MY IDEA FOR GETTING AMERICA'S GUN PROBLEM UNDER CONTROL (by Dachshund)

[Into the Night]

gun crime is not about guns, it is about people. Our laws and punishments have become lax in the woke society. Hold people accountable, crime goes down.

Exactly right. This 'catch and release' program with criminals must stop.

 

[Into the Night]

have fun with that.

So you want oligarchy. I already knew that.

 

[Dachshund]

gun crime is not about guns, it is about people. Our laws and punishments have become lax in the woke society. Hold people accountable, crime goes down.

Yes, I know that. Guns do not discharge themselves. But they are intentionally designed to be discharged by people. I agree that your laws and gun-control legislation has become very lax. There is an enduring myth in America that the 2nd Amendment gives every American adult some kind of universal, absolute, sacred right to rock into a firearms store and buy whatever kind of gun they want. The average American guy, can even buy a fully -automatic assault rifle like a Kalashnikov (AK-47) buying an automatic, military weapon like this just involves having to fill in a bit more paperwork (and, of course, they're expensive, so you'd need to be "cashed up"). But, in principle, an AK-47 is purchasable "over-the-counter in the states". You can probably buy an AR-15 - "America's Favourite Rifle" (which is just a semi-automatic version of a US Army, M-16) at K-Mart or Walmart (?) and a new "AR-15" is relatively inexpensive.


The great irony of America's high rate of gun violence/homicide/suicide is that all the legal arguments about access to, and ownership of, and use of, firearms in America are rooted in the 2nd Amendment. However,if you read the 2nd, and even a little bit of the history of its drafting, you'll realise it is crystal clear that the Founders ABSOLUTELY did NOT intend the 2nd Amendment to give the people an open, unfettered right to "own and bear arms" of any type, wherever, whenever and for what ever purpose they liked Rather, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified (on the 15th December, 1791) it gave healthy "WHITE MEN" of military age the right to own and bear firearms consistent with the fact they were fully expected to sign on for part-time duty in the local division of their state's MILITIA. The Founders wanted, "well-regulated" state militia's established so that IF a military emergency did arise that presented a national threat to the republic, then, for example, YOU could immediately grab you musket, then hot-foot it to you local militia division in the state of , say, Florida. So before long you and all your buddies in this local militia are all present, armed and ready to fight. Senior Officers organise for your militia to link with other state militia in what ever formation the Top US Military Brass order. And each of the 50 (I know there weren't 50 states of America in the late 18th- century) states militia groups follows suit. Depending on the nature of the foreign threat/invasion, the 18th- century equivalent of the "Joint Chiefs of Staff" - the top, most experienced, military Generals - would call the shots and deploy their mobilised nation-wide militias Another reason colonial-era American men might have needed a official permission to be armed was to defend themselves and family from attacks by Native American Indians, if they lived in a area where such attacks were frequent but the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with individual, self-defence.



So, let me repeat it again...IN WRITING THE 2nd AMENDMENT the Founders were not even REMOTELY concerned about any "right" they believed an individual citizen should have to own and bear arms for self-defense. What TERRIFIED all of the Founders was the prospect that a national, profession, standing army might be established in the future They did not believe that a central, federal government could ever be trusted with a large standing army. The main Founders were all very well- read men, and the lesson from history was crystal-clear - where ever centralized (National) governments had been able to build up huge standing armies, they did; and the result was always the same; the standing armies were used as tools of oppression/tyranny by reprobate, power-hungry political leaders. That was a perfectly accurate reading of European history by the Founding Fathers in their late 18th-century historical circumstance (also, they had very recently spent eight, bloody years fighting King George III's massive British standing army. The Revolutionary War of 1775 -1783 was won by a miracle - I can only put it down to the brilliant military Leadership, remarkable courage and the sheer will to prevail of one man, George Washington, because the colonials were out-gunned and out-manned by the British at just about every corner NO ONE in England or Europe gave Washington's colonials a snow-ball's chance in hell of ever rolling the British Army (NB: I've read some biographies of George Washington that focussed on his years as the Commander -in-Chief of the American rebels during the Revolution. I was stunned by his moral and physical courage - IMO he is the most noble character in the entire history of the West. If you are an American should (if you haven't already) read a good a quality text - or two - about George Washington's adventures in the years he spent fighting the Revolutionary work - IT WILL BLOW YOU AWAY.




So, to continue. When they were planning out their new republic, the Founders definitely did not want America to have a large standing army. They were all agree on that in principciple, although some, including Washington argued that a SMALL standing army might be a necessary (anyway , I wont get into that because any substantial point of policy the Founders debated tended to be debated on and on and on ad infinitum ( a lot of them were dreadfuul "wind-bags"). In sum, they did NOT want America to have a LARGE, professional, permanent army.FULL STOP.



The Second Amendment is ALL ABOUT establishing state MILITIA in preference to a central, federal, permanent, standing army And what do military-aged White men need a "right to own and bear" if state milititia are going to be the foundation of national security? The first thing that springs to mind is....... GUNS !!!



If George Washington knew that an 18 year-old boy could roll up to a gun store in the America of 2022 and legally buy an AR-15 with effectively "no questions asked" (that this firearm was 100 x nastier and most deadly Benjamin Franklin's favourite "Belton repeating musket") then calmly walk into a classroom full of 8-year-olds in a local school, then casually shoot 19 of these children to death plus two of their teachers (and I forget how many wounded survivors there were at the Uvalde school shooting) I know what he would say....




"YOU MUST BE F**KING JOKING" ?




Dachshund - the Wonder Hound



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !

 

[Hawkeye10]

Yes, I know that. Guns do not discharge themselves. But they are intentionally designed to be discharged by people. I agree that your laws and gun-control legislation has become very lax. There is an enduring myth in America that the 2nd Amendment gives every American adult some kind of universal, absolute, sacred right to rock into a firearms store and buy whatever kind of gun they want. The average American guy, can even buy a fully -automatic assault rifle like a Kalashnikov (AK-47) buying an automatic, military weapon like this just involves having to fill in a bit more paperwork (and, of course, they're expensive, so you'd need to be "cashed up"). But, in principle, an AK-47 is purchasable "over-the-counter in the states". You can probably buy an AR-15 - "America's Favourite Rifle" (which is just a semi-automatic version of a US Army, M-16) at K-Mart or Walmart (?) and a new "AR-15" is relatively inexpensive.


The great irony of America's high rate of gun violence/homicide/suicide is that all the legal arguments about access to, and ownership of, and use of, firearms in America are rooted in the 2nd Amendment. However,if you read the 2nd, and even a little bit of the history of its drafting, you'll realise it is crystal clear that the Founders ABSOLUTELY did NOT intend the 2nd Amendment to give the people an open, unfettered right to "own and bear arms" of any type, wherever, whenever and for what ever purpose they liked Rather, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified (on the 15th December, 1791) it gave healthy "WHITE MEN" of military age the right to own and bear firearms consistent with the fact they were fully expected to sign on for part-time duty in the local division of their state's MILITIA. The Founders wanted, "well-regulated" state militia's established so that IF a military emergency did arise that presented a national threat to the republic, then, for example, YOU could immediately grab you musket, then hot-foot it to you local militia division in the state of , say, Florida. So before long you and all your buddies in this local militia are all present, armed and ready to fight. Senior Officers organise for your militia to link with other state militia in what ever formation the Top US Military Brass order. And each of the 50 (I know there weren't 50 states of America in the late 18th- century) states militia groups follows suit. Depending on the nature of the foreign threat/invasion, the 18th- century equivalent of the "Joint Chiefs of Staff" - the top, most experienced, military Generals - would call the shots and deploy their mobilised nation-wide militias Another reason colonial-era American men might have needed a official permission to be armed was to defend themselves and family from attacks by Native American Indians, if they lived in a area where such attacks were frequent but the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with individual, self-defence.



So, let me repeat it again...IN WRITING THE 2nd AMENDMENT the Founders were not even REMOTELY concerned about any "right" they believed an individual citizen should have to own and bear arms for self-defense. What TERRIFIED all of the Founders was the prospect that a national, profession, standing army might be established in the future They did not believe that a central, federal government could ever be trusted with a large standing army. The main Founders were all very well- read men, and the lesson from history was crystal-clear - where ever centralized (National) governments had been able to build up huge standing armies, they did; and the result was always the same; the standing armies were used as tools of oppression/tyranny by reprobate, power-hungry political leaders. That was a perfectly accurate reading of European history by the Founding Fathers in their late 18th-century historical circumstance (also, they had very recently spent eight, bloody years fighting King George III's massive British standing army. The Revolutionary War of 1775 -1783 was won by a miracle - I can only put it down to the brilliant military Leadership, remarkable courage and the sheer will to prevail of one man, George Washington, because the colonials were out-gunned and out-manned by the British at just about every corner NO ONE in England or Europe gave Washington's colonials a snow-ball's chance in hell of ever rolling the British Army (NB: I've read some biographies of George Washington that focussed on his years as the Commander -in-Chief of the American rebels during the Revolution. I was stunned by his moral and physical courage - IMO he is the most noble character in the entire history of the West. If you are an American should (if you haven't already) read a good a quality text - or two - about George Washington's adventures in the years he spent fighting the Revolutionary work - IT WILL BLOW YOU AWAY.




So, to continue. When they were planning out their new republic, the Founders definitely did not want America to have a large standing army. They were all agree on that in principciple, although some, including Washington argued that a SMALL standing army might be a necessary (anyway , I wont get into that because any substantial point of policy the Founders debated tended to be debated on and on and on ad infinitum ( a lot of them were dreadfuul "wind-bags"). In sum, they did NOT want America to have a LARGE, professional, permanent army.FULL STOP.



The Second Amendment is ALL ABOUT establishing state MILITIA in preference to a central, federal, permanent, standing army And what do military-aged White men need a "right to own and bear" if state milititia are going to be the foundation of national security? The first thing that springs to mind is....... GUNS !!!



If George Washington knew that an 18 year-old boy could roll up to a gun store in the America of 2022 and legally buy an AR-15 with effectively "no questions asked" (the nastiest, most deadly form of "Blunderbuss") then calmly walk into a classroom full of 8-year-olds in a local school, then casually shoot 19 of these children to death plus two of their teachers (and I forget how many wounded survivors there were at the Uvalde school shooting) I know what he would say....




"YOU MUST BE F**KING JOKING" ?




Dachshund - the Wonder Hound



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !

If you could learn to distill your thoughts that would be awesome.

 

[Dachshund]

America is a gun junkie nothing will change that!

I live in Australia, and when I was a kid in the 1970s I used to spend my main school holiday break - (which was 6 weeks) - on my cousin's cattle property (I think you guys call them cattle ranches). Anyway , this cattle property was big - like, many 1000s of acres. My cousin's dad had just about every kind of firearm you could imagine (except for anything fully- automatic). He had a whole big shed full of shot-guns, rifles and pistols.


I used to absolutely love going to my cousin's ranch each year, because it meant that he and I could spend hours every day shooting the f**K out of all sorts of things with high-powered guns and an endless supply of ammo !. The thing is, that (normal, red-blooded) boys and men love shooting guns - it's HUGE FUN. Blasting away at bottles and empty Coke cans and posters of Joe Biden and Ilhan Omar, etc; is more fun than getting your hands on a hot blonde with nice tits (Also, rifles don't talk mindless s**t, so don't have to listen to any of it - Ha !, Ha!


