Why was the second amendment written?

[Blues Man]

And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone

Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm

So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.

When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work

No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.

Sounds like a great plan. ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. If you do that crime drops. Great. Do it.

It's not up to me or you for that matter

The powers that be don't want to enforce the laws because as long as people are arguing about stupid shit like gun ownership they keep their control

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone

Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm

So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.

When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work

No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.

Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

How is what I said then not true? The principle is, they deal with the individual. If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.

Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.

those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns

FYI Accused is not the same as convicted

Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people. We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them. Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.

Prison is punishment

Criminals choose to commit crimes

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The objective of a good society with respect to people who violate the law:

1) Punish the offender

2) Get restitution for victims when possible

3) Rehabilitate the criminal so that you don't need to worry about them in the future.

Instead, we say tough shit to the victims; we make our criminal element a little more dedicated to their craft; we put them back into society as second class citizens, locked out of normal society, and all but guaranteeing that they will have to commit crimes in order to live.

Choices have consequences

I have no sympathy for any piece of shit criminal

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[westwall]

325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.

When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work

No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.

Sounds like a great plan. ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. If you do that crime drops. Great. Do it.

It's not up to me or you for that matter

The powers that be don't want to enforce the laws because as long as people are arguing about stupid shit like gun ownership they keep their control

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The powers that be demand we give up our guns because then they WILL have full control.....and we would then be powerless.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.

When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work

No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.

Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:

1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.

In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry

2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor

3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.

those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns

FYI Accused is not the same as convicted

Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people. We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them. Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.

Prison is punishment

Criminals choose to commit crimes

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The objective of a good society with respect to people who violate the law:

1) Punish the offender

2) Get restitution for victims when possible

3) Rehabilitate the criminal so that you don't need to worry about them in the future.

Instead, we say tough shit to the victims; we make our criminal element a little more dedicated to their craft; we put them back into society as second class citizens, locked out of normal society, and all but guaranteeing that they will have to commit crimes in order to live.

Choices have consequences

I have no sympathy for any piece of shit criminal

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.

those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns

FYI Accused is not the same as convicted

Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people. We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them. Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.

Prison is punishment

Criminals choose to commit crimes

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The objective of a good society with respect to people who violate the law:

1) Punish the offender

2) Get restitution for victims when possible

3) Rehabilitate the criminal so that you don't need to worry about them in the future.

Instead, we say tough shit to the victims; we make our criminal element a little more dedicated to their craft; we put them back into society as second class citizens, locked out of normal society, and all but guaranteeing that they will have to commit crimes in order to live.

Choices have consequences

I have no sympathy for any piece of shit criminal

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Nobody is asking you to have sympathy for a criminal. If they refuse rehabilitation, they can stay in prison and rot in Hell. The point is, it is unfair to put dangerous people back on the streets; it is insane to create different classes of citizens where one guy can defend his family and loved ones while another cannot. Furthermore, one you lock someone out of society and deny them a job based on a background check as opposed to their achievements after conviction, you are creating career criminals.

But then, what the Hell, if career criminals kill innocent people, it gives anti-gunners the statistics to turn American into a third world shit hole.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Never thought that I'd actually be saying this, but sometimes a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Case in point was this morning when some idiot went into a church in Ft. Worth TX and started shooting. Seems there were several church attendees who happened to have a concealed carry permit, and when the gunman started shooting, several of them pulled their guns and shot the gunman before he could kill more people. As it was, he killed 1 and injured 2 others. But, he's no longer around, as the church goer's shot him dead.

But, you have to admit..................it's pretty fucking sad when you can't go to church unarmed. I kinda think that Jesus who is the Prince of Peace would be pretty disappointed.

 

[westwall]

Never thought that I'd actually be saying this, but sometimes a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Case in point was this morning when some idiot went into a church in Ft. Worth TX and started shooting. Seems there were several church attendees who happened to have a concealed carry permit, and when the gunman started shooting, several of them pulled their guns and shot the gunman before he could kill more people. As it was, he killed 1 and injured 2 others. But, he's no longer around, as the church goer's shot him dead.

But, you have to admit..................it's pretty fucking sad when you can't go to church unarmed. I kinda think that Jesus who is the Prince of Peace would be pretty disappointed.

Jesus said. "If you have no sword, sell your shirt and buy one" so no, Jesus had a pretty good understanding of people.

 

[Rye Catcher]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Never thought that I'd actually be saying this, but sometimes a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Case in point was this morning when some idiot went into a church in Ft. Worth TX and started shooting. Seems there were several church attendees who happened to have a concealed carry permit, and when the gunman started shooting, several of them pulled their guns and shot the gunman before he could kill more people. As it was, he killed 1 and injured 2 others. But, he's no longer around, as the church goer's shot him dead.

But, you have to admit..................it's pretty fucking sad when you can't go to church unarmed. I kinda think that Jesus who is the Prince of Peace would be pretty disappointed.

Jesus ordered his apostles to carry a sword even if they had to hock their robes to buy one. That means that they were as well armed as Caesar's SWAT Team. There is a time and a place for everything.

It is sad about what is happening. What is worse is that I've promoted a bill that would dramatically reduce gun violence without gun control.

The gun lobby only fights defensive wars and the left enjoys hearing about mass shootings. It gives them more numbers to lobby Congress for gun control with... and they know gun control won't stop gun violence. As do you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).

