Is it time to talk about guns?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Balbus, Mar 24, 2021.

  1. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Guns have always been restricted in the United States as per the 2nd.
    1791 - Well regulated militia.
    1837 - Georgia prohibition of concealed weapons.
    1865 - Black codes forbid blacks from owning weapons.
    1927 - The Miller Act
    1934 - The National Firearms Act
    1938 - The Federal Firearms Act
    1939 - United States v. Miller
    1968 - Gun control Art of 1968
    1976 - District of Columbia anti-handgun law
    1986 - Armed Career Criminal Act
    1988 - Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988
    1989 - California bans the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons
    1990 - The Crime Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647)

    1993 - Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
    1994 - Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
    1998 - gun dealers required to have trigger locks available
    2005 - California bans the manufacture, sale, distribution or import of the powerful .50-caliber BMG,
    2008 - National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act

    Of course this doesn't include all the state and local laws, nor laws banning weapons in public buildings, etc.
    The 2nd is vague in a number of ways and can be and has been interpreted differently from time to time.
    If you would like to go into how the 2nd effects gun control laws we can do that. Remember the 2nd only grants the right to bear arms to a well regulated militia and it does not define what those arms are.

    ...and with all those laws, guess what? We still have virtually more guns than people in the U.S.
    Congressional Research Service estimate in 2009, 310 million guns. Population at the time 305 million including children.
    Harvard Injury Control Research Center estimate in 2015, 265 million civilian guns. Population at the time, 320 million including children.

    So yes as I stated those who want to revise gun control laws aren't interested in eliminating the 2nd. Only those who have been thinking, for some idiotic reason, for the last 50 years that someone is going to take ALL their guns talk about the elimination of the second because they don't want any gun laws at all...except maybe to prevent those THEY don't want to have guns form owning them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2022
    stormountainman and granite45 like this.
  2. erofant

    erofant Members

    Messages:
    2,173
    Likes Received:
    2,983
    You're painting everyone who isn't a hard right fanatic as wanting to get rid of all guns / make it too difficult to own one. That's JUST WRONG. I'm a centrist who leans left on a few points (fairer, progressive tax laws, environmental protections, workers' rights) but I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment. I know LOTS of other folks who feel exactly as I do, and they don't worship T**** or OAN, Newsmax, or the fascist, right-wing nut cases who attempted an armed coup on Jan. 6th, 2021. But they do believe they have a right to defend themselves and their families & homes against criminals. And they label themselves as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Republicans ARE NOT the only ones who want to keep guns - lawfully - in the hands of citizens. In today's world, with daylight car-jackings, home invasions, armed robberies, etc. - I wouldn't want to be un-armed and waiting for cops to save me or my family. Cops can't be everywhere - even fully-staffed, fully-funded police forces can't - so I'll protect FULLY if need be.

    That does NOT mean toting AR-15's and other weapons to a protest to shoot others who don't see things as you do. Even peaceful protesters end up getting shot - because someone wants to play big tough guy and "show them who's boss." That's murder by anyone's measure, or at least assault with a deadly weapon if the victim lives. This is the scenario we've seen endorsed by RIGHT-WING NUT-JOBS ....... not the "left". The right-wing fascists don't even try to hide it anymore. They're proud to bark it right out.

    When someone feels they need to take up arms against their fellow citizens over a political view - we have insurrection, and civil war. That's EXACTLY what many REPUBLICANS want to have happen ......... and they say so outwardly.
     
    stormountainman and scratcho like this.
  3. erofant

    erofant Members

    Messages:
    2,173
    Likes Received:
    2,983
    100% FALSE statement. The restrictions that have been proposed are to keep guns from violent felons, and those deemed by CERTIFIED PSYCHOLOGICAL / PSYCHIATRIC DOCTORS to be mentally unstable. Those proposals don't seem unreasonable to me. People with proven, DEMONSTRATED violent behavior and mental cases should NOT be allowed to own guns. For anyone who claims to detest violent criminals, drug gangs, street shootings, armed car-jackings, armed robberies, home invasions, etc. - why IN GOD'S NAME would you then support those same assholes being allowed to once again own guns????????????????

    And yet - some MORONS on the "right" say ANYONE should be able to get a gun - for any reason - and even support eliminating gun permits to carry concealed guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Explain to all of us on here H-O-W that makes ANY SENSE????????????????
     
    stormountainman, MeAgain and scratcho like this.
  4. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,493
    Likes Received:
    14,738
    Doesn't need to make sense if you're in the cult. Just spew any bullshit and the true believers will agree. ;) It's happening every day after day and a certain percentage of the population need it to maintain their authoritarian right wing, horse shit views. Whatever they say--the opposite is true .
     
