I am pro-gun - ask me anything...

the BM is all about disarming poor people. Many gun banners don't like the poor, don't trust the poor and don't think the poor should have a right to self defense. The poor are collateral damage in the BM's jihad against the voting patterns of the NRA and its members

 

I am happy that you agree with me, Turtle. However, can you tell me what "BM" stands for?

 

So, no, you don't understand how background checks are a form of prior restraint. Thank you.

You pass a background check, and that's it. You get the gun. There's no follow up.
If, after you have the gun, the state takes you to court, with representation, and the court finds you mentally infirm, you can lose your guns.
A simple "diagnosis" does not allow for due process.

 

That "cae".

You're using one case to illustrate what exactly Mr. Prosecutor?

 

Obviously you don't read well. While I never lived in the inner city...I worked thee quite frequently.

 

If that's what you want when I visit your house, I'll either leave the guns in the car or go get a pizza.

 

do you think that murders and home invasions only happen in poor neighborhoods? in recent history, Federal judge Susan Dlott-And her husband. multi millionaire trial attorney Stanley Chesley were assaulted in their 11 million dollar home in one of the richest areas of the USA. there are dozens of cases of wealth people in very wealthy areas being murdered and assaulted

 

Why do you refuse to address the fact that gun control can only affect those people seeking to kill themselves who do not already have a gun, cannot legally own a gun, and are not willing to consider other means?

 

Yes, though obviously there'd have to be some safeguard so people don't use it to check on people not buying a gun.

No. This is, in effect, a requirement for a universal background check.
"Knew or should have known" is perfectly acceptable language.

 

Proof positive there's no need for more gun control laws.

 

Do you always resort to ad hominems when you don't have any intelligent rebuttal? Also what does your occasional working in the inner cities have anything to do with what I said?

But just to be fair to you, let me ask you this. What did you mean when you said "you probably should not live is crappy neighborhoods then". From my point of view, you seem to be implying that one can prevent home invasions or other serious types of violent crimes by moving to a "nicer" neighborhood. Is this what you are saying? If not, what are you trying to say?

 

You figure out a way to instantly and without fail tell when someone is off their nut and I'll let you snatch their **** without a court proceeding. Until then, you're stuck with due process of law. You understand that what you're demanding violates people's rights, right?

 

Which is very nice but the 2nd amendment does not consist of a simple dependant clause. It has a prefatory and an operative clause, something easily discoverable by reading the damn thing if you've taken high school English. The prefatory clause announces the general purpose or explanation for the operative clause but does not modify the operative clause. There, I've spoiled the learning process for you. Can you not figure it out now? Try googling prefatory clause. Google will give you an example based on the ****ing thing we're talking about.


I suppose you also don't understand the definition of well regulated (to function properly).

 

Missing the point as usual. That said, I live in a very nice part of Los Angeles. Seems the criminals have finally discovered my neighborhood. We have had multiple break-ins and even a few home invasions... and WE HAVE PRIVATE SECURITY. Tell ya what, DO NOT ENTER MY HOUSE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. You will not walk out.

 

I've never needed the 3rd amendment. Let's just repeal it shall we?

 

I could accept "knew or should have known" because if they can run a background check for no charge before the transfer then they "should have known" the person was prohibited.

Next question.

There are two rifles that are functionally identical in all major respects:
1) The popular Bushmaster (gas operated, rotating bolt) magazine fed semiautomatic rifle (a version of the AR-15/M-16 assault rifle used by the military) that is commonly chambered for the .223 Remington ammunition. Picture Attached
2) The Mini-14 that is also a (gas operated, rotating bolt) magazine fed semiautomatic rifle that is also commonly chambered for the .223 Remington ammunition. Picture Attached

Both have the same basic rate of fire and accuracy.

The Bushmaster is commonly defined by gun control groups as an "assault weapon" that should be banned while the other defined as a "hunting rifle" that should be legal. This definition is overwhelmingly based solely upon appearance because functionally they're the same.

As a gun owner I'm one of the first to point out that banning the future sales (past lawful sales cannot be prohibited and possession criminalized under the Constitution) of a firearm or any arms based upon appearance as opposed to functionality is a bogus.

Isn't the reverse argument by gun advocates that's also based upon appearance and not functionality also bogus? They would still be able to own a functionally identical rifle if the Bushmaster didn't even exist.

Obviously the question doesn't relate to the banning of future sales of the Bushmaster but instead this merely relates to the arguments being used because both are based upon the same nefarious criteria of appearance as opposed to the functionality of the firearm.

From where I'm sitting the gun control advocates want to ban the Bushmaster because it's scary looking and the gun advocates want to keep the Bushmaster because it's scary looking. Both arguments are silly and have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment that's arguably about the "function of the arms" protected and not about their appearance.

