Should Americans surrender to permissive firearm laws and increased mass shootings?

your posts demonstrate that you think constitutional rights are subservient to the current whims of mainly ignorant people. That attitude is precisely why we have a constitution

we don't have a pure democracy no matter how much some people want it

you do know that 90% of the handguns sold in the last 40 years are semi autos

so much for the claim that leftwing anti gun advocates don't want to ban all that many guns

 

Home invaders probably do fear the home owner, since they are entering a dark house and have no idea what's waiting for them, be it a baseball bat, kitchen knife, a 6.5' / 260lb athlete, or a shotgun, but I am referring to the typical criminals, - the drug dealers and gang bangers.

 

so was I

BBL

 

BBL=Brazilian butt lift.

It seems the topic is changing.....

 

We have all such that are needed.

 

And yet in spite of all of that there are thousands of major and minor accidents a day a long with an unknown number of suicides. Yet you are wholly uninterested in eliminating cars provided the are powered by electricity.

 

You really think that 1000 people is a good indicator of the other 350,000? Plus, it's all in the wording
*Increase mental health funding: Sure, I think most people would agree.
*Background checks at gun shows: Already done
*Red flag laws: Sounds good until you get into the details. Go see a family therapist - take away your right to bear arms? Take a stop smoking pill and lose your right to bear arms? How many of those respondants would change their answer?
*Require a license: Isn't that racist?
*High capacity mags: Some people say that 7 is high capacity, others say 25. If a ferrel hog, grizzly, or some dude on chrystal meth, is coming to kill you, how many shots do you want to limit yourself to?
*Semi-auto: congrats for not saying automatic weapons. Most people don't know the difference thanks to the ignorant media and ignorant politicians. See comment on high capacity mags. Automatic weapons kill even less than AR-15s and those kill less than almost every other gun.
*Buy back programs: Why? People can sell their guns or render them useless at any time.
*Teachers and guns: We certainly don't want trained and armed people protecting our kids. That would be horrible.

 

You COMPLETELY missed the part where I said I don’t know enough to pass judgement and that most of the buzzwords are scary. I guess, like most people, I would define armor piercing ammo as something that can penetrate LEO armor and cause death. Why does one need that, except to kill a fellow human?

Mental illness is something where I believe a complete discussion as a society is needed. It’s still mostly ostracized. We need to stop ostracizing those who are mentally ill. So many could be helped before they do something awful to themselves or their fellow humans, without thought. We have to move forward in getting them the treatment needed, before it gets so bad that even the parents know the kid is going to do something awful, and then the kid does, and then we get all the stories about how everyone knew how ****ed up this kid was. If everyone knew, why was nothing done?

Can you explain to me why it's okay for government to place limits on our 1st amendment rights but that can't pass through to the 2nd?

 

I believe that it has. There is very limits on 1st amendment rights just as there are very few on 2nd amendment rights. I would actually like to see a few more limits on the press regarding misinformation and incitement.

 

They may yet make those decisions. The things about courts, especially appeals courts, and doubly especially the Supreme Court, they decide ONLY on relevant facts and issues presented to them... The could not have, for example, done any of the above with the Bruen decision, even if deep-down they really wanted to. Each of those items you listed (except perhaps item one) will have to come in a separate case that is dedicated to that topic/purpose. Item One on your list would be nice, and is fairly clear that is what the author's and founders intended, but I can't think of a single case that would cover something that wide, nor even imagine what single person might have standing to go down that road, because it's not challenging ONE thing, it's challenging thousands.

I think the "Next Big Thing" we'll see from SCOTUS on the 2A will be overturning either CA or IL's AWBs, and/or their mag restrictions. There are also cases in the works challenging the predictable way NY, NJ, and CA (likely among others) have tried to deal with Bruen, which is precisely what they were told to NOT do and that's to make practically everywhere a 'prohibited location'.

I, too, would like to see the SCOTUS just pound their fists on their bench and scream, "People, listen up... "Shall Not Be Infringed" applies to all circumstances, all laws, and etc., with the flexibility to remove those protected freedoms from specific individuals based on their behavior or even mental health, but everything you listed (excepting item One since it's so broad) is completely Unconstitutional, and I think will be found as such in the next few years.

 

Do you really trust the government to decide what is and what is not misinformation. Given that in every country in the world the single greatest purveyor of misinformation is always the government.

