Why won't the Democratic Party just propose repealing the Second Amendment and be done with it?

[BULLDOG]

thing with the mentally ill , who gets to decide the definition of mentally ill . I'm hearing that lots of returning service men are being denied guns because they have PTSD 'Bulldog' .

PTSD is not a reason to deny guns, but certain aspects of the way it effects the particular sufferer is and should be. Returning soldiers deserve our respect and thanks, but that doesn't mean they all should have access to guns if their mental state shows they shouldn't. Obviously you admit background checks work, even if you misunderstand some of the decisions. Doesn't that disprove your claim that universal background checks are useless?

 

[boilermaker55]

You seriously have no idea what you are saying or talking about.

We all know that's what they really want. We all know all of their "stealth" legislation designed to slowly chip away at making practical use of that right is just that. Every year or so they bring out a new campaign against "assault weapons" or clips with more than three rounds in it. So why can't they just man up and be open about what they're trying to do? I'd honestly have a lot more respect for them if they started growing a spine and talking about their goals and agenda directly instead of trying to talk around it and find ways to make it palatable to the general public. One of those goals is banning guns. Everyone knows this. It's not like they can try to hide it and this point, so there's not really a point in trying to lie about it. They might as well just openly admit that they believe it's an outdated piece of legislation which has outlived its purpose. Hell, they'd technically even be right.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "well regulated Militia" it mentions barely even exists as a functional structure anymore. The Army of the United States hasn't existed since the draft. The state defense forces are pretty much rendered an extra, useless expense by the National Guard, which is why the majority of states don't even have one anymore. The general public has zero military training or desire to be part of anything like that, which is why they would prefer to pay for a huge federal standing army rather than revive and participate in the militia system the amendment is talking about.

 

[hortysir]

We all know that's what they really want. We all know all of their "stealth" legislation designed to slowly chip away at making practical use of that right is just that. Every year or so they bring out a new campaign against "assault weapons" or clips with more than three rounds in it. So why can't they just man up and be open about what they're trying to do? I'd honestly have a lot more respect for them if they started growing a spine and talking about their goals and agenda directly instead of trying to talk around it and find ways to make it palatable to the general public. One of those goals is banning guns. Everyone knows this. It's not like they can try to hide it and this point, so there's not really a point in trying to lie about it. They might as well just openly admit that they believe it's an outdated piece of legislation which has outlived its purpose. Hell, they'd technically even be right.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "well regulated Militia" it mentions barely even exists as a functional structure anymore. The Army of the United States hasn't existed since the draft. The state defense forces are pretty much rendered an extra, useless expense by the National Guard, which is why the majority of states don't even have one anymore. The general public has zero military training or desire to be part of anything like that, which is why they would prefer to pay for a huge federal standing army rather than revive and participate in the militia system the amendment is talking about.

State........Army.....Air.....Total
Alabama 11,023 2,232 13,255
Alaska 1,879 2,059 3,938
Arizona 5,206 2,421 7,627
Arkansas 7,463 1,873 9,336
California 16,450 4,637 21,087
Colorado 4,023 1,481 5,504
Connecticut 3,593 1,166 4,759
Delaware 1,587 1,014 2,601
Florida 9,937 1,793 11,730
Georgia 11,100 2,769 13,869
Hawaii 3,039 2,287 5,326
Idaho 3,456 1,307 4,763
Illinois 10,050 2,876 12,926
Indiana 12,168 1,819 13,987
Iowa 7,370 1,943 9,313
Kansas 5,096 2,277 7,373
Kentucky 7,281 1,182 8,463
Louisiana 9,457 1,426 10,883
Maine 2,077 1,118 3,195
Maryland 4,792 1,431 6,223
Massachusetts 6,218 2,153 8,371
Michigan 8,788 2,546 11,334
Minnesota 10,974 2,246 13,220
Mississippi 9,678 2,394 12,072
Missouri 9,050 2,403 11,453
Montana 2,787 1,039 3,826
Nebraska 3,758 963 4,721
Nevada 3,203 1,082 4,285
New Hampshire 1,772 1,019 2,791
New Jersey 6,101 2,396 8,497
New Mexico 3,019 839 3,858
New York 10,648 5,649 16,297
North Carolina 10,278 1,480 11,758
North Dakota 3,278 1,001 4,279
Ohio 11,441 4,711 16,152
Oklahoma 7,214 2,246 9,460
Oregon 6,511 2,181 8,692
Pennsylvania 15,640 3,897 19,537
Rhode Island 2,104 1,175 3,279
South Carolina 9,459 1,305 10,764
South Dakota 3,266 1,043 4,309
Tennessee 10,623 3,355 13,978
Texas 19,605 2,938 22,543
Utah 5,650 1,395 7,045
Vermont 2,797 1,087 3,884
Virginia 7,452 1,094 8,546
Washington 5,936 2,080 8,016
West Virginia 4,138 2,360 6,498
Wisconsin 7,526 2,259 9,785
Wyoming 1,637 1,164 2,801
Puerto Rico 7,280 1,210 8,490
Guam 1,244 431 1,675
DC 1,360 1,221 2,581
Virgin Islands 776 65 841
Total 358,258 103,538 461,796

