Best argument against gun control. Nothing else needs to be said.

[Dschrute3]

I don't get why so many folks trust Communists/Democrats who wanna destroy our Constitution. So many Americans are so lost.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Like with other areas of the constitution it is open to interpretation. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That can be viewed in many ways? So it would be unconstitutional to ban citizens from owning guns. But what about machine guns? What about crazy citizens? Those are both regulated for the public safety, do you think both of this restrictions are unconstitutional and should be eliminated?

Those restrictions are unconstitutional because the 2nd Amendment prevents the federal government from passing laws restricting arms. Shall not be infringed.

Which means the power would be reserved to the states, would it not?

 

[Pop23]

Here is the best argument against gun control, especially in the case of mass shootings, which is why we are discussing this issue in the first place.

AND, it's made by someone on THE UBER LEFT!

 

[Slade3200]

Like with other areas of the constitution it is open to interpretation. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That can be viewed in many ways? So it would be unconstitutional to ban citizens from owning guns. But what about machine guns? What about crazy citizens? Those are both regulated for the public safety, do you think both of this restrictions are unconstitutional and should be eliminated?

Those restrictions are unconstitutional because the 2nd Amendment prevents the federal government from passing laws restricting arms. Shall not be infringed.

Which means the power would be reserved to the states, would it not?

That’s a good question. I guess at this point we’d need to look at some SCOTUS interpretations to see where the law stands. A lot is left open if you are going by that one line in the bill of rights.

 

[Slade3200]

Here is the best argument against gun control, especially in the case of mass shootings, which is why we are discussing this issue in the first place.

AND, it's made by someone on THE UBER LEFT!

Kudos for watching and listening to both sides of the aisle. Moore brings up a great point with the prescription drugs that I agree has become a tremendous issue. I don’t exactly see how it is a case against gun control unless you are making the point that the focus is unfairly directed into guns when there are larger factors at play. If that’s your point then I agree.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That’s a good question. I guess at this point we’d need to look at some SCOTUS interpretations to see where the law stands. A lot is left open if you are going by that one line in the bill of rights.

I think the SCOTUS is afraid to admit the true intent of the 2nd Amendment. Even Scalia seemed to be afraid to admit it. Doing so would have struck down 80+ years of unconstitutional gun laws and limited the authority of the BATF. Lots of jobs on the line. Lots of chaos to be avoided.

The problems presented by maintaining the position that the federal government has the authority, is it gives credence to the argument that no government can regulate firearms.

Of course, I am fine with that outcome, but many are not. I would much prefer that Californians, New Yorkers, and Bostonians keep their restrictions to their area, and let other states and localities have control. That way, if we have a county or region that wants full-autos for law abiding citizens, so be it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Kudos for watching and listening to both sides of the aisle. Moore brings up a great point with the prescription drugs that I agree has become a tremendous issue. I don’t exactly see how it is a case against gun control unless you are making the point that the focus is unfairly directed into guns when there are larger factors at play. If that’s your point then I agree.

That.

It was not a problem 30 years ago. 40 years ago, you could bring guns to school.

 

[Pop23]

Here is the best argument against gun control, especially in the case of mass shootings, which is why we are discussing this issue in the first place.

AND, it's made by someone on THE UBER LEFT!

Kudos for watching and listening to both sides of the aisle. Moore brings up a great point with the prescription drugs that I agree has become a tremendous issue. I don’t exactly see how it is a case against gun control unless you are making the point that the focus is unfairly directed into guns when there are larger factors at play. If that’s your point then I agree.

I've posted before that I am far more interested in lowering the body count than I am of what tool is used to create the body count.

And I've also posted what seems to me the common sense measures we need to take to accomplish this.

1. Treat gang membership as we do terrorist membership. Incredibly long jail sentences with limited or no parole.
2. Any drug dealer caught with a gun gets treated as per #1
3. Put extreme limitations on the use of some very deadly drugs and any Doctor prescribing them as anything more than a last result faces criminal and civil liability
4. Prohibit these drugs, even as a last resort, to anyone under the age of 24.

 

[Pilot1]

I think the SCOTUS is afraid to admit the true intent of the 2nd Amendment. Even Scalia seemed to be afraid to admit it. Doing so would have struck down 80+ years of unconstitutional gun laws and limited the authority of the BATF. Lots of jobs on the line. Lots of chaos to be avoided.

The problems presented by maintaining the position that the federal government has the authority, is it gives credence to the argument that no government can regulate firearms.

Of course, I am fine with that outcome, but many are not. I would much prefer that Californians, New Yorkers, and Bostonians keep their restrictions to their area, and let other states and localities have control. That way, if we have a county or region that wants full-autos for law abiding citizens, so be it.

I think you are right. The SCOTUS is painted into a corner due to the large number of illegal laws already on the book. They are also hesitant to admit the true meaning of the 2A, and its intent. Politicians, and judges no matter their political beliefs LOVE their power over all. To admit the PEOPLE have the actual power is against their inertial positions.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a good question. I guess at this point we’d need to look at some SCOTUS interpretations to see where the law stands. A lot is left open if you are going by that one line in the bill of rights.