 

what are the restrictions on the first amendment and I will explain to you why those restrictions are similarly placed on the USE of firearms

Let me educate you about armor. There are two kinds of body armor. Light weight stuff designed to be worn under normal clothes or a uniform. Since 95% of the weapons police deal with are handguns, those lightweight vests (Level IIA for example) are designed to stop handgun rounds. The second kind of body armor-Level IV are bulky heavy things often with ceramic trauma plates that will stop a standard infantry rifle round. Those types of body armor are heavy and less convenient and comfortable to wear. Gun banners wanted to ban any firearm cartridge that will penetrate ANY police body armor. Meaning every centerfire rifle cartridge useful for ground hogs and bigger game. As I said, a standard rifle round-not one of the KTV or others designed to penetrate LEVEL IV will go right through a standard Level II A vest. How many cops do you think have been killed by actual armor piercing rounds used by the military to defeat body armor or lightly armored vehicles? almost none. IN fact the only cases I know of is that two of the ATF agents killed in the assault on the Waco whackos' compound were killed by armor piercing rounds that ONLY the government had. Friendly fire.

gun banners think ignorant people will reflexively support banning any round that will go through "body armor" and then gun banners will try to include just about every rifle cartridge. It's why I have zero respect for polls on this subject.

 

No, not at all. I would like to hold them accountable, in a public manner, when they do spew misinformation. For example, when The View spews out a bunch of idiotic gun "information", they should be fined and made to make a public appology and explain to their audience what was wrong with what they said. This would make them be a bit more careful about what they say instead of just saying stuff for ratings.

 

But who is going to hold them accountable? Note what they are saying apparently has little to nothing to do with ratings given that they have almost none. I think about the only people watching the view are right wing commentators looking some low hanging fruit to crush. And Heaven only knows they provide plenty.

 

Lawyers would be more than happy to keep them in check. All they need is a law that gives them a path to go after the money. I only used The View as an example but Fox, MSNBC, NBC, etc. all have spewed their own version of BS.

But that's not the only reason. Since it's well documented that the media plays a huge roll in copy cat mass shootings, they should bear some responsibility.

 

Nobody is insisting that the right is absolute. We're just insisting that you can't infringe upon it. I don't know what the left has against rights but going to make you less and less popular as time goes by.

 

Constitutional rights are limits on government. Government can't say that you need to be disarmed and then disarm you. That's the first step in totalitarian regimes.

Why are you so desperate to make the same mistake again who is the 120 million people killed in the 20th century not enough for you?

 

It has, but many uber pro-2 peeps don't think there should be any whatsoever.

 

Guns don't kill people, the whackos the left let run around loose kill people. Just lock them up or keep them locked up instead of having a revolving door on the jails.

 

All militia members are people, but all people are not militia members. Just roughly half of us are. But, the right guaranteed (but not granted) by the 2A applies to ALL the people, not just militia members, not only able bodied men between 18-45... EVERYONE who hasn't lost their freedoms based upon conviction of a crime they chose to commit.

Yeah, we could do that. But I would not want to live in a world where the USA did not have a standing Army (and Navy, and now an Air Force, and Marines are legally either part of or attached to the Navy, so they're good, too. I don't think you, or any freedom loving person would disagree with that.

But we should pass an Amendment authorizing the Air Force, since it was separated from the Army it is a military branch without a Constitutional authority to have one. I'm sure if some Court ruled that, in fact, my statement is correct and the very existence of an Air Force, however necessary, is nonetheless Unconstitutional, I'd bet you before that Judge changes his or her panties they'll have an Amendment passed authorizing one... Just watch if it ever happens.

 

Sorry but you guys are the ones that say that its the person not the tool that's dangerous.

 

But the whole reason for the 2nd is so that citizens have arms in case they are needed to form the militia, with the existence of a standing military that negates it.

 

The law in question is called Libel.

It always is the person who is the danger not the tool You could easily kill a bunch of people with an aluminum baseball bat more with a car or a propane tank or a coke bottle full of gasoline and a rag.

 

Then you don't need a gun for self defense.

 

You are upset because I concur with the majority of Americans who want to take preventative measures so that permissive laws do not continue to enable degenerates to easily acquire the means to kill vast numbers of people.

Your nonsense about keeping everyone locked up is absurd.