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.
No matter what regulatory regime you put in place stupid people will do stupid things. There should be consequences for their negligence.
You will never eliminate all such negligence, yet in attempting to do so you will inevitably impose unnecessary burdens on many who would never themselves be negligent.
Very true. But, how do you know who will, and who won't, be responsible with guns? Are you willing to put your life on the line? Are you willing to put your childrens life on the line?
Let's not argue about this. Let's give it an honest debate. We can even start a new thread if you'd like.
Tell me: How would YOU allow law abiding citizens to own firearms (which, again, I support), and how would you prevent the bad guys from killing innocent children?
Bans don't work. The death penalty doesn't work. The police arrive after the fact. And, the innocent will have already been shot and killed by the time you arrive with your weapon. So, how does this issue get resolved in this country?
You certainly are an anti-gunner when you embrace anti-constitutional theories that are the anti-gunner's mantra and anoint yourself as the determiner of what guns citizens should be "allowed" to own, ignoring the legal criteria of protection while demanding a ban without any criteria other than your personal feelings.
As I said, SCOTUS uses a standard, a fixed criteria to determine if government is impotent to restrict the possession and use that type of arm. Let's put it this way, I can't wait for one of these state assault weapon bans to get to the Court because applying that standard will strike down any and all of them.
You may not like my analysis but at least I can support it with legal history and Constitutional law. Not that we will ever get to that.
Well, no. Sounds like you are conflicted and not a little bit discriminatory . . . Kinda like a racist pro-lifer, all for protecting the life of the unborn except for the Black ones, they're no good.
I agree, plenty of Constitutional idiots out there and nowadays, the vast majority are on the left. On the right you have the constitutional pollution of theological driven social and cultural beliefs. The opposition of dogma based conservatives to abortion and gay rights drives them to abandon the political principles of the 9th Amendment. How many times have you heard a Bible Thumper ask, "where's that right on the Constitution"?
Well, that is as wrong as any "living constitution" leftist telling a law-abiding citizen that they can't be "allowed" to own a gun of the type, "that constitutes the ordinary military equipment, that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens and is in common use at the time".
Assault weapons fit all that protection criteria and unless the Court wants to do a total reversal and ignore at least 173 years of constitutional law development regarding the right to arms then my position will be borne out. That there are people who clench their fists, stomp their feet and just wish it wasn't so, doesn't change the legal reality.
It's been clear for a long time. The lower federal courts went off the constitutional rails in 1942 which invented all the "confusion" you and many suffer from.
That illegitimate tangent was invalidated by SCOTUS in 2008 and now all that remains is to invalidate the hundreds if not thousands of gun control laws that have been sustained under challenge by citing that now invalid reasoning from 1942 . . . Again, Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) which invented the militia right / state's right respectively for the federal courts and then of course the dozens and dozens of later opinions citing Cases and Tot, that affirmed unconstitutional gun laws in federal and state courts.
Leftist constitutional ignoramuses continuing to argue the militia right interpretation are not evidence of things being unsettled.
I have cited case law, quoted the Supreme Court laid out my position in a way that destroyed yours. You have offered some opinions, claimed that there are court opinions that support you and gone on in thinking that rights are given to us and if somebody decides that they should be taken away, well, that's how it goes . . .
I have been enjoying debating the gun rights side for over 20 years. Back when I started gun rights was the losing side, the anti side had case law and academia on their side and I won then. Now there are no anti-gunners capable of debate. It is all vitriol and emotion.
I have heard all the anti-gun arguments (and make no mistake, yours are the arguments of an anti-gunner) and none of them stand up to scrutiny; sadly, nowadays there are no real debates to be found that reside in the Constitution or law.
Those opposed to gun rights retreat from reasoned, legal argument and refuse to even enter the discussion . . . They tout their expertise and their command of the law but they always turn out to be Wikipedia Heller scholars and as soon as they are challenged to support their claims, even when you beg them, they run away / claim to put you on ignore.
Oh, sweet Moses. First I was an anti-gunner now I'm a racist?
I asked this of another poster... and, I'll ask it of you: How many children have to die before it becomes a problem with you? Or, do you also believe that any number of children can die as long as the shooters rights haven't been infringed upon?
Again, since you're slow, I am pro-gun. I own guns. I support your right to own guns. But, where do we, as a society, draw the line to keep guns out of the hands of the people who use them to kill children?
