Want gun control? Fight smart.

[OldLady]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

The law that says a person can't buy a hand gun until they are 21, should have included semi automatics like the AR15.

For the semi's that have magazines with the ability to fire 30 or 40 rounds in under ten seconds, the purchaser should have to have a class 3 license. That is effectively a machine gun.

I am waiting, TNHarley, for you to call OldRocks stupid and tell him he knows nothing about firearms, that all guns can do that.
C'mon, I'm waiting.

most guns cant fire that quick, OL. His wording was better than yours.
But he was wrong about it being "effectively a machine gun" simply reading the definition will tell you that. Definitions matter or they would be the same thing...
Also, i never told you all guns can shoot dozens of rounds in minutes. I said about half could. If not more.

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

 

[hunarcy]

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

Did I mention limiting any rights in that question? If you feel the mentally ill need to be locked up, fight for it.

You referenced there not being a lot of discussion about limiting gunrights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership, I pointed out that such discussion to limit my rights because of the actions of others was wrong. I didn’t point out that firearms ownership is a right, not a privilege.

You brought up rights, not me.

The whole discussion is about rights

 

[Manonthestreet]

No, I would not. All the guns I have are hunting guns, I have no use for a weapon of war. A one time fee of $500 for a person not engaged in selling guns would be adequate. And they would have to start paying the annual fee, should they sell more than 3 guns in any one year.

Well then ... Sorry, it has been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to hinder the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.
Your agreement on whatever price you think is acceptable is not required.

.

Wrong. You cannot own a fully auto .45 Thompson without a class 3 firearms license. And in 13 states, the states have laws against private citizens owning them. Those laws have not been declared unconstitutional, nor has the ban on ownership without the class 3 license. The same could be applied to the ownership of the assault weapons. I suggested a way that would allow private citizens of good character to own them without undue financial hardship. You want to go full bore on no limits at all, and you are going to end up with an outright ban of private ownership of guns such as the AR 15. That will be on your head, and no skin off my nose.

What is your definition of Assault weapon......

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

You know, we take the right to drive an automobile on public roads away from people that have proven themselves to be a danger to others. And we require that people have a licence that proves that they at least are aware of the rules of the road. There is no reason at all that we cannot require a class 3 license for anyone to purchase or possess one of these weapons of war off of their property.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right

Wrong. Driving a car on a public road is a privilege, it is a right on your own property. I would apply the same reasoning to having an assault weapon or a pistol with a high capacity magazine. Such a law would not keep a law abiding, mentally stable citizen from aquiring such weapons if they desire them. It would prevent a person such as the Parkland shooter from aquiring such weapons. If you can afford the cost of one of the assault weapons, you can afford a one time fee of $500 dollars for the background check that will assure the rest of the people in this nation that you will not murder their children.

You cannot apply that reasoning to assault weapns (whatever that means to you) or pistols because the 2nd does not allow infringement

Again, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and the total ban on automatic weapons by 13 states shows that, indeed, you can require special licenses for certain types of weapons. But go ahead and keep defending selling weapons of war to crazies. You are going to end up with a total ban on them, and confiscation of such weapons. All quite legally.

 

[BlackSand]

Again, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and the total ban on automatic weapons by 13 states shows that, indeed, you can require special licenses for certain types of weapons. But go ahead and keep defending selling weapons of war to crazies. You are going to end up with a total ban on them, and confiscation of such weapons. All quite legally.

States can and do regulate militias/firearms ... State law is not Federal law ...
Perhaps you need to approach your State legislators with your ideas.

.

 

[TNHarley]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

The law that says a person can't buy a hand gun until they are 21, should have included semi automatics like the AR15.

For the semi's that have magazines with the ability to fire 30 or 40 rounds in under ten seconds, the purchaser should have to have a class 3 license. That is effectively a machine gun.

I am waiting, TNHarley, for you to call OldRocks stupid and tell him he knows nothing about firearms, that all guns can do that.
C'mon, I'm waiting.

most guns cant fire that quick, OL. His wording was better than yours.
But he was wrong about it being "effectively a machine gun" simply reading the definition will tell you that. Definitions matter or they would be the same thing...
Also, i never told you all guns can shoot dozens of rounds in minutes. I said about half could. If not more.

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

 

[TNHarley]

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

You know, we take the right to drive an automobile on public roads away from people that have proven themselves to be a danger to others. And we require that people have a licence that proves that they at least are aware of the rules of the road. There is no reason at all that we cannot require a class 3 license for anyone to purchase or possess one of these weapons of war off of their property.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right

Wrong. Driving a car on a public road is a privilege, it is a right on your own property. I would apply the same reasoning to having an assault weapon or a pistol with a high capacity magazine. Such a law would not keep a law abiding, mentally stable citizen from aquiring such weapons if they desire them. It would prevent a person such as the Parkland shooter from aquiring such weapons. If you can afford the cost of one of the assault weapons, you can afford a one time fee of $500 dollars for the background check that will assure the rest of the people in this nation that you will not murder their children.