I was a big fan of the American humorist P.J.O'Rourke. P.J was a conservative who used to write articles and books taking the piss out of American liberals and Lefties. I was saddened to hear that he passed away recently - "P.J" was a brilliant political humorist, and I had a lot of great laughs reading his work. The reason I mention "P.J." is that he wrote a great piece years ago about the pure joy that males derive from firing guns. I just can't remember the title of the piece at the moment. If I look it up later , I'll post it here for you.


I should add that I never ever shot a native animal like a Cockatoo, Pidgeon, Possum, Koala, Wallaby or Kangaroo, because I have always loved animals and just couldn't stomach the idea of shooting them (one exception was venomous snake that I spotted close to the homestead one evening - a "Death Adder"; and I blew it away with an old Army .303 rifle).



Dachshund - the Wonder Dog


DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!

 

[zymurgy]

So you want oligarchy. I already knew that.

look dipshit. 1850 is when the system said courts had the power to review. yes, the courts found that the courts had this power. and yes that sounds circular and bizarre.

you can cry about it being bullshit, but you are crying about something decided a century before you were born

so shut the fuck up with your junior high rants about what the law is, and what the constitution says. it is just a waste of space - mouth breather activity.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, I know that. Guns do not discharge themselves. But they are intentionally designed to be discharged by people. I agree that your laws and gun-control legislation has become very lax. There is an enduring myth in America that the 2nd Amendment gives every American adult some kind of universal, absolute, sacred right to rock into a firearms store and buy whatever kind of gun they want. The average American guy, can even buy a fully -automatic assault rifle like a Kalashnikov (AK-47) buying an automatic, military weapon like this just involves having to fill in a bit more paperwork (and, of course, they're expensive, so you'd need to be "cashed up"). But, in principle, an AK-47 is purchasable "over-the-counter in the states". You can probably buy an AR-15 - "America's Favourite Rifle" (which is just a semi-automatic version of a US Army, M-16) at K-Mart or Walmart (?) and a new "AR-15" is relatively inexpensive.


The great irony of America's high rate of gun violence/homicide/suicide is that all the legal arguments about access to, and ownership of, and use of, firearms in America are rooted in the 2nd Amendment. However,if you read the 2nd, and even a little bit of the history of its drafting, you'll realise it is crystal clear that the Founders ABSOLUTELY did NOT intend the 2nd Amendment to give the people an open, unfettered right to "own and bear arms" of any type, wherever, whenever and for what ever purpose they liked Rather, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified (on the 15th December, 1791) it gave healthy "WHITE MEN" of military age the right to own and bear firearms consistent with the fact they were fully expected to sign on for part-time duty in the local division of their state's MILITIA. The Founders wanted, "well-regulated" state militia's established so that IF a military emergency did arise that presented a national threat to the republic, then, for example, YOU could immediately grab you musket, then hot-foot it to you local militia division in the state of , say, Florida. So before long you and all your buddies in this local militia are all present, armed and ready to fight. Senior Officers organise for your militia to link with other state militia in what ever formation the Top US Military Brass order. And each of the 50 (I know there weren't 50 states of America in the late 18th- century) states militia groups follows suit. Depending on the nature of the foreign threat/invasion, the 18th- century equivalent of the "Joint Chiefs of Staff" - the top, most experienced, military Generals - would call the shots and deploy their mobilised nation-wide militias Another reason colonial-era American men might have needed a official permission to be armed was to defend themselves and family from attacks by Native American Indians, if they lived in a area where such attacks were frequent but the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with individual, self-defence.



So, let me repeat it again...IN WRITING THE 2nd AMENDMENT the Founders were not even REMOTELY concerned about any "right" they believed an individual citizen should have to own and bear arms for self-defense. What TERRIFIED all of the Founders was the prospect that a national, profession, standing army might be established in the future They did not believe that a central, federal government could ever be trusted with a large standing army. The main Founders were all very well- read men, and the lesson from history was crystal-clear - where ever centralized (National) governments had been able to build up huge standing armies, they did; and the result was always the same; the standing armies were used as tools of oppression/tyranny by reprobate, power-hungry political leaders. That was a perfectly accurate reading of European history by the Founding Fathers in their late 18th-century historical circumstance (also, they had very recently spent eight, bloody years fighting King George III's massive British standing army. The Revolutionary War of 1775 -1783 was won by a miracle - I can only put it down to the brilliant military Leadership, remarkable courage and the sheer will to prevail of one man, George Washington, because the colonials were out-gunned and out-manned by the British at just about every corner NO ONE in England or Europe gave Washington's colonials a snow-ball's chance in hell of ever rolling the British Army (NB: I've read some biographies of George Washington that focussed on his years as the Commander -in-Chief of the American rebels during the Revolution. I was stunned by his moral and physical courage - IMO he is the most noble character in the entire history of the West. If you are an American should (if you haven't already) read a good a quality text - or two - about George Washington's adventures in the years he spent fighting the Revolutionary work - IT WILL BLOW YOU AWAY.




So, to continue. When they were planning out their new republic, the Founders definitely did not want America to have a large standing army. They were all agree on that in principciple, although some, including Washington argued that a SMALL standing army might be a necessary (anyway , I wont get into that because any substantial point of policy the Founders debated tended to be debated on and on and on ad infinitum ( a lot of them were dreadfuul "wind-bags"). In sum, they did NOT want America to have a LARGE, professional, permanent army.FULL STOP.



The Second Amendment is ALL ABOUT establishing state MILITIA in preference to a central, federal, permanent, standing army And what do military-aged White men need a "right to own and bear" if state milititia are going to be the foundation of national security? The first thing that springs to mind is....... GUNS !!!



