Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 07-03-2021, 08:02 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
18,132 posts, read 15,536,989 times
Reputation: 17119

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by elvis44102 View Post
as long as we have interstate highways no local gun laws will work period thats never figured into all the dialog from the right never

Soooo, are you implying that people from one state are just driving to neighboring states, purchasing firearms from licensed retailers and just walking out of the shop with a firearm? That same old hoplophobe firearms owner hating leftist bilge? I just can't grasp how the firearms ban supporting bunch just can't seem to use any truth at all in their "arguments" with this topic.

The whole "fiearms are pouring in from neighboring states with less restrictive laws" bit is just way old man. In order to buy a firearm in a neighboring state where one does not live and actually taking the firearm with them when they head home just does NOT happen. They can indeed purchase the firearm providing they pass the NCIC background check but then the piece must be shipped to an FFL holder in the persons state of residence and the process repeated.

And if the purchaser lives in a municipality that requires other hoops be jumped through such as Chicago or NYC the receiving dealer must see to it all those municipal restrictions are followed. NYC and Chicago both require a license to own a firearm and they also require registration and a 30mday waiting period I do believe. Do you honestly believe that complete and utter bilge that "guns are pouring in from neighboring states with less restrictive laws" pile of reeking bovine excrement?

The cartels ship firearms into US urban centers and what the gangs don't keep they sell. I suppose that this is an "out of state" source and the firearms are pouring in from it but this doesn't fit the ban happy hoplophobes narrative. And they sucker people who don't know any better into believing it. Oh they use all sorts of...colorful...language to push their agenda and it's all utter blatant lies glossed over with oh so scary sounding things. Scary if you don't know any better. Stuff like this neighboring states nonsense and scary sounding mad up terminology created to make it sound like they are "experts" on the subject of firearms.

Incredible capabilities are given to certain firearms such as saying an AR 15 is "capable of mowing down hundreds of people in mere seconds." Spare me. The completely ludicrous claim that polymer framed firearms are "undetectable" by metal detectors is still around after all these decades and and it's untruth proven beyond all doubt decades ago. Still the lie persists. In parting I will tell you a secret. Classified top secret eyes only information that will have the CIA and/or NSA kicking in my door. There is only a VERY miniscule percentage of the talking points the grabbers say that is actually true.

Now I just wait for those spooks to kick my door in. Haul me away to a black site and torture me to death for giving away state secrets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2021, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,396 posts, read 7,012,461 times
Reputation: 11649
Quote:
Originally Posted by sholomar View Post
Republican governors will reverse these laws via executive orders. It may not technically be legal (like states legalizing marijuana) but watch them anyways.


It's completely legal.

Unlike, Dem politicians declaring "sanctuary cities" for illegal aliens.

Because unlike gun laws, it IS the Federal Government's responsibility to enforce border control.

Literally every gun law ever written is a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2021, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,396 posts, read 7,012,461 times
Reputation: 11649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Around 12% of the nation in terms of the population controls 60% of the senate will continue to drive resistance to gun laws, red states rule and business as usual. The answer is always more guns and less restrictions.


I'm all for no restrictions on free citizens.

But that doesn't mean that I endorse "more guns".

If you don't want a gun.......don't buy one.

But don't try to make everyone else unconstitutionally live by your rules.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2021, 08:32 PM
 
28,983 posts, read 14,330,450 times
Reputation: 14229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowel View Post
I think most people would understand that they get transported in vehicles that people drive.
Yeah, my firearms travel with me in my vehicle. So what is your point ? Care to elaborate on your original point ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2022, 06:24 PM
 
Location: San Diego
18,637 posts, read 7,488,006 times
Reputation: 14897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
President Biden recently came up with the interesting statement that "No Constitutional amendment is absolute". It's the usual wishful thinking that liberals use when they want to violate an amendment, usually the 2nd. They also frequently use the phrase "reasonable restrictions".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bid...nt-is-absolute

Keep in mind that when leftist do-gooders say they want only a few more "reasonable restrictions" on guns, it's because the restrictions they imposed last year didn't work. Crime and mass shootings continue merrily along, and even increase. And so now they want to impose a few more regulations and restrictions. And when those don't work, next year a few more. And every time, their latest round of restrictions, never bring down the murder rate or severe-crime rate.

Liberals are 0-for-everything in reducing "gun crimes" or lowering the murder rate, etc. How many times have they put over "gun control" laws? We have, what, upwards of 20,000 such laws, all of questionable constitutionality. And what does Joe find himself facing? Mass shootings are happening more and more during the three months of his term so far. Any chance he'll take the failure rate of liberals' "reasonable restrictions" into account, before adding more of them?

