It is pointless to exchange with a gun hugger on gun reform,

Sirthinksalot said:
No, I'm not willing to enact any new regulations. I'm very willing to discuss the numerous laws and regulations already on the books and how they could be better used to decrease violence. But people like you just want to keep passing new laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding and get ignored by the criminals. And you can't even see why there's no common ground :palm:
Click to expand...

Current laws are ineffective, 30,000+ gun deaths a year prove that, nearly all of them can be circumvented
 
Threedee said:
Tell us all about Section 2 of the Second Amendment, bloke.
Click to expand...

Section two is the operative clause, the prefatory clause creates the condition under which the operative clause can relate, neither clause stands by itself, didn't you ever notice that the Second Amendment is the only Amendment with a direct prefatory clause? The Founding Fathers put it there for a reason
 
Sirthinksalot said:
Please explain what you propose to eliminate "nearly all" of the of the 30,000+ gun deaths per year. I'll wait...
Click to expand...

I love it, any time anyone challenges guns the same inquiry arises, "what do you propose," but in this case we got "nearly all" as an escape clause

Nothing is going to eliminate all shootings, well, short of banning guns, but realistically we know that ain't happening, the goal is to do your best to reduce future gun violence. You want my proposals, I already stated such, as a minimum, I'd like to see guns treated the same way we do automobiles; registration, renewed registration, competence tests, licenses, renewed licenses, specialized licenses for certain weapons, and liability insurance
 
cawacko said:
There are all kinds of regulations on guns. Why do you act like they're not? Nor have you recommend any NEW regulations.
Click to expand...

And most of the regulations are ineffective or easily circumvented.

And any regulations has to be Federal, otherwise, you can't get a gun in your State, go South, you can buy them openly in gun shows no questions asked
 
archives said:
Proposals? There's plenty, personally, I'd like to see guns treated the same way we do automobiles; registration, renewed registration, competence tests, licenses, renewed licenses, specialized licenses for certain weapons, and liability insurance

And now I'm going to get a gun hugger attempt to deflect by lamely telling me cars kill more people than guns
Click to expand...

No but you will get a gun owner telling you that this is unacceptable. I’ll catch flack for my concession of registration being ok. I’ll even concede that re-registration needs to take place [on re-sale] but shouldn’t be cost prohibitive. But no tests or licensing and certainly no liability insurance.

The whole point of what I want to defend is to keep gun and ammo purchasing affordable for lower middle class to poor folks. That’s what I was when I was growing up. From as early as I can remember I saved any money I could for BB’s which were 6 cents a pack. Later it was 22 shells which I could get for 50 cents a box (of 50) at Walmart. After that it was mowing yards to save for a 30-30 ($125). Before I was 17 I had four long guns I could call my own. This from a lower middle class kid who a passion for hunting. None of this would have been possible for me if I didn’t live in the US. I don’t want their laws over here. I teach classrooms full of kids who share that same passion. I want to keep it available for them.

What you propose leads to cost prohibitive (at least for poor folks) measures and the next thing you know only the affluent would be able to afford to shoot and/or hunt.
 
archives said:
Section two is the operative clause, the prefatory clause creates the condition under which the operative clause can relate, neither clause stands by itself, didn't you ever notice that the Second Amendment is the only Amendment with a direct prefatory clause? The Founding Fathers put it there for a reason
Click to expand...

I said "section two," dumbass. Not different clauses of the same part.
 
archives said:
Section two is the operative clause, the prefatory clause creates the condition under which the operative clause can relate, neither clause stands by itself, didn't you ever notice that the Second Amendment is the only Amendment with a direct prefatory clause? The Founding Fathers put it there for a reason
Click to expand...

and the operative words are "THE PEOPLE"......we know who "the people" are don't we....
 
cawacko said:
I would hope most people's first reaction to the shooting is utter horror. But I guess only each individual knows what they really feel.
Click to expand...