If George Washington knew that an 18 year-old boy could roll up to a gun store in the America of 2022 and legally buy an AR-15 with effectively "no questions asked" (that this firearm was 100 x nastier and most deadly Benjamin Franklin's favourite "Belton repeating musket") then calmly walk into a classroom full of 8-year-olds in a local school, then casually shoot 19 of these children to death plus two of their teachers (and I forget how many wounded survivors there were at the Uvalde school shooting) I know what he would say....




"YOU MUST BE F**KING JOKING" ?




Dachshund - the Wonder Hound



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !

Sorry dude. You can't change the 2nd amendment or any other part of the Constitution by discarding it.

You want to stop a mass murderer? Shoot back.

 

[Dachshund]

If you could learn to distill your thoughts that would be awesome.

I try Hawkeye, but I fear I am an innate "wind-bag" - like a stupid woman !! (God help me !). I promise I will redouble my effort to be more concise.


Dachshund - the Wonder Dog


DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!

 

[Into the Night]

look dipshit. 1850 is when the system said courts had the power to review. yes, the courts found that the courts had this power. and yes that sounds circular and bizarre.

No court has authority to change the Constitution. No court has authority to just claim this power. See Article III. Again, you want an oligarchy.

you can cry about it being bullshit, but you are crying about something decided a century before you were born

No court has the authority to decide.

so shut the fuck up with your junior high rants about what the law is, and what the constitution says.
it is just a waste of space - mouth breather activity.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is what the Constitution says about the right of self defense.

No law may be passed that infringes on the right of a State to organize a militia.
No law may be passed that infringes on the right of the people (that means individuals, dumbass) to keep (own) and bear (carry) Arms (Any kind of weapon, including any kind of gun).

Nothing in Article III gives any court the authority to change or interpret the Constitution. No court has authority to grant itself this power by changing the Constitution.


You just want an oligarchy and you want to discard the Constitution. Do not try to hide behind the document you despise.


America does NOT have a high rate of gun homicides. That dubious honor currently belongs to Honduras.
Source UNDOC

 

[ptif219]

Let's face facts, America has currently got a HUGE problem with gun crime.


I mean just look at what happened at Robb Elementary School (in Uvalde, Texas) last year. An 18 year old Hispanic (probably an illegal immigrant) walks into this Elementary School with an AR-15 rifle (which is effectively the same as a US Army M-16, only it cannot fire in fully = automatic mode - just semi-automatic, which means you can still squeeze off up to 60 rounds/minute). BTW, the AR-15 was the Official and Provisional IRA's favourite weapon; they loved it so much, they even wrote a song about it ("My Little Armalite", I think it was called). And guess who sent the IRA their very first batch of 27 AR-15s? I'll tell you, it was a group of crazy, white Yankee goof-balls who purchased them legally, over-the-counter, at gun shops in America, then bundled them all up together and sent them by US Post to Belfast. So, to continue, this 18 year old Hispanic casually walks into Robb Elementary School carrying an AR-15. He the, walks into a classroom of 4th grade kids and some teachers and says to them: "it's time to die." He then fires his AR-15 into the class and quickly kills 19 of the kids and two teachers. I forget how many casualties there were who survived. But the only way you don't die very fast if you are hit by a round from an AR-15 is if you are hit in an extremity like the hand/forearm or foot/lower leg.



Watching the video from the video cam-corder devices the cops were wearing and the footage from a school surveillance camera at the end of the hall the 4th graders' classroom was in - hearing rapid, semi-automatic fire from the AR-15 was one of the most sickening experiences of my life.



I hope you all understand that when the 2nd Amendment was ratified on December 15th of 1791, it was NEVER EVER the intention of the Founders that every American individual should be given some kind of absolute, sacred, right to purchase, possess and bear arms. That was NEVER, EVER, what they intended in the 2nd Amendment; and if they knew about the rates of gun crime in America today, they would be absolutely appalled and horrified


But how do you start to sort out the gigantic problem the US has with gun-crime today?


Here is just ONE measure I believe would at represent a meaningful start to sorting out the mess.


Any one over 18 who wants to purchase a firearm has to present official evidence that they have an IQ of 100 points AT LEAST, as evaluated using a standardised intelligence test (exactly like the US Military uses). A range of these tests already exist and have been validated countless times, they do not contain any kind of cultural bias either.


Of course, there is no absolute guarantee that a person who presents official evidence they have an IQ of 100 or over, will not buy a gun and perpetrate some heinous crime with it. But having an IQ of 100 points tend to correlate pretty well with being, at least, a NORMAL, REASONABLE, American adult - someone who is not unlikely to go and shoot up a elementry school

If Congress passed a measure like this , let's call it: the "Mandate for Cognitive Competence Firearms' Act"; OVERNIGHT South Chicago, to give one example, would be transformed from a bloody "killing field" to a relatively safe area. I GUARANTEE it.

For those who would object to such a firearms bill, the unified political response from Congress would be: "TOUGH TITTY, DUDE !! IT'S A GOOD PROPOSAL THAT WILL SAVE THOUSANDS OF LIVES AT THE STROKE OF A PEN.


Dachshund - the Wonder Hound


DLM....Dachshund Live Matter !!

Gun control is a shooter hitting his target. There is no gun problem just a political problem and a mental illness problem. My guns have killed no one they are not a problem

 

[Hawkeye10]

I try Hawkeye, but I fear I am an innate "wind-bag" - like a stupid woman !! (God help me !). I promise I will redouble my effort to be more concise.


Dachshund - the Wonder Dog


DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!

Thanks, my time is very valuable!

 

[Dachshund]

Sorry dude. You can't change the 2nd amendment or any other part of the Constitution by discarding it.

You want to stop a mass murderer? Shoot back.

