Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

It's very relevant, and not just to me. One of the comments on the pro-life definition in response to a comment to an earlier comment: "I've been working in the pro-life cause for decades and in every definition we have ever given it has included all life from conception to natural death, but Webster's dictionary can redefine what actual pro-life people mean by the word. I am pro-life, this includes being against euthanasia, child abuse, elderly abuse, or anything else that attacks the dignity of the human life! No your the the one rewriting in order to fit a liberal agenda."

So what do you call the person who wrote the quote above? She's against euthanasia because she believes in the sanctity of life, but according to you, she can't call herself pro-life unless she is talking strictly about her stance against abortion.

I also find it very odd that a person could be "pro-life" because they're against abortion and then not give a damn about that life after it's born.

Okay. Webster's is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to brand pro-life as an abortion term.


You know what it means, especially in the context of an abortion discussion. Stop pretending to be stupid. There are many words I don't like and wouldn't use to label things, but such is the world. Pro-life and pro-choice are both positive sounding brandings. In my little niche of the world, 'gun control' is a phrase to describe A) the use of a holster or sling with passive retention to ensure retention of my weapon or B) proper handling of my weapon and a muzzle brake to keep follow up rounds in the hitbox of my target. Does that mean I'm going to come here and pretend gun-control means lots of things and it isn't just legislation aimed at restricting firearms? I would score some virtue signaling and martyr points with some extremists on my side, but no. That would be ridiculous. Words have actual meanings, regardless of my feelings. That meaning is not whatever the hell I want it to be.


This is a very bad argument. I am greatly amused that we had an intelligent discussion in this thread about both guns and abortion that was polite and earnest while people debated the actual issue. It is only now when 2 people are pretending they don't know what common-use terms mean that its derailing.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps you should read the court decisions on the Militia Clause, if you have not. Basically, they don't find it limits the broader right.

I would add that the founders actions and writings also make it abundantly clear that they very much saw it as a right granted to the population.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would add that the founders actions and writings also make it abundantly clear that they very much saw it as a right granted to the population.

From the Supreme Court 2007 Heller decision. Sorry to people who don't like it, and I may not like it myself, but it's the way it is.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Oh and Michael, by the way, regarding that "extreme" view of when life begins.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

[icurnmedic]

I like my guns, some are valuable and its a place to invest. Not to mention, I live in a area where the nearest LEO is likely 10-20 minutes away. No one is around to hear any disturbance much less help.

+1 on the security system , I use SimplySafe at Home, and Ring at work. Both work well.

One of several reasons schools are not well guarded, or can't afford to hire the security personnel, is the government is too busy handing out freebies to those who do not contribute. OR maybe they just have not diverted the funds to the appropriate necessities. You decide.

Life begins at conception, but viable life does not. I am Switzerland when it comes to the abortion thing.

Oh and so much talk about semantics of "pro xxxx"
Why not :
pro-choice= "pro-abortion"
Pro-life= Anti-abortion.

A FWIW dictionary.com defines militia :
noun
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Pretty good discord in this thread.
Thomas

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

One of several reasons schools are not well guarded, or can't afford to hire the security personnel, is the government is too busy handing out freebies to those who do not contribute. OR maybe they just have not diverted the funds to the appropriate necessities. You decide.

Who are "those who do not contribute" and what are they not contributing?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

I like my guns, some are valuable and its a place to invest.

I don't do this, but Kalashnikov's have outperformed the S&P the last few years. I could sell some of my beater stuff for more than I paid new not that long ago.

[icurnmedic]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Who are "those who do not contribute" and what are they not contributing?

If you do not know, there is no reason to discuss.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

If you do not know, there is no reason to discuss.

And we wonder why things are so polarized in America these days. Personally, I've appreciated the discussion on this thread between people with very different viewpoints on these issues.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by BobC

You too?

Forgive me Bob, I wasn't trying to pile on. I understand your position. I don't have a problem with your hope that someone who describes themselves as XYZ toes the line. I find that admirable. I try to profess that myself as a sign of respect for my faith. But what I've found with nearly everyone I've met is that we fail often at being constant. I know many vegans and vegetarians who cheat. I know many not-so-Christian Christians. I know.... Sometimes hypocrisy doesn't bother us. Sometimes it does.

Every thread needs a card. Anyone own this one? I'd like to find it.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[clydepepper]

Well, even though I've already stated my specific situation, I'll drop back in to mention a few steps that may help:


First, stop calling all these mass shootings tragedies. We know that, but we send flowers and wreaths for tragedies. These are CRIMES and should be treated and approached that way. I think there's more of an appetite to stop CRIMES than to console more and more and more victims.

Second, I would move the legal age to purchase a firearm up to 21. There are no guarantees that any steps will work, but NOT DOING ANYTHING DOES NOT WORK.


I read an article today on how the AR-15 became so widespread in this country. It described, in part, a marketing scheme by weapons manufacturers to target specific audiences and 'expand' those audiences via, among other things, video games such as 'Call of Duty'; producing tan-colored rifles to resemble those used by the military in recent wars and assisting film companies to recreate, as accurately as possible, what occurs overseas.

'Putting military-grade weapons in the hands of the general public.' has been their goal.