 

[chikenwing]

We all know that's what they really want. We all know all of their "stealth" legislation designed to slowly chip away at making practical use of that right is just that. Every year or so they bring out a new campaign against "assault weapons" or clips with more than three rounds in it. So why can't they just man up and be open about what they're trying to do? I'd honestly have a lot more respect for them if they started growing a spine and talking about their goals and agenda directly instead of trying to talk around it and find ways to make it palatable to the general public. One of those goals is banning guns. Everyone knows this. It's not like they can try to hide it and this point, so there's not really a point in trying to lie about it. They might as well just openly admit that they believe it's an outdated piece of legislation which has outlived its purpose. Hell, they'd technically even be right.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "well regulated Militia" it mentions barely even exists as a functional structure anymore. The Army of the United States hasn't existed since the draft. The state defense forces are pretty much rendered an extra, useless expense by the National Guard, which is why the majority of states don't even have one anymore. The general public has zero military training or desire to be part of anything like that, which is why they would prefer to pay for a huge federal standing army rather than revive and participate in the militia system the amendment is talking about.

Dear Pedro de San Patricio

The police, veterans and retired vets, and citizens who live by the same code of honor and oath to uphold the Constitution
are alive and well.

Just because YOU don't lay your life on the line to defend the Constitution on a daily basis, as a principle in life,
doesn't mean other people don't.

One Constitutionalist (not a Christian but agnostic and secular) I know just won another recognition for saving the life of a teacher who had collapsed from heart failure and needed CPR and a fibrillator applied, in order to fully recover.
Had citizens like him been around, maybe Eric Garner would be alive instead of left to die on the ground.

The same commitment to public safety that makes this man a gun rights activist
also shows in his teaching and his public behavior, where he has broken up fights before, and kept the peace.

I'm sorry you don't see this going on, but in Texas, it's a way of life to enforce laws yourself
and don't rely on government except what you contribute equally.

P.S. as for the Second Amendment, I suggest an agreement to interpret
"right of the people" to "right of law abiding citizens" so it is clear that firearms
are for defense of law and law enforcement, and not for abusing or committing crimes.

That would reward more people for taking the same oath and training as police and military officers
in order to earn and enforce the rights and responsibilities for bearing arms.

You don't want to punish people "you don't believe exist anymore" by taking away
their rights to enforce laws; I'd rather reward and encourage more public engagement and involvement
so this REDUCES crime and violence by having an educated and trained citizenry who respects the law as equals.

There s a big difference between being a good Samaritan, and being a vigilante. I agree, there are too many vigilantes in Texas.

Well, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The same people who believe in enforcing laws responsibly also deserve gun rights and a say in legislation affecting their rights and beliefs.

There are better ways to address the criminals and mentally ill who pose a threat to public safety
without depriving liberties from law abiding citizens.

So you think that doing something nice should automatically designate you as a self appointed cop? It doesn't work that way. How do you propose addressing criminals and mentally ill owning guns, if nobody knows when they buy a gun? Licensed gun dealers already do a background check, but individuals aren't required to do that.Yes, I know there will always be other ways for a crook to buy a gun, but universal background checks would severely limit the available guns to the crooks and mentally ill. Isn't that a good thing?