View attachment 49815 View attachment 49816

 

So you want to make policy based on anecdotes?

 

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with protecting oneself. It HAS to do with the "necessity" of a Militia

 

You're absolutely right. They should both be banned and the reason they weren't (when there WAS such a ban) had more to do with NRA obstruction and compromise than anything

 

In point of fact a person that is mentally unstable and considering suicide, if identified, can have any firearms in their possession removed and placed in custody of another person (or impounded temporality by law enforcement), they can be prohibited from legally obtaining a firearm, and while other means of suicide still remain they're often much more "difficult" from a psychological and/or physical perspective. Firearms make suicide "easy" while other forms of suicide aren't as easy for numerous reasons. Arguably there are cases where the person that commits suicide with a firearm wouldn't have committed suicide if they had to resort to another method.

The underlying issue is the ability to identify those with mental health issues that can result in a firearm being used for improper purposes. This can related to suicidal tendencies, spousal abuse, or other forms of hostile mental health issues. It's far better to remove the firearms from the control of these individuals (placing the firearms in temporary custody of a responsible third party), denying the person lawful possession, and then treating the mental illness than it is to ignore them by claiming "they can do the same thing by another means" and continue to allow them to possess firearms.

There's also the serious problem of parents that own firearms not securing those firearms which allows their children an "easy" means for committing suicide, or of using the parent's firearms to commit murder, or of accidentally wounding or killing another person. Allowing access to those that are not the rightful owner without the consent of the rightful owner is simply irresponsible behavior by the owner of the firearm.

The "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" mandates the requirement to "Act Responsibly" in the possession and use of those arms.

"Liberty" always requires "Responsibility" by those exercising the liberty.

 

Actually it does have to do with the "natural right of self-defense (against acts of aggression)" against the person and the militia itself is an extension of this fundamental natural right. One person defends their home. The militia is a group mutually defending their homes.

What can be stated accurately is that the 2nd Amendment is a statutory civil right that's based upon a natural right of the person.

There are limitations to the natural right of self-defense because the individual acting in self-defenses is limited in their response to stopping the act of aggression. The person can use an object (i.e. arms) to stop the act of aggression and that is what the 2nd Amendment recognizes but it doesn't include all objects (i.e. arms) nor does it allow the person to become the aggressor by the use of the object once the act of aggression has been stopped.

The only reason that firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment is that we don't have a non-lethal weapon that is equally effective in stopping an act of aggression. Firearms are "potentially" lethal and the "right of self-defense" does not grant the person the "right to kill" another person. The person cannot "shoot to kill" because that would be murder and not self-defense. The right of self-defense only grants the person the "right to stop the aggression" against them. The can "shoot to stop" the aggressor. The use of the firearm, because it's poytentially lethal, can result in the death of the aggressor but that must be incidental to the act of self-defense. A non-lethal weapons that could accomplish stopping the act of aggression as effectively as a firearm, without the potential lethal consequences, would result in the firearm becoming obsolete for use as a weapon of self-defense.

But we don't have a non-lethal weapon that's as effective as a firearm in stopping the act of aggression so we allow the use of firearms in the interim. Basically we allow the "risk" that the person acting in self-defense may, without intent, inadvertently kill the aggressor in the act of stopping the act of aggression by using a firearm.

 

Firearms can't be banned under the US Constitution (unrelated to the 2nd Amendment)​

The US Constitution (Article I Section 10) prohibits the imposition of ex post facto criminal law so all firearms that have been lawfully sold in the United States, and I've read there's over 300 million firearms, cannot be made criminal to own (banned). That's why fully automatic firearms, like the Thompson submachine gun made famous during prohibition by the gangs during the 1920's and 1930's, were not "banned" by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 that could only impose government fees, licensing, and registration of the existing lawfully purchased fully automatic firearms. We can still lawfully own and will always be able to lawfully own fully automatic firearms in the United States simply because they were lawfully sold in the past. The government cannot ban these firearms.

Until it can be demonstrated that any 100 lb adult can consistently defend themselves from a 200+ lb attacker without a firearm the government cannot ban "firearms" that are necessary for self-defense. Such a ban would violate the "Natural Right of Self-Defense (against acts of aggression). Until we have a non-lethal weapon that is as effective or more effective than a (potentially lethal) firearm for the purpose of self-defense the person will always have a compelling argument and a justifiable reason to own firearms.

 

sure beats your erroneous non-understanding of the second amendment or your discredited and contrary to the obvious intent of the founders-collectivist nonsense

 

So you don't know basic grammar either. Just like golem

 

Clearly. They said it was clear that use of firearms is good and can not be infringed upon.
At any rate, it's still up to the interpreter. Else this thread would have no need to exist.