If you don't want guns don't buy them?

[The Rabbi]

Where we stand on the dichotomy of Security and Freedom is determined by independent variables, the elephant in the room being radical Islam, but historically there are others as violent and radical: The SLA, McVeigh & unregulated militias, Street Gangs, the Unabomber and the Olympic bomber, to name but a few.

Note, murder is investigated by Motive, Opportunity and Means. Efforts to control Means and Opportunity can be effective, Motive is not easy to confirm before or after an event.

We can put our heads in the sand, and pretend the Second Amendment is the most important part of the COTUS, one that protects our nation from tyranny, but that opinion was codified for the first time by Scalia, and the blood of the innocents murdered yesterday, and everyday this year by a gun, are on his hands..

Drama queen.

We did not suspend the Constitution or any part of it in response to McVeigh or any other incident. We shouldnt start now.

Why shouldn't we discuss the viability of some parts of the COTUS, written in the 18th Century, as sufficient and necessary for a diverse nation in the 21st Century?

Should a State population be reduced by the number of ancestors of former slaves and native Americans (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause 3) and thus reduce the number of seats the state has in the H. of Reps.?

Why shouldn't POTUS have the line-item veto, we can then see the person or the persons who voted to keep or not pork in the national budget?

Let's modify the Second Amendment, to create a clear statement:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of each state to regulate, train and arm its corp shall not be infringed; nor shall any state infringe the right of its citizens to vote in any general election."​

Not gonna fly. so basically the State government can decide I don't "deserve" to protect myself with a fire arm,.

The whole idea is the PEOPLE keep the right to arms, not the States, not the Feds, not some piss ant city government.

If you want that, then disarm the police as well. If they get guns, I get guns.

Thats essentially the law in NYC and some other places. You have to apply for a permit and show some "good reason" why you need one. That it's your constitutional right somehow doesnt enter into it.

I've been bitching about that over about 5 different theads. The whole purpose of NYC's laws is to make it so difficult to get a gun that you give up.

You only need their permission for CCW's, but even a home permit for a handgun takes 3-6 months and costs $1000 dollars.

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

 

[jillian]

Skull Pilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

Where have I ever said convicted felons should have guns?

And you tell me how to stop wackos from getting guns

In fact I'm the only one here who has actually proposed a workable plan

Automatic life in prison without parole for any crime committed while possessing a firearm

That's how you stop gun crimes

i think keeping criminals and wackos from getting guns is a function of compiling readily accessible information. you might not like that, but fact is, it's pretty much the only way.... then making that information mandatory for sellers of guns to check in a national database. a waiting period after buying guns, if necessary, to get a full picture might also be appropriate.

the point is, that instead of people fighting against controls, perhaps it would be better if we dumped the NRA BS and work together to protect our society from the kinds of mass shooting we've been experiencing.

for the record, i think the participation of people who respect and understand guns is very important in achieving effective gun laws. I know how stupid some of the provisions of the AWB were and what the criteria were for defining automatic weapons making that law not only ineffective but absurd.

we can do better. we are the only civilized society that faces these problems with such regularity.

So how do you know if a person is mentally ill if there is no record of it?

And what do you propose that medical records be made public?

DId you ever think that maybe it's us and not the guns?

Americans are a violent breed

well, I suppose you can just say americans are a bunch of violent jerks. but I think that comes, at least in part, from our gun culture.

i'm not proposing making medical records public except that, like anything else that requires some type of clearance, if you don't want to release yoru records, then no license... no license no gun.

 

[jillian]

Drama queen.

We did not suspend the Constitution or any part of it in response to McVeigh or any other incident. We shouldnt start now.

Why shouldn't we discuss the viability of some parts of the COTUS, written in the 18th Century, as sufficient and necessary for a diverse nation in the 21st Century?

Should a State population be reduced by the number of ancestors of former slaves and native Americans (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause 3) and thus reduce the number of seats the state has in the H. of Reps.?

Why shouldn't POTUS have the line-item veto, we can then see the person or the persons who voted to keep or not pork in the national budget?

Let's modify the Second Amendment, to create a clear statement:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of each state to regulate, train and arm its corp shall not be infringed; nor shall any state infringe the right of its citizens to vote in any general election."​

Not gonna fly. so basically the State government can decide I don't "deserve" to protect myself with a fire arm,.

