What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[alang1216]

Putting suicides and homicides in the same category… Is lying. LOL

If I'm mentally ill is it really so different a matter if I kill myself or I kill someone else? There is a victim either way.

 

[Contumacious]

“What should the end goal of our gun policy be?”

Wrong question.

Correct question: “What standard of judicial review should firearm regulatory measures be subject to?"

Answer: strict scrutiny.

Rationale: the right of individuals to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense is fundamental, where regulations and restrictions must be supported by a compelling governmental interest, narrowly tailored to address that interest, and applied in a comprehensive, consistent manner.

Examples of firearm regulatory measures which would pass Constitutional muster per strict scrutiny:

Background checks

The designation of felons, the mentally ill, and undocumented immigrants as prohibited persons.

The prohibition of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.

Regulations concerning the commercial sales of firearms.

Prohibitions of weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual and not in common use by the general public.

Examples of firearm regulatory measures which would not pass Constitutional muster per strict scrutiny:

Purchase permits and registration requirements.

Licensing requirements (save that of concealed carry).

Prohibitions of firearms based on appearance, configuration, or functionality, such as banning AR and AK platform rifles, or other weapons in common use by the general public not determined to be dangerous or unusual.

Training requirements.

Bans, restrictions, and limitations on magazine capacity or types of magazines.

Ammunition bans.

Waiting periods.

Restrictions on the number of firearms that may be purchased during a given time period.

“What standard of judicial review should firearm regulatory measures be subject to?"


Given the FACT that we are FREE PEOPLE and that NO AUTHORITY was ever granted to fedgov to regulate firearms then

the federal government must IMMEDIATELY ABOLISH:

1- The Gun Control Act of 1968
2-The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
3- The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)
4- National Firearms Act (NFA) 26 USC 53

The purpose of those laws are to incite violence against WE THE PEOPLE and to provide pretexts to fedgov to persecute law abiding citizens.

BATF cocksuckers used the National Firearms Act - 26 USC 53 - to persecute, terrorize and incinerate the Davidians alive


Senator Schumer (D-TelAviv) concluded that incinerating the Davidians was lawful because they were not Jews.


.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's a good point that the mass shootings like the Colorado theater and Newtown were a huge splash, but as awful as they were, they account for not many of the gun deaths in this country. Most killings one-on-one or one-on-two are by people who aren't mentally ill. Since it is impossible (I think) to know who would take another citizen's life when you sell them the gun (except for the restrictions we already have in place) that is why it seems like the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.
I know lots of people with guns and none of them worry me. I don't like the thought of disarming them. But what else can be done, except to shrug and give up and let the killings keep going on and on?

Disarming America would require us to repeal the Second Amendment. And when you are willing to start denying rights in the name of the common good, then you cannot make an argument against the banning of dissent.

No, you are going to have to come up with a better plan.

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

The rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

LOL, liberals can't read at a high school level.

Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Note the form of the sentence,

Because A, B

In that form, it's saying for the reason of A, B is true. A is not a qualifier for B, it's an explanation of B

So the founding fathers said

Because "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the State"

Note again that's an explanation, not a restriction or a qualifier

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That is the power given. Note the militia is not part of the power. It states simply and directly the right shall not be infringed.

You're welcome for this English lesson that apparently government schools didn't give you when you were 12 as they should have done

In modern English, the 2nd amendment means:
Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

 

[Contumacious]

Disarming America would require us to repeal the Second Amendment. And when you are willing to start denying rights in the name of the common good, then you cannot make an argument against the banning of dissent.

No, you are going to have to come up with a better plan.

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

The rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

LOL, liberals can't read at a high school level.

Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Note the form of the sentence,

Because A, B

In that form, it's saying for the reason of A, B is true. A is not a qualifier for B, it's an explanation of B

So the founding fathers said

Because "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the State"

Note again that's an explanation, not a restriction or a qualifier

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That is the power given. Note the militia is not part of the power. It states simply and directly the right shall not be infringed.

You're welcome for this English lesson that apparently government schools didn't give you when you were 12 as they should have done

In modern English, the 2nd amendment means:
Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

Candycorn and other fascists will define the right in Orwellian terms , ie, restrictions are NOT restrictions.