As astonished as I am by all the blood-thirstiness of the country in which I live, I just cannot understand why there is ANY opposition to universal background checks, for gun shows; pawn shops; or retailers like Academy Sports where the AR-15 type assault-rifles are called sports rifles.

Again DEAD is FINAL.



.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would add that the founders actions and writings also make it abundantly clear that they very much saw it as a right granted to the population.

Those the same founders that made it abundantly clear that women aren't equal to men and blacks count as 3/5?

You have spent a lot of words defending the status quo on guns, do you have any suggestions on how to deal with mass shootings? Is anyone who would like to make any changes at all to make gun laws tighter or stricter automatically labeled a "banisher"?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I read an article today on how the AR-15 became so widespread in this country. It described, in part, a marketing scheme by weapons manufacturers to target specific audiences and 'expand' those audiences via, among other things, video games such as 'Call of Duty'; producing tan-colored rifles to resemble those used by the military in recent wars and assisting film companies to recreate, as accurately as possible, what occurs overseas.

I would like to note that the AR-15 became the standard rifle for the general population many years before military shooter video games became prevalent or even existed. The AR-15 is the best rifle technology of the 1960's.

Originally Posted by clydepepper

As astonished as I am by all the blood-thirstiness of the country in which I live, I just cannot understand why there is ANY opposition to universal background checks, for gun shows; pawn shops; or retailers like Academy Sports where the AR-15 type assault-rifles are called sports rifles.

I would like to again note that this is already the law, federally, for any purchase from a dealer (and if you act as a dealer without being a formal FFL, you go to federal prison). When you buy a gun from Academy, you are already going through a background check. When you buy a gun from an FFL at a show, you are going through a background check. When you buy a gun from a pawn shop, they must have an FFL and you are going through a background check. Many states require them even on PPT's between non-dealer individuals selling or gifting their used property on occasion.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Easy.....put a fence around it. The high school I went to had around 25 or so buildings, about 1,600 students. They put up a tall solid fence around the school, with locking gates. You can do that at any school. Any time a gate is open, you have a security guard standing there.

Steve

Again, who is going to pay for all that?
And honestly, what kind of America do you envision? Tall fences and armed security guards around every neighborhood school? Maybe some razor wire? What would college campuses look like?

[Peter_Spaeth]

"Second, I would move the legal age to purchase a firearm up to 21. There are no guarantees that any steps will work, but NOT DOING ANYTHING DOES NOT WORK."

That damn Second Amendment won't let you do that though.

Gun laws barring sales to people under 21 are unconstitutional, appeals court rules

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Those the same founders that made it abundantly clear that women aren't equal to men and blacks count as 3/5?

You have spent a lot of words defending the status quo on guns, do you have any suggestions on how to deal with mass shootings? Is anyone who would like to make any changes at all to make gun laws tighter or stricter automatically labeled a "banisher"?

You're right. We should void all of the constitutional liberties we have because the Founder's did not have 2022 values. I'm sure you can see the fallacy here. Debate on a reasonable foundation. 'X individual is guilty of Y, therefore they are wrong on Z' is not reasonable, and I'm sure all of you here would know that immediately if the issue was an unemotional one.

I would say that, when the topic is what the 2nd amendment means, referring to the words and actions of the people who wrote it and voted for it is quite relevant. You may think the 2nd shouldn't exist, and reasonably so, but I don't see how it is not relevant to what it means to refer to the people who authored it.

I am not a fan of the status quo on guns whatsoever. I think the 2nd is frequently infringed, especially in ban-heavy states like California. How many rounds are in my magazine, whether I have a muzzle brake or a compensator or a suppressor screwed on to the end of the barrel, where my rifle has a collapsible stock, whether it has a grip that protrudes below the action and allows my thumb around it, I do not think these are the business of the State.

No, one can support gun control measures that are not actually bans. I am quite aware what "ban" means. With the "lot of words" I have written here, I am sure you can reasonably object to things I have actually said instead of inventing straw men. Let's debate what I have actually said.

I think we should deal with mass shootings by focusing on the people who are guilty, and the causes of violence. I made several posts commenting on this before the derailing. It is not a specific tool, it is a decision people make. People are responsible for their actions. I would support many measures in the mental health realm. I do not support infringing on constitutional rights or banning some/all guns or blaming gunowners for the act of a nutter. I have even said I do not greatly object to background checks, even though there is little to no evidence they actually work. There are something like half a billion guns in this country, disarming the law abiding will not disarm someone hellbent on mass murder, the black market will always exist. It just makes it a little more dangerous for the rest of us.

[G1911]

I would also like to note that the AR-15 sold to civilians is factually NOT an Assault Rifle. This is a term with an actual meeting. The AR-15 you buy at the store does not have a full-auto switch. It is not an assault rifle.

A legally transferable NFA registered M16 from before 1986 is over $40,000 for the lower, last I heard.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Serious about gun control? Repeal the amendment. But, no....

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...repeal/554540/

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Serious about gun control? Repeal the amendment.

Don't give them ideas!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Don't give them ideas!

