NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on Ebay
Babe Ruth Cards
t206 Ty Cobb
Ty Cobb Cards
Lou Gehrig Cards
Baseball T201-T217
Baseball E90-E107
T205 Cards
Vintage Baseball Postcards
Goudey Cards
Vintage Baseball Memorabilia
Baseball Exhibit Cards
Baseball Strip Cards
Baseball Baking Cards
Sporting News Cards
Play Ball Cards
Joe DiMaggio Cards
Mickey Mantle Cards
Bowman 1951-1955
Football Cards

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > WaterCooler Talk- Off Topics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old 06-23-2022, 04:58 AM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17 View Post
The man is masterful at avoiding the question. Chicago has very strict gun laws, and it correlates with ridiculously high gun murder rates. Everybody gets upset when a dozen kids are murdered in a school, but if a couple dozen are murdered in Chicago in a week, nobody seems to take notice.

Strict gun control in Chicago is a flat failure.
Does nobody seem to notice or is it something that is talked about all the time and has the national attention? I think itís the latter. Do you really think the prevalence of violence in Chicago is due to a lack of good guys with guns? At any rate, the main point is that we canít prevent someone with known terrorist affiliations to purchase as many guns and bullets as they want - that seems like a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #552  
Old 06-23-2022, 08:45 AM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Does nobody seem to notice or is it something that is talked about all the time and has the national attention? I think itís the latter. Do you really think the prevalence of violence in Chicago is due to a lack of good guys with guns? At any rate, the main point is that we canít prevent someone with known terrorist affiliations to purchase as many guns and bullets as they want - that seems like a problem.
The main point is NOT that we can't prevent a known ISIS member from buying guns. Add up all the murders throughout the country each year. What percentage are committed by known terrorists? Some tiny fraction, well less than one percent?

The main point is that some of the very strictest gun control laws in this country, for decades, have existed in Chicago. Simultaneously, some of the highest gun murder rates have existed in Chicago. So what does a former President, and you, say to that? You both lament not having stricter gun control laws.

I live in a rural area where just about every household has some kind of gun, often more than one. My neighbors are hunters and some, like me, are NRA members. We have almost no murders out here and a primary reason is that criminals know this is a dangerous place for them to commit crime.

Clear your mind of your preconceptions for just one minute and really think about what I'm going to say here. Don't worry, it won't hurt. Ready? Okay, now, if a guy is contemplating committing mass murder, what does it mean to him when he sees on a building's doors: NO GUNS ALLOWED ON THESE PREMISES?

Does he think:
a) Well, I can't shoot up this place because I'm not allowed to bring my gun inside

or

b) Wonderful, I can murder to my heart's content with assurance there won't be anyone armed inside to stop me.

?

The harder you make gun ownership and conceal/carry laws for law abiding people, the easier you make it for criminals to murder. Common sense to many.... baffling concept for some.
Reply With Quote
  #553  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:04 AM
cgjackson222's Avatar
cgjackson222 cgjackson222 is offline
Charles Jackson
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17 View Post
The main point is NOT that we can't prevent a known ISIS member from buying guns. Add up all the murders throughout the country each year. What percentage are committed by known terrorists? Some tiny fraction, well less than one percent?

The main point is that some of the very strictest gun control laws in this country, for decades, have existed in Chicago. Simultaneously, some of the highest gun murder rates have existed in Chicago. So what does a former President, and you, say to that? You both lament not having stricter gun control laws.

I live in a rural area where just about every household has some kind of gun, often more than one. My neighbors are hunters and some, like me, are NRA members. We have almost no murders out here and a primary reason is that criminals know this is a dangerous place for them to commit crime.

Clear your mind of your preconceptions for just one minute and really think about what I'm going to say here. Don't worry, it won't hurt. Ready? Okay, now, if a guy is contemplating committing mass murder, what does it mean to him when he sees on a building's doors: NO GUNS ALLOWED ON THESE PREMISES?

Does he think:
a) Well, I can't shoot up this place because I'm not allowed to bring my gun inside

or

b) Wonderful, I can murder to my heart's content with assurance there won't be anyone armed inside to stop me.

?

The harder you make gun ownership and conceal/carry laws for law abiding people, the easier you make it for criminals to murder. Common sense to many.... baffling concept for some.
Gun enthusiasts love to cite Chicago as proof that gun laws don't work.

But if you look at gun deaths per capita at the state level, it lines up pretty well with states that have loose gun laws and high rates of guns per capita.

