Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You'll need to define "Stop and Frisk".
I have my concerns with constitutional carry, I do. I get the argument "shall not be infringed" means, no need for permits, CCW license, etc. for some people.
Guns, regardless of the caliber and type, carry a lot of responsibility. When I got my CCW, I appreciated more the legal training and the repercussions that will come if you are involved in shooting, justified or not, than the actual shooting aspect.
So here is a thought. Some schools, actually teach proper gun use and responsibility and have shooting classes (they use air rifles) but the same safety and respect is required. If the 2A is a right, how about proper education in high school, mandatory. And not only do they learn to shoot, they learn every aspect when it comes to proper gun ownership. You pass this course when you graduate, you're a certified carry a handgun and rifle?
I have no problem with current background check process.
I think citizens could help, and do at times. But the leftist legal narratives of trying to protect criminals makes it difficult for citizens to legally engage without criminal or civil tort. I have my CCW, but I don't carry very often because of this.
I think we should start hearing more of "gun busts" instead of drug busts.
Not in my opinion. It is just part of the "well regulated" mentioned in the 2nd amendment.Any testing to exercise a Right is a violation of that Right...the same way the democrats uses literacy tests to keep blacks from voting.
And universal background checks are simply the trojan horse for gun registraton...which is the real goal of anti gunners when they demand universal background checks
I do not believe those ideas will help law enforcement keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. I could live with them, but I doubt their effectiveness. BUT, I'll tell you what will: deterrence happens when you put people in prison and keep them there for longer periods of time when they commit a crime with a gun, whether they used it or not. I do not believe the lack of a permit to carry will deter a bad guy from carrying one.
Not in my opinion. It is just part of the "well regulated" mentioned in the 2nd amendment.
I do not have one single registered gun and never have. At least half of mine are passed down from the last generation or before, showing a family tradition of buying or obtaining quality equipment that stands the tests of time. It is true, I am registered, but equally true and more to the point, I am well trained, trained to pass tests of the state inwhich I live to have my permit, including supervised range qualification, far exceeding the minimal standard, and I still get to exercise my freedoms under the 2nd Amendment.
Then you do not see the Second Amendment as being equal to other rights.Not in my opinion. It is just part of the "well regulated" mentioned in the 2nd amendment.
I do not have one single registered gun and never have. At least half of mine are passed down from the last generation or before, showing a family tradition of buying or obtaining quality equipment that stands the tests of time. It is true, I am registered, but equally true and more to the point, I am well trained, trained to pass tests of the state inwhich I live to have my permit, including supervised range qualification, far exceeding the minimal standard, and I still get to exercise my freedoms under the 2nd Amendment.
I would agree. No permanent record. I'll just say that I wouldn't trust the gov't to tell us that the records aren't being kept. Having been in I.T. most of my life, understanding the capability of data mining, especially from the gov't, the gov't can know with a very high percentage of certainty who has a gun. TI proposed a free APP for background checks...... plug in the name, birthday of the buyer, maybe even the Social security number...and you get access to federal records for arrests, convicrions, outstanding warrants
But......no permanent record.....and none of the anti-gunners went for it
they want gun registratiin....thats what they want and universal background checks get them there
I get it, but what can we do to create a more responsible citizenry? There are moral, ethical, and legal responsibilities that come with gun ownership that aren't taught by walking into your nearest gun shop and walking out 30 mins later.That any state can require people to pay for instruction and permits to exercise a rights is indeed unconstitutional.
I get it, but what can we do to create a more responsible citizenry? There are moral, ethical, and legal responsibilities that come with gun ownership that aren't taught by walking into your nearest gun shop and walking out 30 mins later.
Honestly, the last gun purchase I made, there were young adults looking at rifles. I honestly thought that I would turn them away if I was the shop owner. You might as well thought they were shopping for shoes the way they were talking and acting.
2A is a right, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce all the responsibility that comes with it.
What do you think about my educational recommendation of teaching gun ownership, shooting and all responsibilities in high school?
That is an unrelated straw man, you weakly attempt to stand up.So did black Americans in The democrat party jim crow south.....if they passed the literacy test, they could vote...no one banned them from voting, they just "regulated" it.....just like you want to do....
Yes, I do. At the same time, I recognize all my rights come with responsibility to the community and the country at large, as I am allowed to exercise them. Nothing worth having is free of responsibilities.Then you do not see the Second Amendment as being equal to other rights.
There is no requirement for any citizen to be part of a militia implied in the Second Amendment. The clause that mentions militias is an illustrative one and cannot be construed to stand in its own as a statement of a requirement in order for the right to keep and bear arms to be exercised.
In fact the term keep and bear actually references both the private use of firearms and the use of firearms as part of a militia so if one is not a member of any militia the keep of keep and bear is still applicable to all .
That any state can require people to pay for instruction and permits to exercise a rights is indeed unconstitutional.
Yes, I do. At the same time, I recognize all my rights come with responsibility to the community and the country at large, as I am allowed to exercise them. Nothing worth having is free of responsibilities.
You fools are part delusional crowd. You’re running around telling us all about the second amendment yet everyone in the United States has to qualify to posses a firearm already . Are you that ignorant you didnt even know it. Maybe you can’t read.Another candidate for "Stupid post of the day". Damn, have you ever heard of hyperbole, conjecture, strawman, and other fallacies that completely make you sound ignorant. Maybe read up on it a bit. Until then, don't even bother responding. Your posts are a waste of database storage and anyone's time.
Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies
A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought, and they're often very sneakily used by politicians and the media to fool people. Don't be fooled! This website has been designed to help you identify and call out dodgy logic wherever it may...yourlogicalfallacyis.com
The majority of gun owners do get it. That’s wh6 they want universal background checks. The rest are skirting the regs and selling guns to the underaged, mentally incompetent and criminally intent, all in the name of profit.Good for you.