So-called "gun control" laws are only obeyed by the law-abiding. And they aren't the ones causing the problem.
The Democrats ar once again pushing the same failed "solutions" today (restrict or ban certain guns, waiting periods, even restricting ammo), that they have tried for years, and the murder rate has never gone down.

You'd think they'd finally take the hint, and try some of the things that have been shown to work. They are even legal, i.e. they don't violate the 2nd amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2022, 06:59 PM
 
4,618 posts, read 1,910,510 times
Reputation: 4578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Around 12% of the nation in terms of the population controls 60% of the senate will continue to drive resistance to gun laws, red states rule and business as usual. The answer is always more guns and less restrictions.
and what is such a shocker is how ignorant people dont understand why we have such a system. Our system is designed to make it incredibly difficult to change the Constitution. It is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner". Much of our Nation was founded by people who were minorities in their own Nations who came to America to be free from the oppression of the Majority. If this system isn't one you approve of there are many options out there for you and Nations who follow your ideological thoughts but dont try to change the system this Nation was founded on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2022, 12:10 AM
 
33,801 posts, read 16,806,148 times
Reputation: 17106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
President Biden recently came up with the interesting statement that "No Constitutional amendment is absolute". .
Suggest limiting the 19th to a liberal, and watch their little heads explode.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2022, 04:51 AM
 
203 posts, read 72,272 times
Reputation: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
Yes, thank goodness.

The founding fathers didn't make clear their intent with the wording of 2A, and that has had horrible consequences.

And they failed to predict the problems that would arise if every baby born on American soil would receive citizenship, and thus guarantee the parents could stay also.

The framers of the Constitution got a LOT right, but couldn't have predicted that in changing times throughout the centuries, some of the things that were true in the late 1700's would not be still true and apply today.

Our US Constitution is not a suicide pact. We need to be flexible on a very few things that were good when they were written, but have devolved into mistakes.
Yes, they made the 2nd amendment very clear. The federal government would not pass any legislation on firearms, so as not to interfere with state governments to regulate their militia. At the time of the Bill of Rights applied to the Federal government, not State governments. It was up to State governments to decide things like local gun laws, as these governments were immediately and democratically answerable to their constituents. This is why many State governments also enacted "2nd Amendments" in their own constitution.

Moving on.

"Every baby born on American soil" was only a 'thing' after the 14th amendment. Something that came after the Civil War, intended to give freed slaves citizenship, and prevent Southern States from robbing them of their rights. So long past the time of the founding fathers.

However, the 14th amendment served one more purpose, it extended the Bill of Rights to constituents of States, so now State governments were not allowed to violate or pass laws that violate the Bill of Rights - not just the Federal government.

This led to quite a bit of confusion on some of the amendments, aka the 2nd Amendment. Since prior, State governments could regulate the 2nd Amendment anyway they saw fit, and now they couldn't. So this led to a notion that the 2nd Amendment has magical limitations that only the Federal government can interpret.

In fact, this is what happens when you make laws ad hoc, in reality after the Civil War, instead of passing the 14th amendment, we should have passed a bunch of amendments clarifying what states could and could not do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2022, 05:01 AM
 
Location: Florida
1,904 posts, read 1,034,781 times
Reputation: 1950
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
Yes, thank goodness.

The founding fathers didn't make clear their intent with the wording of 2A, and that has had horrible consequences.

And they failed to predict the problems that would arise if every baby born on American soil would receive citizenship, and thus guarantee the parents could stay also.

The framers of the Constitution got a LOT right, but couldn't have predicted that in changing times throughout the centuries, some of the things that were true in the late 1700's would not be still true and apply today.

Our US Constitution is not a suicide pact. We need to be flexible on a very few things that were good when they were written, but have devolved into mistakes.
Interesting...(i asked you this before and you failed to say)

What changes would you make to Gun Rights in America?


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2022, 05:02 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,621 posts, read 44,365,850 times
Reputation: 13555
Quote:
Originally Posted by unit731 View Post
Well regular militia . . . right to bare arms . . .
Again... for those who lack reading comprehension skills... I've explained the truth of what the militia clause means, and SCOTUS agrees. From the 2008 SCOTUS Heller decision:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

I have been explaining that, repeatedly, here on city-data but a whole hell of a lot of people STILL don't understand it. For whatever reason, they just CANNOT comprehend what they read. Shocking lack of literacy skills. /smh
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top