You don't want to debate. You just want to argue. You're tiresome.
There HAS to be a way to allow law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms while keeping those same arms out of the hands of nutjobs, who might be on anti-depressants or anything else, and are hellbent on killing innocent people.
Do you think our Founding Fathers would be okay with that? They would be in awe at our 21st century weapon technology which simply didn't apply in the 18th century. What do you think they would have to say about innocent children being murdered?
I wouldn't. Goes back to the Constitution being a living document. Thomas Jefferson summed up the notion of one generation being beholden to the previous generation's ways and laws very nicely:
"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country."
As for all of this talk of The Federalist Papers, don't these folks know that everybody hates Hamilton?
Do you think our Founding Fathers would be okay with that? They would be in awe at our 21st century weapon technology which simply didn't apply in the 18th century. What do you think they would have to say about innocent children being murdered?
They would be in awe, but they would likely prefer that the common citizen have access to the same weapons as the standing army. Their writings on the subject clearly show that this was important to them.
About innocent children being murdered, they would likely say the same thing I say; Punish those who do harm to any innocents, regardless of the weapon used to do that harm.
I asked this of another poster... and, I'll ask it of you: How many children have to die before it becomes a problem with you? Or, do you also believe that any number of children can die as long as the shooters rights haven't been infringed upon?
I think anyone who kills a child should be punished. It matters not a whit what weapon they used to kill that child. I would focus on the crime, the action of the criminal, and not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to use that same tool in a non criminal manner.
Why is your focus on the tool, instead of the action? Is being killed by a bullet somehow worse than being killed by a knife, a bat, or a chevy?
A rather misleading headline given that her approval rating went from 48% to 44%. Its more about people moving from neutral to disapprove. My guess is these fence sitters were either not supporters before, and/or will return to the fence before the next election.
Drop in approval or increase in disapproval take your pick and she is a popular republican, it will be worse for some of the democrats that voted against the bill. The public opinion in NH is around 80-90% for what is a really minimal improvement in background checks, she chose to listen to the small minority that oppose public safety. We will see next election if they are sitters, if there is an incident with a weapon from a gun show it will be front page.
They would be in awe, but they would likely prefer that the common citizen have access to the same weapons as the standing army. Their writings on the subject clearly show that this was important to them.
About innocent children being murdered, they would likely say the same thing I say; Punish those who do harm to any innocents, regardless of the weapon used to do that harm.
We already have strict punishments for certain crimes. But, the punishment occurs after the fact. Why can't we be a little bit proactive instead of always being reactive?
We already have strict punishments for certain crimes. But, the punishment occurs after the fact. Why can't we be a little bit proactive instead of always being reactive?
So I'm sure you would have a problem with the police searching your house for no reason, you know, to be proactive.
I think anyone who kills a child should be punished. It matters not a whit what weapon they used to kill that child. I would focus on the crime, the action of the criminal, and not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to use that same tool in a non criminal manner.
Why is your focus on the tool, instead of the action? Is being killed by a bullet somehow worse than being killed by a knife, a bat, or a chevy?
I agree with your first paragraph 100%.
But, it's much easier to hide a handgun under a jacket than it is a Chevy. A bat is not the preferred weapon for mass killings. And, a knife, while lethal, is easier to defend against rather than a bullet.
I will ask you the same question I asked the others. How can I keep my right to bear arms while keeping guns out of the hands of people who are hell bent on doing harm? Sure, they will be punished. But, will that bring back the life of a dead child?
Personally, I would prefer to go back to the Old West way of doing things. Most every man wore a gun. And, if committed murder you were hung in the town square for all to see. Your punishment was swift and certain. No death row. No decades long appeals process.
But, we don't live in that time anymore. Attitudes change.
So, again, I ask you. How do you, and I, keep our guns (and, keep the Federal Goverment from labeling us as the bad guys) while keeping guns out of the hands of the actual bad guys?
So I'm sure you would have a problem with the police searching your house for no reason, you know, to be proactive.
Proactive against what? I've had my background check. I've proven that I'm not on any mood altering medication. I've proven that I have had training with the weapon(s) that I own. I've proven that I do not have a history of criminal behavior.
So, just exactly, what would the police be proactive about?
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.
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.