America is supposed to be the most powerful, innovative, productive, wealthy, etc; nation in the West. Right? I think your original Constitution was a brilliant masterpiece, especially in its original, late 18th- century historical circumstance. There is still much in the Constitution that serves America very well today in the year 2023 - the Founders were extremely well-read liberal intellectuals, but they weren't wankers like today's left/liberal woke "intellectual" elite; they were also men of action who actually set,- worked hard toward, and achieved, many big and very worthwhile goals.


They are still very well worth listening to, but naturally, there are parts of the Constitution that have not aged well, or indeed, that have become completely redundant.


If America is such an advanced, successful country, what's to stop it saying: "Look guys, there are a few parts of the Constitution that are really outdated and we need to expunge them (coz they're start to cause serious trouble). The Second Amendment is one, It is about letting militiamen in each state keep and carry their own firearms. Right? But the whole militia thing just doesn't exist anymore - America simply doesn't have a state militia defence system like it envisaged -1791. Today, America has a massive, professional standing Military Force (army, navy, air-force, coastguard).


So with respect the gun law in America for the 21st century, I think it's high time that some "tippexced" the 2nd Amendment, and something more appropriate to the 21st - century was scribbled in.


Why couldn't Trump say - if he wins the 2024 election - " Right, I'm in charge here, and I say that the Constitution has got some outdated crap in it that we need cut out as a priority. We are not living in the year 1791 - the world and America has changed a great deal.


I am going to delete the Second Amendment entirely, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the law regarding the ownership and carriage of firearms in America in 2024 - ZERO, ZIP, NADA !


We are going to start from scratch, drafting new firearms law, and I am willing to involve the people in the process.BUT, I will not have any time for any individual or group of person who put forward ding-bat proposals such as: the ordinary, everyday American "Charlie Brown" has a right to possess military rifles like fully-automatic AK-47 or "Heckler and Koch" automatic rifles or AR-15s (because AR-15s are simply semi-automatic M-16s) AR-!5s were NEVER designed for anything but the battlefield, they have FAR too much killing power for any legitimate civilian use.


President Trump continues: " I know you are all worried about being able to defend yourselves from an unfortunate minority of Americans who are: mentally ill, with, say, severe psychiatric conditions like; any history of chronic substance abuse/addiction; psychoses or grandiose narcissism, delusional disorders, antisocial personality disorder Intellectual Deficit Disorder (IDD) aka Mental-Retardation, which in the context of private, individual, gun ownership would rule out any American adult with a measured IQ score of 85 points or below; people who are seriously emotionally unstable due to a mental disorder or a congenital disorder like ADHD.


I envisage that under any new firearms' law the onus would be on the individual who wished to purchase a firearm to prove to the government they are of a sound state of mind.First and foremost, hey will need to pay for a mandatory government IQ test; also, they would likely need to produce official documentation from a private clinical psychologist or psychiatrist who is happy to confirm that an individual seeking to purchase a gun is of sound mind in all respect. This "soundness of mind" criterion would involve both rigorous and comprehensive medical (psychological/psychiatric) screening.


There would be many other qualifying criteria for Individual who seek to purchase ("Keep and bear) for instance, if an applicant had spent ANY time in prison they would be immediately disqualified; also if the applicant had any immediate family who had been incarcerated in the past for serious crimes like violent assault, murder, this in itself would disqualify an individual from being able to purchase a firearm.



Also , very importantly, if firearms vendors sell guns to members of the public they must make a scrupulous effort to ensure that the various items of documentation required for an individual to purchase a gun in America are legitimate and in order If the proprietor of a firearms selling business, is found to have failed to make the required checks of documents they would automatically receive a custodial sentence. If, over a substantial period of times a gun store owner is found to have failed to strictly comply with the law as it concerns the selling of firearms to the public, and guns have been sold to a sizeable number or members of the public who should not not have them; I would envisage a custodial sentence of at least 20 years in prison for the proprietor.



In short, under the new gun laws, a grub and a criminal ass-hole, like Hunter Biden, would not be able to waltz into a gun store in Delaware, "high-as-a-kite" on crack, then walk out 5 minutes later with a .38 revolver (which is what he actually did). One reason is that being a chronic drug addict should disqualify you immediately from purchasing a firearm. Another is that needing to purchase a .38 revolver so you can pose naked with the gun in your hand ( and juxtaposed suggestively close to your 2- inch "peenie") in order to impress a Skanky Ho you got in your hotel room - i.e; with your rugged, "Clint Eastwood" machismo - is not a legitimate reason for being able to purchase a gun.



Writing new gun laws that work would be a very complex and difficult problem. It would be a long process. But if American can put a man on the moon, (and create a totally awesome Sit-Com like "The Brady Bunch" - I still love it !!) then I'm sure it can sort it's current gun-crime problem out. Right?







Dachshund - the Wonder Hound



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!

 

[Hawkeye10]

America is supposed to be the most powerful, innovative, productive, wealthy, etc; nation in the West. Right? I think your original Constitution was a brilliant masterpiece, especially in its original, late 18th- century historical circumstance. There is still much in the Constitution that serves America very well today in the year 2023 - the Founders were extremely well-read liberal intellectuals, but they weren't wankers like today's left/liberal woke "intellectual" elite; they were also men of action who actually set,- worked hard toward, and achieved, many big and very worthwhile goals.


They are still very well worth listening to, but naturally, there are parts of the Constitution that have not aged well, or indeed, that have become completely redundand.


If America is such an advanced, successful country, what's to stop it saying: "Look guys, there are a few parts of the Constitution that are really outdated and we need to expunge them (coz they're start to cause serious trouble). The Second Amendment is one, It is about letting militiamen in each state keep and carry their own firearms. Right? But the whole militia thing just doesn't exist anymore - America simply doesn't have a state militia defence system like it envisaged -1791. Today, America has a massive, professional standing Military Force (army, navy, air-force, coastguard).