Don't worry, there is no political courage to make any serious effort, it's so much better to virtue signal and profess outrage and vaguely demand vague and probably unconstitutional reforms. That way you don't really risk alienating anyone, and you can do the same thing and score virtue points all over again the next time a mass shooting happens.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Another mass shooting today. 5 dead in a Tulsa, OK medical facility. The increasing regularity of these events is truly disturbing.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

If you do not know, there is no reason to discuss.

That’s essentially just saying you don’t know, or don’t want to answer out loud.

If you believe something, then own it. Quit the childish games.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Another mass shooting today. 5 dead in a Tulsa, OK medical facility. The increasing regularity of these events is truly disturbing.

They should really try putting up a sign that says firearms are not allowed on the premise.

Anybody who has been paying attention to what has been happening in this country shouldn't be shocked. We're becoming a moral-less society, increasingly mentally unhealthy & unstable, and it's election season (for those who believe there is no such thing as coincidence).

When texting and driving was at its peak, they didn't ban cars or cell phones. They targeted the person behind the wheel who controlled the car and the phone. The lack of consistency when it comes to "shootings" is why it's hard to even consider taking anti-gun arguments seriously.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

……I read an article today on how the AR-15 became so widespread in this country…..

Who wrote the article?

Did they explain the real reason…..

All military styled rifles have been popular for decades. MOST except for the AR15 were imported from the original manufacturers in their respective countries. In 1989 George Bush stopped importation via executive order. The market had demand so it filled it with the 1 of the few US made rifles left.

The Bush ban blocked Chinese AK-47 and SKS variants, Israeli Galil variants, Finnish Valmet variants as well as the FN FAL from Belgium, Israel, Australia, Brazil and Argentina.

George Bush forced companies to either manufacture guns wholly in the US or import demilled parts kits to be rebuilt with a minimum number of US parts in their remanufacture.

The marketing angle was simply a demand being fought over by the myriad of US manufacturers wanting more market share. Had the Bush ban never happened the AR15 would be a much smaller segment of the US military styled rifle market. Truth be told all the Bush bad did was funnel all the $ into one particular US design and make everything more expensive because it eliminated foreign labor.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Another mass shooting today. 5 dead in a Tulsa, OK medical facility. The increasing regularity of these events is truly disturbing.

Nothing can be done to stop it.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh and Michael, by the way, regarding that "extreme" view of when life begins.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

So then why isn't a death certificate issued for each and every miscarriage? Only 7 states and 3 American territories require reporting the death of "(a)ll products of human conception." Twenty-five states require reporting the death if the gestation period is 20 weeks or greater. Twelve states and one territory require reporting the death is the gestation period is 20 weeks or greater and the birth weight is 350 grams or more. You can see the reporting requirements for all the states and territories here:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/itop97.pdf

Furthermore, we all know laws are fluid. They change depending upon who has the power to craft and pass the laws. So quoting a law, even though it may be current law of the land, means nothing in the context of this discussion. Otherwise, this whole discussion would be moot, no?

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by G1911

You're right. We should void all of the constitutional liberties we have because the Founder's did not have 2022 values. I'm sure you can see the fallacy here. Debate on a reasonable foundation. 'X individual is guilty of Y, therefore they are wrong on Z' is not reasonable, and I'm sure all of you here would know that immediately if the issue was an unemotional one.

I would say that, when the topic is what the 2nd amendment means, referring to the words and actions of the people who wrote it and voted for it is quite relevant. You may think the 2nd shouldn't exist, and reasonably so, but I don't see how it is not relevant to what it means to refer to the people who authored it.

I am not a fan of the status quo on guns whatsoever. I think the 2nd is frequently infringed, especially in ban-heavy states like California. How many rounds are in my magazine, whether I have a muzzle brake or a compensator or a suppressor screwed on to the end of the barrel, where my rifle has a collapsible stock, whether it has a grip that protrudes below the action and allows my thumb around it, I do not think these are the business of the State.

No, one can support gun control measures that are not actually bans. I am quite aware what "ban" means. With the "lot of words" I have written here, I am sure you can reasonably object to things I have actually said instead of inventing straw men. Let's debate what I have actually said.

I think we should deal with mass shootings by focusing on the people who are guilty, and the causes of violence. I made several posts commenting on this before the derailing. It is not a specific tool, it is a decision people make. People are responsible for their actions. I would support many measures in the mental health realm. I do not support infringing on constitutional rights or banning some/all guns or blaming gunowners for the act of a nutter. I have even said I do not greatly object to background checks, even though there is little to no evidence they actually work. There are something like half a billion guns in this country, disarming the law abiding will not disarm someone hellbent on mass murder, the black market will always exist. It just makes it a little more dangerous for the rest of us.

Ok, so you would support (or not object to) background checks. You would support mental health measures, but not if they infringe on constitutional rights.

1) What mental health measures would you support, and how do you see this helping the problem?
2) You appear to be saying any curb on guns/ammo/etc is an infringement on your rights. But we put curbs on our rights in almost every aspect of our lives, for the good of us all. Why would, say, making mandatory gun safety classes before buying a first gun against the constitution, but not taking driver's Ed before getting behind the wheel?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

Okay. Webster's is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to brand pro-life as an abortion term.

Okay. And you say this, why?

