NRA chief calls gun ownership a 'fundamental human right,' rejects calls for new restrictions

I was asking you a question not if it was already happening.

There are a ton of core issues that are being ignored but:
Access to to diagnoses and treatment for medical and psychological issues. Poor access to healthcare. An incel culture in young men. An obsessive gun culture. Ease of access to firearms.


What current regulations would have stopped the most recent school shooter?

 

I seriously don't recall any other politician telling an amped up crowd the street directions to go to the Capitol, while in session, and fight like hell... can you mention a few names?? (Expecting Maxine....)

Although, as I've said before, any prosecution on delaying a government activity will be based on much more than the Ellipse speech, which in and of itself, while completely un-American, is probably not illegal...

 

nope, I’m not seeing the win there. But why not actually address the crime issue if saving lives is the goal?

 

And what you ignore is that less than .001% of people are killed with guns. And an even smaller percentage of guns in the US are used criminally.

 

Problem is the lunatics ARE! armed, so we do feel compelled to rush to the gun store to protect ourselves. So! now what are you LIberals prepared to do to create a society where we feel like us normal people don't feel we need to arm ourselves.

 

Wait no longer.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236

 

My extensive Gun collection is worth a TON! of money. If Democrats are open to paying me FULL! market value over what I paid, maybe I'd be willing to let a few go.

 

I believe you are looking for is a “preamble”. But the argument that they can be regulated has already been argued: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99

Where have I said that trump should be charged for anything he said?

 

Something highly suspicious about that story.... reserving judgement...

 

Because addressing the crime after 29 kids are dead in less than two weeks doesn’t bring those kids back.

How does addressing the crime save lives?

 

Bold: You can't recall and yet....

LINK: Transcript of speech by President Donald Trump on Jan. 6 (arkansasonline.com)

And there is more in his speech that shows that he clearly did not expect a riot, nor called for one.

 

Do you support preregistration and vetting prior to speaking?

“You don’t have to say, when you’re looking for a permit to speak on a street corner or whatever, that, you know, your speech is particularly important,” noted Chief Justice John Roberts during oral argument. “So why do you have to show — in this case, convince somebody — that you’re entitled to exercise your Second Amendment right?”

In the New York case that SCOTUS is currently considering, you not only need a permit to have a gun, but, you have to also convince the permitting authority that you have a reason that they agree with for wanting to have a gun. I can't think of any other inherent right where it is allowed to be that encroached, hindered and permitted prior to exercise. In fact I'd say that NY is treating much more like a privilege than the inherent right that it is in our system Operating a motor vehicle on our public highways, for example, is a privilege and it requires licensing, registration, insurance and so forth.

 

The problem you have is the entire population of Australia can barely match half of the state of California.. You seem to think controlling and strongarming a tiny group is doable with literally SIX TIMES your population with a much wider group of cultures, migrants and some of the worst Mexico and south America have shed..

The gun problem tiny compared to the crime problem, contrabands from every country pour thru are boarders and seaports and yet you or anyone else arguing about gun laws NEVER ADDRESS, it's ridiculous and a ridiculous way to argue this.. How many times have you and the other been asked "How should we approach and disarm the criminals in out inner cities" and you and other run from the question?

Do us all favor and enlighten us how you and any other reading this can solve this one hiccup in your grand plan

 

And even a complete ban on guns will not bring those 29 kids back. So going by your logic we need not make any more laws on guns.

And seriously....you really have to ask how addressing crime saves lives?

 

Well, you just asked me about saving lives so why not go after the ones who are killing people that we have stats on? The majority of those murders were done by people who already commit crimes!

 

Great, you hit the highlights of the first 9 hours of rambling.... I'll give you the exciting conclusion...

SNIP
But I said something is wrong here, something is really wrong, can't have happened, and we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country, and I say this despite all that has happened, the best is yet to come.

So we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue -- I love Pennsylvania Avenue -- and we are going to the Capitol.
ENDSNIP

 

You didn’t answer the question

How does addressing this crime bring back these kids? Even if the shooters don’t kill themselves we don’t make any structural changes to our laws. How does prosecution of them change anything? They are not scared of prison or death.

Why are you skipping over entire posts? Inconvenient?

 

Are you reserving judgment that it actually happened or are you questioning the source? Here is another source with a video.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/new...-possibly-preventing-a-mass-shooting/3254937/

 

Nonsense, are you going to submit to Psych exam? I can tell you from experience from what I have read from this forum not many here would cut the mustard! Unfortunately, been there done that, and if you have never taken the 300+ questionnaire it will trick most, and depending on how the eggheads set the scores I doubt most would qualify..

 

I wonder how that happened? When I was young, Murder had consequences beyond mans judgement, now mans judgement reigns supreme! I guess there was some benefit to believing in the afterlife and believing there is nothing after this! You make a perfect point, if there's nothing beyond this plain of existence and a person fears not death or prison, then at some point of desperation and the lure of 15 minutes of fame they do the unthinkable. Then the MSM does their part and 24/7 the act of insanity another \while other insane Dreggs of society contemplate their own time in the lime light, and why not? They have nothing to look forward to hear in the real or the never after!

 

I understand that and that's part of why I don't carry, even though I understand that I have the right to do so.

I certainly respect the rights of different nations to handle this as they see fit. Keeping guns locked up when not being used strikes me a reasonable regulation.

We have a critical case before SCOTUS that will likely strike down NY's permit system that treats firearms more as a privilege than the inherent right that it is our system. One of the areas that was widely discussed is how to handle exceptions, that is, special buildings and areas where the right to carry could still be prohibited. While oral arguments are foolish to try to read sometimes, it seemed like a majority consensus was building around the idea that in areas where the government strips individuals of their right to arms that government assumes an affirmative duty to protect individuals in locations where they have been prohibited from possessing guns and be liable when it fails to do so. Carl Rizzi, A Duty to Protect: Why Gun-Free Zones Create a Special Relationship Between the Government & Victims of School Shootings, 25 Cornell J.L & Pub. Pol'y 499, 513 (2015) (arguing that "courts should find a special duty to protect civilians in gun-free zones").

We'll have the decision by the end of June. I'm sure it will make for interesting study.

 

Please define: “shall not be infringed”.

 

Don't even try to get a response from that poster that makes any sense, because all you'll get is NONSENSE!

 

A video REPORT... not a video of the event... big difference there..

Similar story to the BBC story... still suspicious...

 

Please define "A well regulated Militia".... then I'll tell you how that bearing arms shall not be infringed...