How to reduce gun deaths in US

[candycorn]

Wow. You got me on a minor point of grammar at 1:30 in the morning. That makes everything I said wrong and everything you said right, doesn't it?

What the GOP and actual conservatives need to do is to get into the ghettos and barrios, with Spanish speakers in the latter case, and start talking to the people. Mothers in those places love their children as much as do the mothers in the whitest suburbs in GOP-land. They want their sons and daughters to have good educations. They want them to experience the American dream. They want them to stay out of gangs and to bring grandchildren into the world. And they want reliable fathers for their children, in the home with them.

The left can offer those mothers none of the things I listed. The left, and their policies, are exactly why those poor mothers know that all of that is out of reach for them and their children.

Conservatives can help them to get those things that really matter to them. Conservatives have to find the way to deliver the message of hope.

This year, Black and Spanish-speaking voters are switching to Trump in droves. Conservatives need to build on that. Take advantage and continue the message. It takes time and money. But we already know the message to give them. I'm not confident at all that the GOP knows how to get the access to deliver the message or how to deliver the message if they get the access.

ok. lol.

 

[Mac-7]

You might be right - but you're not - except for that whole "shall not be infringed" thing. In the Founding era, guns were protected even from liens, tax collections, or anything else. They could never be taken.

I understand that you're more of a gun controller than is the State of New York. They except the ruling in Bruen and you do not. Otherwise, show me the historical tradition and the historical analogues for preventing felons from keeping or bearing arms.

You are a great example of why we're losing the fight for our right to keep and bear arms. You're a gun controller just like the Giffords, the Brfadys, and just like Stephen Dettelbach, Merrick Garland, and Joe Biden. You agree with them 1000% that the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed and should be infringed. If you disagree with them at all, it is only in the when to infringe, against whom to infringe, and how to infringe.

The problem is, of course, now that you've agreed with them absolutely that they can and should infringe, it is they, not you, who get to answer the when, against whom, and how questions.

Thanks for revealing my radical anti gun nature to me

If not for you I never would have guessed I was so anti 2nd Amendment

 

[Mac-7]

What compromise would you accept?

I asked you first

 

[woodwork201]

The founding fathers didn't think like that .they demanded swift and speedy trials and punishment. Those convicted of murder were hung at sunrise the next day.

The Founding Fathers absolutely thought that way. That's why they built the protections into the Constitution. It is why they fought a revolution to end the tyranny of the King. I'm positive now that you've never read it but try reading the Declaration of Independence and see what the Founding Fathers thought of liberty and rights.

Unlike how you and Jack Smith believe, the speedy trial was the right of the accused, not of the State. It didn't take 3 years to build a case. Taking 3 years to build a case is what happens when the Government doesn't have a case and so they're going to keep the accused locked up or at least on bail and restrictions for years while they build a case. They most certainly believed in swift punishment. Why torture a prisoner for years before executing them? Why torture the families of the victims? Justice delayed is justice denied. Once the fair trial is completed, execute the sentence. Nothing is gained by keeping a convicted murderer in prison for decades. But you watch too much TV. Yes, On TV westerns, the hangings happened the next day. It the Colonies, it didn't happen that way. There was generally a week or ten days but I'll have to find the statutes again. On the other hand, many of the Founders didn't approve of the death penalty at all. I go back and forth on it. Logic, of course, says it's cruel. But sometimes passion says to burn the bastard at the stake.

 

[woodwork201]

Thanks for revealing my radical anti gun nature to me

If not for you I never would have guessed I was so anti 2nd Amendment

You fit in a category of the most dangerous to liberty among us. You are a law-and-order conservative. You're willing to toss the Constitution as long as we get some criminals in the process. I, on the other hand, would rather see the criminals walk than to see their constitutional rights violated. A social leftist who supports the Constitution stands heads and shoulders above a law-and-order conservative who hates crime so much that they would sacrifice liberty for us all to prevent crime. They often quote, but never remember, what Franklin said about those who sacrifice essential liberty for safety deserve neither. But that does describe you; you'll sacrifice liberty because you're so afraid of criminals.

 

[woodwork201]

I asked you first

In which post did you ask me that question? Because it's very easy for me. I accept no compromise on the Constitution at all, not just on the 2nd Amendment. None.

So what compromise are you willing to accept, gun-controller?

 

[Calypso Jones]

Someone who knows the threat republicans pose to our government.

oh...you think the repunks want to surveil american citizens? open our borders to criminals and terrorists and the chinese? kill the unborn? destroy our justice system? Granted they're helping the demo'rat tyrants but they don't vote in mass for it. Killing americans is nothing to the power hungry left. and you're naive OR STUPID, OR COMPLICIT in this destruction of America.

 

[Stann]

oh...you think the repunks want to surveil american citizens? open our borders to criminals and terrorists and the chinese? kill the unborn? destroy our justice system? Granted they're helping the demo'rat tyrants but they don't vote in mass for it. Killing americans is nothing to the power hungry left. and you're naive OR STUPID, OR COMPLICIT in this destruction of America.

I know they used force to try to overthrow our government. That's all it takes for me to disapprove of them. Way too crazy and emotional , always accusing others of being the problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So what compromise are you willing to accept, gun-controller?