Here are the 10 states with the highest gun deaths per capita:

Alaska (24.5 per 100k people)
Alabama (22.9 per 100k people)
Montana (22.5 per 100k people)
Louisiana (21.7 per 100k people)
Mississippi (21.5 per 100k people)
Missouri (21.5 per 100k people)
Arkansas (20.3 per 100k people)
Wyoming (18.8 per 100k people)
West Virginia (18.6 per 100k people)
New Mexico (18.5 per 100k people)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...apita-by-state


Here are the 10 states with the highest rates of gun ownership:

Montana (66.30%)
Wyoming (66.20%)
Alaska (64.50%)
Idaho (60.10%)
West Virginia (58.50%)
Arkansas (57.20%)
Mississippi (55.80%)
Alabama (55.50%)
South Dakota (55.30%)
North Dakota (55.10%)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...rship-by-state

Last edited by cgjackson222; 06-23-2022 at 10:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #554  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:16 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Supreme Court ruled in favor of a constitutional right to carry. Big changes will have to be made in left-wing ban heavy jurisdictions that only give permits to friends of the sheriff.
Reply With Quote
  #555  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:24 AM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222 View Post
Gun enthusiasts love to cite Chicago as proof that gun laws don't work.

But if you look at gun deaths per capita at the state level, it lines up pretty well with states that have loose gun laws and high rates of guns per capita.

Here are the 10 states with the highest gun deaths per capita:

Alaska (24.5 per 100k people)
Alabama (22.9 per 100k people)
Montana (22.5 per 100k people)
Louisiana (21.7 per 100k people)
Mississippi (21.5 per 100k people)
Missouri (21.5 per 100k people)
Arkansas (20.3 per 100k people)
Wyoming (18.8 per 100k people)
West Virginia (18.6 per 100k people)
New Mexico (18.5 per 100k people)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...apita-by-state


Here are the 10 states with the highest rates of gun ownership:

Montana (66.30%)
Wyoming (66.20%)
Alaska (64.50%)
Idaho (60.10%)
West Virginia (58.50%)
Arkansas (57.20%)
Mississippi (55.80%)
Alabama (55.50%)
South Dakota (55.30%)
North Dakota (55.10%)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...rship-by-state
Stop it with the facts and statistics! Repeat pro gun speaking points here please.
Reply With Quote
  #556  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:27 AM
BobbyStrawberry's Avatar
BobbyStrawberry BobbyStrawberry is offline
♏︎™t✝️ℌǝɯ ♓︎ļĶℊℌ
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Stop it with the facts and statistics! Repeat pro gun speaking points here please.
These days, there are "facts" and "alternative facts"...
__________________
_
⚾️ Successful transactions with: Natswin2019, ParachromBleu, Cmount76, theuclakid, tiger8mush, shammus, jcmtiger, oldjudge, coolshemp, joejo20, Blunder19, ibechillin33, t206kid, helfrich91, Dashcol, philliesfan, alaskapaul3, Natedog, Kris19, frankbmd, tonyo, Baseball Rarities, Thromdog, T2069bk
Reply With Quote
  #557  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:50 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-843_7j80.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #558  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:51 AM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222 View Post
Gun enthusiasts love to cite Chicago as proof that gun laws don't work.

But if you look at gun deaths per capita at the state level, it lines up pretty well with states that have loose gun laws and high rates of guns per capita.

Here are the 10 states with the highest gun deaths per capita:

Alaska (24.5 per 100k people)
Alabama (22.9 per 100k people)
Montana (22.5 per 100k people)
Louisiana (21.7 per 100k people)
Mississippi (21.5 per 100k people)
Missouri (21.5 per 100k people)
Arkansas (20.3 per 100k people)
Wyoming (18.8 per 100k people)
West Virginia (18.6 per 100k people)
New Mexico (18.5 per 100k people)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...apita-by-state


Here are the 10 states with the highest rates of gun ownership:

Montana (66.30%)
Wyoming (66.20%)
Alaska (64.50%)
Idaho (60.10%)
West Virginia (58.50%)
Arkansas (57.20%)
Mississippi (55.80%)
Alabama (55.50%)
South Dakota (55.30%)
North Dakota (55.10%)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...rship-by-state
We're talking about murder, so suicides need to be filtered out, and when we do that, there is less correlation between gun ownership and murder. Your list shows 7 states in both the high gun death/high gun ownership lists, but looking at only murders, there are only 4 states on both lists.

Also, I wonder how gun ownership is measured among non registered and illegal guns like those owned by gangs and criminals. Furthermore, cause and effect might suggest gun ownership goes up after crime goes up, as people seek to defend themselves. In other words, criminals/murderers are the cause, and higher gun ownership is the result.

Here are the 10 states with the highest murder rate, using your source:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...-rate-by-state

Louisiana (12.4 per 100k)
Missouri (9.8 per 100k)
Nevada (9.1 per 100k)
Maryland (9 per 100k)
Arkansas (8.6 per 100k)
Alaska (8.4 per 100k)
Alabama (8.3 per 100k)
Mississippi (8.2 per 100k)
Illinois (7.8 per 100k)
South Carolina (7.8 per 100k)
Reply With Quote
  #559  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:56 AM
cgjackson222's Avatar
cgjackson222 cgjackson222 is offline
Charles Jackson
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17 View Post
We're talking about murder, so suicides need to be filtered out, and when we do that, there is less correlation between gun ownership and murder. Your list shows 7 states in both the high gun death/high gun ownership lists, but looking at only murders, there are only 4 states on both lists.