Rational people don't believe universal checks will do what you say. me selling a gun to the guy living next to me is nobodies concern.
There is no prof that it will do anything other than limit people rights.The free world is a risky place,germinating needless fear,as the left does day in and day out over guns is a wast of their time and energy,that should be directed at some of the real problems we have in this nation.
Violent crime has gone down year after year,the sky is not falling.

 

[BULLDOG]

and CRIMINALS , aren't they supposed to be in jail ?? If they aren't in jail how do you know that they are criminals Bulldog ??

Thank you for correcting me. That should have been people with a criminal history. I was responding to another poster who mentioned criminals and the mentally ill, and I just continued using his accurate but incomplete term.

 

[pismoe]

well , people with a criminal history of violence or child molestation , why are they ever let out of Jail ?? He11 , they let child molesters back into family neighborhoods and the expurts that let them out claim that a pedophile can't be cured . Why let a violent criminal murderer back into society where his mere presence inhibits the freedom of normal people like GUN BUYERS ??

 

[BULLDOG]

We all know that's what they really want. We all know all of their "stealth" legislation designed to slowly chip away at making practical use of that right is just that. Every year or so they bring out a new campaign against "assault weapons" or clips with more than three rounds in it. So why can't they just man up and be open about what they're trying to do? I'd honestly have a lot more respect for them if they started growing a spine and talking about their goals and agenda directly instead of trying to talk around it and find ways to make it palatable to the general public. One of those goals is banning guns. Everyone knows this. It's not like they can try to hide it and this point, so there's not really a point in trying to lie about it. They might as well just openly admit that they believe it's an outdated piece of legislation which has outlived its purpose. Hell, they'd technically even be right.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "well regulated Militia" it mentions barely even exists as a functional structure anymore. The Army of the United States hasn't existed since the draft. The state defense forces are pretty much rendered an extra, useless expense by the National Guard, which is why the majority of states don't even have one anymore. The general public has zero military training or desire to be part of anything like that, which is why they would prefer to pay for a huge federal standing army rather than revive and participate in the militia system the amendment is talking about.

Dear Pedro de San Patricio

The police, veterans and retired vets, and citizens who live by the same code of honor and oath to uphold the Constitution
are alive and well.

Just because YOU don't lay your life on the line to defend the Constitution on a daily basis, as a principle in life,
doesn't mean other people don't.

One Constitutionalist (not a Christian but agnostic and secular) I know just won another recognition for saving the life of a teacher who had collapsed from heart failure and needed CPR and a fibrillator applied, in order to fully recover.
Had citizens like him been around, maybe Eric Garner would be alive instead of left to die on the ground.

The same commitment to public safety that makes this man a gun rights activist
also shows in his teaching and his public behavior, where he has broken up fights before, and kept the peace.

I'm sorry you don't see this going on, but in Texas, it's a way of life to enforce laws yourself
and don't rely on government except what you contribute equally.

P.S. as for the Second Amendment, I suggest an agreement to interpret
"right of the people" to "right of law abiding citizens" so it is clear that firearms
are for defense of law and law enforcement, and not for abusing or committing crimes.

That would reward more people for taking the same oath and training as police and military officers
in order to earn and enforce the rights and responsibilities for bearing arms.

You don't want to punish people "you don't believe exist anymore" by taking away
their rights to enforce laws; I'd rather reward and encourage more public engagement and involvement
so this REDUCES crime and violence by having an educated and trained citizenry who respects the law as equals.

There s a big difference between being a good Samaritan, and being a vigilante. I agree, there are too many vigilantes in Texas.

Well, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The same people who believe in enforcing laws responsibly also deserve gun rights and a say in legislation affecting their rights and beliefs.

There are better ways to address the criminals and mentally ill who pose a threat to public safety
without depriving liberties from law abiding citizens.

So you think that doing something nice should automatically designate you as a self appointed cop? It doesn't work that way. How do you propose addressing criminals and mentally ill owning guns, if nobody knows when they buy a gun? Licensed gun dealers already do a background check, but individuals aren't required to do that.Yes, I know there will always be other ways for a crook to buy a gun, but universal background checks would severely limit the available guns to the crooks and mentally ill. Isn't that a good thing?

