LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
NO
Would you support this gun reform bill?
- Thread starter Leviticus
- Start date
And the criminals are on board with this?
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #63
I'm on the fence about points 4 and 5. I could be convinced either way.
On all the other points, I'm a hard “Absolutely Not!”.
Most are completely irreconcilable with the Second Amendment. Those that aren't blatantly unconstitutional are much too open to abuse.
A few notes on specific points:
If this point is supposed to be about carrying guns in a “safe” manner, vs. an “unsafe” manner, then why do you want it to be OK for police, military, or private security to carry in what you consider to be an “unsafe” manner? If anything, shouldn't they be held to a higher standard, than the general public, rather than a lower standard?
And how is the determination to be made, as to what constitutes “any organization which is designated as a terrorist group, a criminal organization”? We've just seen the corrupt malfeasant asshole Merrick Garland trying to designate parents who object to their children being taught racism or depraved sexual perversions in schools, as “domestic terrorists”. Should any parent who is concerned what bullshit their children's teachers are brainwashing their children's with, be denied their Second Amendment rights? e especially saw, under the Obama administration, abuses of the IRS and other agencies to go after political dissidents; and here, you're calling to hand over a whole new weapon for a corrupt Administration to similarly use against its opponents.
The Fifth Amendment forbids a citizen from being denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process means being tried and convicted of a crime, and sentences to whatever deprivation is established as a suitable punishment for the crime of which one has been convicted. Certainly, the requirement for due process as a condition for any deprivation of liberty would apply to any rights explicitly affirmed in the Constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms.
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #64
Do you remember Sarah Brady promising to show us “the rest of the camel”?
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #65
j-mac
Nuthin' but the truth
Well, do you?
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
No, you have an idea for a ridiculous troll thread.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Wrong.
As a reminder, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment.
Wrong. The historical record of how the Founders governed gives greater context than any case law.
- Thread starter
- #70
A good number of mass shootings were done using guns the shooter bought legally, despite histories of mental illness and/or having felonies on their criminal record, both of which would have caused them to fail a background check. They were able to get the guns legally because their histories were not reported to the federal government and were not included in the background check system. This is either negligence on the part of the clerks who are supposed to do the reporting, or a willful and intentional choice to not file the information to be included in the background check system. Several mass shootings could have been prevented if the information had been properly reported, causing the shooters to be unable to pass the background checks.
- Thread starter
- #71
There are already laws to punish criminals. We need laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, since THEY are the ones who commit the vast majority of mass shooings,
- Thread starter
- #72
Congress decides the budget, not the President
- Thread starter
- #73
You think most shootings are committed by drug addicts?
That would prevent some shootings, but not many in the long run.
- Thread starter
- #74
I'll include another one. A complete ban on straw purchases of firearms nationwide.
As well as making it a felony for a person to make a straw purchase for someone who would not be able to legally make the purchase themselves, and if a firearm included in such a purchase is used in a crime, the purchaser would be charged as an accomplice.
This would only apply to firearms bought for people who do not have the legal right to own firearms, such as felons, or people who have histories of mental illness or other such things which would cause them to fail a background check. If wouldn't apply to guns bought as gifts, unless the person recieving it doesn't have the legal right to own it.
As well as making it a felony for a person to make a straw purchase for someone who would not be able to legally make the purchase themselves, and if a firearm included in such a purchase is used in a crime, the purchaser would be charged as an accomplice.
This would only apply to firearms bought for people who do not have the legal right to own firearms, such as felons, or people who have histories of mental illness or other such things which would cause them to fail a background check. If wouldn't apply to guns bought as gifts, unless the person recieving it doesn't have the legal right to own it.
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 79,859
- 58,829
- 3,565
Laws that are not being enforced
It should be an automatic 3 years in jail for anyone caught illegally carrying a firearm in public
- Thread starter
- #76
Most states already have harsh punishments for anyone illegally carrying a firearm.
The issue is that depending on who is doing the carrying, gun nuts either like or hate those punishments. If they see a black gangbanger getting a few years for it, they are all for it. but if a fellow gun nut gets arrested, they call it a violation of the second amendment.
Batcat
Diamond Member
- Aug 29, 2020
- 10,678
- 8,927
- 2,138
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org
Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments. Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact...
www.factcheck.org
Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments.
- Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact on lowering crime.” But the studies cited by LaPierre concluded that effects of the ban were “still unfolding” when it expired in 2004 and that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.”
- Conversely, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.” That’s not correct either. The study concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
NO. The problem with gun reform is that guns don't need reformed! Guns have not changed a bit since 40 years ago when no one had ever heard of a "school-shooter."
What we need is People Reform, because PEOPLE are what has changed. PEOPLE are the ones picking up guns for senseless violence.
And People Reform begins with Government Reform, and that begins with getting all of the subversives and progressives out of office.
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 79,859
- 58,829
- 3,565
You’re dreaming
Unless you actually shoot someone in a deep blue city you will be back on the street the same day
- Thread starter
- #80
The NRA is a gun manufacturing lobby, with it's leaders all owning millions of dollars in tock in those companies. They have a long history of opposing any and all refrms or laws which would negatively effect the profits of gun makers., including opposing background checks for mental illness, because crazy people tend to like to own guns. I would would take any claims made by anyone associated with the NRA with a grain of salt.Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org
Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments. Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact...
Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments.
- Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact on lowering crime.” But the studies cited by LaPierre concluded that effects of the ban were “still unfolding” when it expired in 2004 and that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.”
- Conversely, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.” That’s not correct either. The study concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World
- Started by MayorQuimby
- Replies: 0
-
-