I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?

 

[Rye Catcher]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).

I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?

If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).

I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?

If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.

There is still NOTHING that prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car. In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a ban on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.

You have not advocated for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you? What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.

Gun control advocates want to ban firearms. Somehow simple analogies elude you. I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms. Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison. Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.

How would you insure the security of a free state?

 

[Blues Man]

When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work

No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.

Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:

1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.

In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry

2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor

3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.

Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.

Gun crimes were all tried in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

Never thought that I'd actually be saying this, but sometimes a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Case in point was this morning when some idiot went into a church in Ft. Worth TX and started shooting. Seems there were several church attendees who happened to have a concealed carry permit, and when the gunman started shooting, several of them pulled their guns and shot the gunman before he could kill more people. As it was, he killed 1 and injured 2 others. But, he's no longer around, as the church goer's shot him dead.

But, you have to admit..................it's pretty fucking sad when you can't go to church unarmed. I kinda think that Jesus who is the Prince of Peace would be pretty disappointed.

Jesus told people to sell their cloak ang buy a sword

A gun is the modern equivalent

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Porter Rockwell]

No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.

Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:

1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.

In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry

2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor

3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.

Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.

Gun crimes were all tried in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

FWIW: In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.

... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country. As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"sometimes" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.) So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws. If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.

Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.

 

[Rye Catcher]

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).

I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?

If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.

There is still NOTHING that prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car. In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a ban on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.

You have not advocated for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you? What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.

Gun control advocates want to ban firearms. Somehow simple analogies elude you. I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms. Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison. Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.

How would you insure the security of a free state?

I have not advocated the ban of guns either, and if I had to choose I'd ban tobacco before guns. I have always stated I support law abiding, sane and sober citizens the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a legal firearm.

The only way to accomplish this is to have background checks, issue licenses to gun owners and for all guns to be registered. And a national data base, different than the FBI rap sheet, but including arrests for violence, domestic violence, drug and sex trafficking and being civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others.

Other lesser offenses such as DUI's, assaults and battery, criminal threats, bad conduct and dishonorable discharges too should be recorded and their privilege to own or possess a firearm needs to be further investigated before any gun is sold, given to or loaned to such a person.

 

[westwall]

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).

I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?

If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.

And every single day those people are arrested for violating P&P conditions.

Next.

 

[westwall]

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).

I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?

If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.

There is still NOTHING that prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car. In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a ban on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.

You have not advocated for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you? What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.

Gun control advocates want to ban firearms. Somehow simple analogies elude you. I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms. Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison. Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.

How would you insure the security of a free state?

I have not advocated the ban of guns either, and if I had to choose I'd ban tobacco before guns. I have always stated I support law abiding, sane and sober citizens the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a legal firearm.

The only way to accomplish this is to have background checks, issue licenses to gun owners and for all guns to be registered. And a national data base, different than the FBI rap sheet, but including arrests for violence, domestic violence, drug and sex trafficking and being civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others.

Other lesser offenses such as DUI's, assaults and battery, criminal threats, bad conduct and dishonorable discharges too should be recorded and their privilege to own or possess a firearm needs to be further investigated before any gun is sold, given to or loaned to such a person.

And the historical record shows that following your wonderful usurpation of gun Rights, the next government comes in and takes the licenses away from those people they don't like.

This has happened 100%of the time.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).

I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?

If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.

There is still NOTHING that prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car. In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a ban on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.

You have not advocated for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you? What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.

Gun control advocates want to ban firearms. Somehow simple analogies elude you. I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms. Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison. Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.

How would you insure the security of a free state?

I have not advocated the ban of guns either, and if I had to choose I'd ban tobacco before guns. I have always stated I support law abiding, sane and sober citizens the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a legal firearm.

The only way to accomplish this is to have background checks, issue licenses to gun owners and for all guns to be registered. And a national data base, different than the FBI rap sheet, but including arrests for violence, domestic violence, drug and sex trafficking and being civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others.

Other lesser offenses such as DUI's, assaults and battery, criminal threats, bad conduct and dishonorable discharges too should be recorded and their privilege to own or possess a firearm needs to be further investigated before any gun is sold, given to or loaned to such a person.

What a pantload!

NOBODY was more thoroughly investigated than Nidal Hasan, the Army Major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers in 2009.

Aaron Alexis received a secret-level security clearance in March 2008 that was valid for ten years. He killed 12 people in the Washington Navy Yard shooting in 2013.

Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani of the Saudi Royal Air Force went on a rampage at a Florida naval base earlier this year. He killed 3 people.

Omar Mateen killed 49 people in a gay bar in Florida and injured 53 others.

ALL of those people and scores more went through background checks. I point out the above examples because they went through extreme background checks. Background checks don't work.

Since firearm ownership is an unalienable Right, your proposals are wholly unconstitutional since we don't need your permission (i.e. a license) to own a firearm. That Right is above the law. NOTHING you suggested deters a criminal; NOTHING you proposed prevents a criminal act; NOTHING you suggested requires that people who do commit crimes be rehabilitated so that they don't do it again...

I can cut shootings down dramatically without gun control and without infringing upon the Rights of others. All you have is womb to the tomb surveillance and control of people that does not affect any criminal wrongdoing.