Gun Control Compromise

[JoeB131]

I gave you his actual paper...you doofus.....

No, you gave me some NRA propaganda where other people talk about his methodology with such stupidity as "He didn't just count nice white people".

 

[JoeB131]

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.

So what? A gun in the house made a suicide possible.

If there had not been a gun in the house the day that kid was feeling depressed, he'd be alive.

This is the whole point.

 

[JoeB131]

The Second Amendment is clear about to whom the right which it affirms belongs. It is the right of the people. This means that it does not, and never did, belong to any level of government; not to the federal government, not to the states, not to local governments. It belongs to the people. And it doesn't say or imply that any level of government has the power to infringe it; it says that the right shall not be infringed.

It also says, "Well Regulated Militias"... which means regulating who can have what kinds of guns among the people.

But the reality is, militias don't work. It's why you need well trained professional soldiers and police. Not these guys.

When you tell me how you can keep guns out of the hands of these guys, let me know.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.

So what? A gun in the house made a suicide possible.

If there had not been a gun in the house the day that kid was feeling depressed, he'd be alive.

This is the whole point.

"Let's see, life is so terrible I just want to end it. Oh wait! There's no gun around. Okay, I'll just find something better to do."

 

[JoeB131]

"Let's see, life is so terrible I just want to end it. Oh wait! There's no gun around. Okay, I'll just find something better to do."

Yup. pretty much... no gun, you have time to think about it and realize what an awful idea it is.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

They want to use faulty lists for the background checks like the No Fly List, so no.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

If by "living document" you mean that it can be amended, then yes, I do agree. Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be interpreted to fit with the political agenda of the Justices on the Court and their political ilk. They want to bypass the burden of amending.

THAT is BULLSHIT.

If Congress and the States amended the Constitution to restrict certain types of "arms" it would be constitutional to do so. As it stands, there SHOULD be no restrictions.

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

So who needs plastic explosives and armor piercing bullets for defense?

Lots of people.
If you have stumps or rocks to clear, the defense of your enterprise may need plastic explosives.
If you are a fisherman and have frequent encounters with sharks, you may need armor piercing projectiles that don't flatten out on the water's surface.

The point is that it is NOT up to government.
They have no authority at all to dictate anything, and can not infringe at all except the defense of the rights of others.

I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.

The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Let's see, life is so terrible I just want to end it. Oh wait! There's no gun around. Okay, I'll just find something better to do."

Yup. pretty much... no gun, you have time to think about it and realize what an awful idea it is.

Nobody who wants to commit suicide does that. Your life is so miserable you either want to end it all or you don't. And killing yourself is not all the hard. You can take pills, jump off a bridge, cliff, out of a window on a tall building. You can run in front of a train or truck. If somebody wants to kill themselves, the lack of a gun is not going to stop them.

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody who wants to commit suicide does that. Your life is so miserable you either want to end it all or you don't.

actually, quite the contrary. Most people who attempt suicide never try again. But while other methods can often fail, gun suicides are 96% lethal.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.

So what? A gun in the house made a suicide possible.

If there had not been a gun in the house the day that kid was feeling depressed, he'd be alive.

This is the whole point.

This is why our side will never trust your lying dishonest full-of-shit side.

You are all obviously seeking complete confescation. Otherwise you wouldn't be such lying cocksuckers.

There will be no compromise.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It also says, "Well Regulated Militias"... which means regulating who can have what kinds of guns among the people.

That is NOT what well regulated means in that context. Watch that video.

 

[progressive hunter]

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.

So what? A gun in the house made a suicide possible.

If there had not been a gun in the house the day that kid was feeling depressed, he'd be alive.

This is the whole point.

hey dumbass,,,you ever heard of a rope and chair???

 

[iceberg]

Nobody who wants to commit suicide does that. Your life is so miserable you either want to end it all or you don't.

actually, quite the contrary. Most people who attempt suicide never try again. But while other methods can often fail, gun suicides are 96% lethal.

do you ever research a thing you say?