.

 

[g5000]

Putting suicides and homicides in the same category… Is lying. LOL

If I'm mentally ill is it really so different a matter if I kill myself or I kill someone else? There is a victim either way.

Try throwing yourself off a roof, and then try throwing someone else off a roof. Let us know which one was easier.

 

[Rustic]

Putting suicides and homicides in the same category… Is lying. LOL

If I'm mentally ill is it really so different a matter if I kill myself or I kill someone else? There is a victim either way.

The progressive males of this country are pussyfied... Blaming everything but the person doing the crime. Lol

 

[alang1216]

Putting suicides and homicides in the same category… Is lying. LOL

If I'm mentally ill is it really so different a matter if I kill myself or I kill someone else? There is a victim either way.

The progressive males of this country are pussyfied... Blaming everything but the person doing the crime. Lol

Your compassion is inspiring.

 

[kaz]

Putting suicides and homicides in the same category… Is lying. LOL

If I'm mentally ill is it really so different a matter if I kill myself or I kill someone else? There is a victim either way.

The progressive males of this country are pussyfied... Blaming everything but the person doing the crime. Lol

Your compassion is inspiring.

From the guy who wants guys to be able to whip it out in front of 12 year old girls and shower with them while giving unfettered access to sexual predators. Yeah, you're "compassion" I'll pass on

 

[Pogo]

It's a good point that the mass shootings like the Colorado theater and Newtown were a huge splash, but as awful as they were, they account for not many of the gun deaths in this country. Most killings one-on-one or one-on-two are by people who aren't mentally ill. Since it is impossible (I think) to know who would take another citizen's life when you sell them the gun (except for the restrictions we already have in place) that is why it seems like the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.
I know lots of people with guns and none of them worry me. I don't like the thought of disarming them. But what else can be done, except to shrug and give up and let the killings keep going on and on?

Disarming America would require us to repeal the Second Amendment. And when you are willing to start denying rights in the name of the common good, then you cannot make an argument against the banning of dissent.

No, you are going to have to come up with a better plan.

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

The rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

LOL, liberals can't read at a high school level.

Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Note the form of the sentence,

Because A, B

In that form, it's saying for the reason of A, B is true. A is not a qualifier for B, it's an explanation of B

So the founding fathers said

Because "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the State"

Note again that's an explanation, not a restriction or a qualifier

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That is the power given. Note the militia is not part of the power. It states simply and directly the right shall not be infringed.

You're welcome for this English lesson that apparently government schools didn't give you when you were 12 as they should have done

Here's the elephant-in-the-room flaw in that theory:

The Amendment doesn't *NEED* to justify its own reasoning. A Constitutional Amendment is a simple flat declaration, not a court argument or a point asserted in a debate. There is literally no need to do that. The conditional phrase could have been struck altogether, if that were the purpose.

And if you look around, you'll find none of the other Amendments take the trouble to explain their reasoning either. Not a single one. Nor do they need to.

That renders the theory quite dubious, and suggests the phrase is there for another reason. Would that they had stated it clearly but ----- they didn't.

 

[kaz]

Disarming America would require us to repeal the Second Amendment. And when you are willing to start denying rights in the name of the common good, then you cannot make an argument against the banning of dissent.

No, you are going to have to come up with a better plan.

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

The rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

LOL, liberals can't read at a high school level.

Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Note the form of the sentence,

Because A, B

In that form, it's saying for the reason of A, B is true. A is not a qualifier for B, it's an explanation of B

So the founding fathers said

Because "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the State"

Note again that's an explanation, not a restriction or a qualifier

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That is the power given. Note the militia is not part of the power. It states simply and directly the right shall not be infringed.

You're welcome for this English lesson that apparently government schools didn't give you when you were 12 as they should have done

Here's the elephant-in-the-room flaw in that theory:

The Amendment doesn't *NEED* to justify its own reasoning. A Constitutional Amendment is a simple flat declaration, not a court argument or a point asserted in a debate. There is literally no need to do that. The conditional phrase could have been struck altogether, if that were the purpose.

