Buoght a gun today.

[Lakhota]

What, two of them passed a background check. The other would have but didnt bother waiting so killed his mom instead and stole her guns.
And background checks would have been effective how?

Could they pass a 2nd background check?

 

[The Rabbi]

What, two of them passed a background check. The other would have but didnt bother waiting so killed his mom instead and stole her guns.
And background checks would have been effective how?

Could they pass a 2nd background check?

Your deflection is noted.
Looks like the OP's point has been proven. Background checks are worthless for stopping crime.

 

[Lakhota]

Should the government/military stop doing background checks before awarding security clearances?

Maybe 48 years ago I should have told the OSI to save that $10K because it was just a waste of time. After all, it didn't stop Edward Snowden.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Its for carry; it hides well under my t-shirt while wearing shorts. My 1911 and .357/44 revolvers are way too big.

What about a J-frame S&W in .38 Special?

Not a bad choice - but mine's a K-frame in .357

The J-frame might fit where the Model 27 doesn't.

Personally, I much prefer my Model 29.

 

[Jarlaxle]

What about a J-frame S&W in .38 Special?

Not a bad choice - but mine's a K-frame in .357

The K frame doesnt pocket carry terribly well. I have a 2.5" 642 that is my constant companion. Plus .357mag in a snub isnt the greatest idea out there.

What about a .500 S&W in a snubnose? Yes, someone ACTUALLY built that!

 

[Lakhota]

Why does the NRA want mentally ill people to have gun rights?

 

[The Rabbi]

Not a bad choice - but mine's a K-frame in .357

The K frame doesnt pocket carry terribly well. I have a 2.5" 642 that is my constant companion. Plus .357mag in a snub isnt the greatest idea out there.

What about a .500 S&W in a snubnose? Yes, someone ACTUALLY built that!

Yes thats the X frame. I dunno. Because they can.

 

[Lakhota]

Is the Second Amendment obsolete? The wording is confusing.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The K frame doesnt pocket carry terribly well. I have a 2.5" 642 that is my constant companion. Plus .357mag in a snub isnt the greatest idea out there.

What about a .500 S&W in a snubnose? Yes, someone ACTUALLY built that!

Yes thats the X frame. I dunno. Because they can.

I am familiar with the X-frame...my uncle has one, it's amazing. But a SNUBNOSE?! That's as nuts as the dude who built a revolver in .600 Nitro.

Just because you have a CNC shop and a crazy idea does NOT mean you should build it!

 

[Lakhota]

Why did George W. Bush sign a law giving gun makers and dealers immunity from prosecution?

 

[MaryL]

All this is so humorous. Gun ownership is so 18th century, like slavery, which used to be a right too. You look at counties like Somalia. Little boys with guns shot down a American Helicopter on a peace mission. Or, hell even the downing of MH 17. Is this the kind of word we want? Unchecked weaponry though out the world? What, like I am a threat or something...just by questioning weapons ownership. Do we need to ARM everyone all the time period no questions asked, ever? WOW. That isn't the kind of world none of us should live in...ever.

 

[KGB]

Should the government/military stop doing background checks before awarding security clearances?

Maybe 48 years ago I should have told the OSI to save that $10K because it was just a waste of time. After all, it didn't stop Edward Snowden.

which Amendment to the Constitution confers a security clearance again? Can't say as if I'm familiar with that one....

 

[Lakhota]

The Gun Lobby’s Dumbest Argument

We do try to do something about it. Yet even so, and here is my second point, no one thinks laws against pollution will prevent all pollution. Similarly, no one supposes that laws against armed robbery will prevent all armed robbery. No one expects that laws against tax evasion will stop the selfish and the stingy from hiring their selfish and stingy lawyers to identify for them various selfish and stingy new ways around the laws. We do not presume man’s perfectibility. And yet somehow, gun laws are supposed to meet the standard of being able to prevent all future massacres and are criticized as total failures if they don’t? Absurd.

MORE: The Gun Lobby's Dumbest Argument

So, the NRA gun nuts say do nothing - since all future gun crimes can't be prevented.

 

[KGB]

Is the Second Amendment obsolete? The wording is confusing.

actually, it's rather simple, people are just too dumb to read it correctly.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state (prefatory clause), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (operative clause)." Prefatory means what comes before. It's an intro basically. The operative clause defines what is the meaning. In the 2nd Amendment case, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed is what the Amendment means. One is not predicated on the other as the operative clause can stand on its own, whereas the prefatory can not. The issue is decided, the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to own/bear firearms.

 

[Lakhota]

Should the government/military stop doing background checks before awarding security clearances?