Originally Posted by G1911

You know what it means, especially in the context of an abortion discussion. Stop pretending to be stupid. There are many words I don't like and wouldn't use to label things, but such is the world. Pro-life and pro-choice are both positive sounding brandings. In my little niche of the world, 'gun control' is a phrase to describe A) the use of a holster or sling with passive retention to ensure retention of my weapon or B) proper handling of my weapon and a muzzle brake to keep follow up rounds in the hitbox of my target. Does that mean I'm going to come here and pretend gun-control means lots of things and it isn't just legislation aimed at restricting firearms? I would score some virtue signaling and martyr points with some extremists on my side, but no. That would be ridiculous. Words have actual meanings, regardless of my feelings. That meaning is not whatever the hell I want it to be.

Yes, I know what it is co-opted to mean by those who are against abortion. But seriously, how can a person claim to be pro-life if he/she wants to execute people? Seriously. That's all I want to know.

Originally Posted by G1911

This is a very bad argument. I am greatly amused that we had an intelligent discussion in this thread about both guns and abortion that was polite and earnest while people debated the actual issue. It is only now when 2 people are pretending they don't know what common-use terms mean that its derailing.

This thread got derailed when abortion was thrown in the mix. Don't pretend otherwise.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

But seriously, how can a person claim to be pro-life if he/she wants to execute people? Seriously. That's all I want to know.

If you think imposing the death penalty on a convicted murderer is the same as the picture below, your a sick and disgusting person.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Ok, so you would support (or not object to) background checks. You would support mental health measures, but not if they infringe on constitutional rights.

1) What mental health measures would you support, and how do you see this helping the problem?
2) You appear to be saying any curb on guns/ammo/etc is an infringement on your rights. But we put curbs on our rights in almost every aspect of our lives, for the good of us all. Why would, say, making mandatory gun safety classes before buying a first gun against the constitution, but not taking driver's Ed before getting behind the wheel?

1A) I support liberal reforms to the healthcare system to make care cheaper and affordable or free; including mental care and psychiatrists, so that those who cannot or will not pay the cost or have family to pay the cost may get the help they need, for the good of everyone. I would look into improving access and resources ( something like half the counties in the US have 0 psychiatrists or psychologists, you can’t make people move around but you can incentivize one setting up practice in a previously underserved area). In cases of mental illness, I would look into adjusting HIPAA to allow some compassionate disclosure between a doctor and the family of a mental-problem person. Time and again we see that they are known to have issues, but the family doesn’t really understand just how bad it is.

I’m sure there’s more, but there’s 3 specific lanes I would investigate and see if the data on matches the reasoning.


1B) Because the vast majority of people who do such things have mental problems that are known to some degree to some of the local community. I think that when a horrible action is committed, the perpetrator is guilty, not whichever half of the country I disagree with at the moment. A tool is not sentient, a tool does not make decisions. A tool does not choose to kill a room full of innocent children. A person does. Address the person who is actually guilty instead of political opposition.

2) Any curb factually is, by definition, an infringement. How do you curb a right without infringing on it? One can support this and argue that it is good, but I don’t see how we can reasonably pretend that a new measure curbing guns is not an infringement on guns, a right that we the people still retain at present.

First, I don’t understand the guns classes point from the other side. If one believes that civilian ownership of firearms or certain type of scary looking firearms is dangerous to the community (which seems the logical pre-requisite to supporting gun control), how would this help? Why would they want to train shooters more? Would giving the Uvalde shooter or any other a lesson in firearm safe-handling, maintenance and marksmanship do anything, except possibly make them a little bit better of a shot?

I don’t think this will ever go anywhere as a result as neither of the main factions really wants it. It is not something that greatly disturbs me, I do think it is unconstitutional, that it probably punishes poor citizens by adding yet another fee and cost, but I am a big fan of classes for people who were not born into the gun community or brought in by friends who have taught them carefully. I greatly support choosing to seek professional or knowledgeable help when one is new to it. Safe handling, marksmanship, proper care and maintenance, these are goods that firearms owners (and anyone who wants to learn) should know. I have taught many myself.


I am against curbing/ infringing any constitutional right. I like the Bill of Rights. I think an individual has the right to say or do things others don’t agree with and live their life in their own way without the interference of the State. It was just a few years ago that this made me mostly a liberal (guns have been exempted for decades from the old liberal norm, that the right of the individual is paramount to an imaginary right by one’s neighbors to not have to deal with ideas or people or things they don’t like).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Okay. And you say this, why? .

See your next point where you say pro-life has been co-opted by people who do not support abortion (generally, this is the right). Get the little joke now?

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Yes, I know what it is co-opted to mean by those who are against abortion. But seriously, how can a person claim to be pro-life if he/she wants to execute people? Seriously. That's all I want to know.

Because most people are on the whole reasonable are not absolutist hardliners in every facet. A majority of people were fine with killing Osama Bin Laden. Very few people are fine with killing a new, innocent life (abortion is a disagreement primarily on when life begins) that has done no wrong. A person who supports the death penalty does not believe EVERYONE should be executed.

This illogical and absurd argument can be made for pro-choice too. A pro-choice person supports some right to get an aboriton. They do not believe literally everyone for any reason in all issues can make any choice. They still believe in some rule of law. A pro-choice person does not support a right for me to do anything at any time for any reason.