Compelling people to pay in order exercise a right is unconstitutional. If you want to do it on your own that's your choice.
And I daresay the vast majority of gun owners do realize the responsibility and the facts bear this out. But you seem to be falling for the lie that all gun owners are somehow responsible for the acts of fractional percentage of the population.
We want crazy Folks on SSRIs who have 3 past 51/50s , two Shrinks & a Psychologist to have their 4473 forms kicked back deniedThe majority of gun owners do get it. That’s wh6 they want universal background checks. The rest are skirting the regs and selling guns to the underaged, mentally incompetent and criminally intent, all in the name of profit.
/——-/ “Shall not be infringed.” - Our Founding Fathers’ 2 cents.Gun control is a legal, philosophical and moral issue.
About half the country wants to live in a society where citizens have the right to buy and carry firearms. Given our country's history, many of them raise valid points. Our country was founded because of a revolution against England and would not have won that war had the citizens not had firearms. Most people back then lived in rural areas where having firearms was essential for both protection and hunting. (Which still holds true in many areas throughout the country, especially in smaller communities and very rural areas where it could take the police a very long time to respond)
Our country also has had somewhat of a violent past, if you think of the Wild West, the Civil War, and numerous other wars internationally. So "Gun Culture" is somewhat embedded in a large part of American Society.
The other half of the country wants to live in a society where most (if not all) firearms are used primarily for hunting purposes but rarely for self defense reasons. They've witnessed the alarming amount of gun violence that's plagued many of the cities throughout the country for decades now. They've also witnessed the increased amount of mass shootings and school shootings over the past few decades. They're also tired of fearing for their lives over road rage incidents, bar fights, sporting event fights, etc etc.
The debate over gun control will likely continue until people on both sides of the issue have a reason to "change" their opinion on the matter.
A good start (in my humble opinion) would be figuring out a way to drastically reduce inner city gun violence. How do you do it? Well, let's take a look at why there's so much violence in some of our cities. It's common knowledge that a large part of the violence is related to various networks of illegal drug trade, human trafficking and various other criminal enterprises.
Our current "War on Drugs" has been going on for 50+ years, yet the violence in most cities hasn't decreased. Is it time for a different approach? Decriminalization of possessing a small amount of drugs could be a start. Decriminalization is NOT legalization. It would simply treat drug possession cases as a civil infraction instead of a criminal infraction. It would also do wonders for our Criminal Justice System, incarceration rates, facilities, etc. It would likely save billions of dollars, which then could be used for rehabilitation programs, etc. Rehabilitating people involved with drugs, instead of sending them to prison, where many come out even more violent than when they went in.
Think of it like this: If you're a drug dealer or drug user, you won't go to jail for the drugs you possess but you will likely face heavy jail time for possessing a gun. The smart ones will likely figure it out pretty quickly and not carry guns. If you're a police officer, how much better would it feel knowing that the drug dealer you just pulled over probably won't shoot you, since he knows he won't go to jail for drugs. Decriminalization won't necessarily end the higher level trafficking but it certainly could help with the street-level drug trade. And could likely drastically reduce street-level gun violence.
The first thing that comes into the minds of gun advocates nowadays when a progressive talks about gun regulation, etc is, "They want to regulate our guns when most of the gun violence is in the cities and they can't even get that under control, despite heavy regulation in many cities". And they have a valid point. BUT if pro-gun culture folks see that inner city gun crime has finally been reduced, would they be more willing to listen to the other side of the argument? I would think so.
There are many other ways to help resolve the gun control issue within the US, including better education, better mental health programs and various other programs that can gradually change our "gun culture".
Mandatory background checks, including gun shows and private trade should be standard. I would also look into mental health screenings, classes, tests, etc If we need to take a class and a test to drive a car, we should require something similar to possess a firearm. I (and I'm assuming most people) would want the peace of mind knowing that if someone legally owns a gun, they are: A. Mentally stable. and: B. They know how to safely use it.
My 2 cents.
All gun owners are indeed not responsible for the acts of the "fractional percentage" as you call it, but all conservatives recognize their role in responsibility to common good in a co-dependent relatively free society. It is up to the moderately conservative majority, that often silent majority, to set the example of responsibility to that free society, if they wish to retain the freedoms we enjoy. People on the polar extremes, seem to miss that fact or ignore it, pushing personal agendas in conflict and detrimental to the absolute freedoms without obligation they proclaim to have, by a document that did not enumerate the responsibilities of those in a free society, required to make the system work, though many writers of our constitution made it clear to our fathers, grandfathers and forefathers. It is an understanding lost along the way to many of the "me, mine" generation(s) of the partisan echo chambers, typical of modern day and this message board.Good for you.
Compelling people to pay in order exercise a right is unconstitutional. If you want to do it on your own that's your choice.
And I daresay the vast majority of gun owners do realize the responsibility and the facts bear this out. But you seem to be falling for the lie that all gun owners are somehow responsible for the acts of fractional percentage of the population.
What shall not be infringed ?/——-/ “Shall not be infringed.” - Our Founding Fathers’ 2 cents.
I think you will find the vast majority of responsible gun owners will agree gun owners should have training, secure their firearms, practice all the usual safety rules and standards, ans any number of other things you'd likely agree fall under the asupices of 'responsible gun ownership'.All gun owners are indeed not responsible for the acts of the "fractional percentage" as you call it, but all conservatives recognize their role in responsibility to common good in a co-dependent relatively free society.
The Pedo / NAMBLA Practitioners Bedroom sanctityWhat shall not be infringed ?