The whole idea is the PEOPLE keep the right to arms, not the States, not the Feds, not some piss ant city government.

If you want that, then disarm the police as well. If they get guns, I get guns.

Thats essentially the law in NYC and some other places. You have to apply for a permit and show some "good reason" why you need one. That it's your constitutional right somehow doesnt enter into it.

I've been bitching about that over about 5 different theads. The whole purpose of NYC's laws is to make it so difficult to get a gun that you give up.

You only need their permission for CCW's, but even a home permit for a handgun takes 3-6 months and costs $1000 dollars.

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

 

[martybegan]

Skull Pilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

Where have I ever said convicted felons should have guns?

And you tell me how to stop wackos from getting guns

In fact I'm the only one here who has actually proposed a workable plan

Automatic life in prison without parole for any crime committed while possessing a firearm

That's how you stop gun crimes

i think keeping criminals and wackos from getting guns is a function of compiling readily accessible information. you might not like that, but fact is, it's pretty much the only way.... then making that information mandatory for sellers of guns to check in a national database. a waiting period after buying guns, if necessary, to get a full picture might also be appropriate.

the point is, that instead of people fighting against controls, perhaps it would be better if we dumped the NRA BS and work together to protect our society from the kinds of mass shooting we've been experiencing.

for the record, i think the participation of people who respect and understand guns is very important in achieving effective gun laws. I know how stupid some of the provisions of the AWB were and what the criteria were for defining automatic weapons making that law not only ineffective but absurd.

we can do better. we are the only civilized society that faces these problems with such regularity.

So how do you know if a person is mentally ill if there is no record of it?

And what do you propose that medical records be made public?

DId you ever think that maybe it's us and not the guns?

Americans are a violent breed

well, I suppose you can just say americans are a bunch of violent jerks. but I think that comes, at least in part, from our gun culture.

i'm not proposing making medical records public except that, like anything else that requires some type of clearance, if you don't want to release yoru records, then no license... no license no gun.

Can we do that with voting too? How about if you want an abortion?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why shouldn't we discuss the viability of some parts of the COTUS, written in the 18th Century, as sufficient and necessary for a diverse nation in the 21st Century?

Should a State population be reduced by the number of ancestors of former slaves and native Americans (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause 3) and thus reduce the number of seats the state has in the H. of Reps.?

Why shouldn't POTUS have the line-item veto, we can then see the person or the persons who voted to keep or not pork in the national budget?

Let's modify the Second Amendment, to create a clear statement:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of each state to regulate, train and arm its corp shall not be infringed; nor shall any state infringe the right of its citizens to vote in any general election."​

Not gonna fly. so basically the State government can decide I don't "deserve" to protect myself with a fire arm,.

The whole idea is the PEOPLE keep the right to arms, not the States, not the Feds, not some piss ant city government.

If you want that, then disarm the police as well. If they get guns, I get guns.

Thats essentially the law in NYC and some other places. You have to apply for a permit and show some "good reason" why you need one. That it's your constitutional right somehow doesnt enter into it.

I've been bitching about that over about 5 different theads. The whole purpose of NYC's laws is to make it so difficult to get a gun that you give up.

You only need their permission for CCW's, but even a home permit for a handgun takes 3-6 months and costs $1000 dollars.

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

 

[martybegan]

Why shouldn't we discuss the viability of some parts of the COTUS, written in the 18th Century, as sufficient and necessary for a diverse nation in the 21st Century?

Should a State population be reduced by the number of ancestors of former slaves and native Americans (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause 3) and thus reduce the number of seats the state has in the H. of Reps.?

Why shouldn't POTUS have the line-item veto, we can then see the person or the persons who voted to keep or not pork in the national budget?

Let's modify the Second Amendment, to create a clear statement:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of each state to regulate, train and arm its corp shall not be infringed; nor shall any state infringe the right of its citizens to vote in any general election."​

Not gonna fly. so basically the State government can decide I don't "deserve" to protect myself with a fire arm,.

The whole idea is the PEOPLE keep the right to arms, not the States, not the Feds, not some piss ant city government.