Maybe 48 years ago I should have told the OSI to save that $10K because it was just a waste of time. After all, it didn't stop Edward Snowden.

which Amendment to the Constitution confers a security clearance again? Can't say as if I'm familiar with that one....

Yeah, I can tell from your avatar you ain't too ******* bright.

 

[KGB]

The Gun Lobby’s Dumbest Argument

We do try to do something about it. Yet even so, and here is my second point, no one thinks laws against pollution will prevent all pollution. Similarly, no one supposes that laws against armed robbery will prevent all armed robbery. No one expects that laws against tax evasion will stop the selfish and the stingy from hiring their selfish and stingy lawyers to identify for them various selfish and stingy new ways around the laws. We do not presume man’s perfectibility. And yet somehow, gun laws are supposed to meet the standard of being able to prevent all future massacres and are criticized as total failures if they don’t? Absurd.

MORE: The Gun Lobby's Dumbest Argument

So, the NRA gun nuts say do nothing - since all future gun crimes can't be prevented.

Gun laws, like any other law are supposed to deal with what happens after a crime is committed. It's tied directly into the whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty". That is why our legal system is reactive instead of proactive. A proactive legal system is dictatorial since it assumes a person is guilty before they do anything. A reactive legal system is found in Western societies that adhere to basic rights. It doesn't assume that person is a criminal until it is proven that they truly are. Laws for the most part are not designed to prevent anything, just establish the guidelines to how the state will react to those who break the law. It's the enforcement of the laws that keep people in line.

The NRA exists to stop this persecution of people who believe in the 2nd Amendment. It exists to educate on what this basic right means. It also acts as a stop sign for overzealous politicians who have even less of a clue than some of those who populate these boards....

 

[KGB]

Should the government/military stop doing background checks before awarding security clearances?

Maybe 48 years ago I should have told the OSI to save that $10K because it was just a waste of time. After all, it didn't stop Edward Snowden.

which Amendment to the Constitution confers a security clearance again? Can't say as if I'm familiar with that one....

Yeah, I can tell from your avatar you ain't too ******* bright.

brilliant come back....I'll let you stew in your own ignorance...

 

[Lakhota]

Is the Second Amendment obsolete? The wording is confusing.

actually, it's rather simple, people are just too dumb to read it correctly.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state (prefatory clause), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (operative clause)." Prefatory means what comes before. It's an intro basically. The operative clause defines what is the meaning. In the 2nd Amendment case, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed is what the Amendment means. One is not predicated on the other as the operative clause can stand on its own, whereas the prefatory can not. The issue is decided, the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to own/bear firearms.

The Second Amendment means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and noted that future limitations 'will have to be decided in future cases' - NY Daily News

 

[KGB]

Is the Second Amendment obsolete? The wording is confusing.

actually, it's rather simple, people are just too dumb to read it correctly.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state (prefatory clause), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (operative clause)." Prefatory means what comes before. It's an intro basically. The operative clause defines what is the meaning. In the 2nd Amendment case, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed is what the Amendment means. One is not predicated on the other as the operative clause can stand on its own, whereas the prefatory can not. The issue is decided, the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to own/bear firearms.

The Second Amendment means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and noted that future limitations 'will have to be decided in future cases' - NY Daily News

The Supreme Court already has ruled that it means an individual right, not a collective one. Therefore, validating what I already explained to you about prefatory vs operative.

The Second Amendment Is About an Individual Right,

Incidentally, no right is unlimited, but that's why we have a legal process.....

 

[Lakhota]

Should the government/military stop doing background checks before awarding security clearances?

Maybe 48 years ago I should have told the OSI to save that $10K because it was just a waste of time. After all, it didn't stop Edward Snowden.

which Amendment to the Constitution confers a security clearance again? Can't say as if I'm familiar with that one....

The need for protecting the nation’s secrets has been recognized from the earliest days of established government. In the United States the authority to do so has historically been based on the inherent war powers of the President under the U.S. Constitution. Besides those general powers, Congress, by statue, has vested in the President specific powers and means for protecting national secrets, most particularly since the end of World War II. Those statutes include the National Security Act of 1947 that established the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency Act of 1959 that established NSA. More recently enacted was the National Imagery and Mapping Agency Act of 1996, creating NIMA from a number of offices scattered throughout the government. That Act recognized and formalized the existence of the National Reconnaissance Office, which, until then, had been so secret that its very name could not be mentioned.

MORE: Sheldon I. Cohen - SECURITY CLEARANCES AND THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

It ain't rocket science, sparky...