After a Suicide Attempt, the Risk of Another Try

A common yet highly inaccurate belief is that people who survive a suicide attempt are unlikely to try again. In fact, just the opposite is true. Within the first three months to a year following a suicide attempt, people are at highest risk of a second attempt — and this time perhaps succeeding.

and you can go find whatever other articles you'd like to show you're full of shit on this one. now, while the "success" when using a gun does go up, that still doesn't make it proper to remove the right to have one from law abiding people.

life is not one size fits all.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

If by "living document" you mean that it can be amended, then yes, I do agree. Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be interpreted to fit with the political agenda of the Justices on the Court and their political ilk. They want to bypass the burden of amending.

THAT is BULLSHIT.

If Congress and the States amended the Constitution to restrict certain types of "arms" it would be constitutional to do so. As it stands, there SHOULD be no restrictions.

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

So who needs plastic explosives and armor piercing bullets for defense?

Lots of people.
If you have stumps or rocks to clear, the defense of your enterprise may need plastic explosives.
If you are a fisherman and have frequent encounters with sharks, you may need armor piercing projectiles that don't flatten out on the water's surface.

The point is that it is NOT up to government.
They have no authority at all to dictate anything, and can not infringe at all except the defense of the rights of others.

I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.

The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.

There are many people with many different definitions of "Defense". Usually, it does involve some form of Offense. You may be armed to defend your home and keep your family safe. That is better suited for one type of weapon. Meanwhile, you may be armed to defend your way of life against others with a slightly different way of life. You may be arm..... It's a list as long as time itself.

 

[progressive hunter]

If by "living document" you mean that it can be amended, then yes, I do agree. Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be interpreted to fit with the political agenda of the Justices on the Court and their political ilk. They want to bypass the burden of amending.

THAT is BULLSHIT.

If Congress and the States amended the Constitution to restrict certain types of "arms" it would be constitutional to do so. As it stands, there SHOULD be no restrictions.

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

So who needs plastic explosives and armor piercing bullets for defense?

Lots of people.
If you have stumps or rocks to clear, the defense of your enterprise may need plastic explosives.
If you are a fisherman and have frequent encounters with sharks, you may need armor piercing projectiles that don't flatten out on the water's surface.

The point is that it is NOT up to government.
They have no authority at all to dictate anything, and can not infringe at all except the defense of the rights of others.

I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.

The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.

There are many people with many different definitions of "Defense". Usually, it does involve some form of Offense. You may be armed to defend your home and keep your family safe. That is better suited for one type of weapon. Meanwhile, you may be armed to defend your way of life against others with a slightly different way of life. You may be arm..... It's a list as long as time itself.

SO YOURE BACK TO JUST MAKIN SHIT UP i SEE

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

If by "living document" you mean that it can be amended, then yes, I do agree. Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be interpreted to fit with the political agenda of the Justices on the Court and their political ilk. They want to bypass the burden of amending.

THAT is BULLSHIT.

If Congress and the States amended the Constitution to restrict certain types of "arms" it would be constitutional to do so. As it stands, there SHOULD be no restrictions.

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

Nonsense. The bad guys have all these things, like armor piercing bullets, because laws ALWAYS only restrict the honest people and not the criminals.
The only way you can restrict the criminals is by making the punishment too great of a risk.
But since any criminal using a firearm is already risking the maximum penalties, there is no possible way any federal weapons penalty is going to have any possible effect.
And no, the federal government needs no control at all.
Obviously it should be up to the states and municipalities instead, and even then, it is clear someday the federal government will have to be defeated once more. It always happens. History shows government last at most about 400 years. They always go bad.

You want to see pure panic from the Cops? Use even one amour piercing round or one mercury tipped bullet. They are going to go ape over that and it's all hands on deck. Same goes if you get your hands on an Automatic weapon and use it in a crime. They'll stop everything and concentrate in bring in everyone involved from the person that used these things to the chain where they aquired them. Having anyone running around with the will to use such things is suicide to Cops and every citizen on the street. And I don't care if the items were stolen from your home. There is a reason that you aren't supposed to have them in the home unless you have the proper licensing and storage facility. Lots of people die in the process if you don't because criminals will break in and take your dangerous stuff if it's not properly stored.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

So who needs plastic explosives and armor piercing bullets for defense?

