Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@ehBeth,

Quote:

the white guys who want to shoot them.

How can you call other people racist? Does it hurt?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

The problem is no one on this page or anywhere else has said such a thing, it's transference from the left.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Shame that they are not interested in protecting people in the US from the white guys who want to shoot them.
_
Another group of dead US citizens? who cares <shrug>

That's definitely how Republicans and right-of-centre posters seem to feel.

Shrug?! Because of what happened in California Herr Cuomo is already threatening tighter gun restrictions in NYS. You think I want or need that? It's irresponsible assholes that all mass shooters are that restrict the law-abiding gun owners rights!

How about instead of a knee jerk reaction to restrict freedoms, we have a knee jerk reaction to dealing with US Vets with mental issues instead. I haven't seen a single post from any of our self righteous left-of-center posters decrying how our veterans are disserved. Instead, you guys spout off about stupid **** like banning guns.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Shame that they are not interested in protecting people in the US from the white guys who want to shoot them.

The gun control people don't care either. All they want to do is violate our civil rights for fun.

Any attempt to save lives would focus on curtailing media glorification of mass murderers.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Oh please is right--you and your buddy Oralloy just make it up as you go along. This is the exact language of Miller (1939):

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

and

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Additionally, Mr. Justice McReynolds added:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces [i.e., the miliita] the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

If you want to play such a game, it behooves you to actually read the decision.

2 Replies

http://cdn.thepoliticalinsider.com/content/uploads/2017/02/imageedit_6402_4350397896.jpg

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Here, try this:

https://odis.homeaway.com/odis/listing/8771e248-07a3-40a0-b813-0b915d0287ee.c10.jpg

You already posted this. No one questioned it and no one disagrees. Find another windmill to tilt at old man.

Gun control by the Federal Government is a non-starter. It's a states rights issue. That is why you can open carry in many states and not in others. Heller said Americans are allowed to own guns to protect themselves and their property.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Oh please is right--you and your buddy Oralloy just make it up as you go along.

I always refer to facts alone, which is why no one can point out anything that I'm wrong about.

0 Replies

Gun laws in the United States are found in a number of state and federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state agencies and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Wikipedia

The feds have enacted gun laws and could still. It's not just a states issue.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

I found it necessary to repeat myself, because you and your gun buddies keep repeating the same bullsh*t. Nobody here is trying to take your guns away, and yes, gun ownership in federal jurisprudence is linked to the militia. I wouldn't have to repeat that if it were not questioned by you and others . . . old man.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I found it necessary to repeat myself, because you and your gun buddies keep repeating the same bullsh*t. Nobody here is trying to take your guns away,

All of the attempts to take people's guns away show otherwise.

Setanta wrote:

and yes, gun ownership in federal jurisprudence is linked to the militia.

No it isn't.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

The feds have enacted gun laws and could still. It's not just a states issue.

Not if the Supreme Court starts enforcing the Tenth Amendment.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:
and yes, gun ownership in federal jurisprudence is linked to the militia.
No it isn't.

Incidentally, linking civilian gun ownership to the militia would not be a bad thing. It would mean that civilians have the right to have M-16s, and I don't mean semi-auto-only versions. And civilians would also have the right to have 40mm under-barrel grenade launchers (and the corresponding high explosive grenades).

I'll take that interpretation if that's what people really want.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

And civilians would also have the right to have 40mm under-barrel grenade launchers (and the corresponding high explosive grenades).

And when 'mass shootings' (or really in this case, mass bombings) go through the roof?

It's quite amazing that some people cannot see a causal link between such.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

There would be no increase in people wanting to become mass murderers. The worst that would happen is an increase in lethality in attacks that would have taken place anyway.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
And civilians would also have the right to have 40mm under-barrel grenade launchers (and the corresponding high explosive grenades).

And when 'mass shootings' (or really in this case, mass bombings) go through the roof?

It's quite amazing that some people cannot see a causal link between such.

What do you think about the higher prevalence of knife and sword attacks in places where guns are illegal? Do you not think such blade attacks would increase in the US if guns were successfully controlled?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Don't know about sword attacks, but knife attacks, if you are asking your question in relation to percentages, yes. .

Which isn't precisely what gun control debate is about. It's also about the number of murders. And it's about ease of murders. For some people, it's about the ease of committing suicides (if you start to understand why people commit suicide, you will start to understand why making it easier is an issue). And it's about numerous other things (eg. who you keep guns out of the hands of, eg mentally ill persons).

1 Reply

@vikorr,

When the number of knife murders increases to counterbalance a decrease in gun murders, the number of murders stays pretty much the same.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Nobody here is trying to take your guns away,

Democrats Plan to Pursue Most Aggressive Gun-Control Legislation in Decades

Paywall, but you may have that.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

about damned time. you guys have closed your eye to the massive violations of people's civil rights gun owners criminally create every year and we're sick of your blindness to the genocide out of control gun nuts are causing. Which is why the House flipped. Since you refuse to do anything about the carnage, the majority of the country is getting ready to do it.

2 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know