I propose a new second amendment law

[Rumpole]

Addressing the issue with the qualifications on WW2 and 1 is fine!

The mass shooting and gun violence in America, regardless of the excuses and qualifications can be something we don't need to debate.

Yes, the fact is pretty clear.

The fact is, we are narrowing down the possibilities of why America stands so far out and alone.

The 'culture' of wars and killing that stands out on this forum is common to no other country at anywhere near the same level.

You are, of course, referring to the western developed nations, and not third world, as Columbia, Brazil, and Mexico are worse, in terms of gun related crimes and and gun related death, though in the third world countries, most of the gun related crimes and deaths are driven by drug cartels, poverty, and the like, where as in America, it's more evenly spread among the population.

 

[progressive hunter]

PH, I didn't change the definition.
Read my post again. Can you read the English language?
Apparently not.


Forget about the founders, concentrate on Supreme Court rulings, and the text of the constitution.

BE GONE SATAN!!!

 

[Leo123]

Do not most states have a law which does allow for self defense with firearms?

It’s not absolute. You use a gun to defend yourself and you could face prosecution.

 

[Rumpole]

BE GONE SATAN!!!

Give it up, PH, you're out of gas. You have no argument. You've been crushed.

I accept your surrender.

 

[progressive hunter]

Give it up, PH, you're out of gas. You have no argument. You've been crushed.

I accept your surrender.

anyone that thinks definitions dont matter and the constitution can be changed with a law isnt worth anymore of my time so,,
BE GONE SATAN!!

 

[Rumpole]

It’s not absolute. You use a gun to defend yourself and you could face prosecution.

Yes, I would assume you have to make sure you had no option but to shoot to kill, and the circumstances
were such you didn't have much time to figure that point out, so it has to be fair and just killing, and you are, indeed, taking a chance, legally, when you shoot someone, and this is precisely why I believe, sincerely, everyone who purchases a gun should be trained on this very subject, to better equip them to make the wise choice, in such circumstances.

 

[Cougarbear]

Good idea. I support it. And if knowledgeable people, such as parents, psychiatrists, etc., fail to report such a person, then what?


Good.

Well, no anti-crime laws 'stop crime', the best they can do is, once in a while, save a life, but that's the crux of the argument.
Is the burden placed on law abiding citizens bearable enough that saving that life is worth it?
That is the question that must be confronted and answered.

IRS agents bring revenue to the government, which the government needs ot pay bills. Without them, deficits rise, and more inflation results. We need the right amount of IRS agents to get the job done so that the existing agents aren't overworked.

I agree on that point.

Indeed he did, and resulted in an increase in the homeless population.

You are correct. Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to this thread.

Someone once said, "Give me liberty or give me death." Some would say there is a happy balance between the two. For all those who have died that we might have a shot at this great American experiment, give me liberty first. Life is a risk and it cannot be legislated without killing many more people. Stalin tried it. Mao tried it. Hitler tried it. Biden is trying it. And, we kill how many unborn human beings every year?

Biden first said that the 87,000 new armed with guns agents would only go after those earning more than $400,000 a year. Now, he's reversed that and said he will go after everyone. And, they have guns when they come knocking on doors. Sounds a bit fascist, doesn't it? We need more boarder agents and far less IRS agents. We could hire 87,000 armed school guards if liberals really want to stop the deaths of school children and faculty.

 

[Rumpole]

Someone once said, "Give me liberty or give me death." Some would say there is a happy balance between the two. For all those who have died that we might have a shot at this great American experiment, give me liberty first. Life is a risk and it cannot be legislated without killing many more people. Stalin tried it. Mao tried it. Hitler tried it. Biden is trying it. And, we kill how many unborn human beings every year?

Biden first said that the 87,000 new armed with guns agents would only go after those earning more than $400,000 a year. Now, he's reversed that and said he will go after everyone. And, they have guns when they come knocking on doors. Sounds a bit fascist, doesn't it? We need more boarder agents and far less IRS agents. We could hire 87,000 armed school guards if liberals really want to stop the deaths of school children and faculty.

The hire of 87K agents, I don't even know if that is true: It's much closer to replacing retirees than adding to the mix.

No, Biden is Not Hiring 87,000 New IRS Agents


Insofar as your 'agents' worry. A few years back, I owed a lot of money to the IRS, and no one with guns came after me, no will they for anyone else. If you are in arrears, you will receive at least 5 letters, a couple of months apart, each a little more intense than the one before, until they send you final one which is fairly scary, but even then, they will give you a few weeks to reply. All they are trying to do, really, is get you to call them (or your attorney) and work things out, which is what I did, and now I'm almost out of arrears. They allowed me to make payments I could afford, over a period of 2 years.

 

[Leo123]

Yes, I would assume you have to make sure you had no option but to shoot to kill, and the circumstances
were such you didn't have much time to figure that point out, so it has to be fair and just killing, and you are, indeed, taking a chance, legally, when you shoot someone, and this is precisely why I believe, sincerely, everyone who purchases a gun should be trained on this very subject, to better equip them to make the wise choice, in such circumstances.

