone were to assault you, your natural rights are being infringed. You have the choice to own a firearm to protect your natural rights.

I agree with legislation on how to own, carry, and use firearms. It’s the same with knives, cars, etc. There is legislation to keep all safe. However, people periodically choose to violate those laws, and people get hurt and die. In fact, consistently year after year, we have more vehicular deaths than firearm deaths every year - yet nobody thinks it’s reasonable to ban vehicles. Of course, vehicles are “necessary” to everyone. To those of us that know there are idiots, crazy people, and evil people who assault others with guns, we feel the “necessary” need to defend ourselves WITH guns. [url]http://vpc.org/regulating-the-gun-industry/gun-deaths-compared-to-motor-vehicle-deaths/[/url]

As far as sporting rifles (aka “assault rifles”), they are very poor platforms for a sniper (I recently retired from 30 years in the US Army). Hunting rifles are FAR better sniper platforms.

So...where do we draw the line? Do we address the culture of violence and narcissism which causes evil/stupid/crazy people to pick up and AR-15, or make a bomb, or drive a van into a crowd - or do we only go after the weapons of opportunity without addressing the root cause? After all, even without assault rifles, there will still be plenty of other weapons of opportunity that can kill just as many people.

Peace.

Jeff Cook
Sergeant First Class
US Army (Retired)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 07:55 AM
 
10,126 posts, read 4,744,849 times
Reputation: 5617
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
ok lets start with more rules a regulations on the AR15 =https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ngs/339519002/
Because it is a scary, black gun?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 07:56 AM
 
Location: USA
18,981 posts, read 9,246,915 times
Reputation: 14298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Understand where the cultural and political narrative is trying to go with this - if you outlaw all semiautomatics under the heading "military assault weapons" and all bolt action rifles as "sniper rifles", then all you have left is pump shotguns and revolvers to outlaw before you've simply outlawed all firearms in the US.

Not exactly sure under what scary heading you'd classify shotguns an revolvers to make everyone think they are WMDs, but I never thought people would believe the lie that a barrel shroud, adjustable stock or muzzle brake make a weapon more lethal.
A pistol grip on a rifle is also one of the evil, killing characteristics. We have allowed EMOTION to take over policy, led by the Media, and feminine attitudes.

Semi-auto rifles and pistols are the most COMMON USE firearms in the U.S. We are awash in them, and the Supreme Court ruled that "commons use" was the litmus test. I am not saying the Supreme Court can't reverse itself, but it would be difficult for government to ban and confiscate these firearms, due to it being possibly overturned by the Court.

Last edited by Pilot1; 08-26-2019 at 08:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 07:59 AM
 
7,180 posts, read 2,604,873 times
Reputation: 3911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
A pistol grip on a rifle is also one of the evil, killing characteristics. We have allowed EMOTION to take over policy, led by the Media, and feminine attitudes.

Semi-auto rifles and pistols are the most COMMON USE firearms in the U.S. We are awash in them, and the Supreme Court ruled that "commons use" was the litmus test. I am not saying the Supreme Court can't reverse itself, but it would be difficult for government to ban and confiscate these firearms, due to it being possible overturned by the Court.
Never underestimate a tyrant's desire to extend and protect their own power. Not ever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 08:02 AM
 
1,234 posts, read 1,066,498 times
Reputation: 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Understand where the cultural and political narrative is trying to go with this - if you outlaw all semiautomatics under the heading "military assault weapons" and all bolt action rifles as "sniper rifles", then all you have left is pump shotguns and revolvers to outlaw before you've simply outlawed all firearms in the US.

Not exactly sure under what scary heading you'd classify shotguns an revolvers to make everyone think they are WMDs, but I never thought people would believe the lie that a barrel shroud, adjustable stock or muzzle brake make a weapon more lethal.
Nobody needs the weapons outlaw gunslingers used to terrorize towns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
8,277 posts, read 2,851,666 times
Reputation: 4488
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
Gee, if one wants to kill someone from a long distance, wouldn't any rifle then become a sniper rifle ?



I have yet to see anyone who is advocating banning "sniper rifles" actually define what makes a particular gun a sniper rifle.


"Sniper" is a person with skills to shoot at a distance.

It's not a gun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 08:08 AM
 
Location: USA
18,981 posts, read 9,246,915 times
Reputation: 14298
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
I have yet to see anyone who is advocating banning "sniper rifles" actually define what makes a particular gun a sniper rifle.


"Sniper" is a person with skills to shoot at a distance.

It's not a gun.
Diane Feinstein did just that during the "DC Sniper" fiasco. Then it came out they were Black, and that all went away. If it had been two White Guys, it may he moved forward.
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

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.

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