I think the SCOTUS is afraid to admit the true intent of the 2nd Amendment. Even Scalia seemed to be afraid to admit it. Doing so would have struck down 80+ years of unconstitutional gun laws and limited the authority of the BATF. Lots of jobs on the line. Lots of chaos to be avoided.

The problems presented by maintaining the position that the federal government has the authority, is it gives credence to the argument that no government can regulate firearms.

Of course, I am fine with that outcome, but many are not. I would much prefer that Californians, New Yorkers, and Bostonians keep their restrictions to their area, and let other states and localities have control. That way, if we have a county or region that wants full-autos for law abiding citizens, so be it.

So is your interpretation of the 2nd something along the lines of each state having the constitutional right to have a militia made up of the people and then regulate that militia as they see fit? In other words the people and the militia are one in the same?

 

[Slade3200]

Here is the best argument against gun control, especially in the case of mass shootings, which is why we are discussing this issue in the first place.

AND, it's made by someone on THE UBER LEFT!

Kudos for watching and listening to both sides of the aisle. Moore brings up a great point with the prescription drugs that I agree has become a tremendous issue. I don’t exactly see how it is a case against gun control unless you are making the point that the focus is unfairly directed into guns when there are larger factors at play. If that’s your point then I agree.

I've posted before that I am far more interested in lowering the body count than I am of what tool is used to create the body count.

And I've also posted what seems to me the common sense measures we need to take to accomplish this.

1. Treat gang membership as we do terrorist membership. Incredibly long jail sentences with limited or no parole.
2. Any drug dealer caught with a gun gets treated as per #1
3. Put extreme limitations on the use of some very deadly drugs and any Doctor prescribing them as anything more than a last result faces criminal and civil liability
4. Prohibit these drugs, even as a last resort, to anyone under the age of 24.

I’m curious, have you ever worked with inner city youth or children who have been in gangs and through the juninille court system? Wondering if you have first hand experience with that kind of stuff?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So is your interpretation of the 2nd something along the lines of each state having the constitutional right to have a militia made up of the people and then regulate that militia as they see fit? In other words the people and the militia are one in the same?

The militia being necessary (as opposed to a standing army) is the less-important "why" with the Fed Gov shall not infringe being the more operative "what" in the 2A.

I do believe that the right to keep and bear arms is inalienable, so although I favor States having the independent, exclusive power to regulate firearms and militia service, that regulation must be reasonable and only infringe on the right to the least amount possible to protect the rights of others.

States would be much more willing to loosen regulation if the big fat FedGov didn't have the most powerful military the world has ever known, and militias were the only means of State security.

 

[Slade3200]

So is your interpretation of the 2nd something along the lines of each state having the constitutional right to have a militia made up of the people and then regulate that militia as they see fit? In other words the people and the militia are one in the same?

The militia being necessary (as opposed to a standing army) is the less-important "why" with the Fed Gov shall not infringe being the more operative "what" in the 2A.

I do believe that the right to keep and bear arms is inalienable, so although I favor States having the independent, exclusive power to regulate firearms and militia service, that regulation must be reasonable and only infringe on the right to the least amount possible to protect the rights of others.

States would be much more willing to loosen regulation if the big fat FedGov didn't have the most powerful military the world has ever known, and militias were the only means of State security.

Do you see issue with say one state allowing machine guns and a neighboring state not allowing them and the citizens of one crossing over to get the goods?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do you see issue with say one state allowing machine guns and a neighboring state not allowing them and the citizens of one crossing over to get the goods?

If it is illegal to possess a machine gun in one state, their action would be illegal. And, as many leftists know, making something illegal stops the illegal behavior.

But, I assume you mean a situation like crossing the southern border to get machine guns in Mexico?

 

[Pop23]

Here is the best argument against gun control, especially in the case of mass shootings, which is why we are discussing this issue in the first place.

AND, it's made by someone on THE UBER LEFT!

Kudos for watching and listening to both sides of the aisle. Moore brings up a great point with the prescription drugs that I agree has become a tremendous issue. I don’t exactly see how it is a case against gun control unless you are making the point that the focus is unfairly directed into guns when there are larger factors at play. If that’s your point then I agree.

I've posted before that I am far more interested in lowering the body count than I am of what tool is used to create the body count.

And I've also posted what seems to me the common sense measures we need to take to accomplish this.

1. Treat gang membership as we do terrorist membership. Incredibly long jail sentences with limited or no parole.
2. Any drug dealer caught with a gun gets treated as per #1
3. Put extreme limitations on the use of some very deadly drugs and any Doctor prescribing them as anything more than a last result faces criminal and civil liability
4. Prohibit these drugs, even as a last resort, to anyone under the age of 24.

I’m curious, have you ever worked with inner city youth or children who have been in gangs and through the juninille court system? Wondering if you have first hand experience with that kind of stuff?

Honestly, I can't say I have. Mostly I've had to clean up the mess caused by them.