Bullshit, of course there would be no other option. You sure seem to have a low opinion of law abiding citizens.

 

[Rumpole]

Bullshit, of course there would be no other option. You sure seem to have a low opinion of law abiding citizens.

No more or less than you do of law abiding citizens who are required to demonstrate to the DMV that they know how to drive a car and pass a practical, and written, exam. I should think something similar for a device whose sole function is to kill, it would not be unreasonable to require, in a state law, similar such exams, practical, and written, after some study and practice on both, on a supervised shooting range.

Once passed, they only need to upgrade their permits once every four years, to make sure they haven't gotten rusty on their knowledge and skills, given that most people just keep a gun in a drawer, and never use it. Perhaps avid enthusiasts, who demonstrate proficiency in a higher capacity, such as hunters, gun enthusiasts, etc., can get a higher grade license, not requiring renewal as often. Something fair and reasonable could be worked out, I should think. The SCOTUS has ruled that such things are within the scope of Washington DC v Heller, and Bruen v New York Rifle & Pistol association.

Now then, if you raise the 'driving a vehicle is not in the bill of rights' argument, which is the usual rebuttal to my regulatory suggestion, I do believe that the framers NEVER intended for an American citizen's 'rights' to be only those rights in the bill of rights, which is why some of the framers did not want a bill of rights, in the first place. It is precisely why we have the 9th, but, even if driving a vehicle is ruled as a privilege, if you argue that driving a vehicle is not a right protected by the Constitution, and therefore not comparable to gun ownership, understand that while driving a vehicle is not specifically protected by the Constitution, it is still regulated by the government. Similarly, while the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, it does not preclude the government from enacting reasonable regulations to ensure public safety..

Additionally, the comparison to driving a vehicle is not based solely on Constitutional rights, but on the fact that both driving and owning a gun have the potential to cause harm to oneself and others if not done responsibly. By requiring permits, licensing, training, and registration for both activities, the government can help mitigate these risks and ensure that only responsible individuals are allowed to participate. We have different vehicle licensing grades, (A, B & C) we could have similar grades for firearms.

In other words, while the specific rights protected by the Constitution may differ between driving and gun ownership, the need for regulation to protect public safety is present in both activities, where the only difference between them is the scope of regulation allowed by Court rulings in cases that impact regulation pertaining to the second amendment.

 

[The Duke]

I say, due to the amount of M249s Biden gifted to the Taliban, there should be no restrictions on guns or suppressors for Americans whatsoever!.

 

[Rumpole]

I say, due to the amount of M249s Biden gifted to the Taliban, there should be no restrictions on guns or suppressors for Americans whatsoever!.

Duke, your argument appears to be a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premise. The fact that some M249 machine guns may have been left behind in Afghanistan due to logistical constraints does not necessarily mean that there should be no restrictions on guns or suppressors for Americans.

First, it is important to note that the M249 machine guns were not simply "gifted" to the Taliban - they were left behind in a chaotic situation where American forces were forced to withdraw hastily. While it is certainly concerning that some of these weapons may have fallen into the wrong hands, it is not a logical basis for eliminating all gun regulations for American citizens.

In short, while the situation in Afghanistan is certainly concerning, your premise does not provide a logical basis for eliminating all gun regulations for American citizens. Instead, we should focus on improving our systems for ensuring that firearms are used safely and responsibly, while also working to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

 

[The Duke]

Duke, your argument appears to be a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premise. The fact that some M249 machine guns may have been left behind in Afghanistan due to logistical constraints does not necessarily mean that there should be no restrictions on guns or suppressors for Americans.

First, it is important to note that the M249 machine guns were not simply "gifted" to the Taliban - they were left behind in a chaotic situation where American forces were forced to withdraw hastily. While it is certainly concerning that some of these weapons may have fallen into the wrong hands, it is not a logical basis for eliminating all gun regulations for American citizens.

In short, while the situation in Afghanistan is certainly concerning, your premise does not provide a logical basis for eliminating all gun regulations for American citizens. Instead, we should focus on improving our systems for ensuring that firearms are used safely and responsibly, while also working to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

Eat a Hefty bag of dicks.

 

[Rumpole]

Eat a Hefty bag of dicks.

I accept your surrender. Thank you.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It happens often. Prosecutors often fold to public pressure, or prefer charges based upon personal opinions.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, the fact is pretty clear.

You are, of course, referring to the western developed nations, and not third world, as Columbia, Brazil, and Mexico are worse, in terms of gun related crimes and and gun related death, though in the third world countries, most of the gun related crimes and deaths are driven by drug cartels, poverty, and the like, where as in America, it's more evenly spread among the population.

The most popular gun for the immigrant drug gangs in France, Sweden, and other European countries is the fully automatic military rifle.....the AK-47.....and in Sweden they also use lots of hand grenades....

So you don't know what you are talking about.....

And then you have to answer for the 15 million murdered men, women and children in Europe.....murdered in just 6 years....

Compared to the 2,460,000 gun murders in the U.S. in our entire 246 year history.....