And if you look around, you'll find none of the other Amendments take the trouble to explain their reasoning either. Not a single one. Nor do they need to.

That renders the theory quite dubious, and suggests the phrase is there for another reason. Would that they had stated it clearly but ----- they didn't.

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

 

[alang1216]

Putting suicides and homicides in the same category… Is lying. LOL

If I'm mentally ill is it really so different a matter if I kill myself or I kill someone else? There is a victim either way.

The progressive males of this country are pussyfied... Blaming everything but the person doing the crime. Lol

Your compassion is inspiring.

From the guy who wants guys to be able to whip it out in front of 12 year old girls and shower with them while giving unfettered access to sexual predators. Yeah, you're "compassion" I'll pass on

I'll just assume you're confusing me with some other poster. Unless you can back up your allegations...

 

[kaz]

Putting suicides and homicides in the same category… Is lying. LOL

If I'm mentally ill is it really so different a matter if I kill myself or I kill someone else? There is a victim either way.

The progressive males of this country are pussyfied... Blaming everything but the person doing the crime. Lol

Your compassion is inspiring.

From the guy who wants guys to be able to whip it out in front of 12 year old girls and shower with them while giving unfettered access to sexual predators. Yeah, you're "compassion" I'll pass on

I'll just assume you're confusing me with some other poster. Unless you can back up your allegations...

I was jumping back and forth between discussions and got lost, I thought you were defending the bathroom thing, which is where I was before. Entirely different discussion. I apologize

 

[alang1216]

I was jumping back and forth between discussions and got lost, I thought you were defending the bathroom thing, which is where I was before. Entirely different discussion. I apologize

No problem, all too easy to do.

 

[P@triot]

I've been thinking hard about this issue. If our culture had a stronger respect for human life, we could all own twenty guns and no one who didn't deserve it would be shot. More to come.

But....if our culture had stronger respect for human life, none of us would need to own a single gun, much less twenty.

It is exactly because of the thugs who want to rape, pillage, and murder like vikings that I need to be armed at all times.

I'm sorry you live in such a bad neighborhood. The Viking thugs are human beings, too, and most could have been taught more respect for human life. An opportunity was missed. Do I think we will never have bad guys? No. But many of the thugs taking life today believe they are defending themselves or their honor. Without thinking about the grave, grave weight of taking a human life.
Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One

So you're going to quote a work of literary fiction? And as far as the thugs - it is what it is. We can wax poetic all we want about what could have been or should have been or about the fact that they are "people too". But at the end of the day, I'm going to protect myself and my family. I'm not going to let any of us die simply because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote an absurd book about people flying around on broom sticks and you've taken that as your reality.

Fictional characters can say wise stuff; they don't write the books, ya know? I can tell you didn't read Tolkein; the broomsticks were Harry Potter. But anyway, no surprise you would dismiss my ideas out of hand. The opportunity was missed with you, too, apparently.

Well you are correct - I never read any of that nonsense. I never read Harry Potter and I never read Lord of the Rings. And you know what? I didn't watch either of the movies.

I'd much rather deal in reality than fantasy. And while I realize that the fictional character didn't write the book, I'm not sure J.R.R. Tolkien is qualified to speak about gun rights just because he's (apparently) a good fictional author.

The problem with individuals like you is that rather than looking at F.B.I data, looking at studies, speaking with law enforcement, etc. you'd rather delve into fiction and pull your ideas for public policy from that. It just doesn't work.

 

[Pogo]

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

The rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

LOL, liberals can't read at a high school level.

Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Note the form of the sentence,

Because A, B

In that form, it's saying for the reason of A, B is true. A is not a qualifier for B, it's an explanation of B

So the founding fathers said

Because "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the State"

Note again that's an explanation, not a restriction or a qualifier

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That is the power given. Note the militia is not part of the power. It states simply and directly the right shall not be infringed.

You're welcome for this English lesson that apparently government schools didn't give you when you were 12 as they should have done

Here's the elephant-in-the-room flaw in that theory:

The Amendment doesn't *NEED* to justify its own reasoning. A Constitutional Amendment is a simple flat declaration, not a court argument or a point asserted in a debate. There is literally no need to do that. The conditional phrase could have been struck altogether, if that were the purpose.

