The Gun Control Debate will continue until we find solutions that make sense for people on both sides of the issue.

[Vrenn]

Vrenn

More information for the uninformed (compliments of the Library of Congress):

"The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained a number of deeply religious men. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to...

www.loc.gov

And the Confederation failed.

 

[ActionJackson]

And the Confederation failed.

Nevertheless, you strongly indicated that "my religion" had nothing to do with the founding but the evidence soundly defeats your false assertion.

 

[Vrenn]

Nevertheless, you strongly indicated that "my religion" had nothing to do with the founding but the evidence soundly defeats your false assertion.

Your religion has zero to do with their religion in the middle and late 1700s.

 

[Esdraelon]

A good start (in my humble opinion) would be figuring out a way to drastically reduce inner city gun violence.

Actually enforce the laws already on the books. A second offense gets them life in prison.

 

[ActionJackson]

Your religion has zero to do with their religion in the middle and late 1700s.

Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God and God in the flesh. I believe it and they believed it.

 

[Blues Man]

I don't drink and drive yet, due to others, I have to have a dl and insurance. I don't do that because of the ones that are least likely to run into me, I do that for the drunks (no fault insurance) full coverage to pay for my vehicle when I get nailed. I don't see any difference between gun regs and driving laws.

You are not required to have insurance for drunk drivers. You are required to have insurance to cover any damage you do to the property of others. And driving a car on public roads is not a right but rather a privilege granted by the state that can be revoked at any time for a variety of reasons. And if you borrow to buy a car the bank or finance co can require additional insurance so as to protect the collateral that the loan is based on.


You seem not to realize that the 2nd Amendment does not give anyone the right to fire a weapon anywhere but only to possess a weapon. Where and when and under what circumstances a person my legally fire a weapon are subject to state, county, city and town ordinances.

 

[Vrenn]

Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God and God in the flesh. I believe it and they believed it.

You demand that we give God's consent on any and all weapons no matter how deadly. That means that you keep hammering with God Given Rights. Not once did Jesus say anything about giving you his consent to own anything. You have raised the cult45 and ARCult to religious levels. And that has no place in the Constitution.

 

[ActionJackson]

You demand that we give God's consent on any and all weapons no matter how deadly. That means that you keep hammering with God Given Rights. Not once did Jesus say anything about giving you his consent to own anything. You have raised the cult45 and ARCult to religious levels. And that has no place in the Constitution.

God gave man the right to defend himself. If China is heading toward me with a tank, I want a tank to defend myself.

 

[Vrenn]

You are not required to have insurance for drunk drivers. You are required to have insurance to cover any damage you do to the property of others. And driving a car on public roads is not a right but rather a privilege granted by the state that can be revoked at any time for a variety of reasons. And if you borrow to buy a car the bank or finance co can require additional insurance so as to protect the collateral that the loan is based on.

No fault is about covering the damages on your person, your passenger and your car in the event of an uninsured driver that smacks into your car. Many drunk drivers don't have insurance since they have probably been busted early on and can't be insured. So I do carry insurance against the damage that a Drunk Driver does. If you don't have it, yer an idjit.

You seem not to realize that the 2nd Amendment does not give anyone the right to fire a weapon anywhere but only to possess a weapon. Where and when and under what circumstances a person my legally fire a weapon are subject to state, county, city and town ordinances.

According to Heller V, you have the right to possess the weapon for home defense inside your own home. When you leave your home, those rights do not follow you. At that point, the State determines what your Privileges are concerning weapons. According to Heller V, a handgun is the tool needed for home defense. But an AR isn't. And God didn't give you those rights, the Supreme Court did.

 

[Vrenn]

God gave man the right to defend himself. If China is heading toward me with a tank, I want a tank to defend myself.

Russia is threatening to use Nukes. Does that mean we all need to own a Nuke? Without going real deep into it, that's one good way to end life as we know it.

If China is headed towards you in a tank, you just might get the use of a Tank since you will be a member of either the US Military or the Organized Militia.

You have the right to own a tank as long as it's demilitarized. But most tanks will NEVER be able to be used on a public highway since it's going to destroy the road it rides on.

I refuse to contribute to your Fantasies.

 

[Blues Man]

No fault is about covering the damages on your person, your passenger and your car in the event of an uninsured driver that smacks into your car. Many drunk drivers don't have insurance since they have probably been busted early on and can't be insured. So I do carry insurance against the damage that a Drunk Driver does. If you don't have it, yer an idjit.



According to Heller V, you have the right to possess the weapon for home defense inside your own home. When you leave your home, those rights do not follow you. At that point, the State determines what your Privileges are concerning weapons. According to Heller V, a handgun is the tool needed for home defense. But an AR isn't. And God didn't give you those rights, the Supreme Court did.