You cannot apply that reasoning to assault weapns (whatever that means to you) or pistols because the 2nd does not allow infringement

Again, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and the total ban on automatic weapons by 13 states shows that, indeed, you can require special licenses for certain types of weapons. But go ahead and keep defending selling weapons of war to crazies. You are going to end up with a total ban on them, and confiscation of such weapons. All quite legally.

I have no problems with having certain licenses for certain munitions.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, I would not. All the guns I have are hunting guns, I have no use for a weapon of war. A one time fee of $500 for a person not engaged in selling guns would be adequate. And they would have to start paying the annual fee, should they sell more than 3 guns in any one year.

Well then ... Sorry, it has been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to hinder the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.
Your agreement on whatever price you think is acceptable is not required.

.

Wrong. You cannot own a fully auto .45 Thompson without a class 3 firearms license. And in 13 states, the states have laws against private citizens owning them. Those laws have not been declared unconstitutional, nor has the ban on ownership without the class 3 license. The same could be applied to the ownership of the assault weapons. I suggested a way that would allow private citizens of good character to own them without undue financial hardship. You want to go full bore on no limits at all, and you are going to end up with an outright ban of private ownership of guns such as the AR 15. That will be on your head, and no skin off my nose.

What is your definition of Assault weapon......

Any firearm that can be fired a high rate, and has a magazine capability. That includes semi pistols, gatling guns, and semi's that can be loaded with high capacity magazines. That would actually allow the old Garand, as it had only an eight shot magazine, and you would have to alter it to have to a larger magazine. Such alteration would earn you a felony and jail term.

 

[BlackSand]

Any firearm that can be fired a high rate, and has a magazine capability. That includes semi pistols, gatling guns, and semi's that can be loaded with high capacity magazines. That would actually allow the old Garand, as it had only an eight shot magazine, and you would have to alter it to have to a larger magazine. Such alteration would earn you a felony and jail term.

Well, Sorry ... I am not going to jail for your silly definition.
You might be able to get the people of your state to get behind that idea ... Not that I would care.

.

 

[Old Rocks]

The law that says a person can't buy a hand gun until they are 21, should have included semi automatics like the AR15.

For the semi's that have magazines with the ability to fire 30 or 40 rounds in under ten seconds, the purchaser should have to have a class 3 license. That is effectively a machine gun.

I am waiting, TNHarley, for you to call OldRocks stupid and tell him he knows nothing about firearms, that all guns can do that.
C'mon, I'm waiting.

most guns cant fire that quick, OL. His wording was better than yours.
But he was wrong about it being "effectively a machine gun" simply reading the definition will tell you that. Definitions matter or they would be the same thing...
Also, i never told you all guns can shoot dozens of rounds in minutes. I said about half could. If not more.

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Now what are you talking about? Dozens of rounds in a couple of minutes? The AR shoots very rapidly, here is a demonstration.

 

[usmbguest5318]

There are different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not going to get into it with you. However, I certainly don't think that EVERYONE believes as you do that the 2nd is an automatic stop sign forbidding regulation on gun ownership. You are stating an opinion as a fact.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

• The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century
  
• Second Amendment, Constitutional Dysfunction or Necessary Safeguard?
  
• Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right -- This is easily the most pivotal aspect of the debate

What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

The nature of the preponderant culture is what has changed.

 

[Manonthestreet]

No, I would not. All the guns I have are hunting guns, I have no use for a weapon of war. A one time fee of $500 for a person not engaged in selling guns would be adequate. And they would have to start paying the annual fee, should they sell more than 3 guns in any one year.

Well then ... Sorry, it has been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to hinder the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.
Your agreement on whatever price you think is acceptable is not required.

.

Wrong. You cannot own a fully auto .45 Thompson without a class 3 firearms license. And in 13 states, the states have laws against private citizens owning them. Those laws have not been declared unconstitutional, nor has the ban on ownership without the class 3 license. The same could be applied to the ownership of the assault weapons. I suggested a way that would allow private citizens of good character to own them without undue financial hardship. You want to go full bore on no limits at all, and you are going to end up with an outright ban of private ownership of guns such as the AR 15. That will be on your head, and no skin off my nose.

What is your definition of Assault weapon......

Any firearm that can be fired a high rate, and has a magazine capability. That includes semi pistols, gatling guns, and semi's that can be loaded with high capacity magazines. That would actually allow the old Garand, as it had only an eight shot magazine, and you would have to alter it to have to a larger magazine. Such alteration would earn you a felony and jail term.

LLMMAAOOO effectively just outlawed everything but revolvers and some shotguns.....yet again libs want to change definitions to further their agenda of disarming you...

 

[Old Rocks]

Any firearm that can be fired a high rate, and has a magazine capability. That includes semi pistols, gatling guns, and semi's that can be loaded with high capacity magazines. That would actually allow the old Garand, as it had only an eight shot magazine, and you would have to alter it to have to a larger magazine. Such alteration would earn you a felony and jail term.

Well, Sorry ... I am not going to jail for your silly definition.
You might be able to get the people of your state to get behind that idea ... Not that I would care.

