Your "solution" is completely unrealistic. Just as unrealistic as banning guns altogether and make it illegal to possess them. Won't happen.
For those who want to ban so called, "assault rifles"....
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Your "solution" is completely unrealistic. Just as unrealistic as banning guns altogether and make it illegal to possess them. Won't happen.
Why? We used to not have gun free zones. In high school I had a rifle in the back window of my truck.
How about we make it harder for the losers to get their hands on the guns? Specifically the disenfranchised losers who have yet to acquire the maturity and wisdom that allows them to give in to their hatred for others and take it out on innocents.
You both are 100% correct. We don't NEED to look outside the text of the SA, as it's pretty damned clear for any era:
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.
The plain text states the purpose: to maintain the security of a free state, via a well regulated militia. A redneck buying a gun isn't well regulated. The amendment states the "security of a free State" is the policy objective, not the freedom of the individual. That's plain language right there in the amendment.
What does BAR stand for? What's an M16? M14? Are those ordinance too, dumbass? Why can't you buy them without a special license?
This is true and also where the cosmetic limitations in the 90's came from. BUT... you also gotta understand some of these dorks buying these guns don't know much (like scat) and vents or a wicked looking flash suppressor look lethal and cool. That stuff has its place but admittedly is irrelevant to lethality of the gun. Bipods. I've seen guns advertised with a BUILT IN BIPOD!!! which in the real world means it's a teetering unstable inconvenience and you can't get comfortable and stationary to shoot unless you have five minutes to situate it and your body around it.
So?
Well countries that don't have these guns don't have all these killings.
I already addressed this in this thread. Require 18-25 year olds to jump through extra hoops before allowing them to buy a gun.
-pass a class
-be interviewed by a L.I.O. prior to purchase
-background checks
-social media account evaluation
-parental permission
-waiting period
Those are just some ideas. I'm sure if I gave it more time I could come up with something more concrete.
Mandatory posting and reading my responses, for starters.
At some point you need to take up a collection and start compiling my thoughts on here into various leather-bound volumes. Sys on Gun Control. Volumes I - III (that means 3, Wharri). Sys on Abortion, etc.
I think we’ve proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a motivated loser will not be unmotivated by your law. The fact that murder is illegal should prove that to you. Money time resources and legislation should be geared toward fixing our culture. Ban social media, ban rap music. Facebook and twitter are the grenade launchers and tanks of the constitutional right of free speech.
Maybe follow this link, then go back and re-read my post, Matlock.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sparingly
If I make it up for a game, I'll post and attend. Problem is that living in Tampa makes it tough to make it back to Stilly very often.
Before we touch guns, why don't we outlaw the media (and restrict the freedom of the press, another constitutional right) from publishing the identity of the mass shooter when the events occur. They are happening more frequently because we celebrate them with national media coverage. And it only impacts a few media companies instead of milllions of Americans. And its only a small infringement on their Constitutional rights, so thats acceptable, right?
So? And no, it's not a "trophy" it was bought still in the cosmoline for $80 back in the mid 80's. Yeah, it'd be an "assault rifle" under any coherent definition because it's a high capacity, semi-auto and loads fast. But if that's the one you're wanting to inflict damage with, it's a piece of shit that won't shoot straight. About what you'd expect for a 1950's commie sheet-stamped gun.
I did, it's as mindless and wrong as the first time I read it. You heard that from some half-assed conservative talking head and swallowed it and ignore how government ensures freedom all the time.
Pretty rich you guys pretend to be concerned with freedom where innocent people get shot for back to school shopping. That freedom doesn't count because of your Hunger Games fantasies. My money's on you shitting yourself and accidentally shooting yourself if it ever DID come to that...
So? And no, it's not a "trophy" it was bought still in the cosmoline for $80 back in the mid 80's. Yeah, it'd be an "assault rifle" under any coherent definition because it's a high capacity, semi-auto and loads fast. But if that's the one you're wanting to inflict damage with, it's a piece of shit that won't shoot straight. About what you'd expect for a 1950's commie sheet-stamped gun.
I did, it's as mindless and wrong as the first time I read it. You heard that from some half-assed conservative talking head and swallowed it and ignore how government ensures freedom all the time.
Pretty rich you guys pretend to be concerned with freedom where innocent people get shot for back to school shopping. That freedom doesn't count because of your Hunger Games fantasies. My money's on you accidentally shooting yourself if it ever DID come to that.
Unrealistic drivel which would result in more doing of nothing and allowing the problem to get worse. You know this.
To be clear...
My idea is not to eliminate the motivated losers from our society. That is an unobtainable goal. I'm looking for ways to identify these individuals before they are able to do mass harm.
If a 20 year old unwashed emo kid goes to the feed store and orders 2 tons of fertilizer, it is going to set off some alarm bells, and he might just get caught before he can blow up a building full of people. It is much easier for him to go to a gun show and buy a semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine. He is less likely to set off any alarm bells, so that is the route he is likely to take when he decides to take out his hate on innocents. Make him jump through some hoops, and he will look for an easier way, or someone might just notice that this is a recipe for disaster and call the authorities.
Do you have any proof that any of these guys care about being famous?
That line of logic is a BS narrative meant to deflect the blame, IMO.
Another argument for changing nothing and letting the problem worsen.
Nope. 1st year Con Law prof (a woodstock veteran) citing Jefferson, Adams, & Co. Now I know why the dim mascot is a jackass.
On more topical, local news...
It appears the anti gun freedom lobby didn't get the required 60,000 signatures to put the 'Constitutional Carry' on a ballot for voters in Oklahoma.
So, barring any other resistance, no permit concealed carry begins November 1st.
I approve, by the by.
It appears the anti gun freedom lobby didn't get the required 60,000 signatures to put the 'Constitutional Carry' on a ballot for voters in Oklahoma.
So, barring any other resistance, no permit concealed carry begins November 1st.
I approve, by the by.
No but in the nomenclature of the time, a redneck who cleans his guns and practices regularly is well regulated.
The 2nd Amendment is found in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights specifically enumerates freedoms of the individual. This has been upheld time after time. The security of a free state is 100% dependent upon the individuals being free and able to defend themselves. Period.
No. But I will not support doing "something" that makes you feel good but has no effect, cannot be defined and has no realistic goal beyond having done "something."
I'm 100% for doing things that will work.
Last edited:
This is a good discussion to have. There are plenty of young men 25 and under who have a home and family to protect, so we need to be careful about due process and protecting their rights - but you are right. There is a very specific demographic that is affected.
Do you have any ideas on how this would work?
Not without giving it some serious thought, but it could be doable and it’s a logical compromise between the two extremes. For example, many are opposed to red flag laws. Would they be less opposed if they only applied to individuals under the age of 25?
Bottom line, if you look up all the mass shootings in the last 25 years, I’m pretty sure at least 75% of the shooters were 16-25 years old. There are reasons for that.
No, that's something you just invented. A "well regulated militia" definitely meant something and it wasn't cleaning a gun. Plain language of the SA says what it says. You're conducting mental gymnastics.
The founding fathers would've looked at the weaponry today and said we're out of our minds.
"Well regulated" clearly meant "well trained" in the period in which the Second Amendment was written. There's a ton of historical information out there on the subject and the use of the word "regulated."
Maybe you can find some historical reference to "well regulated" meaning "well regulated by the government" from that time period?
If you're into treating it like scripture, even better then. The equivalent of contemporary "well trained" isnt a redneck cleaning his gun, either.
If I'm into treating it like scripture? I don't think the Founders were time travelers, so they likely had to use widely common language when writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I'm sorry that plenty of historical documents and references exist for us to review to see exactly what they meant.
What does the contemporary "well trained" mean to you? A clean gun is a functioning gun, so gun cleaning should probably be part of "well trained."
Sorry. You are just wrong. That’s been explained many times over the last two centuries.
Also the founding fathers were war hardened heroes who would think anyone who was for gun control was an idiot who never studied history.
If you sat down with the founding fathers and insisted that one guy, with one gun, could kill 30 people in less than a minute, they would commit you to spending the rest of your life in a sanatorium.
Their concerns and intentions may not be the best parameter for the current situation. However, it is all we have.
Lincoln was killed by someone who had a small
pistol he could hide and conceal easily. No laws were changed then. We were still young as a country and this had to be a horrifying event nationally.
Sorry. You are wrong too.
They just finished liberating a country from tyranny. In my opinion they clearly would be more concerned about protecting the republic from more tyranny.
AGAIN, for the purposes of randomly killing people in a crowd, we’ve had basically static gun tech for the last 100 years. And there were a lot more weapons of mass destruction in the founders’ time than you seem to realize.
I think the founding fathers would've said...
"Wow, we'll take 50,000 for our Army!"
Maybe your dumbest post to date on this forum. Their reply would have been, "That's incredible! The state of Virginia would like 20,000 of them please."