  5. erofant

    erofant Members

    Messages:
    2,173
    Likes Received:
    2,983
    This is the exact result of a L-A-C-K of education, history, science, common sense, etc. Desperate, "left behind" people will latch onto anything that makes them feel suddenly empowered and validated. They haven't the knowledge and insight to realize that the very people / party they keep voting for are the very ones responsible for their misery. When certain people get angry enough, they reach for their guns ....... and GOD HELP anyone near them within shooting distance.
     
    stormountainman, MeAgain and scratcho like this.
  6. TrudginAcrossTheTundra

    TrudginAcrossTheTundra Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    3,728
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    You missed the point about the legislation specifics. Specific law requiring specific firearm storage practices doesn't change whether someone can be found guilty of violating a general law of reckless endangerment should that person be found to have left a loaded firearm within reach of an unknowledgeable untrained person such as a child or actor. Also, the general law can be applied to knives, tools, chemicals, electrical equipment, machinery, fire starting implements, etc etc. Otherwise, there's an huge amount of laws applying to each scenario dreamed up individually while almost certainly leaving something out.

    I think that's pretty evident given a moderate amount of consideration.

    The general vs specific law might be easier conceived when considering "no texting" while driving laws vs no distractions while driving. There's all kinds of other things besides texting which distract drivers from keeping all their attention on their environment.

    You're saying it sarcastically it seems, but surprise, authorities do check on some people's smoke detector status, and it's fairly common for authorities to show up with a warrant to take someone's computers to check for illegally downloaded material.
     
  7. TrudginAcrossTheTundra

    TrudginAcrossTheTundra Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    3,728
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    They don't need "mandatory training", just a test.

    Even our drivers aren't subjected to mandatory training and we allow total morons to drive deadly weapons. It doesn't take any real proficiency to be issued a driver's licence.
     
  8. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Thanks for replying, missed you!
    I don't follow what you're trying to say about the reckless endangerment thing.
    My point was if a gun stored under a pillow is not deemed to be reckless, how can reckless endangerment apply?
    A kitchen knife stored in a kitchen drawer is not considered reckless and so an injury resulting from use by an untrained child would not fall under reckless endangerment.

    Further a general reckless endangerment law applied to tools, chemicals, electrical equipment, machinery, fire starting implements, etc etc. can only pertain if it is deemed that these items were stored, maintained, or used recklessly. I have a table saw in my garage, that is a common place to have a table saw, if someone becomes injured on it reckless endangerment would not apply unless it could be shown that the guards were removed for no reason, the wiring was faulty, the blade loose, or some other reckless factor could be shown.
    My contention is that if a gun is not required to be stored under lock and key, etc. but can be kept in a desk drawer, night stand, closet, etc. then said storage would not be considered a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a reasonable person. So reckless endangerment would not apply.
    I am aware that my table saw could cause physical injury, but the storage and use of it in my garage does not constitute a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a reasonable person.

    In regards to your no texting example. Again I don't quite follow. Are you saying a no texting law is superfluous as reckless endangerment could be used in the case of any distraction while driving? In that case a person can be found guilty if they smoke a cigarette, take a drink of coke, look at the scenery, listen to music, engage in a conversation, etc. while driving as all of those could be deemed a distraction from being fully engaged in driving.

    Smoke detectors. Here is Maryland's law.
    You will have to show me a law, anywhere, that allows entry into privately-owned single- and multi-family dwellings to check smoke detectors and further after entry then allows a search for any other infraction of any other law. And if said law is found show me that that law would apply everywhere and other jurisdictions couldn't have their own law.

    As far as a warrant being issued to search computer files...how does that apply to anything we are talking about? Warrants are issued under the 4th Amendment after due cause is shown in a court of law.
     
    stormountainman likes this.
  9. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Okay.
     
  10. Eric!

    Eric! Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    23,130
    Likes Received:
    26,127
    Something I would neeeever do…….
     
  11. FritzDaKatx2

    FritzDaKatx2 Vinegar Taster

    Messages:
    3,661
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    [Chuckles in Arizonan]

    7p3w56q3gkj71.jpg
     
  12. TrudginAcrossTheTundra

    TrudginAcrossTheTundra Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    3,728
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    I don't know why people want to drag race into a talk about "guns". I wish people could stop being racist.

    Back to "gun" talk, here's several talking points:

     
  13. DanHarvey

    DanHarvey Members

    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    429
    I love all of my guns. I love that we have a choice to love or not love guns. Guns for the most part saves lives Period. Yes there are nitwits that dont have any business even holding a firearm. But we are humans and we are flawed your gonna have that with everything. Thats why owning a firearm must be taken seriously and with good training and a great system of safety and security owning a weapon can be just as safe as your fluffy teddy bear on your bed. This post is not debatable and my opinion only take it or leave it. ;)
     
  14. maturemale3346

    maturemale3346 Members

    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    1,259
    As a gun owner, I concur.
    This is the first and probably last political post from me. I'm here for the sex chat
     
  15. DanHarvey

    DanHarvey Members

    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    429
    Me too really. But im a PROUD gun owner because i can be.
     