Lots of people.
If you have stumps or rocks to clear, the defense of your enterprise may need plastic explosives.
If you are a fisherman and have frequent encounters with sharks, you may need armor piercing projectiles that don't flatten out on the water's surface.

The point is that it is NOT up to government.
They have no authority at all to dictate anything, and can not infringe at all except the defense of the rights of others.

I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.

The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.

There are many people with many different definitions of "Defense". Usually, it does involve some form of Offense. You may be armed to defend your home and keep your family safe. That is better suited for one type of weapon. Meanwhile, you may be armed to defend your way of life against others with a slightly different way of life. You may be arm..... It's a list as long as time itself.

SO YOURE BACK TO JUST MAKIN SHIT UP i SEE

Ah, reality is just made up. Okay, in your case, it's just made up. This is why we have Gun Regulations to make sure you unrealistic types don't get the idea that you can do whatever the hell you please. That IS detrimental to everyone else's mortal health.

 

[progressive hunter]

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

If by "living document" you mean that it can be amended, then yes, I do agree. Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be interpreted to fit with the political agenda of the Justices on the Court and their political ilk. They want to bypass the burden of amending.

THAT is BULLSHIT.

If Congress and the States amended the Constitution to restrict certain types of "arms" it would be constitutional to do so. As it stands, there SHOULD be no restrictions.

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

Nonsense. The bad guys have all these things, like armor piercing bullets, because laws ALWAYS only restrict the honest people and not the criminals.
The only way you can restrict the criminals is by making the punishment too great of a risk.
But since any criminal using a firearm is already risking the maximum penalties, there is no possible way any federal weapons penalty is going to have any possible effect.
And no, the federal government needs no control at all.
Obviously it should be up to the states and municipalities instead, and even then, it is clear someday the federal government will have to be defeated once more. It always happens. History shows government last at most about 400 years. They always go bad.

You want to see pure panic from the Cops? Use even one amour piercing round or one mercury tipped bullet. They are going to go ape over that and it's all hands on deck. Same goes if you get your hands on an Automatic weapon and use it in a crime. They'll stop everything and concentrate in bring in everyone involved from the person that used these things to the chain where they aquired them. Having anyone running around with the will to use such things is suicide to Cops and every citizen on the street. And I don't care if the items were stolen from your home. There is a reason that you aren't supposed to have them in the home unless you have the proper licensing and storage facility. Lots of people die in the process if you don't because criminals will break in and take your dangerous stuff if it's not properly stored.

AGAIN JUST MAKIN SHIT UP

 

[2aguy]

I can see that you are dead set in your ideas and nothing including reality will ever change them. Fine, that's your right.

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that "arms" means all weapons without exclusion, whatever they may be, and that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or regulation.

You act like the 2A is set in stone. It can be amended. What I cannot tolerate is circumventing the amendment process. That is tyranny.

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

It isn't up to interpretation except for people who want to limit it...then they always interpret it to exclude more and more guns and equipment...."Shall not be infringed" is easy to read, it is short and to the point...... you want to limit it....so it is "ambiguous" .....we get it....so...No.

 

[progressive hunter]

So who needs plastic explosives and armor piercing bullets for defense?

Lots of people.
If you have stumps or rocks to clear, the defense of your enterprise may need plastic explosives.
If you are a fisherman and have frequent encounters with sharks, you may need armor piercing projectiles that don't flatten out on the water's surface.

The point is that it is NOT up to government.
They have no authority at all to dictate anything, and can not infringe at all except the defense of the rights of others.

I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.

The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.

There are many people with many different definitions of "Defense". Usually, it does involve some form of Offense. You may be armed to defend your home and keep your family safe. That is better suited for one type of weapon. Meanwhile, you may be armed to defend your way of life against others with a slightly different way of life. You may be arm..... It's a list as long as time itself.

SO YOURE BACK TO JUST MAKIN SHIT UP i SEE

Ah, reality is just made up. Okay, in your case, it's just made up. This is why we have Gun Regulations to make sure you unrealistic types don't get the idea that you can do whatever the hell you please. That IS detrimental to everyone else's mortal health.

YOU DIDNT CLARIFY THAT YOU WERE IN THE RUSSIAN ARMY