And if you look around, you'll find none of the other Amendments take the trouble to explain their reasoning either. Not a single one. Nor do they need to.

That renders the theory quite dubious, and suggests the phrase is there for another reason. Would that they had stated it clearly but ----- they didn't.

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

Of course there's a point, that being that it renders your whole explanation of what the clause is for a dubious theory.

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

These queries of course all assume your theory of the clause as self-justification.... and not a clumsily worded clause of limitation, which is the other glaring possibility.

That's very much a live elephant. And they live a long time.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

Perhaps because the people who wrote and ratified it, knew it was the final bulwark against the big-govt fanatics they wrote the Constitution to keep out of power. And they knew that big-govt leftist fanatics such as yourself would use every lie, every diversion, every strawman they could, to fool people into thinking it isn't needed. So they added an explanation.

We see today their wisdom and foresight was fully justified. We even have some maroon trying to pretend that WHY they added an explanation, makes some kind of difference. Despite the fact that the explanation doesn't change the amendment's meaning or impact a whit. Temper tantrums like this, are a stark indicator of just how completely the big-govt fanatics have come to the end of their rope.

 

[Timmy]

I have a q for u hard core guys .

Should guns be available out of vending machines ? No restriction at all?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I have a q for u hard core guys .

Should guns be available out of vending machines ? No restriction at all?

Why would you even consider this?

Beer. Yes.

 

[kaz]

The rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

LOL, liberals can't read at a high school level.

Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Note the form of the sentence,

Because A, B

In that form, it's saying for the reason of A, B is true. A is not a qualifier for B, it's an explanation of B

So the founding fathers said

Because "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the State"

Note again that's an explanation, not a restriction or a qualifier

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That is the power given. Note the militia is not part of the power. It states simply and directly the right shall not be infringed.

You're welcome for this English lesson that apparently government schools didn't give you when you were 12 as they should have done

Here's the elephant-in-the-room flaw in that theory:

The Amendment doesn't *NEED* to justify its own reasoning. A Constitutional Amendment is a simple flat declaration, not a court argument or a point asserted in a debate. There is literally no need to do that. The conditional phrase could have been struck altogether, if that were the purpose.

And if you look around, you'll find none of the other Amendments take the trouble to explain their reasoning either. Not a single one. Nor do they need to.

That renders the theory quite dubious, and suggests the phrase is there for another reason. Would that they had stated it clearly but ----- they didn't.

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

Of course there's a point, that being that it renders your whole explanation of what the clause is for a dubious theory.

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

These queries of course all assume your theory of the clause as self-justification.... and not a clumsily worded clause of limitation, which is the other glaring possibility.

That's very much a live elephant. And they live a long time.

The founding fathers didn't know how to write, got it. That seems to be belied by the amazing string of documents that they wrote. And that you don't know how to punctuate paraphrases or quotes. You versus the founding fathers? I'm betting on the founding fathers. Call me crazy

 

[FA_Q2]

For those who don't find an exact match, just pick the closest one. It's impossible to cover every possible choice in a poll like this.

Note this is a goal question, not a question what the policies are to get there.

None of the above. The end goal of this nation's gun policy should be to end the very high number of gun deaths in this nation, while not infringing on the rights of the gun owner that uses his guns for hunting and recreation. If that means banning the sale of certain types of weapons, so be it. We have banned the private ownership of the Thompson .45 Submachine Gun, unless you can pass certain background checks, for many years, and it has not affected our freedoms. The NRA and the gun nuts on this board need a reality check before the citizens of this nation get fed up with them and pass gun laws that even I won't like.

That is a silly purpose and very dishonest in its application. The number of 'gun deaths' is utterly and will forever be irrelevant. The number of HOMICIDES would be.

The need to qualify the death as a 'gun' death vs. any other type of death is only an attempt to cloud the issue. The number of people killed has no connection to gun control or 'gun' deaths whatsoever. Put strict controls on guns and people still kill. I don't care if there are fewer gun deaths if there are the same number of deaths overall.

The real goal of gun control should be to decrease the number of homicides. The problem is that it does not achieve that goal.