Rational people don't believe universal checks will do what you say. me selling a gun to the guy living next to me is nobodies concern.
There is no prof that it will do anything other than limit people rights.The free world is a risky place,germinating needless fear,as the left does day in and day out over guns is a wast of their time and energy,that should be directed at some of the real problems we have in this nation.
Violent crime has gone down year after year,the sky is not falling.

I would bet that most private gun sales aren't between next door neighbors who know each other well. Do you want people who can't pass a background check to be able to buy guns? Sure, there will always be places available to buy a gun with no questions asked, but those are a tiny number compared to all the individual gun sales that occur every day. Why do you want to make it easier for some thug to get the gun he might use to shoot one of your family members?

 

[pismoe]

mental health expurts , I don't trust them or their pointy headed thought Bulldog . Like I said earlier , the expurts let criminals like child molesters out of jail all the time and as I said , pedophile are supposed to be untreatable . As far as PTSD , He11 , no one , soldier included should be judged guilty of a crime unless judged by peers for an actual crime .

 

[BULLDOG]

well , people with a criminal history of violence or child molestation , why are they ever let out of Jail ?? He11 , they let child molesters back into family neighborhoods and the expurts that let them out claim that a pedophile can't be cured . Why let a violent criminal murderer back into society where his mere presence inhibits the freedom of normal people like GUN BUYERS ??

Why they are let out of jail is a different subject. Many just get a hand slap, or no consequences at all. What matters is there a lot of them out there.

 

[pismoe]

individual sales are usually done between family , friends and some other groups of friends , associates . To do otherwise would be to invite liability Bulldog .

 

[emilynghiem]

thing with the mentally ill , who gets to decide the definition of mentally ill . I'm hearing that lots of returning service men are being denied guns because they have PTSD 'Bulldog' .

Dear pismoe
When people go through spiritual healing and recovery therapy, the ones who are rational enough to function independently are able to SELF-REPORT when they are stable or not. Even for people not fully cured or in control of their addictions or conditions, the ones stable enough to manage CAN say for themselves if they are at risk of a relapse and need to be supervised, or if they should stay away from bars if they have an alcoholic problem, or they know to stay away from children if they have a pedophile sickness, etc. This can be diagnosed and monitored if they can even get to that state, where they at least AGREE to detention and restrictions for their own safety. So you can tell if they are in denial and unstable.

Until they are, why not offer help to people where they can operate independently while having supervised assistance. This doesn't have to be forced on people, given the option, people will naturally choose to have the right balance of assistance they need for secure supervision in the least restrictive environment. The recovery process is up and down, and requires freedom for people to learn to manage with those fluctuations occurring and be able to predict when they come and go;.

If people are unstable, including from PTSD, this can be monitored, managed and healed over time. If people are not stable enough to know they have an issue and to seek counseling help, and to recognize the stages they are in, and the difference between being in danger or at risk vs. being safe, that can be proven they are not stable enough to have guns yet.

Instead of debating criteria for taking guns and rights from people over PTSD and mental illness, why not promote "spiritual healing" therapy to remove and heal as much of the cases and conditions as possible that might otherwise render someone disabled. After that process, it would be easier to determine which people are compliant and which have criminal issues.

 

[pismoe]

government creates the problem [with handslaps] and then the problem is supposed to be fixed by Infringements of good citizens Rights and Freedoms . Doesn't make sense to me Bulldog !!

 

[BULLDOG]

mental health expurts , I don't trust them or their pointy headed thought Bulldog . Like I said earlier , the expurts let criminals like child molesters out of jail all the time and as I said , pedophile are supposed to be untreatable . As far as PTSD , He11 , no one , soldier included should be judged guilty of a crime unless judged by peers for an actual crime .

Like a typical teabagger, I'm guessing you don't trust anybody who has an education beyond high school. Do you think the guy that killed Chris Kyle should have had a gun?

 

[pismoe]

thanks for the message and advice Emily but who pays for the supervised assistance ??

 

[pismoe]

I don't trust people like you and your reasoning Bulldog .

 

[pismoe]

its like I said earlier , give people like you enough time and money and the American people will be reduced to the same level that the DISARMED English have been reduced to as SUBJECTS .