You have insurance against ANYONE who drives illegally without insurance not specifically drunk drivers.

And Heller does not limit the possession of guns to just inside the home but that self defense inside the home is included in all legal uses of firearms. Self defense has ALWAYS been a lawful use of firearms.

District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense...

www.britannica.com

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.

 

[ActionJackson]

Russia is threatening to use Nukes. Does that mean we all need to own a Nuke? Without going real deep into it, that's one good way to end life as we know it.

If China is headed towards you in a tank, you just might get the use of a Tank since you will be a member of either the US Military or the Organized Militia.

You have the right to own a tank as long as it's demilitarized. But most tanks will NEVER be able to be used on a public highway since it's going to destroy the road it rides on.

I refuse to contribute to your Fantasies.

Should Russia be the only folks with nukes? Should China be the only folks with tanks? Should the IRS be the only thugs with AR-15?

 

[Vrenn]

You have insurance against ANYONE who drives illegally without insurance not specifically drunk drivers.

The Drunk Driver won't be insured and will likely hit or kill someone. You can't change that. I wished that you could.

And Heller does not limit the possession of guns to just inside the home but that self defense inside the home is included in all legal uses of firearms. Self defense has ALWAYS been a lawful use of firearms.

District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense...

www.britannica.com

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.

You cherry picked on this one. The Ruling called the weapon as "Reasonable". A Hangun is a reasonable method of self defense in the home. A Bazooka isn't. Who determines what is a Reasonable Firearm? The State. And the State, under the 1934 National Firearms Act and Miller V determined that a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder is considered a "Not Reasonable" Weapon. And the 9th Supreme Court agrees. According to the general opinion, the Judge Selma's ruling sounded like it was written by a Gun Sales Brochure.

The AR-15 isn't considered "Reasonable" for home defense. Even Selma said it was for Militia Use. Meaning, it's designed to combat the Government when necessary. Take it from me, at my age, I won't allow you to get within M-16 or AR-15 range. I'll be operating at 400 yds or better with a Ought 6 bolt. If the Military gets within 400 yds, your AR-15 won't do the job against the tank or the company all using AR-15s, M-249s, M-240s etc.. Going up against a company or even just a squad is just pure nonsense with an AR or any other weapon short of a Tactical Nuke. Your fantasy is noted and reality discounts it.

 

[Blues Man]

The Drunk Driver won't be insured and will likely hit or kill someone. You can't change that. I wished that you could.




You cherry picked on this one. The Ruling called the weapon as "Reasonable". A Hangun is a reasonable method of self defense in the home. A Bazooka isn't. Who determines what is a Reasonable Firearm? The State. And the State, under the 1934 National Firearms Act and Miller V determined that a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder is considered a "Not Reasonable" Weapon. And the 9th Supreme Court agrees. According to the general opinion, the Judge Selma's ruling sounded like it was written by a Gun Sales Brochure.

The AR-15 isn't considered "Reasonable" for home defense. Even Selma said it was for Militia Use. Meaning, it's designed to combat the Government when necessary. Take it from me, at my age, I won't allow you to get within M-16 or AR-15 range. I'll be operating at 400 yds or better with a Ought 6 bolt. If the Military gets within 400 yds, your AR-15 won't do the job against the tank or the company all using AR-15s, M-249s, M-240s etc.. Going up against a company or even just a squad is just pure nonsense with an AR or any other weapon short of a Tactical Nuke. Your fantasy is noted and reality discounts it.

You have no proof that people who might drive drunk have no insurance.

And how many people carry an AR 15 outside of the home for self defense?

Like it or not the AR 15 is nothing but a semiautomatic rifle no different that any other semiautomatic rifle that has been in use by civilians for over a century and the vast majority of people who carry for self defense don't carry rifles of any kind.

And you can play internet tough guy all you want but if you shoot a person for no reason from 400 yards out you are nothing but a piece of shit murderer.

And I find it interesting that you who want to ban guns because people kill with them are threatening to kill people from 400 yds away for no fucking reason.

If you are that terrified of law abiding people owning guns then you should move to New Zealand

 

[Vrenn]

You have no proof that people who might drive drunk have no insurance.

I will try something different. Using common sense, when a person is a habitual drunk driver, Insurance Companies will no longer insure them after the 2nd offence usually. Feed that into your gray matter and you will come up with a revelation.

And how many people carry an AR 15 outside of the home for self defense?