Most people are not cartoonish hardline absolutist caricatures of a human being.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

This thread got derailed when abortion was thrown in the mix. Don't pretend otherwise.

Perhaps in the sense that it got off-topic, but it was a quite reasonable debate until BobC and you pretended not to be able to understand common words and phrases.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Second, I would move the legal age to purchase a firearm up to 21. There are no guarantees that any steps will work, but NOT DOING ANYTHING DOES NOT WORK.


--------------

'Putting military-grade weapons in the hands of the general public.' has been their goal.

As astonished as I am by all the blood-thirstiness of the country in which I live, I just cannot understand why there is ANY opposition to universal background checks, for gun shows; pawn shops; or retailers like Academy Sports where the AR-15 type assault-rifles are called sports rifles.



.

Edited out some stuff, just commenting on the bits I left.

I just don't see how raising the age to 21 would change much. being responsible or irresponsible doesn't magically change at someones birthday.

I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Mass, most of the big sporting goods stores that sold guns changed their policy to only sell to 21+. One of the most responsible people I know worked at one at 18 in the gun dept. (very apt, as he was a licensed instructor) He quit over that policy change, seeing the inherent dishonesty of an 18 year old being able to sell a gun, teach courses on safety etc, but not buy one.


Military grade weapons have nearly always been in the hands of the public.
At times, what was available to the public has been superior to what our military commonly used. (and aside from full auto being highly restricted, potentially may still be possible)
The US government ran a citizen marksmanship program starting I believe in 1903 that gave participants the ability to buy a surplus rifle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civili...anship_Program

I'm not at all against universal background checks. The way they are implemented is not particularly good.
The Texas guy passed his background checks, despite several things in his past that should have been on some record. But none of what he did was something that could be acted on in a meaningful way.

Mass put in a requirement that private sales must include background checks. But they didn't open up the background check system, preferring instead to have all those checks be done by licensed dealers. And since in populated areas there are few licensed dealers, that isn't much more than a financial gift the places like Dicks Sporting Goods.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If you think imposing the death penalty on a convicted murderer is the same as the picture below, your a sick and disgusting person.

Is this the scientific evidence that life begins at conception that you claimed existed and that I asked for back in post 134 or should I keep waiting?

And as to your comment, you are definitely free to conjure up a false impression of me that is not based on anything I've written. But in doing so, I think "your (sic) a sick and disgusting person."

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

See your next point where you say pro-life has been co-opted by people who do not support abortion (generally, this is the right). Get the little joke now?

Hmm, I guess some people shouldn't tell "jokes."

Originally Posted by G1911

abortion is a disagreement primarily on when life begins

That's what I said in Post 130. Aren't you following along? But anyway, if abortion is a disagreement on when life begins, why do they claim they are "pro-life" when they actually aren't?

Originally Posted by G1911

A person who supports the death penalty does not believe EVERYONE should be executed.

Who said they did? But tell you what, when a group gets together that wants to

1) redefine death so that a person incapable of breathing and eating on their own is declared legally dead;

2) make it illegal to use life support systems despite a loved one's objection;

3) is against the death penalty; and

4) call their group Pro-Death to gain support

get back to me.

Originally Posted by G1911

This illogical and absurd argument can be made for pro-choice too. A pro-choice person supports some right to get an aboriton. They do not believe literally everyone for any reason in all issues can make any choice. They still believe in some rule of law. A pro-choice person does not support a right for me to do anything at any time for any reason.

Fair point.

Originally Posted by G1911

Most people are not cartoonish hardline absolutist caricatures of a human being.

I'm not sure whether I agree with "most." The jury is still out on that one.

Originally Posted by G1911

Perhaps in the sense that it got off-topic, but it was a quite reasonable debate until BobC and you pretended not to be able to understand common words and phrases.

It's not that I "pretended not to be able to understand common words and phrases," it's more that I don't agree with using the term pro-life in that manner. So far, nobody has even attempted to answer the question, how can they be "pro-life" when they're not? Just like I don't agree with Russia using the term "special military operation" for their invasion of Ukraine. Should we all just acquiesce and call it a "special military operation" because it's their invasion and that's what they want to call it?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Is this the scientific evidence that life begins at conception that you claimed existed and that I asked for back in post 134 or should I keep waiting?

I'm not getting into that debate with someone whose political affiliation believes that men can get pregnant and that there are more than 2 genders. But you can go do your own research. There are plenty of articles based on science that support the fact the life begins at conception.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

And as to your comment, you are definitely free to conjure up a false impression of me that is not based on anything I've written. But in doing so, I think "your (sic) a sick and disgusting person."

I don't have to conjure up anything. Your ridiculous comments speak for themselves. Take a lesson from BobC and bow out...or you can keep posting and looking like a idiot. Either way, it's up to you.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If you think imposing the death penalty on a convicted murderer is the same as the picture below, your a sick and disgusting person.

Topps has a new chase card?

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would like to note that the AR-15 became the standard rifle for the general population many years before military shooter video games became prevalent or even existed. The AR-15 is the best rifle technology of the 1960's.