You are an ignorant fool, who doesn't understand even the most basic issues in history, human behavior....

 

[2aguy]

Duke, your argument appears to be a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premise. The fact that some M249 machine guns may have been left behind in Afghanistan due to logistical constraints does not necessarily mean that there should be no restrictions on guns or suppressors for Americans.

First, it is important to note that the M249 machine guns were not simply "gifted" to the Taliban - they were left behind in a chaotic situation where American forces were forced to withdraw hastily. While it is certainly concerning that some of these weapons may have fallen into the wrong hands, it is not a logical basis for eliminating all gun regulations for American citizens.

In short, while the situation in Afghanistan is certainly concerning, your premise does not provide a logical basis for eliminating all gun regulations for American citizens. Instead, we should focus on improving our systems for ensuring that firearms are used safely and responsibly, while also working to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

We were not forced to withdraw hastily.......the democrats didn't care how they pulled out of that country, and now it is in the hands of the very monsters who had it before...but now with a lot more military equipment...

 

[2aguy]

No more or less than you do of law abiding citizens who are required to demonstrate to the DMV that they know how to drive a car and pass a practical, and written, exam. I should think something similar for a device whose sole function is to kill, it would not be unreasonable to require, in a state law, similar such exams, practical, and written, after some study and practice on both, on a supervised shooting range.

Once passed, they only need to upgrade their permits once every four years, to make sure they haven't gotten rusty on their knowledge and skills, given that most people just keep a gun in a drawer, and never use it. Perhaps avid enthusiasts, who demonstrate proficiency in a higher capacity, such as hunters, gun enthusiasts, etc., can get a higher grade license, not requiring renewal as often. Something fair and reasonable could be worked out, I should think. The SCOTUS has ruled that such things are within the scope of Washington DC v Heller, and Bruen v New York Rifle & Pistol association.

Now then, if you raise the 'driving a vehicle is not in the bill of rights' argument, which is the usual rebuttal to my regulatory suggestion, I do believe that the framers NEVER intended for an American citizen's 'rights' to be only those rights in the bill of rights, which is why some of the framers did not want a bill of rights, in the first place. It is precisely why we have the 9th, but, even if driving a vehicle is ruled as a privilege, if you argue that driving a vehicle is not a right protected by the Constitution, and therefore not comparable to gun ownership, understand that while driving a vehicle is not specifically protected by the Constitution, it is still regulated by the government. Similarly, while the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, it does not preclude the government from enacting reasonable regulations to ensure public safety..

Additionally, the comparison to driving a vehicle is not based solely on Constitutional rights, but on the fact that both driving and owning a gun have the potential to cause harm to oneself and others if not done responsibly. By requiring permits, licensing, training, and registration for both activities, the government can help mitigate these risks and ensure that only responsible individuals are allowed to participate. We have different vehicle licensing grades, (A, B & C) we could have similar grades for firearms.

In other words, while the specific rights protected by the Constitution may differ between driving and gun ownership, the need for regulation to protect public safety is present in both activities, where the only difference between them is the scope of regulation allowed by Court rulings in cases that impact regulation pertaining to the second amendment.

The democrats used literacy tests to keep blacks from voting, and now, you democrats want to use the equivalent of literacy tests to keep people from owning guns.....

You fascists never change....

 

[Jarlaxle]

I’ll show you the issue with that… The main person I use as an example for this issue is a former associate of mine. We both shot competitively. Multiple guns. Different types of guns. Hundreds of rounds of multiple calibers of ammunition per month. Plus our carry guns.

It took us almost a year after his father’s death to get him to see a therapist for his depression (minor and not a threat to himself or anyone else) because he was concerned about losing his License to Carry (LTC).

He was correct to worry.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If you want to see the New Right finally come round to supporting gun control legislation, we need to arm every black and brown person in America.

And all the trannies.

This, class, is projection. Note that my wife and I are both instructors for Operation Blazing Sword.

LMAO, that is the origination of gun control. When Black Panthers starting open carrying in California old Ronald Reagan suddenly became all about gun control. Every black American should have a pistol on their side, and every Hispanic American should have a rifle on a sling over their back and a bandolier running across their chest. Every LGBTQ should be open carry.

Why do you project your racism on others?

Actually you are wrong. Gun control in the USA started in the thirties when gangsters were using automatic weapons like Thompson sub-machine guns and Browning Automatic Rifles to kill each other and civilians were getting caught in the crossfire.
As for the Black Panthers, they were and are a violent para-military group.

Uhh...actually, it started in NY in 1911.

Neither have 200 million other gun owners.

However, we can agree that thousands of others didn't resist the impulse. They would have started with human silouette(sic) targets that should have signalled(sic) their intention of being able to kill people.

This is gibberish. Many people use silhouette targets because...that's what many targets are, because they were designed for military and police use. Last range I used had them simply because those were the cheapest targets available, and a few cents per target matters when buying them by the pallet!

Some in one of the many US wars that were always available, and some would become mass shooters.

Would you like to go hunting for a progressive?

A good answer could get you that attention you're needing!

This is gibberish and projection.