At one time, around here, there were a few people that never left their home without the AR-15s. It's a sad thing to see them hanging around the court house. But since 2013, we have broken the AR Cult that you are a card carrying member of. The AR is still around but the cult is broken.

Like it or not the AR 15 is nothing but a semiautomatic rifle no different that any other semiautomatic rifle that has been in use by civilians for over a century and the vast majority of people who carry for self defense don't carry rifles of any kind.

I have 20 years using the AR-15 that the AF bought. And I know from experience why the AR-15 was originally introduced. Whether it's capable of a 3 round burst of single shot it doesn't matter. The same reasons are why it's the current firearm used for mass shooting which holds the body count.

And you can play internet tough guy all you want but if you shoot a person for no reason from 400 yards out you are nothing but a piece of shit murderer.

I used it in context where the Civilian Populance had to rise up against a government that was out of control.

I trained to hit a 5 inch circle at 800 yds. I didn't get the 1200 yd traing because I failed the Syke Test. You see, it takes a very special person to be a Military Sniper and not blow your own brains away.

On that note, me doing a righteous shooting at 400 yds reminds me of an old saying. Why did you shoot him in the back? Because his front wasn't towards me. Welcome to war,

And I find it interesting that you who want to ban guns because people kill with them are threatening to kill people from 400 yds away for no fucking reason.

So you think you found a gotcha.

If you are that terrified of law abiding people owning guns then you should move to New Zealand

And if you believe that there should be no gun regs, move to libia.

 

[Blues Man]

I will try something different. Using common sense, when a person is a habitual drunk driver, Insurance Companies will no longer insure them after the 2nd offence usually. Feed that into your gray matter and you will come up with a revelation.





At one time, around here, there were a few people that never left their home without the AR-15s. It's a sad thing to see them hanging around the court house. But since 2013, we have broken the AR Cult that you are a card carrying member of. The AR is still around but the cult is broken.



I have 20 years using the AR-15 that the AF bought. And I know from experience why the AR-15 was originally introduced. Whether it's capable of a 3 round burst of single shot it doesn't matter. The same reasons are why it's the current firearm used for mass shooting which holds the body count.




I used it in context where the Civilian Populance had to rise up against a government that was out of control.

I trained to hit a 5 inch circle at 800 yds. I didn't get the 1200 yd traing because I failed the Syke Test. You see, it takes a very special person to be a Military Sniper and not blow your own brains away.

On that note, me doing a righteous shooting at 400 yds reminds me of an old saying. Why did you shoot him in the back? Because his front wasn't towards me. Welcome to war,




So you think you found a gotcha.





And if you believe that there should be no gun regs, move to libia.

OK keep moving the goal posts so now it's only "habitual" drunk drivers. Your insurance coverage against uninsured drivers is just that for any and all uninsured drivers not just "habitual" drunk drivers.

And I never once mentioned "rising up" against the fucking government. This is once again you interjecting irrelevant shit into the discussion.

And IDGAF if you regularly shove the barrel of an AR 15 up your ass while you masturbate. It is 100% irrelevant. I own 3 firearms that are issued by the military today. The military does not issue semiautomatic AR 15 rifles.

But my Glock 19 and my Remington 870 are exactly like the ones carried by people in the military and law enforcement and my Colt 1911 .45 is also exactly like the ones carried by soldiers. In fact I bought my 870 as military surplus. So the whole idea of military weapons being off limits to civilians IS 100% bullshit. And like I said the military does not issue semiautomatic AR 15's to anyone for combat.

And you are the one threatening to commit murder here not me.

And FYI there are over 20000 federal and state gun laws in this country if that isn;t regulation then what is?

 

[Vrenn]

OK keep moving the goal posts so now it's only "habitual" drunk drivers. Your insurance coverage against uninsured drivers is just that for any and all uninsured drivers not just "habitual" drunk drivers.

This is a non starter for you. Let's just move on.

And I never once mentioned "rising up" against the fucking government. This is once again you interjecting irrelevant shit into the discussion.

2A brings that up. Or the original intent. And you gunnutters keep bringing it up to justify the AR-15. And this is as relevent as you can get.

And IDGAF if you regularly shove the barrel of an AR 15 up your ass while you masturbate. It is 100% irrelevant. I own 3 firearms that are issued by the military today. The military does not issue semiautomatic AR 15 rifles.

Funny, there are a few running about in the Army records. Not many but a few. I know of one Grunt that got one issued to him for guard duty. But that's irrelevent.

But my Glock 19 and my Remington 870 are exactly like the ones carried by people in the military and law enforcement and my Colt 1911 .45 is also exactly like the ones carried by soldiers. In fact I bought my 870 as military surplus. So the whole idea of military weapons being off limits to civilians IS 100% bullshit. And like I said the military does not issue semiautomatic AR 15's to anyone for combat.

And not one of those (with the exception of the 1911) was specially designed strictly for war. I can do as much damage with an AR-15 as I can with an M-16 because both are the same damned weapon except for the lower carrier. We learned not to have our AR-15 Model 601(M-16) on full auto because you would break the 11 commandment of war. Thou shalt not run out of ammo first.

And you are the one threatening to commit murder here not me.

Oh, really, tell you what, turn me in to the mods. Hell, turn me into the FBI.

And FYI there are over 20000 federal and state gun laws in this country if that isn;t regulation then what is?

And there needs to be just a few that are pertinent to the point. And the AR-15 needs to be regulated.

 

[Captain Caveman]

OK keep moving the goal posts so now it's only "habitual" drunk drivers. Your insurance coverage against uninsured drivers is just that for any and all uninsured drivers not just "habitual" drunk drivers.

And I never once mentioned "rising up" against the fucking government. This is once again you interjecting irrelevant shit into the discussion.

And IDGAF if you regularly shove the barrel of an AR 15 up your ass while you masturbate. It is 100% irrelevant. I own 3 firearms that are issued by the military today. The military does not issue semiautomatic AR 15 rifles.

But my Glock 19 and my Remington 870 are exactly like the ones carried by people in the military and law enforcement and my Colt 1911 .45 is also exactly like the ones carried by soldiers. In fact I bought my 870 as military surplus. So the whole idea of military weapons being off limits to civilians IS 100% bullshit. And like I said the military does not issue semiautomatic AR 15's to anyone for combat.

And you are the one threatening to commit murder here not me.

And FYI there are over 20000 federal and state gun laws in this country if that isn;t regulation then what is?

I don't care the model of legal gun. I don't care the model of the road legal car. I only care if you are a responsible, sensible, suitable, mentally stable, and have the right mentality to own and use one, especially when it comes to guns.

 

[2aguy]

The Drunk Driver won't be insured and will likely hit or kill someone. You can't change that. I wished that you could.




You cherry picked on this one. The Ruling called the weapon as "Reasonable". A Hangun is a reasonable method of self defense in the home. A Bazooka isn't. Who determines what is a Reasonable Firearm? The State. And the State, under the 1934 National Firearms Act and Miller V determined that a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder is considered a "Not Reasonable" Weapon. And the 9th Supreme Court agrees. According to the general opinion, the Judge Selma's ruling sounded like it was written by a Gun Sales Brochure.

The AR-15 isn't considered "Reasonable" for home defense. Even Selma said it was for Militia Use. Meaning, it's designed to combat the Government when necessary. Take it from me, at my age, I won't allow you to get within M-16 or AR-15 range. I'll be operating at 400 yds or better with a Ought 6 bolt. If the Military gets within 400 yds, your AR-15 won't do the job against the tank or the company all using AR-15s, M-249s, M-240s etc.. Going up against a company or even just a squad is just pure nonsense with an AR or any other weapon short of a Tactical Nuke. Your fantasy is noted and reality discounts it.

You are wrong...since you don't understand the topic you are posting about....

The AR-15 isn't considered "Reasonable" for home defense.

Justice Scalia...who actually wrote the Heller opinion....opining on the AR-15 rifle when there were just 5 million of them in private hands.....

There are now over 20 million in private hands....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
=====
====

 

[2aguy]

The Drunk Driver won't be insured and will likely hit or kill someone. You can't change that. I wished that you could.




You cherry picked on this one. The Ruling called the weapon as "Reasonable". A Hangun is a reasonable method of self defense in the home. A Bazooka isn't. Who determines what is a Reasonable Firearm? The State. And the State, under the 1934 National Firearms Act and Miller V determined that a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder is considered a "Not Reasonable" Weapon. And the 9th Supreme Court agrees. According to the general opinion, the Judge Selma's ruling sounded like it was written by a Gun Sales Brochure.

The AR-15 isn't considered "Reasonable" for home defense. Even Selma said it was for Militia Use. Meaning, it's designed to combat the Government when necessary. Take it from me, at my age, I won't allow you to get within M-16 or AR-15 range. I'll be operating at 400 yds or better with a Ought 6 bolt. If the Military gets within 400 yds, your AR-15 won't do the job against the tank or the company all using AR-15s, M-249s, M-240s etc.. Going up against a company or even just a squad is just pure nonsense with an AR or any other weapon short of a Tactical Nuke. Your fantasy is noted and reality discounts it.

Here....an expert on why an AR-15 is a good choice for home defense......you twit...