I would like to again note that this is already the law, federally, for any purchase from a dealer (and if you act as a dealer without being a formal FFL, you go to federal prison). When you buy a gun from Academy, you are already going through a background check. When you buy a gun from an FFL at a show, you are going through a background check. When you buy a gun from a pawn shop, they must have an FFL and you are going through a background check. Many states require them even on PPT's between non-dealer individuals selling or gifting their used property on occasion.

Thanks for the knowledge.

I definitely defer to others who know more about the subject. I was out of my lane, but am just hoping for things getting better.


.

[icurnmedic]

Originally Posted by BCauley

That’s essentially just saying you don’t know, or don’t want to answer out loud.

If you believe something, then own it. Quit the childish games.

Wow, wasn't meant to be childish and not really trying to be controversial.
I just assumed anyone with a HS education or half a brain could figure it out.

But lets see who I am describing....
Well I have a neighbor who is 23 years old. Known him his entire life. Granted at this particular house it is "backwoods" and he has lived their again 23 years. He does Not work, therefore does not pay taxes(contribute) receives government $$ including medicaid for his children, 2 of them, (takes).
Not such a big deal if he wasn't also running a Meth house that is very bu$y.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

That's what I said in Post 130. Aren't you following along? But anyway, if abortion is a disagreement on when life begins, why do they claim they are "pro-life" when they actually aren't?

For something like the twelfth time, because it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Who said they did? But tell you what, when a group gets together that wants to

1) redefine death so that a person incapable of breathing and eating on their own is declared legally dead;

2) make it illegal to use life support systems despite a loved one's objection;

3) is against the death penalty; and

4) call their group Pro-Death to gain support

get back to me.

Again, for something like the thirteenth time, it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate. You know this.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I'm not sure whether I agree with "most." The jury is still out on that one.

This is where many extremes and many of our current problems come from - people who disagree are no longer seen as people with a different idea but almost cartoonish caricatures of an actual human being. I miss when people didn't live life convinced the other 50% are cartoon villains.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

It's not that I "pretended not to be able to understand common words and phrases," it's more that I don't agree with using the term pro-life in that manner. So far, nobody has even attempted to answer the question, how can they be "pro-life" when they're not? Just like I don't agree with Russia using the term "special military operation" for their invasion of Ukraine. Should we all just acquiesce and call it a "special military operation" because it's their invasion and that's what they want to call it?

Again, for something like the fourteenth time, it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate of a specific issue. It is a silly hyper partisan argument (you don't seem to keep complaining about the equally incorrect term 'pro-choice' if your pre-suppositions that these are absolutist philosophies of the universe and not what they are defined as in the dictionary and by 99%+ of America).

In other shocking news, you don't really drive in a driveway, you park in it. You know what these two terms actually mean, you know they are not absolutist philosophies of other separate issues. You are just complaining about the one that the other side uses. That's not a reasonable and consistent thought, it's just a hyperpartisan talking point that doesn't say much of anything.

"Special military operation" is not a common-use term whose meaning is known to all and commonly used above any other expression for what it is in reference too, steeped in decades of the common vernacular. I have not heard a single American use this to refer to the war, besides mocking it. This is a bad false equivalence.

Abortion is an issue for which there are rational arguments supporting both sides. I cannot fathom why this is the abortion-related argument that seems the best one to make to you. Virtue-signaling to absolutists has never convinced a person you are right; rational arguments sometimes do.

[Butch7999]

Peter, thanks for the informative clarification. Obviously, if we had a say,
we'd dissent vehemently against the court's tenuous inference. The
ammosexual crowd can be glad we'll never be able to rule on this one.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From the Supreme Court 2007 Heller decision. Sorry to people who don't like it, and I may not like it myself, but it's the way it is.

Held:
...
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. ...

[irv]

Has anyone ever thought about any of this? I know some will think it is conspiracy nonsense but I think they are valid questions that need to be answered honestly.

Where did this Avalde shooter get all his wears?

He was carrying $5-6000 worth of guns, armor and ammo.

How did he get it, poor family and 18 years old. Kid probably hadn’t made $6000 gross in his whole life. How did he get to the gun shop, how did he procure all this stuff. Where did he practice shooting. Did he go to a range or a gravel pit?

All this makes very little sense to me.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by irv

Has anyone ever thought about any of this? I know some will think it is conspiracy nonsense but I think they are valid questions that need to be answered honestly.

Where did this Avalde shooter get all his wears?

He was carrying $5-6000 worth of guns, armor and ammo.

Maybe he maxed out a couple of credit cards? He obviously wasn’t concerned about paying it back or the interest. Someone that knew him told a reporter that Ramos was a huge pothead (marijuana), that has since been scrubbed completely by the media. Just like a certain detail of the Tulsa Oklahoma mass shooting, that is a narrative that the media doesn’t want, it doesn’t fit their agenda.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by steve B

You've fallen into a common misconception. One which is easy to fall into.

It conflates three different things.

Rate of fire - Rounds per minute
Capacity- how many the gun holds
Full vs semi-automatic.

Easiest one first.
Fully automatic=Pull the trigger it shoots till you stop or the ammo runs out.
Semi Automatic= One pull one shot, but you have to pull the trigger for each one. A large percentage of guns are this type. The shotgun my friend has me use for trap shooing is. I just load one at a time to stay within the rules.