So with respect the gun law in America for the 21st century, I think it's high time that some "tippexced" the 2nd Amendment, and something more appropriate to the 21st - century was scribbled in.


Why couldn't Trump say - if he wins the 2024 election - " Right, I'm in charge here, and I say that the Constitution has got some outdated crap in it that we need cut out as a priority. We are not living in the year 1791 - the world and America has changed a great deal.


I am going to delete the Second Amendment entirely, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the law regarding the ownership and carriage of firearms in America in 2024 - ZERO, ZIP, NADA !


We are going to start from scratch, drafting new firearms law, and I am willing to involve the people in the process.BUT, I will not have any time for any individual or group of person who put forward ding-bat proposals such as: the ordinary, everyday American "Charlie Brown" has a right to possess military rifles like fully-automatic AK-47 or "Heckler and Koch" automatic rifles or AR-15s (because AR-15s are simply semi-automatic M-16s) AR-!5s were NEVER designed for anything but the battlefield, they have FAR too much killing power for any legitimate civilian use.


President Trump continues: " I know you are all worried about being able to defend yourselves from an unfortunate minority of Americans who are: mentally ill, with, say, severe psychiatric conditions like; any history of chronic substance abuse/addiction; psychoses or grandiose narcissism, delusional disorders, antisocial personality disorder Intellectual Deficit Disorder (IDD) aka Mental-Retardation, which in the context of private, individual, gun ownership would rule out any American adult with a measured IQ score of 85 points or below; people who are seriously emotionally unstable due to a mental disorder or a congenital disorder like ADHD.


I envisage that under any new firearms' law the onus would be on the individual who wished to purchase a firearm to prove to the government they are of a sound state of mind.First and foremost, hey will need to pay for a mandatory government IQ test; also, they would likely need to produce official documentation from a private clinical psychologist or psychiatrist who is happy to confirm that an individual seeking to purchase a gun is of sound mind in all respect. This "soundness of mind" criterion would involve both rigorous and comprehensive medical (psychological/psychiatric) screening.


There would be many other qualifying criteria for Individual who seek to purchase ("Keep and bear) for instance, if an applicant had spent ANY time in prison they would be immediately disqualified; also if the applicant had any immediate family who had been incarcerated in the past for serious crimes like violent assault, murder, this in itself would disqualify an individual from being able to purchase a firearm.



Also , very importantly, if firearms vendors sell guns to members of the public they must make a scrupulous effort to ensure that the various items of documentation required for an individual to purchase a gun in America are legitimate and in order If the proprietor of a firearms selling business, is found to have failed to make the required checks of documents they would automatically receive a custodial sentence. If, over a substantial period of times a gun store owner is found to have failed to strictly comply with the law as it concerns the selling of firearms to the public, and guns have been sold to a sizeable number or members of the public who should not not have them; I would envisage a custodial sentence of at least 20 years in prison for the proprietor.



In short, under the new gun laws, a grub and a criminal ass-hole, like Hunter Biden would not be able to walk into a gun store in Delaware, high on crack, then walk out 5 minutes later with a .38 revolver (which is what he actually did). One reason is that being a chronic drug addict should disqualify you immediately from purchasing a firearm. Another is that needing to purchase a .38 revolver so you can pose naked with the gun in your hand ( and juxtaposed suggestively close to your 2- inch "peenie") in order to impress a Skanky Ho you got in your hotel room - i.e; with your rugged, "Clint Eastwood" machismo - is not a legitimate reason for being able to purchase a gun.



Writing new gun laws that work would be a very complex and difficult problem. It would be a long process. But if American can put a man on the moon, (and create a totally awesome Sit-Com like "The Brady Bunch" - I still love it !!) then I'm sure it can sort it's current gun-crime problem out. Right?







Dachshund - the Wonder Hound



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!

That is what the rubes are taught to think.

 

[Dachshund]

My argument is this...


(1) If you're normal, everyday American adult - a well-adjusted "Charlie Brown", then you should be able to "own and use" a private firearm appropriate for the purpose of self-defense, or if you are a member of a gun club a because are passionate about a hobby like target-shooting; or, if you are a farmer and you need to have your own a gun/s for stuff like vermin control and so on.

(2) America is a very big place and it has a big population, a lot of its population lives in urban areas, in, say, big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago. Right? Now, there are a lot of drug-addicts, mental cases and low-IQ goof-balls cruising around. It is largely in these urban areas that gun crimes , like homicide, occur. So what needs to happen is...


(1) Gun control legislation focussed on identifying these kind if individuals needs to be drafted. I have already made one suggestion, that is, a mandatory official IQ tests for anyone who want to own and bear a private firearm. If you want to buy a gun, then you have to sit the IQ test. Takes about 30 to 40 minutes to get it done. If you don't score 100 point at least, you are not permitted to buy, keep and carry a firearm. I'm going to get abused for sayinging this, but its true nonetheless - the reason there is such a disproportionate number of African-Americans blowing each other (and other Americans) away with guns, is because they have a well- established, average IQ of 85 - for lots of different reasons - (if you want to know what they are I can tell you in a separate post)- having an IQ of 85 points is not compatible with safe gun ownership.


(2) If you are a normal, well-adjusted, average American "Charlie Brown", you do not need a fully automatic "Heckler and Kock" or an "Uzi" or an ArmaLite, AR-15 (i.e; a semi-auto M-16) nor do you need an active "Tommy Gun." They are heaps fun to mess around with- shooting up targets and stuff like that, I know, because I was in army cadets and had gun training sessions with the Regular Australian Army. We got to fire fully automatic ArmaLites on the Army shooting ranges (under VERY close supervision) My point is that you you don't need guns like these if you want a weapon to defend your self and your family. There are plenty of handguns and rifles that will immediately drop an armed intruder in your house.