I'm willing to accept universal backgrounds checks in exchange for the repeal of the National Firearms act of 1934 and the gun control act of 1968, both as amended.

 

[Kondor3]

6 weeks to execution. They used to do it in days when any communication to the Courts was by horseback or foot. Now we have computers, instant delivery of messages, instant search of case history and precedent. An attorney should be able to present at least a petition demonstrating probable cause for a postponement by 3 weeks and get a decision back in another 3.

Six weeks or six months... both are vastly preferable to sixty years...

Six weeks strikes me as insufficient time to ensure correctness in all respects but at least we agree about shortening the time frame.

 

[Stann]

In which post did you ask me that question? Because it's very easy for me. I accept no compromise on the Constitution at all, not just on the 2nd Amendment. None.

So what compromise are you willing to accept, gun-controller?

The fastest firing rifle of the time took 15 to 20 seconds to reload so that would mean maximum of getting 4 shots off in a minute. That should be the limit on what today guns offered to civilians should be , that would be in keeping with the original rule , however present day people have distorted it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The fastest firing rifle of the time took 15 to 20 seconds to reload so that would mean maximum of getting 4 shots off in a minute. That should be the limit on what today guns offered to civilians should be , that would be in keeping with the original rule , however present day people have distorted it.

sure and no electronics for the printing of books and paper and no radio or television either.

 

[Stann]

sure and no electronics for the printing of books and paper and no radio or television either.

Books don't kill.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Reporting "gun deaths" and "gun crime" is a meaningless statistic. The only valid measure is "deaths" and "crime" though you could prefix each with "violent".

Yes, eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths by the people but it would not effect the number of deaths overall and certainly not keep the number of government deaths flat.

Yeah. That doesn't work in real life. If you die, there's a reason. So statistically, the only way to truly track it is by means of death.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Books don't kill.

people kill and yes, they can use books to do it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The over 3,500 fraud cases against him. ALL the plaintiffs.

New York couldn’t find any.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Again , something that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Actually it's directly on point. By disarming the public, you are setting the conditions for a violent tyranny to be imposed upon the American people.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Throughout my entire life I've heard the people ( NRA ).reinforce the idea that the right was about civilians bearing arms. If you bother to read the entire article. You'll discover they were talking about well-maintained and disciplined state militias , not civilians. There was no federal army. Also these same men took all arms away from anyone who identified as a Tory ( supporting the British. A very community n sense move. Hopefully we will have the same common sense before too many more lives are lost to all this madness.

If you actually do some reading ALL the founders cond-sidered every adult male part of the militia.

Throughout my entire life I've heard the people ( NRA ).reinforce the idea that the right was about civilians bearing arms. If you bother to read the entire article. You'll discover they were talking about well-maintained and disciplined state militias , not civilians. There was no federal army. Also these same men took all arms away from anyone who identified as a Tory ( supporting the British. A very community n sense move. Hopefully we will have the same common sense before too many more lives are lost to all this madness.

You are wrong. If you read the founders statements, they ALL considered every adult male to be part of the militia. If they had intended only the militia to have guns, the Second Amendment would have said the right OF THE MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Instead, it says THE PEOPLE.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Not so. That is one reason the Founders protected our God-given right to keep and bear arms, so we can keep communists like you at bay. It's worked for 240 years. The Communists are so close, now, having stripped the States of their power in the Union with the 16th and 17th Amendments, having turned the citizens from citizens of the States to citizens of the Nation with the 16th Amendment, and stripped the States of their militias with the militia laws creating the National Guard. All that remains in their 180 year struggle to replace our republic with all-out communism, is to disarm the people and remove the very last vestige of power in the States: the Electoral College.

They can smell victory and, if Biden gets reelected, they may very well get it in the next 4 years. Regardless of what happens in any election between now and then, if the Republican Party and conservatives don't start honest conversations deep in the ghettos and barrios of the United States, then the Communists will certainly win by the 2044 election when the children of the imported voters head to the polls. If we can't win the minds and hearts of those 30 million illegals Biden has let in, the United States exists for 20 more years as a constitutional republic. If we don't win those minds and hearts, in 2044, every state legislature will be Democrat. The entire Congress, with perhaps a very small number of outlier districts, will be Democrat. They will have super-majorities able to override any fillibuster or veto - not that there would be a veto when both houses and the Whitehouse are all Democratically controlled. The Supreme Court will either be completely leftist or will be stacked to make the remaining years of Kavanaugh and Barrett pointless. And then the Constitutional Amendments will fly. The 1st and 2nd Amendments will be the first to go. What's left of the 4th will be close behind. The America we grew up in has no more than 20 more years - unless we spend the next 20 years winning hearts and minds in the Barrios and Ghettos.

I think you are too hung up on the idea that the democrats are communists. They are not, they are totalitarians and a tyranny of the politically or socially acceptable elite is what they are trying to establish.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The fastest firing rifle of the time took 15 to 20 seconds to reload so that would mean maximum of getting 4 shots off in a minute. That should be the limit on what today guns offered to civilians should be , that would be in keeping with the original rule , however present day people have distorted it.

Wrong, there were repeating arms, both rifles and pistols in those days. Admittedly they were scarce, but they existed. The founders also allowed private citizens to own artillery and warships; weapons far more lethal than the flintlock, smoothbore or rifled muskets that you are trying to limit us to.