Fully automatic - "machine guns" have been heavily controlled since the mid 1930's. Full registration, $200 tax to transfer, very serious background check, some serious legal trouble for not doing things properly. Since those controls were put in place, last I checked there have only been 2-3 incidents involving a legally owned full auto weapon.

And that moves right into the "police don't have machine guns"...One of those incidents was a law officer using a department machine gun that he was legally allowed to use. Just not at all the way he used it.

Most guns, depending on how they were made and local laws hold less than 10 rounds. If you're in a place that allows higher capacity maybe as many as 30. Much more isn't common, but is possible.

So yes, you may be able to fire hundreds of rounds a minute, but you'll be out in a few seconds. And usually anything past the first one isn't going where you want it to go. (Yes, I've tried, shot 1 was pretty good. They said I did well to get number 2 on the paper, and the backstop fortunately caught number 3 - It was good that was all I was allowed for that exercise. Could I have done better with practice? sure. But anything outside the target is pretty much a fail.

Oh, and a huge percentage of regular hunting rifles are semi-auto. They just don't look "tactical" so the crazy people don't usually buy them. In some cases they have the exact same inner machinery as the ones everyone wants to ban.

Also, pertaining to semi-automatic pistols:

The way gun-controllers term it, a double-action revolver (the common, every-day revolver), is a semi-automatic weapon. Think about it; one pull of the trigger, one shot out of the barrel. You pull the trigger again, another bullet comes out of the barrel (each time you pull the trigger, the cylinder automatically rotates until another round is lined up with the barrel). Nothing else needs to be done; you just keep pulling the trigger until the cylinder is empty. Current revolvers hold up to eight rounds, the same as a Colt M1911 .45 caliber semi-auto (there are some that hold even more). Current semi-automatics, like a Glock-17 (the first Glock ever made in the 1980s), holds a standard capacity of 17 rounds. The Left wants to ban all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; that would effectively ban nearly all Glock handguns, along with many others that hold more than 10 rounds as the standard capacity.

Also, The Left wants to ban the AR-15. Guess what round the AR-15 shoots.....the .22 caliber; a round that Pres Biden apparently has no problem with. He just wants to ban the AR-15 because it looks dangerous. Then, he wants to ban the 9mm (NATO standard) round, that the vast majority of common, every-day pistols (in the world) shoots, because it, in his words "blows the lung out of the body." I guess he's never heard of a .357 magnum, or .44 magnum (think Dirty Harry), or a 10mm (will take down a bear, or even a .50 caliber Desert Eagle. All of those are handguns, and the first two (magnums) are revolvers. It just all proves that The Left doesn't have a clue of what they're talking about!

Steve

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From the Supreme Court 2007 Heller decision. Sorry to people who don't like it, and I may not like it myself, but it's the way it is.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Also, here is the CURRENT LEGAL DEFINITION of The Militia:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

32 U.S. Code § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—

(1) be a citizen of the United States; and

(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

So, ALL US citizens over the age of 18, and under the age of 45 (under 64 in certain cases), are members of the US Militia.

As stated above in DC vs Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, is not limited by militia membership.

Therefore, ALL US Citizens of legal age (over 18), have the right to keep and bear arms, and this right "shall not be infringed" upon.

Steve

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by G1911

You're right. We should void all of the constitutional liberties we have because the Founder's did not have 2022 values. I'm sure you can see the fallacy here. Debate on a reasonable foundation. 'X individual is guilty of Y, therefore they are wrong on Z' is not reasonable, and I'm sure all of you here would know that immediately if the issue was an unemotional one.

I would say that, when the topic is what the 2nd amendment means, referring to the words and actions of the people who wrote it and voted for it is quite relevant. You may think the 2nd shouldn't exist, and reasonably so, but I don't see how it is not relevant to what it means to refer to the people who authored it.

I am not a fan of the status quo on guns whatsoever. I think the 2nd is frequently infringed, especially in ban-heavy states like California. How many rounds are in my magazine, whether I have a muzzle brake or a compensator or a suppressor screwed on to the end of the barrel, where my rifle has a collapsible stock, whether it has a grip that protrudes below the action and allows my thumb around it, I do not think these are the business of the State.

No, one can support gun control measures that are not actually bans. I am quite aware what "ban" means. With the "lot of words" I have written here, I am sure you can reasonably object to things I have actually said instead of inventing straw men. Let's debate what I have actually said.

I think we should deal with mass shootings by focusing on the people who are guilty, and the causes of violence. I made several posts commenting on this before the derailing. It is not a specific tool, it is a decision people make. People are responsible for their actions. I would support many measures in the mental health realm. I do not support infringing on constitutional rights or banning some/all guns or blaming gunowners for the act of a nutter. I have even said I do not greatly object to background checks, even though there is little to no evidence they actually work. There are something like half a billion guns in this country, disarming the law abiding will not disarm someone hellbent on mass murder, the black market will always exist. It just makes it a little more dangerous for the rest of us.

+1
Steve

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

They should really try putting up a sign that says firearms are not allowed on the premise.

Anybody who has been paying attention to what has been happening in this country shouldn't be shocked. We're becoming a moral-less society, increasingly mentally unhealthy & unstable, and it's election season (for those who believe there is no such thing as coincidence).

