Clarence Thomas - Covid

archives said:
Truth of the matter is that no one knows what the Second Amendment is based upon, the operative clause which gun lobbyist center upon is irrelevant until one can define what the prefatory clause means, which no one has been able to do in over two hundred years.

Scalia's sophomoric "originalism" theory is bogus, and just a fabrication for him to justify ignoring the prefatory clause
Click to expand...

the only people who DON'T know the basis of the 2nd are those who refuse to learn truth or those who choose to ignore it. There are many pieces of historical documentation that clearly show that the prefatory clause is not controlling and that it most certainly refers to the people.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello archives,



And the NRA ignores the prefatory clause as well, but still, it is there. Including this part, which is quite clear and unambiguous: "Being necessary to the security of a free state."

No one should be under any illusion that American citizens are ensuring the security of America by having a gun in the house. The reality is that they are endangering the family. It is well known that a gun in the home is more likely to be used in an accident or a regrettable rage-fueled tragedy than in home defense.

Why can it not be required that to own a gun, people must pass a psychological test, demonstrate proficiency, and attend regular gun safety training? Considering the absurd and tragic gun carnage in America, it is the least which should be done.

Sure, such measures are an encumbrance compared to the nothing at all currently known, but is it too much to ask to reduce bloody tragedies?

And what about mental health? We can certainly see from this discussion board that there are lot of really mean, crazy and threatening people out there. Why is it that in this great nation we do NOT have free mental health counseling? We could sure use it.
Click to expand...

I take issue with your second paragraph. Though you do indeed have a yearly number of accidental shootings in the house by law abiding folk, you also have an uncounted number of law abiding gun owners who keep a gun or weapons in the house and there are no fatalities or accidents. And it's not just folk in the Midwest or rural parts of every state in the country where people have gun racks on the back of their trucks. My Pop's is a retired NYPD homicide detective. Growing up, I and my 2 brothers knew where he kept his regular service revolver. For daily use, he took his .38 snub nose with him....when he came home, he put it on top of the kitchen refrigerator out of reach of us when we were little (don't ask me why, to this day he can't explain it). As we got older, we knew damned well NOT to touch that gun, as we would face a fate worst than a gunshot wound. It's all a matter of how you raise your kids.

As far as domestic suicides and violence involving guns...you can't fully legislate against crazy. Having a gun locked away and empty does little for response time in case of a burglary or home invasion. Just saying.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
I take issue with your second paragraph. Though you do indeed have a yearly number of accidental shootings in the house by law abiding folk, you also have an uncounted number of law abiding gun owners who keep a gun or weapons in the house and there are no fatalities or accidents. And it's not just folk in the Midwest or rural parts of every state in the country where people have gun racks on the back of their trucks. My Pop's is a retired NYPD homicide detective. Growing up, I and my 3 brothers knew where he kept his regular service revolver. For daily use, he took his .38 snub nose with him....when he came home, he put it on top of the kitchen refrigerator out of reach of us when we were little (don't ask me why, to this day he can't explain it). As we got older, we knew @#$&%@ well NOT to touch that gun, as we would face a fate worst than a gunshot wound. It's all a matter of how you raise your kids.

As far as domestic suicides and violence involving guns...you can't fully legislate against crazy. Having a gun locked away and empty does little for response time in case of a burglary or home invasion. Just saying.
Click to expand...

I have, for all of my adult life, kept a loaded rifle (Ruger 10/22) standing in the corner of the living room by the front door. When my son was born and while he was a toddler he learned that he shouldn’t touch it. By the time he was 10 he was the one grabbing it from tint to time to dispatch the occasional skunk, opossum or raccoon getting into the trash or dog food. I do agree with all you wrote concerning guns in the home on this post.
 
Dark Soul said:
If your register as a Democrat you either understand the Constitution and despise it or don't understand it. I am not a registered Democrat- you are.
Click to expand...

I think you should be registered as a mental defective.

Something about the looney shit you babble makes me suspect that you are.
 
Hello Taichiliberal,

Taichiliberal said:
I take issue with your second paragraph. Though you do indeed have a yearly number of accidental shootings in the house by law abiding folk, you also have an uncounted number of law abiding gun owners who keep a gun or weapons in the house and there are no fatalities or accidents. And it's not just folk in the Midwest or rural parts of every state in the country where people have gun racks on the back of their trucks. My Pop's is a retired NYPD homicide detective. Growing up, I and my 3 brothers knew where he kept his regular service revolver. For daily use, he took his .38 snub nose with him....when he came home, he put it on top of the kitchen refrigerator out of reach of us when we were little (don't ask me why, to this day he can't explain it). As we got older, we knew damned well NOT to touch that gun, as we would face a fate worst than a gunshot wound. It's all a matter of how you raise your kids.