.

You would not go to jail for my definition, you would go to jail because of a federal law. And that law is coming. Most Americans are sick of seeing their children murdered for the sake of you fools wanting to shoot a silly gun.

 

[OldLady]

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

Did I mention limiting any rights in that question? If you feel the mentally ill need to be locked up, fight for it.

You referenced there not being a lot of discussion about limiting gunrights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership, I pointed out that such discussion to limit my rights because of the actions of others was wrong. I didn’t point out that firearms ownership is a right, not a privilege.

You brought up rights, not me.

The whole discussion is about rights

The OP was about how to approach each other about gun violence in order to have an effective discussion and hopefully come to some sort of agreement on solutions. Guns are only one piece of that.

 

[BlackSand]

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

• The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century
  
• Second Amendment, Constitutional Dysfunction or Necessary Safeguard?
  
• Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right -- This is easily the most pivotal aspect of the debate

What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

The nature of the preponderant culture is what has changed.

The Constitution does allow for States to regulate firearms and militias.

Do you think making it a federal issue is anything less than people attempting to use the desires of others outside of their state ...
To achieve something contrary to the desires of the people that actually live there?

.

 

[OldLady]

The law that says a person can't buy a hand gun until they are 21, should have included semi automatics like the AR15.

For the semi's that have magazines with the ability to fire 30 or 40 rounds in under ten seconds, the purchaser should have to have a class 3 license. That is effectively a machine gun.

I am waiting, TNHarley, for you to call OldRocks stupid and tell him he knows nothing about firearms, that all guns can do that.
C'mon, I'm waiting.

most guns cant fire that quick, OL. His wording was better than yours.
But he was wrong about it being "effectively a machine gun" simply reading the definition will tell you that. Definitions matter or they would be the same thing...
Also, i never told you all guns can shoot dozens of rounds in minutes. I said about half could. If not more.

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Stick your lying tongue on a frozen light pole, TN.

 

[hunarcy]

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

You know, we take the right to drive an automobile on public roads away from people that have proven themselves to be a danger to others. And we require that people have a licence that proves that they at least are aware of the rules of the road. There is no reason at all that we cannot require a class 3 license for anyone to purchase or possess one of these weapons of war off of their property.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right

Wrong. Driving a car on a public road is a privilege, it is a right on your own property. I would apply the same reasoning to having an assault weapon or a pistol with a high capacity magazine. Such a law would not keep a law abiding, mentally stable citizen from aquiring such weapons if they desire them. It would prevent a person such as the Parkland shooter from aquiring such weapons. If you can afford the cost of one of the assault weapons, you can afford a one time fee of $500 dollars for the background check that will assure the rest of the people in this nation that you will not murder their children.

You cannot apply that reasoning to assault weapns (whatever that means to you) or pistols because the 2nd does not allow infringement

Again, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and the total ban on automatic weapons by 13 states shows that, indeed, you can require special licenses for certain types of weapons. But go ahead and keep defending selling weapons of war to crazies. You are going to end up with a total ban on them, and confiscation of such weapons. All quite legally.

Rather than proclaim the Supreme Court has ruled,provide a link

 

[Manonthestreet]

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

Did I mention limiting any rights in that question? If you feel the mentally ill need to be locked up, fight for it.

You referenced there not being a lot of discussion about limiting gunrights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership, I pointed out that such discussion to limit my rights because of the actions of others was wrong. I didn’t point out that firearms ownership is a right, not a privilege.

You brought up rights, not me.

The whole discussion is about rights

The OP was about how to approach each other about gun violence in order to have an effective discussion and hopefully come to some sort of agreement on solutions. Guns are only one piece of that.

No it was about how libs could fool others into agreeing with them...try to be honest

 

[TNHarley]

For the semi's that have magazines with the ability to fire 30 or 40 rounds in under ten seconds, the purchaser should have to have a class 3 license. That is effectively a machine gun.

I am waiting, TNHarley, for you to call OldRocks stupid and tell him he knows nothing about firearms, that all guns can do that.
C'mon, I'm waiting.

most guns cant fire that quick, OL. His wording was better than yours.
But he was wrong about it being "effectively a machine gun" simply reading the definition will tell you that. Definitions matter or they would be the same thing...
Also, i never told you all guns can shoot dozens of rounds in minutes. I said about half could. If not more.

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Stick your lying tongue on a frozen light pole, TN.

what am i lying about? You have been confused ALL day..

 

[hunarcy]

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

Did I mention limiting any rights in that question? If you feel the mentally ill need to be locked up, fight for it.

You referenced there not being a lot of discussion about limiting gunrights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership, I pointed out that such discussion to limit my rights because of the actions of others was wrong. I didn’t point out that firearms ownership is a right, not a privilege.

You brought up rights, not me.

The whole discussion is about rights

The OP was about how to approach each other about gun violence in order to have an effective discussion and hopefully come to some sort of agreement on solutions. Guns are only one piece of that.

Then approach the subject from a position of respecting my rights, unless I have misused them.