When texting and driving was at its peak, they didn't ban cars or cell phones. They targeted the person behind the wheel who controlled the car and the phone. The lack of consistency when it comes to "shootings" is why it's hard to even consider taking anti-gun arguments seriously.

+1
Steve

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Also, pertaining to semi-automatic pistols:

The way gun-controllers term it, a double-action revolver (the common, every-day revolver), is a semi-automatic weapon. Think about it; one pull of the trigger, one shot out of the barrel. You pull the trigger again, another bullet comes out of the barrel (each time you pull the trigger, the cylinder automatically rotates until another round is lined up with the barrel). Nothing else needs to be done; you just keep pulling the trigger until the cylinder is empty. Current revolvers hold up to eight rounds, the same as a Colt M1911 .45 caliber semi-auto (there are some that hold even more). Current semi-automatics, like a Glock-17 (the first Glock ever made in the 1980s), holds a standard capacity of 17 rounds. The Left wants to ban all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; that would effectively ban nearly all Glock handguns, along with many others that hold more than 10 rounds as the standard capacity.

Also, The Left wants to ban the AR-15. Guess what round the AR-15 shoots.....the .22 caliber; a round that Pres Biden apparently has no problem with. He just wants to ban the AR-15 because it looks dangerous. Then, he wants to ban the 9mm (NATO standard) round, that the vast majority of common, every-day pistols (in the world) shoots, because it, in his words "blows the lung out of the body." I guess he's never heard of a .357 magnum, or .44 magnum (think Dirty Harry), or a 10mm (will take down a bear, or even a .50 caliber Desert Eagle. All of those are handguns, and the first two (magnums) are revolvers. It just all proves that The Left doesn't have a clue of what they're talking about!

Steve

It is usually amusing to look at their quotes or see what they term “high power”. A 9mm is extremely popular because it is generally seen as at or near the bottom of the power scale for a cartridge that can be effective in self defense. 5.56 is also about as low-power as cartridges in its class can get.

Really controversial is to debate .45 ACP vs 9mm Parabellum. As a classy feller, I always carry .25 ACP though.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Ok, so you would support (or not object to) background checks. You would support mental health measures, but not if they infringe on constitutional rights.

1) What mental health measures would you support, and how do you see this helping the problem?
2) You appear to be saying any curb on guns/ammo/etc is an infringement on your rights. But we put curbs on our rights in almost every aspect of our lives, for the good of us all. Why would, say, making mandatory gun safety classes before buying a first gun against the constitution, but not taking driver's Ed before getting behind the wheel?

1. I'm really not sure about what mental health measures could be enacted. HIPAA makes it difficult, if not impossible, for medical records to be released/shared. Perhaps something along the lines of if you have a specific diagnosis from a qualified mental health practitioner, a simple statement can be shared that the person should not have access to weapons; without sharing the details of the diagnosis. The doctor could put the bottom-line diagnosis, such as "John Doe suffers from schizophrenia." This could be put in the NICS System.

2. I personally have no problem with a requirement for a person to attend a gun safety class. One problem is this: say a person receives a threat of death from an ex-partner. We all know the problems with restraining orders - they do NOT work! So, the person goes out and wants to buy a gun for self-defense. Do they have to go through a gun safety class? Do they have to wait a certain number of days before actually getting the self-defense tool (aka gun)? Meanwhile, the ex has a weapon and the means to use it against the victim; and the victim is hamstrung by "the system", with no way to defend him/herself.

3. We need to bring God back into the family!

4. We need to bring responsible parenting back into the family!

5. We need to get rid of all the violent video games that are plaguing society!

6. We need to have actual security in all schools, 12th grade and below!

Steve

[egri]

Originally Posted by Steve D

1. I'm really not sure about what mental health measures could be enacted. HIPAA makes it difficult, if not impossible, for medical records to be released/shared. Perhaps something along the lines of if you have a specific diagnosis from a qualified mental health practitioner, a simple statement can be shared that the person should not have access to weapons; without sharing the details of the diagnosis. The doctor could put the bottom-line diagnosis, such as "John Doe suffers from schizophrenia." This could be put in the NICS System.

On the ship, we had a 'Do Not Issue' list, where every time someone had a condition that made prevented them from carrying a firearm, medical would let the armory know, and the updated list would be posted in the armory, signed by the CO. The only people who knew were the affected sailors, medical, the CO, and armory personnel. It didn't say anything beyond "The following personnel are restricted from handling weapons and ammunition: John Smith, Jane Doe, etc..." but it didn't need to; if they were on the list, that was that.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Maybe he maxed out a couple of credit cards? He obviously wasn’t concerned about paying it back or the interest. Someone that knew him told a reporter that Ramos was a huge pothead (marijuana), that has since been scrubbed completely by the media. Just like a certain detail of the Tulsa Oklahoma mass shooting, that is a narrative that the media doesn’t want, it doesn’t fit their agenda.

Must be something like that but I don't know an 18 yr old up here who would qualify for any credit card with a limit over $500 to a $1000 at most?

Supposedly he fought with his mom and moved out because she/him couldn't afford WIFI? They were basically welfare poor. Where did he move to and how much was rent, if there was any?

Way too many things here that aren't adding up but my gut tells me we will never find out the "real" answers.