Mass Shooting 13 Dead Thousand Oaks California

I don't see the conversation advancing in that the new governor hasn't said much and nothing will happen with Senator Feinstein's assault weapons ban with many of the both Democrats and Republicans who take money from the NRA in Congress. I honestly wish more were happening.

My personal feeling is that there are some responsible gun owners. But take a look at the stats for gun homicide in similar countries. They experience fewer gun related homicides than the United States. I forget what that number was. Something like 10 times as many per 100,000 people. Someone posted it, correct me if I'm wrong... It was like 4.4 per 100,000 in the United States compared with like .05 everywhere else.

I think that there is a healthy hunting culture at stake. That's important to recognize. So I see, from that angle and from the self-defense angle, where people are coming from. However, I think that some people are being unreasonable with their view on the Second Amendment.

And in light of this recent tragedy it seems to me that an assault weapons ban is totally appropriate; including the extended capacity magazines. I realize all these weapons serve a purpose, but they have been abused. I realize that criminals will simply use other guns or other means, but I think we will be safer with fewer of the more dangerous weapons out there. Maybe I'm fooling myself... But maybe fooling ourselves is necessary.

 

The FBI crime statistics show white nationalists should not own guns, because like that man in Florida who shot another man in a parking lot right in front of his son; they tend to shoot first and claim justification later after making up some BS fairy tale.

 

Since you know what it is like to to have a political party try to violate your rights, why would you be surprised that I would object to a political party trying to violate my rights? I like freedom and liberty just as much as you do.

 

If people there don't have the right to carry arms, then they aren't free.

I don't care what their credentials are, if they ignore one of the fundamental tenants of freedom, like the right to carry arms, then their list is bogus.

Guns are no threat to social safety. But in any case, I have to vote for the politicians who will protect my civil rights.

 

They are supposed to be busy protecting us from dangerous diseases, not wasting their time producing anti-freedom propaganda.

 

That would be unconstitutional. There is no justification for banning them.

How have pistol grips on rifles been abused?

 

You're right. This has all been covered before. Various posters have stated that rifles are a favorite of mass shooters when the truth is that twice as many handguns as rifles were used in the deadliest mass shootings from 1984 to 2017. So, it has been established that these so-called assault weapons are not the favored weapon of the shooters, and yet they are the ones that the uninformed are led to believe need banning. When it comes to what the difference is between a semi-automatic assault weapon and a semi-automatic weapon, the opponents of the right to self defense go with wherever the political/legal wind blows in whatever particular jurisdiction they happen to be facing. The word "arbitrary" comes strongly to mind.

The fact is, a folding stock does not make a weapon more deadly. And as far as I know, there's been no rash of bayonet deaths; in fact, I can't recall any. Also, the angle at which I hold my wrist when shooting a rifle doesn't affect my accuracy.

 

The fact that some laws are justified does not mean that all laws are justified. Some gun restrictions cannot be justified with a good reason.

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, (1875)
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

The Second Amendment doesn't grant a right. It provides protection to a legal right that has existed from the dawn of the German iron age (600 BC).

People who did not have the right to carry arms, simply were not free.

There was no freedom in the Roman Empire. Even where people were allowed to have weapons, they did not have an express right to do so.

Freedom did exist at that time among the Germanic barbarians to the north of the Roman Empire however.

It means that the claim about there not being a longstanding individual (non militia) right to have arms, is leftist mythology.

Actual history shows that the individual (non militia) right to have arms has existed for 2600 years.

It is true that these individuals were subject to being called up to the militia. But free people had the right to carry arms regardless of their militia status.

The rules are very clear. Laws are only allowed to restrict a right if that restriction can be justified with a good reason. And even with a good reason, the restriction is not allowed to be so severe that it prevents the exercise of a right.

So the claim that they have little civilian value is untrue. Civilians put them to good and lawful use all the time.

Perhaps. But restrictions on machine guns and hand grenades can be justified with a good reason.

There is no good reason to justify restrictions on Glock handguns or AR rifles.

Rights can only be restricted if the restriction can be justified with a good reason.

There is no justification for a price increase beyond what would be justified by legitimate gun ownership risks.

Further, limiting people to double barreled shotguns would impede self defense. Preventing people from exercising their rights by making it expensive to do so is way off limits.

Think of it this way: Is a poll tax (making it cost money to vote) allowed by the Constitution?

A fundamental part of America is our right as free people to carry arms. A propaganda campaign against freedom and liberty is not a good use of our tax money.

If those guns were in the possession of a licensed dealer any time in the past 50 years, there is a Form 4473 somewhere recording who the dealer sold the gun to.

Only if you buy from a private seller. And there will still be a Form 4473 somewhere that shows who the last person to buy the gun from a licensed dealer was.

It is a fact that restrictions on guns are only constitutional if they can be justified with a good reason. Where is the good reason for a waiting period beyond what is required to conduct a background check?

It is a fact that making it impossible for people to exercise their rights is unconstitutional. It is a fact that the gun control movement has already made it impossible for gun owners to carry this sort of insurance.

It is also a fact that all other gun restrictions that cannot be justified with a good reason are unconstitutional.

 

When the debate is changed from mass shooting of innocent people to a debate about gun rights, I suspect a professional agenda.

 

Bullshit.

Tell that to the folks in Squirrel Hill and Thousand Oaks.

You do that, and I'll vote for the politicians who stand up to the NRA and protect my right to life from the gun nuts.

 

Short of a total gun-confiscation campaign, you're going to be disappointed in your politicians. And even so, there are probably millions of stolen guns. What do you think your politicians can do about them? What are your expectations?

 

You gun folks who think it's unconstitutional to change the Constitution, ask yourselves why the Founding Fathers created a Constitution that could be changed in the first place.

 

It would appear that the man in your video has made a solid case for would-be shooters to use a shotgun (sawed off or otherwise) for committing their murders. And I would assume that if such were the case, you will be promoting the virtues of banning all pump-shotguns.

 

What I said was an example of what the text of the amendment meant.

First off, the NRA is not even the top ten biggest political donors. From what I recall, they are like the 50th with some major left leaning donors far exceeding the donations given by the NRA. Second, here are some articles and a video that explain exactly what the Dicky Amendment actually did.

https://gentwenty.com/cdc-banned-from-studying-gun-violence/

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/09/no-government-isnt-banned-from-studying-gun-violence/

 

First off, do you have evudence of the FBI saying that? Second, you went from nobody can have guns to white nationalists, which are generally hated from both sides, can't have guns. If white nationalists have been found ineligible of having 2nd amendment rights by due process of law (as in tried in court and the evidence supoorting taking away their rights is beyond reasonabke doubt) then go for it.