As is true every time one of these preventable disasters happens -- my first reaction is OMG OMG those poor people, those poor parents. Almost 20 years ago it started with Columbine, and hasn't faded since, whether it was a school or a public venue like Las Vegas or the Pulse nightclub or Virginia Tech or churches or the never-ending parade of workplace shootings.

Then comes the anger, from the gut. Our culture of violence, worship of war, equating weapons with strength and reason with weakness... and most of all.... the mis-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The tunnel vision of the gun-humpers sees only "right to bear arms." It doesn't see the rest about "well-regulated militia." The gun-humpers cry "I've never done anything wrong with my dic....er, guns.... why should I be penalized because some guy with the same guns killed 59 ppl going to a concert?"

Somehow, the right of the gun-suckers to have the "freedom" to own their peni--- um, weapons has triumphed over your right to walk free from harm when you go to church, when you send your children to school, when you take your sweetie to a concert, when you're in your place of work. Like jack-lighted deer, we've let these fellow citizens frighten us into silence just so they can lovingly annoint their dealers-of-death with special oil and cherish them more than they cherish your life or mine -- or the lives of our country's children. We can't give 100% of the blame to the gun-fuckers. They in turn have been jack-lighted by the NRA, the conservative media, and the arms makers by means of fear. They truly believe, at least the stupidest of them, that "regulation" means someone confiscating their cold metal gonads. Then they'll be at the mercy of the thugs, brown people (redundant), and worse of all -- the government -- that the rest of us seem to be able to avoid and/or live in peace with.
 
archives said:
Proposals? There's plenty, personally, I'd like to see guns treated the same way we do automobiles; registration, renewed registration, competence tests, licenses, renewed licenses, specialized licenses for certain weapons, and liability insurance

And now I'm going to get a gun hugger attempt to deflect by lamely telling me cars kill more people than guns
Click to expand...

Ditto. Well said.

To the gun-kissing knuckle-draggers, "regulation" = confiscation.
Plus they're afraid they can't qualify.
 
archives said:
Here we go with the Second Amendment again, didn't I mention they don't understand it nor the Bill of Rights? Little history lesson for yoy

"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"

Making it real simple, since the 19th Century the Supreme Court in numerous cases interpreting the Second Amendment has never gotten beyond the prefatory clause, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free State." The prefatory clause is the purpose of the Amendment, what makes the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" relevant, and if you can't say what the prefatory clause means your just guessing on the remainder of the Amendment

The Roberts Court, owned by Scalia, figured it out by just rejecting precedent and skipping over the prefatory clause largely on the basis that it was too difficult. They ruled that if someone in DC wanted to own a gun to keep in his house for self defense it would be acceptable, a weak decision proven by the fact that the NRA has attempted numerous cases using Heller as a precedent to eliminate regulations of guns and have lost the vast majority of the cases. Even the Roberts Court has refused to hear several of them

Lastly, even Scalia warned in Heller that no right is absolute, and that the regulation of guns was totally legal

And from what I have seen, the tag Barney Fife fits perfectly, it ain't those who favor gun regulation that feel the need to assemble an arsenal in their home for protection
Click to expand...

the constitution forbids states to have their own standing forces, so just what the hell did you think they meant by a well regulated militia?
 
archives said:
Section two is the operative clause, the prefatory clause creates the condition under which the operative clause can relate, neither clause stands by itself, didn't you ever notice that the Second Amendment is the only Amendment with a direct prefatory clause? The Founding Fathers put it there for a reason
Click to expand...

provide the direct and specific documentation that dictates EXACTLY what the well regulated militia is.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
As is true every time one of these preventable disasters happens
Click to expand...
present us your ideas of preventable.

ThatOwlWoman said:
Then comes the anger, from the gut. Our culture of violence, worship of war, equating weapons with strength and reason with weakness... and most of all.... the mis-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
then why does the government have guns? and w

ThatOwlWoman said:
It doesn't see the rest about "well-regulated militia."
Click to expand...
what was the definition of well regulated militia at time of ratification?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top