Perfect example for 2nd amendment rights.

[Pop23]

I did say that
You just didn't understand it

And I also answered the second part of your question when I replied to you that I think it's acceptable that convicted felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot legally purchase firearms.

For over 20 pages I’ve been asking pretty straight forward questions and getting everything including the kitchen sink for answers EXCEPT answer that directly address my questions. Pops and his crew of dupes, about 5 others, all either dodged my question or simply replied with insults. So I feel like I’ve been a broken record in this thread asking the same shit over and over. I just went back and reread the thread and I will say that you have been more direct than that band if idiots. I apologize if I took my frustration out on you as I may have gotten you confused with them. You danced around the point a bit when we started our discussion but got too it realatively quickly, so I’ll thank you for that.

So moving forward, I’m curious. You’ve stayed that you are ok with preventing criminals and the mental ill from buying guns, I’m assuming that means you support back ground checks as that’s the only way to tell if a customer qualifies or not, am I correct?

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

The mention of the militia is separated from the right to bear arms by a comma. The comma means Therefore. A militia, that is necessary to insure a "free state" is only possible by the acquisition of arm's supplied by the "people".

You would make us believe that the Founders, having just fought a bloody war, where they struggled to acquire "arms", put in the founding document a statement that would require "the people" to ask a repressive government permission to arm itself against the governments repression with arms supplied by this repressive government.

Please, tell me why they would have done that?

 

[Slade3200]

For over 20 pages I’ve been asking pretty straight forward questions and getting everything including the kitchen sink for answers EXCEPT answer that directly address my questions. Pops and his crew of dupes, about 5 others, all either dodged my question or simply replied with insults. So I feel like I’ve been a broken record in this thread asking the same shit over and over. I just went back and reread the thread and I will say that you have been more direct than that band if idiots. I apologize if I took my frustration out on you as I may have gotten you confused with them. You danced around the point a bit when we started our discussion but got too it realatively quickly, so I’ll thank you for that.

So moving forward, I’m curious. You’ve stayed that you are ok with preventing criminals and the mental ill from buying guns, I’m assuming that means you support back ground checks as that’s the only way to tell if a customer qualifies or not, am I correct?

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

The mention of the militia is separated from the right to bear arms by a comma. The comma means Therefore. A militia, that is necessary to insure a "free state" is only possible by the acquisition of arm's supplied by the "people".

You would make us believe that the Founders, having just fought a bloody war, where they struggled to acquire "arms", put in the founding document a statement that would require "the people" to ask a repressive government permission to arm itself against the governments repression with arms supplied by this repressive government.

Please, tell me why they would have done that?

No I don’t think that at all nor did I say that. However I do think given what was going on in those times the founders were intent on setting up a republic where states had the right to create laws and defend themselves against a repressive federal government, hence the militia. The amendments weren’t all writen for the abstract future, hence the $20 litigation amendment, some were specific towards what was happening in those times, so it is fair to have discussions about that.

 

[Pop23]

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

The mention of the militia is separated from the right to bear arms by a comma. The comma means Therefore. A militia, that is necessary to insure a "free state" is only possible by the acquisition of arm's supplied by the "people".

You would make us believe that the Founders, having just fought a bloody war, where they struggled to acquire "arms", put in the founding document a statement that would require "the people" to ask a repressive government permission to arm itself against the governments repression with arms supplied by this repressive government.

Please, tell me why they would have done that?

No I don’t think that at all nor did I say that. However I do think given what was going on in those times the founders were intent on setting up a republic where states had the right to create laws and defend themselves against a repressive federal government, hence the militia. The amendments weren’t all writen for the abstract future, hence the $20 litigation amendment, some were specific towards what was happening in those times, so it is fair to have discussions about that.

Then you must repeal the amendment. I actually would back a constitutional convention. You?

 

[Slade3200]

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

The mention of the militia is separated from the right to bear arms by a comma. The comma means Therefore. A militia, that is necessary to insure a "free state" is only possible by the acquisition of arm's supplied by the "people".

You would make us believe that the Founders, having just fought a bloody war, where they struggled to acquire "arms", put in the founding document a statement that would require "the people" to ask a repressive government permission to arm itself against the governments repression with arms supplied by this repressive government.

Please, tell me why they would have done that?

No I don’t think that at all nor did I say that. However I do think given what was going on in those times the founders were intent on setting up a republic where states had the right to create laws and defend themselves against a repressive federal government, hence the militia. The amendments weren’t all writen for the abstract future, hence the $20 litigation amendment, some were specific towards what was happening in those times, so it is fair to have discussions about that.

Then you must repeal the amendment. I actually would back a constitutional convention. You?

Not necessarily. The right to bear arms is a right but it is not absolute and our government has the ability to set the parameters by instituting regulations to benefit the public safety. You are correct that the regulation process would be easier if the amendement was repealed or modified, but I don’t ever see that happening.

 

[Pop23]

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

The mention of the militia is separated from the right to bear arms by a comma. The comma means Therefore. A militia, that is necessary to insure a "free state" is only possible by the acquisition of arm's supplied by the "people".

You would make us believe that the Founders, having just fought a bloody war, where they struggled to acquire "arms", put in the founding document a statement that would require "the people" to ask a repressive government permission to arm itself against the governments repression with arms supplied by this repressive government.

Please, tell me why they would have done that?

No I don’t think that at all nor did I say that. However I do think given what was going on in those times the founders were intent on setting up a republic where states had the right to create laws and defend themselves against a repressive federal government, hence the militia. The amendments weren’t all writen for the abstract future, hence the $20 litigation amendment, some were specific towards what was happening in those times, so it is fair to have discussions about that.

Then you must repeal the amendment. I actually would back a constitutional convention. You?

Not necessarily. The right to bear arms is a right but it is not absolute and our government has the ability to set the parameters by instituting regulations to benefit the public safety. You are correct that the regulation process would be easier if the amendement was repealed or modified, but I don’t ever see that happening.

OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem

 

[Slade3200]

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

The mention of the militia is separated from the right to bear arms by a comma. The comma means Therefore. A militia, that is necessary to insure a "free state" is only possible by the acquisition of arm's supplied by the "people".

You would make us believe that the Founders, having just fought a bloody war, where they struggled to acquire "arms", put in the founding document a statement that would require "the people" to ask a repressive government permission to arm itself against the governments repression with arms supplied by this repressive government.

Please, tell me why they would have done that?

No I don’t think that at all nor did I say that. However I do think given what was going on in those times the founders were intent on setting up a republic where states had the right to create laws and defend themselves against a repressive federal government, hence the militia. The amendments weren’t all writen for the abstract future, hence the $20 litigation amendment, some were specific towards what was happening in those times, so it is fair to have discussions about that.

Then you must repeal the amendment. I actually would back a constitutional convention. You?

Not necessarily. The right to bear arms is a right but it is not absolute and our government has the ability to set the parameters by instituting regulations to benefit the public safety. You are correct that the regulation process would be easier if the amendement was repealed or modified, but I don’t ever see that happening.

OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem

Simply stated I think gun training and making sure we sell guns to responsible citizens is the foundation. Also limiting firepower and improving the safety of guns is important as well.

I understand that guns are a right and cars are not but we can learn from some of the ways we regulated our automobiles and roads to reduce death and injury. We have done good and effective things with guns as well so I don’t think we are too far off. The biggest problem I see right is in our dishonest and hyperbolic discourse. It overshadows productive debate and nothing gets done.

 

[Pop23]

The mention of the militia is separated from the right to bear arms by a comma. The comma means Therefore. A militia, that is necessary to insure a "free state" is only possible by the acquisition of arm's supplied by the "people".

You would make us believe that the Founders, having just fought a bloody war, where they struggled to acquire "arms", put in the founding document a statement that would require "the people" to ask a repressive government permission to arm itself against the governments repression with arms supplied by this repressive government.

Please, tell me why they would have done that?

No I don’t think that at all nor did I say that. However I do think given what was going on in those times the founders were intent on setting up a republic where states had the right to create laws and defend themselves against a repressive federal government, hence the militia. The amendments weren’t all writen for the abstract future, hence the $20 litigation amendment, some were specific towards what was happening in those times, so it is fair to have discussions about that.

Then you must repeal the amendment. I actually would back a constitutional convention. You?

Not necessarily. The right to bear arms is a right but it is not absolute and our government has the ability to set the parameters by instituting regulations to benefit the public safety. You are correct that the regulation process would be easier if the amendement was repealed or modified, but I don’t ever see that happening.

OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem

Simply stated I think gun training and making sure we sell guns to responsible citizens is the foundation. Also limiting firepower and improving the safety of guns is important as well.

I understand that guns are a right and cars are not but we can learn from some of the ways we regulated our automobiles and roads to reduce death and injury. We have done good and effective things with guns as well so I don’t think we are too far off. The biggest problem I see right is in our dishonest and hyperbolic discourse. It overshadows productive debate and nothing gets done.

I am ready to have an actual debate, but any reduction my right, without a clear and concise reason for me, a law abiding citizen, to do so is simply not going to happen.

 

[2aguy]

The mention of the militia is separated from the right to bear arms by a comma. The comma means Therefore. A militia, that is necessary to insure a "free state" is only possible by the acquisition of arm's supplied by the "people".

You would make us believe that the Founders, having just fought a bloody war, where they struggled to acquire "arms", put in the founding document a statement that would require "the people" to ask a repressive government permission to arm itself against the governments repression with arms supplied by this repressive government.

Please, tell me why they would have done that?

No I don’t think that at all nor did I say that. However I do think given what was going on in those times the founders were intent on setting up a republic where states had the right to create laws and defend themselves against a repressive federal government, hence the militia. The amendments weren’t all writen for the abstract future, hence the $20 litigation amendment, some were specific towards what was happening in those times, so it is fair to have discussions about that.

Then you must repeal the amendment. I actually would back a constitutional convention. You?

Not necessarily. The right to bear arms is a right but it is not absolute and our government has the ability to set the parameters by instituting regulations to benefit the public safety. You are correct that the regulation process would be easier if the amendement was repealed or modified, but I don’t ever see that happening.

OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem

Simply stated I think gun training and making sure we sell guns to responsible citizens is the foundation. Also limiting firepower and improving the safety of guns is important as well.

I understand that guns are a right and cars are not but we can learn from some of the ways we regulated our automobiles and roads to reduce death and injury. We have done good and effective things with guns as well so I don’t think we are too far off. The biggest problem I see right is in our dishonest and hyperbolic discourse. It overshadows productive debate and nothing gets done.

The AR-15 is the same rifle as all the other civilian rifles...so by limiting power you mean actual fully automatic rifles...right?

 

[2aguy]

The mention of the militia is separated from the right to bear arms by a comma. The comma means Therefore. A militia, that is necessary to insure a "free state" is only possible by the acquisition of arm's supplied by the "people".

You would make us believe that the Founders, having just fought a bloody war, where they struggled to acquire "arms", put in the founding document a statement that would require "the people" to ask a repressive government permission to arm itself against the governments repression with arms supplied by this repressive government.

Please, tell me why they would have done that?

No I don’t think that at all nor did I say that. However I do think given what was going on in those times the founders were intent on setting up a republic where states had the right to create laws and defend themselves against a repressive federal government, hence the militia. The amendments weren’t all writen for the abstract future, hence the $20 litigation amendment, some were specific towards what was happening in those times, so it is fair to have discussions about that.

Then you must repeal the amendment. I actually would back a constitutional convention. You?

Not necessarily. The right to bear arms is a right but it is not absolute and our government has the ability to set the parameters by instituting regulations to benefit the public safety. You are correct that the regulation process would be easier if the amendement was repealed or modified, but I don’t ever see that happening.

OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem

Simply stated I think gun training and making sure we sell guns to responsible citizens is the foundation. Also limiting firepower and improving the safety of guns is important as well.

I understand that guns are a right and cars are not but we can learn from some of the ways we regulated our automobiles and roads to reduce death and injury. We have done good and effective things with guns as well so I don’t think we are too far off. The biggest problem I see right is in our dishonest and hyperbolic discourse. It overshadows productive debate and nothing gets done.

In Europe they have made training so prohibitive that normal, law abiding people can't get guns...meanwhile, criminals get guns easily...do you see the problem with requiring training, outside of the Constitutionality of it?

 

[Slade3200]

No I don’t think that at all nor did I say that. However I do think given what was going on in those times the founders were intent on setting up a republic where states had the right to create laws and defend themselves against a repressive federal government, hence the militia. The amendments weren’t all writen for the abstract future, hence the $20 litigation amendment, some were specific towards what was happening in those times, so it is fair to have discussions about that.

Then you must repeal the amendment. I actually would back a constitutional convention. You?

Not necessarily. The right to bear arms is a right but it is not absolute and our government has the ability to set the parameters by instituting regulations to benefit the public safety. You are correct that the regulation process would be easier if the amendement was repealed or modified, but I don’t ever see that happening.

OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem

Simply stated I think gun training and making sure we sell guns to responsible citizens is the foundation. Also limiting firepower and improving the safety of guns is important as well.

I understand that guns are a right and cars are not but we can learn from some of the ways we regulated our automobiles and roads to reduce death and injury. We have done good and effective things with guns as well so I don’t think we are too far off. The biggest problem I see right is in our dishonest and hyperbolic discourse. It overshadows productive debate and nothing gets done.

The AR-15 is the same rifle as all the other civilian rifles...so by limiting power you mean actual fully automatic rifles...right?

Yes, I don’t have a problem with ARs, I think the automatic regulations are useful

 

[Slade3200]

No I don’t think that at all nor did I say that. However I do think given what was going on in those times the founders were intent on setting up a republic where states had the right to create laws and defend themselves against a repressive federal government, hence the militia. The amendments weren’t all writen for the abstract future, hence the $20 litigation amendment, some were specific towards what was happening in those times, so it is fair to have discussions about that.

Then you must repeal the amendment. I actually would back a constitutional convention. You?

Not necessarily. The right to bear arms is a right but it is not absolute and our government has the ability to set the parameters by instituting regulations to benefit the public safety. You are correct that the regulation process would be easier if the amendement was repealed or modified, but I don’t ever see that happening.

OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem

Simply stated I think gun training and making sure we sell guns to responsible citizens is the foundation. Also limiting firepower and improving the safety of guns is important as well.

I understand that guns are a right and cars are not but we can learn from some of the ways we regulated our automobiles and roads to reduce death and injury. We have done good and effective things with guns as well so I don’t think we are too far off. The biggest problem I see right is in our dishonest and hyperbolic discourse. It overshadows productive debate and nothing gets done.

In Europe they have made training so prohibitive that normal, law abiding people can't get guns...meanwhile, criminals get guns easily...do you see the problem with requiring training, outside of the Constitutionality of it?

I don’t think it should be prohibitive. I think it should work like getting a drivers license and driving a car.

 

[2aguy]

Then you must repeal the amendment. I actually would back a constitutional convention. You?

Not necessarily. The right to bear arms is a right but it is not absolute and our government has the ability to set the parameters by instituting regulations to benefit the public safety. You are correct that the regulation process would be easier if the amendement was repealed or modified, but I don’t ever see that happening.

OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem

Simply stated I think gun training and making sure we sell guns to responsible citizens is the foundation. Also limiting firepower and improving the safety of guns is important as well.

I understand that guns are a right and cars are not but we can learn from some of the ways we regulated our automobiles and roads to reduce death and injury. We have done good and effective things with guns as well so I don’t think we are too far off. The biggest problem I see right is in our dishonest and hyperbolic discourse. It overshadows productive debate and nothing gets done.

In Europe they have made training so prohibitive that normal, law abiding people can't get guns...meanwhile, criminals get guns easily...do you see the problem with requiring training, outside of the Constitutionality of it?

I don’t think it should be prohibitive. I think it should work like getting a drivers license and driving a car.

Sorry.....if you allowed anti gunners to get control over the requirements it would be like New York, where getting a gun is almost impossible and where getting a carry permit takes being rich or politically connected....that is a violation of Rights.....

 

[Pop23]

Then you must repeal the amendment. I actually would back a constitutional convention. You?

Not necessarily. The right to bear arms is a right but it is not absolute and our government has the ability to set the parameters by instituting regulations to benefit the public safety. You are correct that the regulation process would be easier if the amendement was repealed or modified, but I don’t ever see that happening.

OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem

Simply stated I think gun training and making sure we sell guns to responsible citizens is the foundation. Also limiting firepower and improving the safety of guns is important as well.

I understand that guns are a right and cars are not but we can learn from some of the ways we regulated our automobiles and roads to reduce death and injury. We have done good and effective things with guns as well so I don’t think we are too far off. The biggest problem I see right is in our dishonest and hyperbolic discourse. It overshadows productive debate and nothing gets done.

In Europe they have made training so prohibitive that normal, law abiding people can't get guns...meanwhile, criminals get guns easily...do you see the problem with requiring training, outside of the Constitutionality of it?

I don’t think it should be prohibitive. I think it should work like getting a drivers license and driving a car.

But that’s a poll tax, and those don’t fly

 

[Slade3200]

Not necessarily. The right to bear arms is a right but it is not absolute and our government has the ability to set the parameters by instituting regulations to benefit the public safety. You are correct that the regulation process would be easier if the amendement was repealed or modified, but I don’t ever see that happening.

OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem

Simply stated I think gun training and making sure we sell guns to responsible citizens is the foundation. Also limiting firepower and improving the safety of guns is important as well.

I understand that guns are a right and cars are not but we can learn from some of the ways we regulated our automobiles and roads to reduce death and injury. We have done good and effective things with guns as well so I don’t think we are too far off. The biggest problem I see right is in our dishonest and hyperbolic discourse. It overshadows productive debate and nothing gets done.

In Europe they have made training so prohibitive that normal, law abiding people can't get guns...meanwhile, criminals get guns easily...do you see the problem with requiring training, outside of the Constitutionality of it?

I don’t think it should be prohibitive. I think it should work like getting a drivers license and driving a car.

Sorry.....if you allowed anti gunners to get control over the requirements it would be like New York, where getting a gun is almost impossible and where getting a carry permit takes being rich or politically connected....that is a violation of Rights.....

That’s a lazy argument and you know it. I’m not saying that anti gunners should take control of everything. Like with most things the answer is in the middle

 

[Slade3200]

Not necessarily. The right to bear arms is a right but it is not absolute and our government has the ability to set the parameters by instituting regulations to benefit the public safety. You are correct that the regulation process would be easier if the amendement was repealed or modified, but I don’t ever see that happening.

OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem

Simply stated I think gun training and making sure we sell guns to responsible citizens is the foundation. Also limiting firepower and improving the safety of guns is important as well.

I understand that guns are a right and cars are not but we can learn from some of the ways we regulated our automobiles and roads to reduce death and injury. We have done good and effective things with guns as well so I don’t think we are too far off. The biggest problem I see right is in our dishonest and hyperbolic discourse. It overshadows productive debate and nothing gets done.

In Europe they have made training so prohibitive that normal, law abiding people can't get guns...meanwhile, criminals get guns easily...do you see the problem with requiring training, outside of the Constitutionality of it?

I don’t think it should be prohibitive. I think it should work like getting a drivers license and driving a car.

But that’s a poll tax, and those don’t fly

Why don’t they fly?

 

[Pop23]

OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem

Simply stated I think gun training and making sure we sell guns to responsible citizens is the foundation. Also limiting firepower and improving the safety of guns is important as well.

I understand that guns are a right and cars are not but we can learn from some of the ways we regulated our automobiles and roads to reduce death and injury. We have done good and effective things with guns as well so I don’t think we are too far off. The biggest problem I see right is in our dishonest and hyperbolic discourse. It overshadows productive debate and nothing gets done.

In Europe they have made training so prohibitive that normal, law abiding people can't get guns...meanwhile, criminals get guns easily...do you see the problem with requiring training, outside of the Constitutionality of it?

I don’t think it should be prohibitive. I think it should work like getting a drivers license and driving a car.

But that’s a poll tax, and those don’t fly

Why don’t they fly?

You’ll have to ask the Supreme Court.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is part of our supreme law of the land.

 

[2aguy]

OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem

Simply stated I think gun training and making sure we sell guns to responsible citizens is the foundation. Also limiting firepower and improving the safety of guns is important as well.

I understand that guns are a right and cars are not but we can learn from some of the ways we regulated our automobiles and roads to reduce death and injury. We have done good and effective things with guns as well so I don’t think we are too far off. The biggest problem I see right is in our dishonest and hyperbolic discourse. It overshadows productive debate and nothing gets done.

In Europe they have made training so prohibitive that normal, law abiding people can't get guns...meanwhile, criminals get guns easily...do you see the problem with requiring training, outside of the Constitutionality of it?

I don’t think it should be prohibitive. I think it should work like getting a drivers license and driving a car.

Sorry.....if you allowed anti gunners to get control over the requirements it would be like New York, where getting a gun is almost impossible and where getting a carry permit takes being rich or politically connected....that is a violation of Rights.....

That’s a lazy argument and you know it. I’m not saying that anti gunners should take control of everything. Like with most things the answer is in the middle

New York has already made it almost impossible for law abiding New Yorkers to own and carry guns......dittos democrat controlled counties in California.....

And again, any mandatory training would be unConstitutional...

 

[P@triot]

And the debate is officially over!

Indeed, the CDC study, which the federal agency conducted from 1996 to 1998, found there are 2.46 million defensive gun uses in the U.S. each year.

One would have to be an absolute unhinged lunatic to proclaim that we should trade 30,000 lives (the overwhelming majority of which are the result of criminals killing criminals and suicides) for 2.46 million lives (almost all of which are honest, law abiding citizens).

Newly revealed government statistics hidden from public dismantle liberal gun control narrative

 

[2aguy]

And the debate is officially over!

Indeed, the CDC study, which the federal agency conducted from 1996 to 1998, found there are 2.46 million defensive gun uses in the U.S. each year.

One would have to be an absolute unhinged lunatic to proclaim that we should trade 30,000 lives (the overwhelming majority of which are the result of criminals killing criminals and suicides) for 2.46 million lives (almost all of which are honest, law abiding citizens).

Newly revealed government statistics hidden from public dismantle liberal gun control narrative

Do you wonder how fast they will stop their demands that we let the CDC do more gun research...remember how they were bitching and whining about the imaginary ban on gun research......and now that we found actual gun research that they hid, they will now want to stop all pro gun research...