If you want that, then disarm the police as well. If they get guns, I get guns.

Thats essentially the law in NYC and some other places. You have to apply for a permit and show some "good reason" why you need one. That it's your constitutional right somehow doesnt enter into it.

I've been bitching about that over about 5 different theads. The whole purpose of NYC's laws is to make it so difficult to get a gun that you give up.

You only need their permission for CCW's, but even a home permit for a handgun takes 3-6 months and costs $1000 dollars.

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

Your blind faith in the courts actually protecting our rights is naive.

Again, you keep thinking the Courts will always be right.

Plessey v fergeson was unconstitutional and it lasted decades.

 

[The Rabbi]

Skull Pilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

Where have I ever said convicted felons should have guns?

And you tell me how to stop wackos from getting guns

In fact I'm the only one here who has actually proposed a workable plan

Automatic life in prison without parole for any crime committed while possessing a firearm

That's how you stop gun crimes

i think keeping criminals and wackos from getting guns is a function of compiling readily accessible information. you might not like that, but fact is, it's pretty much the only way.... then making that information mandatory for sellers of guns to check in a national database. a waiting period after buying guns, if necessary, to get a full picture might also be appropriate.

the point is, that instead of people fighting against controls, perhaps it would be better if we dumped the NRA BS and work together to protect our society from the kinds of mass shooting we've been experiencing.

for the record, i think the participation of people who respect and understand guns is very important in achieving effective gun laws. I know how stupid some of the provisions of the AWB were and what the criteria were for defining automatic weapons making that law not only ineffective but absurd.

we can do better. we are the only civilized society that faces these problems with such regularity.

So how do you know if a person is mentally ill if there is no record of it?

And what do you propose that medical records be made public?

DId you ever think that maybe it's us and not the guns?

Americans are a violent breed

well, I suppose you can just say americans are a bunch of violent jerks. but I think that comes, at least in part, from our gun culture.

i'm not proposing making medical records public except that, like anything else that requires some type of clearance, if you don't want to release yoru records, then no license... no license no gun.

Can we do that with voting too? How about if you want an abortion?

We should require women to get a permit before they get an abortion and make the records public.

 

[martybegan]

Not gonna fly. so basically the State government can decide I don't "deserve" to protect myself with a fire arm,.

The whole idea is the PEOPLE keep the right to arms, not the States, not the Feds, not some piss ant city government.

If you want that, then disarm the police as well. If they get guns, I get guns.

Thats essentially the law in NYC and some other places. You have to apply for a permit and show some "good reason" why you need one. That it's your constitutional right somehow doesnt enter into it.

I've been bitching about that over about 5 different theads. The whole purpose of NYC's laws is to make it so difficult to get a gun that you give up.

You only need their permission for CCW's, but even a home permit for a handgun takes 3-6 months and costs $1000 dollars.

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

 

[Rustic]

Be safe for the holidays

...buy more guns and ammo...

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats essentially the law in NYC and some other places. You have to apply for a permit and show some "good reason" why you need one. That it's your constitutional right somehow doesnt enter into it.

I've been bitching about that over about 5 different theads. The whole purpose of NYC's laws is to make it so difficult to get a gun that you give up.

You only need their permission for CCW's, but even a home permit for a handgun takes 3-6 months and costs $1000 dollars.

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

I've been to the Vatican. So by analogy she's a lawyer like I'm the Pope.

 

[jillian]

Not gonna fly. so basically the State government can decide I don't "deserve" to protect myself with a fire arm,.

The whole idea is the PEOPLE keep the right to arms, not the States, not the Feds, not some piss ant city government.

If you want that, then disarm the police as well. If they get guns, I get guns.

Thats essentially the law in NYC and some other places. You have to apply for a permit and show some "good reason" why you need one. That it's your constitutional right somehow doesnt enter into it.

I've been bitching about that over about 5 different theads. The whole purpose of NYC's laws is to make it so difficult to get a gun that you give up.

You only need their permission for CCW's, but even a home permit for a handgun takes 3-6 months and costs $1000 dollars.