(3) There are a lot of emotionally unstable psychiatric cases in urban America: psychotics; schizophrenics; individuals with Bipolar disorder; Methedrine/Crack-Cocaine freaks who have permanently warped their own minds; psychopaths (individuals with anti-social personality disorder); clinically paranoid "Eight - Balls"; mental retards- (i.e. individuals with an IQ below 85); severe ADHD cases, and so on. It doesn't take much to "trigger" people with mental illnesses the these (and a range of others) into "acting out" violently and mindlessly. That would be another recommendation I'd make. Where individuals with these kind of "externalising ("short-fuse"/ potentially very violent psychiatric disorders, (or reallyANY severe psychiatric disorder) come to the attention of the police or other law enforcement officials, the "system" should give them the voice,EITHER they agree to have their condition regularly treated and monitored by by qualified psychiatrists or Clinical psychologists (NB: NOT IGNORANT mental health nurses and the like; OR - they go to jail; no ifs or buts.




So, the 2nd Amendment is out-dated. It was ratified in December of 1791 and has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with America's gun violence problems today ( and it never did).


Step ! is to expunge it from the Bill of Rights, ASAP.

Step 2: Is the long hard work of drafting a new set of gun laws foe the people. Somehow, money from the big pro- gun lobbies, the NRA, etc would have to kept out of the political process. That will be a difficult task in just in itself !


I think drafting new laws to control gun violnce/homicide in contemporary America would be a VERY COMPLEX and DIFFICULT challenge.


BUT, I THINK IT'S DO - ABLE !

 

[Dachshund]

Gun control is a shooter hitting his target. There is no gun problem just a political problem and a mental illness problem. My guns have killed no one they are not a problem

What guns do you own? And why? (If you're OK about saying)


Dachshund - the Wonder Hound


DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!

 

[Into the Night]

America is supposed to be the most powerful, innovative, productive, wealthy, etc; nation in the West. Right? I think your original Constitution was a brilliant masterpiece, especially in its original, late 18th- century historical circumstance. There is still much in the Constitution that serves America very well today in the year 2023 - the Founders were extremely well-read liberal intellectuals, but they weren't wankers like today's left/liberal woke "intellectual" elite; they were also men of action who actually set,- worked hard toward, and achieved, many big and very worthwhile goals.


They are still very well worth listening to, but naturally, there are parts of the Constitution that have not aged well, or indeed, that have become completely redundant.


If America is such an advanced, successful country, what's to stop it saying: "Look guys, there are a few parts of the Constitution that are really outdated and we need to expunge them (coz they're start to cause serious trouble). The Second Amendment is one, It is about letting militiamen in each state keep and carry their own firearms. Right? But the whole militia thing just doesn't exist anymore - America simply doesn't have a state militia defence system like it envisaged -1791. Today, America has a massive, professional standing Military Force (army, navy, air-force, coastguard).


So with respect the gun law in America for the 21st century, I think it's high time that some "tippexced" the 2nd Amendment, and something more appropriate to the 21st - century was scribbled in.


Why couldn't Trump say - if he wins the 2024 election - " Right, I'm in charge here, and I say that the Constitution has got some outdated crap in it that we need cut out as a priority. We are not living in the year 1791 - the world and America has changed a great deal.


I am going to delete the Second Amendment entirely, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the law regarding the ownership and carriage of firearms in America in 2024 - ZERO, ZIP, NADA !


We are going to start from scratch, drafting new firearms law, and I am willing to involve the people in the process.BUT, I will not have any time for any individual or group of person who put forward ding-bat proposals such as: the ordinary, everyday American "Charlie Brown" has a right to possess military rifles like fully-automatic AK-47 or "Heckler and Koch" automatic rifles or AR-15s (because AR-15s are simply semi-automatic M-16s) AR-!5s were NEVER designed for anything but the battlefield, they have FAR too much killing power for any legitimate civilian use.


President Trump continues: " I know you are all worried about being able to defend yourselves from an unfortunate minority of Americans who are: mentally ill, with, say, severe psychiatric conditions like; any history of chronic substance abuse/addiction; psychoses or grandiose narcissism, delusional disorders, antisocial personality disorder Intellectual Deficit Disorder (IDD) aka Mental-Retardation, which in the context of private, individual, gun ownership would rule out any American adult with a measured IQ score of 85 points or below; people who are seriously emotionally unstable due to a mental disorder or a congenital disorder like ADHD.


I envisage that under any new firearms' law the onus would be on the individual who wished to purchase a firearm to prove to the government they are of a sound state of mind.First and foremost, hey will need to pay for a mandatory government IQ test; also, they would likely need to produce official documentation from a private clinical psychologist or psychiatrist who is happy to confirm that an individual seeking to purchase a gun is of sound mind in all respect. This "soundness of mind" criterion would involve both rigorous and comprehensive medical (psychological/psychiatric) screening.


There would be many other qualifying criteria for Individual who seek to purchase ("Keep and bear) for instance, if an applicant had spent ANY time in prison they would be immediately disqualified; also if the applicant had any immediate family who had been incarcerated in the past for serious crimes like violent assault, murder, this in itself would disqualify an individual from being able to purchase a firearm.



Also , very importantly, if firearms vendors sell guns to members of the public they must make a scrupulous effort to ensure that the various items of documentation required for an individual to purchase a gun in America are legitimate and in order If the proprietor of a firearms selling business, is found to have failed to make the required checks of documents they would automatically receive a custodial sentence. If, over a substantial period of times a gun store owner is found to have failed to strictly comply with the law as it concerns the selling of firearms to the public, and guns have been sold to a sizeable number or members of the public who should not not have them; I would envisage a custodial sentence of at least 20 years in prison for the proprietor.