As far as domestic suicides and violence involving guns...you can't fully legislate against crazy. Having a gun locked away and empty does little for response time in case of a burglary or home invasion. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Personal anecdotes are not a good basis for national policy.

There are plenty of law-abiding citizens who own guns and never have a problem with them. Do they even have hearts in their chests? Do they just not care about the carnage in this country? Why do they resist any measures at all to cut down on the carnage.

I ask again:

Why can it not be required that to own a gun, people must pass a psychological test, demonstrate proficiency, and attend regular gun safety training? Considering the absurd and tragic gun carnage in America, it is the least which should be done.

Is it too much to ask to take a psyche test to get a gun?

Is it too much to ask to be required to attend safety training and demonstrate proficiency on a recurring basis?

These things would save lives, but I guess for gun nuts, they don['t care about saving lives. all they care about is getting that gun and not being required to do anything to get it. And they don't care how crazy or mentally unstable others are who are then allowed to get guns too without any oversight at all.

And because of that indifference the carnage goes on.

Such as Sandy Hook.

Thanks a lot, gun nuts.

Bloody lifeless bodies of once-happy innocent children.

The blood is on the hands of everyone who resists more effective safety measures.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Taichiliberal,

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
I take issue with your second paragraph. Though you do indeed have a yearly number of accidental shootings in the house by law abiding folk, you also have an uncounted number of law abiding gun owners who keep a gun or weapons in the house and there are no fatalities or accidents. And it's not just folk in the Midwest or rural parts of every state in the country where people have gun racks on the back of their trucks. My Pop's is a retired NYPD homicide detective. Growing up, I and my 3 brothers knew where he kept his regular service revolver. For daily use, he took his .38 snub nose with him....when he came home, he put it on top of the kitchen refrigerator out of reach of us when we were little (don't ask me why, to this day he can't explain it). As we got older, we knew damned well NOT to touch that gun, as we would face a fate worst than a gunshot wound. It's all a matter of how you raise your kids.

As far as domestic suicides and violence involving guns...you can't fully legislate against crazy. Having a gun locked away and empty does little for response time in case of a burglary or home invasion. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Personal anecdotes are not a good basis for national policy.

There are plenty of law-abiding citizens who own guns and never have a problem with them. Do they even have hearts in their chests? Do they just not care about the carnage in this country? Why do they resist any measures at all to cut down on the carnage.

I ask again:

Why can it not be required that to own a gun, people must pass a psychological test, demonstrate proficiency, and attend regular gun safety training? Considering the absurd and tragic gun carnage in America, it is the least which should be done.

Is it too much to ask to take a psyche test to get a gun?

Is it too much to ask to be required to attend safety training and demonstrate proficiency on a recurring basis?

These things would save lives, but I guess for gun nuts, they don['t care about saving lives. all they care about is getting that gun and not being required to do anything to get it. And they don't care how crazy or mentally unstable others are who are then allowed to get guns too without any oversight at all.

And because of that indifference the carnage goes on.

Such as Sandy Hook.

Thanks a lot, gun nuts.

Bloody lifeless bodies of once-happy innocent children.

The blood is on the hands of everyone who resists more effective safety measures.
Click to expand...

As to your first sentence....it is collection of personal anecdotes that indeed make up national policy...it's called consensus.

Your second paragraph seems somewhat rhetorical, as we already know that there are people who don't own guns but are rabid gun rights advocates in the LaPierre/NRA vein. And there are gun owners who are seriously in favor of and advocate for better, more efficient gun control laws. Most of your proposed pre-ownership requirements already exist in many states.

As far as I know off hand, psychological test are not a requirement in any state to own a gun.....to initiate such a policy would be a strong intrusion of someone's personal life, especially since the type of questions would NOT be the same as say the ones used to evaluate police officers (what they would be is anyone's guess). So unless somebody is going to foot the bill to have a national mandate that every potential gun owner go through the same evaluation and testing as cops do PLUS additional psych evaluation, it ain't happening.

Your Sandy Hook reference was a bad poor example, as the perp STOLE those weapons from his mother. She purchased them legally, and if I remember correctly, she was not deemed mentally disturbed in any way. Her kid was another story. Like I said before, it's very hard to legislate against crazy.

We live in a country of individuals who compete for position and resources, of which both are limited. We live in country that is still dealing with its history of near genocide, slavery, economic castes and misogynistic attitudes. So the guns are not going anywhere. But we can regulate them to the best of our ability. So far, that fully hasn't happened.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top