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

yes they would have to be challenged first, wingnut. i'm afraid you're the one who knows nothing, though. don't you think many regs have been challenged? the only one the Court took was Heller and I thiknk one before it that dealt with the issue peripherally. prior to heller, everyone knew that the 2nd did not protect a private right of gun ownership.

even in the absurd Heller, however, the only thing your boy scalia said was unconstitutional was a total ban and went on to say that reasonable regulation is acceptable.

you'd know tha tif you knew how to read a case.

 

[jillian]

Be safe for the holidays

...buy more guns and ammo...

because shoot outs are so much safer than mass shootings by one person.

 

[Rustic]

Be safe for the holidays

...buy more guns and ammo...

because shoot outs are so much safer than mass shootings by one person.

Na, they make for a very thoughtful gift...

 

[Valerie]

Can we do that with voting too? How about if you want an abortion?

^ you have no business calling anyone a moron, moron.

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats essentially the law in NYC and some other places. You have to apply for a permit and show some "good reason" why you need one. That it's your constitutional right somehow doesnt enter into it.

I've been bitching about that over about 5 different theads. The whole purpose of NYC's laws is to make it so difficult to get a gun that you give up.

You only need their permission for CCW's, but even a home permit for a handgun takes 3-6 months and costs $1000 dollars.

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

yes they would have to be challenged first, wingnut. i'm afraid you're the one who knows nothing, though. don't you think many regs have been challenged? the only one the Court took was Heller and I thiknk one before it that dealt with the issue peripherally. prior to heller, everyone knew that the 2nd did not protect a private right of gun ownership.

even in the absurd Heller, however, the only thing your boy scalia said was unconstitutional was a total ban and went on to say that reasonable regulation is acceptable.

you'd know tha tif you knew how to read a case.

You agree with me and then call me names.
After Heller did Chicago give up its ban on guns? No. It took McDonald to do that.

There are in fact cases going through the courts right now challenging NYC's insane gun policy. There is no other right where you need to show a reason in order to exercise it. The city has no legitimate interest in restricting guns based on arbitrary and capricious standards. "Counselor".

 

[Valerie]

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

no, she doesn't CLAIM to be a lawyer..she happens to be one.

the only ones i see bringing up that FACT are butt hurt hacks who don't know how think.

 

[The Rabbi]

Be safe for the holidays

...buy more guns and ammo...

because shoot outs are so much safer than mass shootings by one person.

Yes. A mass shooter who is stopped by someone with a gun hasnt shot as many people as he could.
This is proven over and over.
Ask the people in Paris if they would have wanted members of the audience to be armed or were they happier being shot like cattle by terrorists.

 

[martybegan]

Thats essentially the law in NYC and some other places. You have to apply for a permit and show some "good reason" why you need one. That it's your constitutional right somehow doesnt enter into it.

I've been bitching about that over about 5 different theads. The whole purpose of NYC's laws is to make it so difficult to get a gun that you give up.

You only need their permission for CCW's, but even a home permit for a handgun takes 3-6 months and costs $1000 dollars.

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

yes they would have to be challenged first, wingnut. i'm afraid you're the one who knows nothing, though. don't you think many regs have been challenged? the only one the Court took was Heller and I thiknk one before it that dealt with the issue peripherally. prior to heller, everyone knew that the 2nd did not protect a private right of gun ownership.

even in the absurd Heller, however, the only thing your boy scalia said was unconstitutional was a total ban and went on to say that reasonable regulation is acceptable.

you'd know tha tif you knew how to read a case.

The reason we needed Heller is that only recently, such as the 1976 ban on any handgun ownership in DC, was the concept that a person did not have a right to be armed at a minimum in their own home even CONSIDERED to be something that could exist. It's not that before Heller that "everyone knew the personal right to keep an arm didn't exist", its that before the stringent gun laws and bans of the 60's and 70's nobody even THOUGHT that people could be prevented from arming themselves to defend themselves.

Heller was needed to correct the wrongs done during the crime waves of the 60's, 70's and 80's. It reinforced a concept that was already understood, it did not create something new.

 

[martybegan]

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

no, she doesn't CLAIM to be a lawyer..she happens to be one.

the only ones i see bringing up that FACT are butt hurt hacks who don't know how think.

Yeah, you are a "reliable source".

And again, I will ask a car mechanic to fix my car, I won't ask him where I want to go on vacation.