In short, under the new gun laws, a grub and a criminal ass-hole, like Hunter Biden, would not be able to waltz into a gun store in Delaware, "high-as-a-kite" on crack, then walk out 5 minutes later with a .38 revolver (which is what he actually did). One reason is that being a chronic drug addict should disqualify you immediately from purchasing a firearm. Another is that needing to purchase a .38 revolver so you can pose naked with the gun in your hand ( and juxtaposed suggestively close to your 2- inch "peenie") in order to impress a Skanky Ho you got in your hotel room - i.e; with your rugged, "Clint Eastwood" machismo - is not a legitimate reason for being able to purchase a gun.



Writing new gun laws that work would be a very complex and difficult problem. It would be a long process. But if American can put a man on the moon, (and create a totally awesome Sit-Com like "The Brady Bunch" - I still love it !!) then I'm sure it can sort it's current gun-crime problem out. Right?







Dachshund - the Wonder Hound



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!

Unconstitutional.

 

[Into the Night]

My argument is this...


(1) If you're normal, everyday American adult - a well-adjusted "Charlie Brown", then you should be able to "own and use" a private firearm appropriate for the purpose of self-defense, or if you are a member of a gun club a because are passionate about a hobby like target-shooting; or, if you are a farmer and you need to have your own a gun/s for stuff like vermin control and so on.

(2) America is a very big place and it has a big population, a lot of its population lives in urban areas, in, say, big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago. Right? Now, there are a lot of drug-addicts, mental cases and low-IQ goof-balls cruising around. It is largely in these urban areas that gun crimes , like homicide, occur. So what needs to happen is...


(1) Gun control legislation focussed on identifying these kind if individuals needs to be drafted. I have already made one suggestion, that is, a mandatory official IQ tests for anyone who want to own and bear a private firearm. If you want to buy a gun, then you have to sit the IQ test. Takes about 30 to 40 minutes to get it done. If you don't score 100 point at least, you are not permitted to buy, keep and carry a firearm. I'm going to get abused for sayinging this, but its true nonetheless - the reason there is such a disproportionate number of African-Americans blowing each other (and other Americans) away with guns, is because they have a well- established, average IQ of 85 - for lots of different reasons - (if you want to know what they are I can tell you in a separate post)- having an IQ of 85 points is not compatible with safe gun ownership.


(2) If you are a normal, well-adjusted, average American "Charlie Brown", you do not need a fully automatic "Heckler and Kock" or an "Uzi" or an ArmaLite, AR-15 (i.e; a semi-auto M-16) nor do you need an active "Tommy Gun." They are heaps fun to mess around with- shooting up targets and stuff like that, I know, because I was in army cadets and had gun training sessions with the Regular Australian Army. We got to fire fully automatic ArmaLites on the Army shooting ranges (under VERY close supervision) My point is that you you don't need guns like these if you want a weapon to defend your self and your family. There are plenty of handguns and rifles that will immediately drop an armed intruder in your house.


(3) There are a lot of emotionally unstable psychiatric cases in urban America: psychotics; schizophrenics; individuals with Bipolar disorder; Methedrine/Crack-Cocaine freaks who have permanently warped their own minds; psychopaths (individuals with anti-social personality disorder); clinically paranoid "Eight - Balls"; mental retards- (i.e. individuals with an IQ below 85); severe ADHD cases, and so on. It doesn't take much to "trigger" people with mental illnesses the these (and a range of others) into "acting out" violently and mindlessly. That would be another recommendation I'd make. Where individuals with these kind of "externalising ("short-fuse"/ potentially very violent psychiatric disorders, (or reallyANY severe psychiatric disorder) come to the attention of the police or other law enforcement officials, the "system" should give them the voice,EITHER they agree to have their condition regularly treated and monitored by by qualified psychiatrists or Clinical psychologists (NB: NOT IGNORANT mental health nurses and the like; OR - they go to jail; no ifs or buts.




So, the 2nd Amendment is out-dated. It was ratified in December of 1791 and has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with America's gun violence problems today ( and it never did).


Step ! is to expunge it from the Bill of Rights, ASAP.

Step 2: Is the long hard work of drafting a new set of gun laws foe the people. Somehow, money from the big pro- gun lobbies, the NRA, etc would have to kept out of the political process. That will be a difficult task in just in itself !


I think drafting new laws to control gun violnce/homicide in contemporary America would be a VERY COMPLEX and DIFFICULT challenge.


BUT, I THINK IT'S DO - ABLE !

It is not outdated. America enjoys a pretty low gun homicide rate.
You just want to discard the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions.
No gun lobby nor the NRA wrote anything in the Constitution.

No, the tyranny you are arguing for is not welcome.

 

[Earl]

Sorry dude. You can't change the 2nd amendment or any other part of the Constitution by discarding it.

You want to stop a mass murderer? Shoot back.

Indeed!.

That loon doesn't believe that the Second Amendment even exists.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

look dipshit. 1850 is when the system said courts had the power to review. yes, the courts found that the courts had this power. and yes that sounds circular and bizarre.

you can cry about it being bullshit, but you are crying about something decided a century before you were born

so shut the fuck up with your junior high rants about what the law is, and what the constitution says. it is just a waste of space - mouth breather activity.

who cares about 'muh constitution' anyway, am I right?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Why couldn't Trump say - if he wins the 2024 election - " Right, I'm in charge here, and I say that the Constitution has got some outdated crap in it that we need cut out as a priority. We are not living in the year 1791 - the world and America has changed a great deal.

the biggest hurdle would be is that there is only ONE entity that can change the constitution and it's we the people, not fucking trump