Also, I wonder how gun ownership is measured among non registered and illegal guns like those owned by gangs and criminals. Furthermore, cause and effect might suggest gun ownership goes up after crime goes up, as people seek to defend themselves. In other words, criminals/murderers are the cause, and higher gun ownership is the result.

Here are the 10 states with the highest murder rate, using your source:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...-rate-by-state

Louisiana (12.4 per 100k)
Missouri (9.8 per 100k)
Nevada (9.1 per 100k)
Maryland (9 per 100k)
Arkansas (8.6 per 100k)
Alaska (8.4 per 100k)
Alabama (8.3 per 100k)
Mississippi (8.2 per 100k)
Illinois (7.8 per 100k)
South Carolina (7.8 per 100k)
You just posted a list of states with loose gun laws, with the exception of Maryland and Illinois. And this was to prove your point? Quite the opposite effect.
Reply With Quote
  #560  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:00 AM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222 View Post
You just posted a list of states with loose gun laws, with the exception of Maryland and Illinois. And this was to prove your point? Quite the opposite effect.
Where there are mosquitoes, more people will be using bug spray.

Where there are murders, there will be more law abiding people seeking to defend themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #561  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:05 AM
cgjackson222's Avatar
cgjackson222 cgjackson222 is offline
Charles Jackson
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17 View Post
Where there are mosquitoes, more people will be using bug spray.

Where there are murders, there will be more law abiding people seeking to defend themselves.
So basically your point seems to be the more guns, the safer people are. Which has been demonstrated to be the opposite of the truth based on all data.

But keep on believing whatever you want.

Last edited by cgjackson222; 06-23-2022 at 11:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:16 AM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222 View Post
So basically your point seems to be the more guns, the safer people are. Which has been demonstrated to be the opposite of the truth based on all data.

But keep on believing whatever you want.
Most restrictive gun laws in the country are in Chicago and Washington D.C. Both have ridiculously high gun murder rates.

But keep believing strict gun laws work.
Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:23 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

As of this morning, strict gun laws may be a thing of the past. This ruling establishes pretty directly that the 2nd is not special and is to be treated like other constitutional rights. It will be used to overturn more.
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:29 AM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
As of this morning, strict gun laws may be a thing of the past. This ruling establishes pretty directly that the 2nd is not special and is to be treated like other constitutional rights. It will be used to overturn more.
Bad news for gangs, drug dealers, car jackers, and other assorted gun carrying criminals. Their "profession" just became more costly in terms of personal risk.

Great news for those of us who prefer not to be their prey.
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:33 AM
cgjackson222's Avatar
cgjackson222 cgjackson222 is offline
Charles Jackson
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
As of this morning, strict gun laws may be a thing of the past. This ruling establishes pretty directly that the 2nd is not special and is to be treated like other constitutional rights. It will be used to overturn more.
Any way you slice it, today's ruling is a very broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, courtesy of the 6 conservative judges. This will very much weaken any semblance of states' rights that existed regarding gun control. Of course, that won't stop people, such as yourself from claiming that their 2nd amendment rights have been trampled on until now. But that doesn't make you correct.

The Supreme Court has a lot of power. Hopefully the pendulum swings back the other way later this century.

Last edited by cgjackson222; 06-23-2022 at 11:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:45 AM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222 View Post
Any way you slice it, today's ruling is a very broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, courtesy of the 6 conservative judges. This will very much weaken any semblance of states' rights that existed regarding gun control. Of course, that won't stop people, such as yourself from claiming that their 2nd amendment rights have been trampled on until now. But that doesn't make you correct.

The Supreme Court has a lot of power. Hopefully the pendulum swings back the other way later this century.
Not to steer this political, but if they greatly strengthen states' rights on abortion, many in the pro gun control crowd will be quite upset. Some people want the Court to guarantee rights not specified in the Constitution, but not guarantee rights (the 2nd Amendment) that clearly are.

This court is interpreting the Constitution and respecting its own limitations. The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly enumerated as a right guaranteed by the federal government. Many things are not, and the right to legislate them belong to the states. This is the role of the Supreme Court - to be an umpire and rule on laws expressly under their review, not to create laws as they choose.
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:59 AM
1952boyntoncollector 1952boyntoncollector is offline
ja.ke liebe.rman
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/mysetregistry/set/348387
Posts: 5,127
Default

I too am a fan of enforcing laws on the books.

Also i propose random searches of people on the street with a metal detector.....if drugs are found but they are declared before search you cant be arrested for that or anything else declared...

even if have a warrant for arrest, you would get a mandatory court appearence and receive a ticket but not have to post any bond but if do not show up they are new charges..

basically i dont want police using the random search to target people who then get arrested for other crimes but get the guns off the street...

if dont have a license to carry a gun you shouldnt have one on the street ..

If someone were to run from a search knowing they cant be arrested for anything other than carrying the gun, it would give good reason for a foot pursuit as we alway hear 'he ran cause had a warrant' etc....

Last edited by 1952boyntoncollector; 06-23-2022 at 12:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:01 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,581
Default

It's illegal to text and drive and people die every day because of someone that was texting and driving but you don't hear about any lobbying for stricter punishment for people that are caught texting and driving.

If I'm involved in an accident caused by someone on a cell phone even if I tell a police officer responding to the accident I saw them on their phone he can't search their phone because it's against their rights to do so but if I have a gun in my vehicle even though I didn't cause the accident you can bet he's going to check to see if it's loaded and legal.
Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:03 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17 View Post
Bad news for gangs, drug dealers, car jackers, and other assorted gun carrying criminals. Their "profession" just became more costly in terms of personal risk.

Great news for those of us who prefer not to be their prey.
Nah, easier for them to get guns. Theyíll be ok. Good luck against them.
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:15 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222 View Post
Any way you slice it, today's ruling is a very broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, courtesy of the 6 conservative judges. This will very much weaken any semblance of states' rights that existed regarding gun control. Of course, that won't stop people, such as yourself from claiming that their 2nd amendment rights have been trampled on until now. But that doesn't make you correct.

The Supreme Court has a lot of power. Hopefully the pendulum swings back the other way later this century.
It's a quite literal reading; you know, the obvious one to make using the meaning of the actual words, not what ban-supporters wish they had written. I'd love to hear where in the Constitution it says the 2nd is to be held to a different standard than the rest.

Personally, the text does not go far enough - it still holds the 2nd to a different standard from the rest by allowing shall-issue permitting. I don't need a permit to exercise my other constitutional rights. I don't need the state to give me a permit to practice a religious faith, or voice an unpopular opinion.

Yes, my claims do not make me correct. The text of the document does.

I would agree with you that the courts often exceed their original mandates, including on things I even agree with the Courts on. However, enforcing the Bill of Rights in the legal system (unlike many hot topic legal issues, guns are undeniably a constitutional issue - it's in there plain as day) is exactly what the Court is supposed to do. You believe States may or should simply ignore the Bill of Rights if they want too, and that is what states rights means? Even the very pro-state founders (though we like to forget the 10th today too) did not agree with that.
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:16 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Nah, easier for them to get guns. Theyíll be ok. Good luck against them.
This ruling does not, in any way, make it easier or harder to get a gun. That is a fact.
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:18 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector View Post
I too am a fan of enforcing laws on the books.

Also i propose random searches of people on the street with a metal detector.....if drugs are found but they are declared before search you cant be arrested for that or anything else declared...

even if have a warrant for arrest, you would get a mandatory court appearence and receive a ticket but not have to post any bond but if do not show up they are new charges..

basically i dont want police using the random search to target people who then get arrested for other crimes but get the guns off the street...

if dont have a license to carry a gun you shouldnt have one on the street ..

If someone were to run from a search knowing they cant be arrested for anything other than carrying the gun, it would give good reason for a foot pursuit as we alway hear 'he ran cause had a warrant' etc....
https://constitution.congress.gov/co...n/amendment-4/
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:58 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
It's a quite literal reading; you know, the obvious one to make using the meaning of the actual words, not what ban-supporters wish they had written. I'd love to hear where in the Constitution it says the 2nd is to be held to a different standard than the rest.

Personally, the text does not go far enough - it still holds the 2nd to a different standard from the rest by allowing shall-issue permitting. I don't need a permit to exercise my other constitutional rights. I don't need the state to give me a permit to practice a religious faith, or voice an unpopular opinion.

Yes, my claims do not make me correct. The text of the document does.

I would agree with you that the courts often exceed their original mandates, including on things I even agree with the Courts on. However, enforcing the Bill of Rights in the legal system (unlike many hot topic legal issues, guns are undeniably a constitutional issue - it's in there plain as day) is exactly what the Court is supposed to do. You believe States may or should simply ignore the Bill of Rights if they want too, and that is what states rights means? Even the very pro-state founders (though we like to forget the 10th today too) did not agree with that.
You have freedom of religion. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you claim your religion involves sacrificing a sheep in the middle of the street. You have freedom speech. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you yell fire in a crowded theater. It is the second amendment where pro gun people draw the line and donít accept reasonable restrictions like the other amendments - even the one that comes before it. Society is better off with these reasonable restrictions in place. We are worse off since they are not allowed by pro gun activists with respect to the second amendment. We are a laughing stock to the rest of the world with our guns and school shootings.
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 06-23-2022, 01:04 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
You have freedom of religion. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you claim your religion involves sacrificing a sheep in the middle of the street. You have freedom speech. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you yell fire in a crowded theater. It is the second amendment where pro gun people draw the line and donít accept reasonable restrictions like the other amendments - even the one that comes before it. Society is better off with these reasonable restrictions in place. We are worse off since they are not allowed by pro gun activists with respect to the second amendment. We are a laughing stock to the rest of the world with our guns and school shootings.
Yes. Just as it is illegal to shoot up a room full of school children, or to even discharge a firearm within city limits and nobody wants to change that. There is no requirement that I need to get a permit from the state to practice normal religion, or to speak my mind. You are advocating that special requirements be met to exercise the 2nd at all, which does not and has not existed for any other right. There is no clause that the 2nd is any different; that it is subject to a different set of standards from the rest. I don't need a permit to exercise my first amendment rights. I do not need a special permit to be protected by the 4th amendment. Nor should I for the 2nd; it should be treated the same as the rest, nothing more nor less.
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 06-23-2022, 02:14 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
Yes. Just as it is illegal to shoot up a room full of school children, or to even discharge a firearm within city limits and nobody wants to change that. There is no requirement that I need to get a permit from the state to practice normal religion, or to speak my mind. You are advocating that special requirements be met to exercise the 2nd at all, which does not and has not existed for any other right. There is no clause that the 2nd is any different; that it is subject to a different set of standards from the rest. I don't need a permit to exercise my first amendment rights. I do not need a special permit to be protected by the 4th amendment. Nor should I for the 2nd; it should be treated the same as the rest, nothing more nor less.
Speakers wishing to speak, religions wish to hold services, are burdened with numerous permit requirements. Religious freedoms is not unconstitutionally infringed when we make a pastor comply with the fire code to preach. Nor is it infringed in my opinion if we require gun owners to pass a background check or, heaven forbid, take a safety course.
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 06-23-2022, 02:43 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Speakers wishing to speak, religions wish to hold services, are burdened with numerous permit requirements. Religious freedoms is not unconstitutionally infringed when we make a pastor comply with the fire code to preach. Nor is it infringed in my opinion if we require gun owners to pass a background check or, heaven forbid, take a safety course.
As discussed numerous times, buying a gun at the gun store already requires a background check, in all states. People getting a concealed carry permit will still go through a background check. Shall issue means they must issue by default, unless they find a very specific and non-arbitrary reason to deny, like having a violent criminal history. I really wish the anti-gun side would educate themselves on the laws, even as they screech for more they continually fail to understand what the laws actually are.

Yes, the church has to comply with the fire code. So does my sportsmen's club. Again, nobody is trying to change this. Gun owners are not saying the constitution means our meeting places donít have to meet fire code. What changes is that the 2nd has to be held to the *same* standards as the other amendments, not a separate and different one whereby it can be ignored whenever desired by one side.
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 06-23-2022, 03:43 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
As discussed numerous times, buying a gun at the gun store already requires a background check, in all states. People getting a concealed carry permit will still go through a background check. Shall issue means they must issue by default, unless they find a very specific and non-arbitrary reason to deny, like having a violent criminal history. I really wish the anti-gun side would educate themselves on the laws, even as they screech for more they continually fail to understand what the laws actually are.

Yes, the church has to comply with the fire code. So does my sportsmen's club. Again, nobody is trying to change this. Gun owners are not saying the constitution means our meeting places donít have to meet fire code. What changes is that the 2nd has to be held to the *same* standards as the other amendments, not a separate and different one whereby it can be ignored whenever desired by one side.
I may misunderstand the process. If I go to buy a shotgun today along with as much ammo as I can afford, what do they look for in me? Make sure Iím not a felon?
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 06-23-2022, 03:57 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
I may misunderstand the process. If I go to buy a shotgun today along with as much ammo as I can afford, what do they look for in me? Make sure Iím not a felon?
In all 50 states, you are run through a background check by the BATFE. You fill out a form 4473 and have to show your identification to prove you are who you claim you are. The form has a series of questions on your criminal history, legal status, mental health and history, and behavior. Lying on the form is punishable by up to a decade in federal prison. The BATFE runs a background check through NICS against the database to determine if you are a prohibited person for reasons legal or mental. If you are, you are denied and the store cannot give you the shotgun. If they do, they are punishable by, I think, up to 20 years in federal prison for one incident.

If you come up as clean in the database, the store is cleared to give you your gun. Gun stores will typically not even let you try to purchase a gun if you appear to be acting in a suspicious manner; it is illegal for them to sell you a gun if they have reasonable cause to believe you cannot have one, even if this person clears NICS.

Some states have more restrictive standards than this one, and will require you to perform a written test, perform a safe handling demonstration of the specific shotgun you are attempting to purchase, purchase a specific type of lock, and/or wait some period of time before the gun is actually given to you.

This is what a 4473 looks like: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 06-24-2022, 08:13 AM
KMayUSA6060's Avatar
KMayUSA6060 KMayUSA6060 is offline
Kyle May
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
In all 50 states, you are run through a background check by the BATFE. You fill out a form 4473 and have to show your identification to prove you are who you claim you are. The form has a series of questions on your criminal history, legal status, mental health and history, and behavior. Lying on the form is punishable by up to a decade in federal prison. The BATFE runs a background check through NICS against the database to determine if you are a prohibited person for reasons legal or mental. If you are, you are denied and the store cannot give you the shotgun. If they do, they are punishable by, I think, up to 20 years in federal prison for one incident.

If you come up as clean in the database, the store is cleared to give you your gun. Gun stores will typically not even let you try to purchase a gun if you appear to be acting in a suspicious manner; it is illegal for them to sell you a gun if they have reasonable cause to believe you cannot have one, even if this person clears NICS.

Some states have more restrictive standards than this one, and will require you to perform a written test, perform a safe handling demonstration of the specific shotgun you are attempting to purchase, purchase a specific type of lock, and/or wait some period of time before the gun is actually given to you.

This is what a 4473 looks like: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download
This is accurate. I worked retail for several years at a store that sold firearms. In addition, if there is any question in the background check (determining right identity for common names, etc.), there may be a delay on purchasing the firearm. We sold firearms days after the person initially came into the store, or declined sales in the same time period. We also declined sales up front without a background check because a person was intoxicated or acting in a disorderly manner.

Very strict, specific process.
__________________
Need a spreadsheet to help track your set, player run, or collection? Check out Sheets4Collectors on Etsy.
https://www.etsy.com/shop/Sheets4Collectors

- Hall of Famers
Progress: 318/340 (93.53%)

- Grover Hartley PC
Needs: T207 Anonymous Factory 25 Back, 1914 New York Evening Sun Supplements, 1917 D328 Weil Baking Co., and (possibly) 1917 Merchant's Bakery

- Jim Thome PC

- Cleveland Indians Franchise Hall of Fame
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 06-24-2022, 09:39 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060 View Post
We also declined sales up front without a background check because a person was intoxicated or acting in a disorderly manner.
As one of those guys who spends too much time with my FFL, it amazes me that this happens occasionally and I've seen it a coupe times. They are evicted in short order.
Reply With Quote
  #581  
Old 06-24-2022, 09:51 AM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
As one of those guys who spends too much time with my FFL, it amazes me that this happens occasionally and I've seen it a coupe times. They are evicted in short order.
Canít you buy guns online?
Reply With Quote
  #582  
Old 06-24-2022, 09:56 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Canít you buy guns online?
If you buy a gun from an online distributor, it is shipped to an FFL (a licensed firearms dealer), who then performs your background check, 4473, and the full process before turning the gun over to you if you clear the check and process. You pay them for their time and work, and the online dealer. You canít just go to Atlantic Firearms and buy your hypothetical shotgun and have them ship it to you.

Certain curio and relic firearms are allowed to be delivered to individuals who have been specially licensed by the government through the mail without the FFL.
Reply With Quote
  #583  
Old 06-24-2022, 10:59 AM
Deertick Deertick is offline
Jim M.arinari
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Where Forgeries Abound, FL
Posts: 1,299
Default

"Gun stores will typically not even let you try to purchase a gun if you appear to be acting in a suspicious manner; it is illegal for them to sell you a gun if they have reasonable cause to believe you cannot have one, even if this person clears NICS."

"We also declined sales up front without a background check because a person was intoxicated or acting in a disorderly manner."

Sounds like clear violations of those customers god-given Constitutional rights!
__________________
"If you ever discover the sneakers for far more shoes in your everyday individual, and also have a wool, will not disregard the going connected with sneakers by Isabel Marant a person." =AcellaGet
Reply With Quote
  #584  
Old 06-24-2022, 11:03 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deertick View Post
"Gun stores will typically not even let you try to purchase a gun if you appear to be acting in a suspicious manner; it is illegal for them to sell you a gun if they have reasonable cause to believe you cannot have one, even if this person clears NICS."

"We also declined sales up front without a background check because a person was intoxicated or acting in a disorderly manner."

Sounds like clear violations of those customers god-given Constitutional rights!
I'm sure an intelligent point could be made here.
Reply With Quote
  #585  
Old 06-24-2022, 02:54 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
I'm sure an intelligent point could be made here.
I think itís an excellent point. Unless you think those processes and checks should be eliminated we are all then agreeing there are restrictions that should exist. Kids canít go into a store and buy a gun like a piece of candy, even though the constitution makes no mention whatsoever of an age restriction. And background checks were not required when the bill of rights was written so those are something that have evolved with the times. Once we agree there need to be some restrictions, itís a matter of both sides agreeing on those. Instead the alt response seems to be over my dead body, stop trampling on my rights, etc. Itís not productive.
Reply With Quote
  #586  
Old 06-24-2022, 03:08 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
I think itís an excellent point. Unless you think those processes and checks should be eliminated we are all then agreeing there are restrictions that should exist. Kids canít go into a store and buy a gun like a piece of candy, even though the constitution makes no mention whatsoever of an age restriction. And background checks were not required when the bill of rights was written so those are something that have evolved with the times. Once we agree there need to be some restrictions, itís a matter of both sides agreeing on those. Instead the alt response seems to be over my dead body, stop trampling on my rights, etc. Itís not productive.
Of course you do. I have said many pages ago that I am fine with the kind of restrictions that have historically existed - murderers were not permitted guns in their cells in 1789. I am fine with this. Not a single person is arguing itÖ

What you and the other banners/regulators in this thread have proposed, banning most all common use firearms or taxing them at 10,000x their value, is blatantly ignoring historical tradition, and is in no way closing an extreme - itís infringing a basic right. Just as nobody objects to law against inciting using Ďfree speechí

We are not saying the 2nd is DIFFERENT from the other amendments, in that we must ignore what was common when it was written and history. We are saying it should be held to the SAME standards as every other amendment. Nobody is saying convicted murderers cannot lose privileges, none of us gun owners have a nuclear bomb. These counter arguments from you are centered on absurdities arguing against things that the other side from you does not even think.

I would describe bitching about Ďgod givení, which nobody here is arguing (itís the Constitution, not the Bible) as the opposite of intelligent.

I am sure you could argue against what people are actually arguing instead of having to make things up that are easier to argue against. It was somehow better when you simply stalked me around replying ďokĒ randomly.
Reply With Quote
  #587  
Old 06-24-2022, 03:27 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
Of course you do. I have said many pages ago that I am fine with the kind of restrictions that have historically existed - murderers were not permitted guns in their cells in 1789. I am fine with this. Not a single person is arguing itÖ

What you and the other banners/regulators in this thread have proposed, banning most all common use firearms or taxing them at 10,000x their value, is blatantly ignoring historical tradition, and is in no way closing an extreme - itís infringing a basic right. Just as nobody objects to law against inciting using Ďfree speechí

We are not saying the 2nd is DIFFERENT from the other amendments, in that we must ignore what was common when it was written and history. We are saying it should be held to the SAME standards as every other amendment. Nobody is saying convicted murderers cannot lose privileges, none of us gun owners have a nuclear bomb. These counter arguments from you are centered on absurdities arguing against things that the other side from you does not even think.

I would describe bitching about Ďgod givení, which nobody here is arguing (itís the Constitution, not the Bible) as the opposite of intelligent.

I am sure you could argue against what people are actually arguing instead of having to make things up that are easier to argue against. It was somehow better when you simply stalked me around replying ďokĒ randomly.
Thatís why I added in background checks specifically and noted those were not done at the time the bill of rights was written. It was come for pre teens to have access to guns then too. What was not common then was semis of course. Regardless, the debate is theoretical at this point. No one is taking away any rights for many years with the current makeup of the Supreme Court. So sleep well (but perhaps avoid the news coverings of mass shootings).
Reply With Quote
  #588  
Old 06-24-2022, 03:42 PM
Deertick Deertick is offline
Jim M.arinari
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Where Forgeries Abound, FL
Posts: 1,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
I would describe bitching about Ďgod givení, which nobody here is arguing (itís the Constitution, not the Bible) as the opposite of intelligent.
You might want to tell that to Wayne LaPierre, literally hundreds of current and aspirational congressmen, and, almost to a man, the patrons of the shooting range I frequent.
__________________
"If you ever discover the sneakers for far more shoes in your everyday individual, and also have a wool, will not disregard the going connected with sneakers by Isabel Marant a person." =AcellaGet
Reply With Quote
  #589  
Old 06-24-2022, 03:43 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Thatís why I added in background checks specifically and noted those were not done at the time the bill of rights was written. It was come for pre teens to have access to guns then too. What was not common then was semis of course. Regardless, the debate is theoretical at this point. No one is taking away any rights for many years with the current makeup of the Supreme Court. So sleep well (but perhaps avoid the news coverings of mass shootings).
Yeah, you get it. Thatís why Iím not a supporter of background checks (not hugely against, personally, but it does violate), and am not for banning civil liberties to 18 year olds. Teens may possess a gun in many states, if you were not aware.

For the thousandth time, these insinuations that people who disagree with you are somehow supporting mass killings is nonsense that makes you sound like an ideologue without reason or common sense. Sleep well.
Reply With Quote
  #590  
Old 06-24-2022, 03:45 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deertick View Post
You might want to tell that to Wayne LaPierre, literally hundreds of current and aspirational congressmen, and, almost to a man, the patrons of the shooting range I frequent.
Yep, we dumí olí reíneckís think the 2nd amendament is in the Holy Bible.

The entire debate in this thread has been legislative and constitutional; not whether the right is natural born or god given. Thereís plenty for you to mock, but mocking points literally no one has made is kind of stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #591  
Old 06-24-2022, 04:02 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
Yeah, you get it. Thatís why Iím not a supporter of background checks (not hugely against, personally, but it does violate), and am not for banning civil liberties to 18 year olds. Teens may possess a gun in many states, if you were not aware.

For the thousandth time, these insinuations that people who disagree with you are somehow supporting mass killings is nonsense that makes you sound like an ideologue without reason or common sense. Sleep well.
I donít think you want them. I think having easy access to guns makes them inevitable. Weíve tried easy access. Doesnít seem to work.
Reply With Quote
  #592  
Old 06-24-2022, 07:22 PM
Deertick Deertick is offline
Jim M.arinari
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Where Forgeries Abound, FL
Posts: 1,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
"...whether the right is natural born or god given"
It is neither. And I'm sorry that I wantonly threw in a phrase that has been casually tossed around for decades by "no regulationers" in order to make it seem as a settled fact.
__________________
"If you ever discover the sneakers for far more shoes in your everyday individual, and also have a wool, will not disregard the going connected with sneakers by Isabel Marant a person." =AcellaGet
Reply With Quote
  #593  
Old 06-24-2022, 09:03 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deertick View Post
It is neither. And I'm sorry that I wantonly threw in a phrase that has been casually tossed around for decades by "no regulationers" in order to make it seem as a settled fact.
Nobody is saying it is. We are talking about the Constitution, not the Bible.
Reply With Quote
  #594  
Old 06-24-2022, 10:13 PM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
Nobody is saying it is. We are talking about the Constitution, not the Bible.
Your posts are informative and articulate.

I am finding it ironic that these people who think more laws will solve the problem, seem willing to sidestep, or set aside, the central law of this country since its very founding: the Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #595  
Old 06-25-2022, 04:45 AM
1952boyntoncollector 1952boyntoncollector is offline
ja.ke liebe.rman
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/mysetregistry/set/348387
Posts: 5,127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
It's illegal to text and drive and people die every day because of someone that was texting and driving but you don't hear about any lobbying for stricter punishment for people that are caught texting and driving.

If I'm involved in an accident caused by someone on a cell phone even if I tell a police officer responding to the accident I saw them on their phone he can't search their phone because it's against their rights to do so but if I have a gun in my vehicle even though I didn't cause the accident you can bet he's going to check to see if it's loaded and legal.
i think they dont enforce DUI's enough as well, if someone gets a DUI i think they should have to have a purple license plate for a few years so people to warn people etc..
Reply With Quote
  #596  
Old 06-25-2022, 04:47 AM
1952boyntoncollector 1952boyntoncollector is offline
ja.ke liebe.rman
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/mysetregistry/set/348387
Posts: 5,127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
metal detector is not unreasonable.......i do think the amount of people killed by gun violence is unreasonable..
Reply With Quote
  #597  
Old 06-25-2022, 04:50 AM
1952boyntoncollector 1952boyntoncollector is offline
ja.ke liebe.rman
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/mysetregistry/set/348387
Posts: 5,127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17 View Post
Your posts are informative and articulate.

I am finding it ironic that these people who think more laws will solve the problem, seem willing to sidestep, or set aside, the central law of this country since its very founding: the Constitution.
the same people who think overturn roe v wade is ridiculous when abortion not a constitutional right are fine with overturning the constitution for gun control. Also same people fine with forcing a shot and lose your job if dont take covid shot are now saying its their body and no right to interfere with roe v wade even though they mostly live in states where nothing has changed and doesnt impact them at all..

plus interesting that people said you should get a shot because it impacts the life of other people...i would think abortion after a viable fetus also impats another life etc..

i not taking side here but just saying please be consistent..

Last edited by 1952boyntoncollector; 06-25-2022 at 04:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #598  
Old 06-25-2022, 04:56 AM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector View Post
i think they dont enforce DUI's enough as well, if someone gets a DUI i think they should have to have a purple license plate for a few years so people to warn people etc..
At least one state does that I think but only on second offense.
Reply With Quote
  #599  
Old 06-25-2022, 08:04 AM
1952boyntoncollector 1952boyntoncollector is offline
ja.ke liebe.rman
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/mysetregistry/set/348387
Posts: 5,127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
At least one state does that I think but only on second offense.
thats cool to know but still funny they let you DUI once where you could kill people plus all the other times you werent pulled over and then they get you a 'free' DUI.
Reply With Quote
  #600  
Old 06-25-2022, 09:31 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector View Post
metal detector is not unreasonable.......i do think the amount of people killed by gun violence is unreasonable..
Not even the most anti-gun left-wing courts in the land are going to rule that the police 'randomly' searching, with no suspicion whatsoever, who are just out in general public and not a sensitive location that some courts consider separate (a courthouse, federal buildings, etc.) in order to arrest them for carrying a gun (which has just been reaffirmed as a core constitutional right), but for no other legal violations is in any way constitutional. It is an absurdly blatant violation of the 4th amendment that protects exactly against being searched without any cause or warrant.

This will lose 9-0 on the current court.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One more way to ruin the hobby - fractional ownership Throttlesteer Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 49 08-14-2019 01:19 PM
Help determining ownership status of several high profile items Sean1125 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 5 08-29-2015 09:42 AM
Ownership of old photographs theantiquetiger Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 5 08-17-2011 01:43 PM
Scan Ownership Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 3 12-14-2005 12:10 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:03 PM.


ebay GSB