Knew a woman with 6 kids. The oldest three were either killed because they belonged to gangs, or raped in a gang initiation (which led to the death of one of the boys while seeking revenge, but he took one of the rival members out in the process as well). She moved the other 3 to get away from it.

Their father was also killed, but no one knows if it was gang related or not.

In two other cases it was just dead bodies.

In our discussion the question really is, how do we eliminate, or at least minimize the body count currently associated with the use of guns.

One side seems to want to put the cart before the horse and disarm or restrict the use of firearms by law abiding citizens before dealing with the actual reasons these deaths happen in the first place. If we take this position, the only persons placed in greater jeopardy are the law abiding citizen. I oppose this line of thought.

The other side (which I am on), says, take care of the issues that create the problem, and there is no need for any restriction, and the goal of reducing the death count associated with guns is accomplished

 

[Slade3200]

Do you see issue with say one state allowing machine guns and a neighboring state not allowing them and the citizens of one crossing over to get the goods?

If it is illegal to possess a machine gun in one state, their action would be illegal. And, as many leftists know, making something illegal stops the illegal behavior.

But, I assume you mean a situation like crossing the southern border to get machine guns in Mexico?

Yes I do mean something like that. Except we have inspections and border guards when you cross the Mexican border, we don’t have this in between states

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes I do mean something like that. Except we have inspections and border guards when you cross the Mexican border, we don’t have this in between states

So, you want to abuse the Commerce Clause to improperly regulate firearms?

Why not just amend the constitution? Most people would get on board with that if it means one State will make machine guns legal, and they can be spread all over.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes I do mean something like that. Except we have inspections and border guards when you cross the Mexican border, we don’t have this in between states

So, you want to abuse the Commerce Clause to improperly regulate firearms?

Why not just amend the constitution? Most people would get on board with that if it means one State will make machine guns legal, and they can be spread all over.

I don’t want to do anything I’m just asking questions about your proposed idea

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don’t want to do anything I’m just asking questions about your proposed idea

Either the improper federal regulation must end, or the constitution must be amended to grant such power to the federal government.

While we're amending the constitution, we need to clarify the intent of the commerce clause. It cannot have been the intent of the framers to grant unlimited regulatory authority to Congress simply because certain goods COULD be sold in, or tangentially affect, interstate commerce. Surely, most of us can agree that expanding federal power in such a way is an abuse and overreach beyond the intent, can we not?

 

[Slade3200]

Here is the best argument against gun control, especially in the case of mass shootings, which is why we are discussing this issue in the first place.

AND, it's made by someone on THE UBER LEFT!

Kudos for watching and listening to both sides of the aisle. Moore brings up a great point with the prescription drugs that I agree has become a tremendous issue. I don’t exactly see how it is a case against gun control unless you are making the point that the focus is unfairly directed into guns when there are larger factors at play. If that’s your point then I agree.

I've posted before that I am far more interested in lowering the body count than I am of what tool is used to create the body count.

And I've also posted what seems to me the common sense measures we need to take to accomplish this.

1. Treat gang membership as we do terrorist membership. Incredibly long jail sentences with limited or no parole.
2. Any drug dealer caught with a gun gets treated as per #1
3. Put extreme limitations on the use of some very deadly drugs and any Doctor prescribing them as anything more than a last result faces criminal and civil liability
4. Prohibit these drugs, even as a last resort, to anyone under the age of 24.

I’m curious, have you ever worked with inner city youth or children who have been in gangs and through the juninille court system? Wondering if you have first hand experience with that kind of stuff?

Honestly, I can't say I have. Mostly I've had to clean up the mess caused by them.

Knew a woman with 6 kids. The oldest three were either killed because they belonged to gangs, or raped in a gang initiation (which led to the death of one of the boys while seeking revenge, but he took one of the rival members out in the process as well). She moved the other 3 to get away from it.

Their father was also killed, but no one knows if it was gang related or not.

In two other cases it was just dead bodies.

In our discussion the question really is, how do we eliminate, or at least minimize the body count currently associated with the use of guns.

One side seems to want to put the cart before the horse and disarm or restrict the use of firearms by law abiding citizens before dealing with the actual reasons these deaths happen in the first place. If we take this position, the only persons placed in greater jeopardy are the law abiding citizen. I oppose this line of thought.

The other side (which I am on), says, take care of the issues that create the problem, and there is no need for any restriction, and the goal of reducing the death count associated with guns is accomplished

That’s too bad, sounds like you and that family went through a hell of a time. I work with at risk children in my community and many are stuck in the revolving door of the judicial system, much of it is gang related. We’ve found that in many cases the worst thing that can happen to these kids when they get out of juvenile programs is for them to go back home, because for many of them home is what pushes them into trouble. It is a really sad situation when a kids junky mother or foster parent pushes them to sell drugs so they can pay rent. When a kid is threatened for trying to leave a gang. The situation is really bad and we need to be careful with how we treat it. I’m fine with cracking down and instituting harsh punishments but I also see good kids pushed into these situations and don’t think they deserve to be victims of overly harsh punishment that ruins their lives or opportunities to achieve success in the future.