 

[BULLDOG]

individual sales are usually done between family , friends and some other groups of friends , associates . To do otherwise would be to invite liability Bulldog .

How so? There is no record or report of the sale. How would anyone know who sold a gun. or who they sold it to? Do you really want me to believe the only guns sold are between people who know each other well, and would never knowingly sell a gun to anyone who they knew couldn't pass a background check? That's just stupid.

 

[pismoe]

Believe what you like Bulldog but a conscientious gun owner is only going to sell to friend , family or bequeath to family , relatives , associates . Criminals , well we already talked about them . Most criminal gun sales are done by criminals that have been let out of jail due to gov guidelines or new criminals that steal the guns from lawful owners .

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Pedro de San Patricio

The police, veterans and retired vets, and citizens who live by the same code of honor and oath to uphold the Constitution
are alive and well.

Just because YOU don't lay your life on the line to defend the Constitution on a daily basis, as a principle in life,
doesn't mean other people don't.

One Constitutionalist (not a Christian but agnostic and secular) I know just won another recognition for saving the life of a teacher who had collapsed from heart failure and needed CPR and a fibrillator applied, in order to fully recover.
Had citizens like him been around, maybe Eric Garner would be alive instead of left to die on the ground.

The same commitment to public safety that makes this man a gun rights activist
also shows in his teaching and his public behavior, where he has broken up fights before, and kept the peace.

I'm sorry you don't see this going on, but in Texas, it's a way of life to enforce laws yourself
and don't rely on government except what you contribute equally.

P.S. as for the Second Amendment, I suggest an agreement to interpret
"right of the people" to "right of law abiding citizens" so it is clear that firearms
are for defense of law and law enforcement, and not for abusing or committing crimes.

That would reward more people for taking the same oath and training as police and military officers
in order to earn and enforce the rights and responsibilities for bearing arms.

You don't want to punish people "you don't believe exist anymore" by taking away
their rights to enforce laws; I'd rather reward and encourage more public engagement and involvement
so this REDUCES crime and violence by having an educated and trained citizenry who respects the law as equals.

There s a big difference between being a good Samaritan, and being a vigilante. I agree, there are too many vigilantes in Texas.

Well, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The same people who believe in enforcing laws responsibly also deserve gun rights and a say in legislation affecting their rights and beliefs.

There are better ways to address the criminals and mentally ill who pose a threat to public safety
without depriving liberties from law abiding citizens.

So you think that doing something nice should automatically designate you as a self appointed cop? It doesn't work that way. How do you propose addressing criminals and mentally ill owning guns, if nobody knows when they buy a gun? Licensed gun dealers already do a background check, but individuals aren't required to do that.Yes, I know there will always be other ways for a crook to buy a gun, but universal background checks would severely limit the available guns to the crooks and mentally ill. Isn't that a good thing?

Rational people don't believe universal checks will do what you say. me selling a gun to the guy living next to me is nobodies concern.
There is no prof that it will do anything other than limit people rights.The free world is a risky place,germinating needless fear,as the left does day in and day out over guns is a wast of their time and energy,that should be directed at some of the real problems we have in this nation.
Violent crime has gone down year after year,the sky is not falling.

I would bet that most private gun sales aren't between next door neighbors who know each other well. Do you want people who can't pass a background check to be able to buy guns? Sure, there will always be places available to buy a gun with no questions asked, but those are a tiny number compared to all the individual gun sales that occur every day. Why do you want to make it easier for some thug to get the gun he might use to shoot one of your family members?

Why not require all citizens to take the same oath and training as law officers and military?

Why not give tax breaks to districts who pre-screen for mental issues and require people found with criminal sickness to undergo therapy in order to reduce their crime rates?

The money saved by prevention, that is no longer wasted on crime and jails/courts after the fact,
can then be invested in schools and health programs to cut costs disease and crime.

Start rewarding districts for reducing crime, and the money saved can pay for education, sustainable health care and other services instead of wasting millions if not billions on criminal issues that aren't being addressed, prevented or corrected.

 

[Syriusly]

We all know that's what they really want..

Once again you demonstrate you have no idea what anyone knows or wants.