  16. erofant

    erofant Members

    Messages:
    2,173
    Likes Received:
    2,983
    In today's world - in the U.S. - with all the shootings of innocent people by whack-jobs, and all the talk about laws, safety, & rules .......... the Republican party in several states has introduced legislation to allow ANYONE to get a gun, and even require NO PERMITS. Convicted felon? - You get a gun. Mental case?? - You get a gun. Pissed-off teenager?? - You get a gun.

    At what point do we realize that gasoline and lit matches shouldn't be put together??????? After bodies are being hauled off to morgues, we hear the "thoughts and prayers" broken record. Woulda - shoulda - coulda.

    I'm all for the 2nd Amendment - but some folks have demonstrated their tendencies to break the law violently. And here in the U.S. - way too many guys are climbing into their "tough guy" suits ..... willing to confront anyone for any reason. Kyle Rittenhouse ring a bell?? WTF was that snot-nosed kid doing brandishing an AR-15 at a protest about police brutality?? The folks who want a return to "the wild, wild West" of gunslingers might get what they want ......... and bodies will be stacked up on both sides.

    BRAVO.
     
    stormountainman, scratcho and MeAgain like this.
  17. erofant

    erofant Members

    Messages:
    2,173
    Likes Received:
    2,983
    Agreed. Especially about the nitwits who should never have a gun. Common sense OUGHT to enter that picture ....... right??

    Born & raised in a HUGE family where 99% of the men - fathers, uncles, cousins, 2nd cousins - hunted / hunt. Never a problem, never a crime, no "wannabe tough guys." But ........ beware home invaders / burglars.
     
  18. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    So let's look at this video.
    First at 26 secs he seems to imply that people want to do away with the 2nd. Sure, some do, but it's not really a serious consideration. At :46 he states that the 2nd is essential in upholding freedoms and liberties...without explaining why.

    At :56 he talks about tyrannical governments (and the need for guns to oppose them I guess), and yet he completely ignores the assault upon our own government on Jan. 6 by those who tried to stop the peaceful transfer of the presidency and how it was stopped with very little gun fire, and that gun fire was by those representing the government, not those who thought they were fighting against a "tyrannical" government. I guess he would have liked to see the insurrectionists to have used guns along with their other weapons to take over the Senate and House.

    Then he goes on to talk about the tyrannical Canadian and Australian governments! putting people into camps, like the Nazi Germans in WWII I suppose? Is he calling for an armed insurrection by Canadians and Australians? Oh, at 2:25 we find out they can't do that...they don't have guns!

    In addition he thinks the 2nd was written to allow the overthrow of the government when in reality it has been used many times to support the government, not overthrow it (see how civilian militias were used to put down the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays' Rebellion and how they supported the government in the war of 1812 and the Civil War. ) Not to mention use of the National Guard, Home Guards, and various State Guards in the modern era.

    Then we get into the claim the entire Chinese citizenry want to overthrow their government, but guess what? No guns. Just like those other repressive regimens, the Canadians and Australians.

    3:07, here we go again, the founding fathers wanted to overthrow their own future government with guns. (See Whiskey Rebellion above.) Heck they didn't even need the rest of the Constitution as the 2nd is enough to guarantee freedom and liberty all by itself. He makes that claim again at 5:29. In other words if a law is passed that you don't like, "by those taking away your rights", the 2nd gives you permission to shoot them.

    I have no idea what he's talking about with the Biden quote. He leaps to the old "the government is going to take all my guns!" It's really sad that that's all he can come up with really and tiring hearing that BS over and over again.

    4:38 The currant administration has walked all over the Constitution. Really? How about some examples Sparky, or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

    and I quit.
    Enough listening to this guy.
    It would have been really nice if he had some sort of rational, well thought out, intelligent argument, but he doesn't.
    Waste of time.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2022
  19. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Sorta like penicillin. o_O
     
  20. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Here's how the "guns to overthrow the repressive government" works.

    Let's say Congress wants to take away your house by passing an Act transferring title of the subject property directly to the government (with compensation as per law).
    You Feel you are being repressed.
    The 2nd allows you to shoot any Congressman or woman who supports the bill.
    Let's say Congress wants to raise your taxes.
    You feel you are being repressed.
    The 2nd allows you to shoot any Congressman or woman who supports the bill.
    Congress passes a law restricting the sale of AR 15s.
    You feel you are being repressed.
    The 2nd allows you to shoot any Congressman or woman who supports the bill.

    It goes like this.
    Congress: We need to criminalize the use of marijuana.
    Lawyer: Can't do that.
    Congress: Why not.
    Lawyer: Some people might feel that's repressive.
    Congress: So?.
    Lawyer: They have guns.
    Congress: So?
    Lawyer: If anyone feels that's a repressive law the 2nd allows them to shoot you.
    Congress: Oh. Darn.
    If only we lived in Canada or Australia.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice