Guns

[Blues Man]

And the problems it causes are a fact of life without morals.

We have morals they are just relative and change with society.

It has always been so and it will always be so.

 

[Woodznutz]

We have morals they are just relative and change with society.

It has always been so and it will always be so.

The good news is that not everyone does this. It would be a bloodbath if all abandoned traditional morals.

 

[Blues Man]

The good news is that not everyone does this. It would be a bloodbath if all abandoned traditional morals.

I disagree.

To say that there is a universal code of morals implies a universal authority and we have never had that.

 

[Woodznutz]

I disagree.

To say that there is a universal code of morals implies a universal authority and we have never had that.

God's code of morality would set us free from the disaster that our own idea of morals has wrought.

 

[Blues Man]

God's code of morality would set us free from the disaster that our own idea of morals has wrought.

Nope.

No one has proven to me that any gods exist.

 

[Woodznutz]

Nope.

No one has proven to me that any gods exist.

You either believe in God or you don't, on your own.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

To say that there is a universal code of morals implies a universal authority and we have never had that.

That would be the God who created this world, and us on it; who has given us the true moral standards, to the degree that we have been ready and willing to accept them.

Those who reject Him, who reject his morals, are subjects of Satan, and fall under his control.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Nope.

No one has proven to me that any gods exist.

Psalms 14:

1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
4. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.
5. There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
6. Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his refuge.
7. Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You either believe in God or you don't, on your own.

There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

There is no omnipotent extraterrestrial deity that hears prayers, intercedes on the behalf of humans, and issues edicts of religious dogma that must be obeyed lest transgressors are consigned to eternal damnation.

 

[Woodznutz]

There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

There is no omnipotent extraterrestrial deity that hears prayers, intercedes on the behalf of humans, and issues edicts of religious dogma that must be obeyed lest transgressors are consigned to eternal damnation.

That's like seeing tracks but concluding that there is no deer standing in them somewhere down the trail.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

There is no omnipotent extraterrestrial deity that hears prayers, intercedes on the behalf of humans, and issues edicts of religious dogma that must be obeyed lest transgressors are consigned to eternal damnation.

You'll have your chance, soon enough, to tell Him that to His face.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is incorrect. If case law allows a right to be violated, those "allowed violations" are very much violations.

But do note that current case law says that people have the right to have enough firepower for effective self defense.

Current case law also says that people have the right to have any gun that the government has no compelling government interest in restricting.



Having a different opinion than you do does not make someone a liar.

Having an honest disagreement with you about the facts also does not make anyone a lair.

Now, given the nature of facts, if you guys disagree on the facts, at least one party is likely to be wrong. But being wrong does not make someone a liar.



Some people on the right may loathe Heller. But there are also plenty on the right who remain delighted by the ruling.

‘Congress may require background checks of the sort currently codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-926, because the Second Amendment permits laws prohibiting “possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626. Congress may limit the number of firearms individuals may purchase in any given period, because the Second Amendment permits “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id. at 626-27. Congress may ban private possession of machine guns, as it did in a law signed by President Reagan and currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), because the Second Amendment permits prohibitions on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’

The Second Amendment and Federal Law

By Mike Dorf **Updated: Here's the video link or just watch below: This afternoon I'll be debating Alan Gura about the future of gun...

www.dorfonlaw.org

The Second Amendment is neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute’ – government has the authority to enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law, where such measures neither ‘violate’ nor ‘infringe upon’ the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The second is limited

There is only a right to keep and bear, or own and carry,

There is no right to discharge a weapon and no right to shoot any person. In fact there are very clear very strict laws in every state city and town regarding where and when a firearm can be discharged.

We already have clear federal laws defining who and who cannot legally own firearms and those laws are constitutional.

It's you people that want to keep passing more and more laws that are the problem because all we have to do is enforce the laws we have but we refuse to do so.

Wrong.

Current firearm regulatory measures are being enforced – it’s a lie to claim otherwise.

And some additional measures are appropriate and warranted, such as a UBC; other measures are not, such as AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions.

No, the problem is conservatives who refuse to address the issue of gun crime and violence, who refuse to explore potential solutions having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.

And when anyone tries to broach the subject of addressing gun crime and violence absent regulating firearms, conservatives shout down any good faith discussion and debate with lies and demagoguery about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’

An example:

A conservative started a thread a while ago about those under 21 being ‘prohibited’ from owing guns; that those under 21 would be ‘left defenseless’ because they wouldn’t be able to possess firearms.

That’s a lie.

The law concerns solely those under 21 not being allowed to purchase firearms from an FFL – an 18- to 20-year-old is at liberty to purchase a firearm in a private face-to-face intrastate transaction with a fellow state resident or be gifted a firearm from another adult; those under 21 would not be left ‘disarmed’ and ‘defenseless.’

It’s this sort of dishonesty from the right that contributes to the problem.

"An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same state, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law."

May an individual between the ages of 18 and 21 years of age acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who is also a resident of that same state? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same state, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law. A federal firearms licensee may not...

www.atf.gov

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And that's a problem.

Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes...

No, it’s not.

The problem is the Christo-fascist right seeking to compel conformity and punish dissent by attempting to codify wrongheaded, subjective religious dogma into secular law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is simply foolish to say the founders of our nation who had just engaged in an uprising against a tyrannical government would be opposed to allowing citizens in the future to do the same if the new government turned tyrannical. If they had really wanted their new government to be difficult to overthrow they would have implemented some form of gun control. Instead they guaranteed the right of a citizen to own firearms in the Bill of Rights.

Tanks are wonderful but eventually the rulers have to get out of the tanks and rule. We definitely had the superior army in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and yet in the end we lost. It is easy but not wise to underestimate the power of guerrilla warfare.

In passing we are nowhere close to needing an uprising to overthrow a tyrannical government but we are slowly moving in that direction.

When Guerrilla Warfare Can Succeed — And When It Will Fail – Jay Taylor Media

“Its main problem [with insurrectionism] was and remains the fact that permitting people to keep enough weapons to fight the modern federal government makes no sense. Perhaps in the late 18th century, private arms ownership could be thought to be a bulwark against tyranny, but those days are long gone. For one thing, Madison imagined that organized state militias, not private citizens in their private capacity, would fight the federal government, but at least since the Militia Act of 1903 placed state units of the National Guard under dual state/federal auspices, that has not been a remotely realistic prospect. And private citizens stand no chance of defeating the federal armed forces in a real conflict. Such self-appointed patriots do, however, have the capacity to cause real harm, as was demonstrated by the likes of Timothy McVeigh and the militia movement.”

The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"

By Mike Dorf As I reported here , a few months ago I debated gun rights advocate Alan Gura about the future of gun regulation in the U.S....

www.dorfonlaw.org

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘deter crime,’ not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, and not to ‘overthrow’ the Federal government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have morals they are just relative and change with society.

It has always been so and it will always be so.

We have morals the creation of man, just as flawed and capricious as man – in no manner ‘imbued’ with divine authority, completely devoid of secular authority.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

“Its main problem [with insurrectionism] was and remains the fact that permitting people to keep enough weapons to fight the modern federal government makes no sense. Perhaps in the late 18th century, private arms ownership could be thought to be a bulwark against tyranny, but those days are long gone. For one thing, Madison imagined that organized state militias, not private citizens in their private capacity, would fight the federal government, but at least since the Militia Act of 1903 placed state units of the National Guard under dual state/federal auspices, that has not been a remotely realistic prospect. And private citizens stand no chance of defeating the federal armed forces in a real conflict. Such self-appointed patriots do, however, have the capacity to cause real harm, as was demonstrated by the likes of Timothy McVeigh and the militia movement.”

The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"

By Mike Dorf As I reported here , a few months ago I debated gun rights advocate Alan Gura about the future of gun regulation in the U.S....

www.dorfonlaw.org

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘deter crime,’ not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, and not to ‘overthrow’ the Federal government.

Actually, it does deter crime. You'll notice that in areas where there is a high rate of gun ownership, there is a low crime rate.

Nobody is talking about overthrowing the government. Stop repeating that lie...lol

 

[Woodznutz]

No, it’s not.

The problem is the Christo-fascist right seeking to compel conformity and punish dissent by attempting to codify wrongheaded, subjective religious dogma into secular law.

Where it really counts God's law and man's law are pretty much in agreement. The difference is that God is serious about it.

It's like the laws of health and prosperity. Most agree but only those who actually follow them are successful.

 

[Woodznutz]

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘deter crime,’ not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, and not to ‘overthrow’ the Federal government.

A person can use a firearm/deadly force to protect another from imminent danger in many states.

 

[Woodznutz]

Wrong.

Current firearm regulatory measures are being enforced – it’s a lie to claim otherwise.

And some additional measures are appropriate and warranted, such as a UBC; other measures are not, such as AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions.

No, the problem is conservatives who refuse to address the issue of gun crime and violence, who refuse to explore potential solutions having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.

And when anyone tries to broach the subject of addressing gun crime and violence absent regulating firearms, conservatives shout down any good faith discussion and debate with lies and demagoguery about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’

An example:

A conservative started a thread a while ago about those under 21 being ‘prohibited’ from owing guns; that those under 21 would be ‘left defenseless’ because they wouldn’t be able to possess firearms.

That’s a lie.

The law concerns solely those under 21 not being allowed to purchase firearms from an FFL – an 18- to 20-year-old is at liberty to purchase a firearm in a private face-to-face intrastate transaction with a fellow state resident or be gifted a firearm from another adult; those under 21 would not be left ‘disarmed’ and ‘defenseless.’

It’s this sort of dishonesty from the right that contributes to the problem.

"An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same state, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law."

May an individual between the ages of 18 and 21 years of age acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who is also a resident of that same state? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same state, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law. A federal firearms licensee may not...

www.atf.gov

Criminals need to be regulated, not firearms. True conservatives understand this.