I’m just trying to prove they can’t compromise...a word they toss around but don’t really mean...ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:2nd amendment supporters need to just shut up. There is NOTHING to discuss with the left.
You need to prove I am not "well regulated" or a "militia".........which for the sake of this (nonarguement) have both been taken care of on my end.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Which in 18th century context means proficient or proper working order. It had nothing to do with government regulations.GannonFan wrote:Come on, that's just silly talk. I can do the same, quoting from the same amendment; "...well regulated...". Clearly, as some people on here have stated, there are 3,000 gun-related laws on the books and the SCOTUS hasn't struck every one of them down, so the debate is more involved that your pithy rejoinder.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Shall not infringe
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
You're missing the point. SCOTUS has time and time again ruled that there can be restrictions so this idea that there can't be a law related to weaponry and our ability to have them has already been decided - there can and there are such laws. SCOTUS has clearly said that you can't bar people from having weapons (except for potentially convicted criminals and the mentally ill) so the Left's idea that we can just ban guns altogether would never stand Constitutional muster without another amendment. But clearly the SCOTUS has shown that there can be restrictions.BDKJMU wrote:Which in 18th century context means proficient or proper working order. It had nothing to do with government regulations.GannonFan wrote:
Come on, that's just silly talk. I can do the same, quoting from the same amendment; "...well regulated...". Clearly, as some people on here have stated, there are 3,000 gun-related laws on the books and the SCOTUS hasn't struck every one of them down, so the debate is more involved that your pithy rejoinder.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
And I don't particularly disagree. It's funny when the talk of compromise or what gun control legislation would look like, there's not been a lot of people coming up with anything in particular to discuss. It's talked about in generalities without bothering to get into the specifics, and unfortunately, that's where politicians like to keep it because then they can't be held accountable for doing anything (or doing nothing). We're never going to ban all guns (SCOTUS already said we can't) and we're never going to amend the Constitution to rewrite the 2nd so if we want to do something else other than talk about it then we need a compromise position that isn't just ban all guns.Col Hogan wrote:I’m just trying to prove they can’t compromise...a word they toss around but don’t really mean...ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:2nd amendment supporters need to just shut up. There is NOTHING to discuss with the left.
You need to prove I am not "well regulated" or a "militia".........which for the sake of this (nonarguement) have both been taken care of on my end.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I have already offered a compromise but the left seems distant and unwilling to talk about it..GannonFan wrote:And I don't particularly disagree. It's funny when the talk of compromise or what gun control legislation would look like, there's not been a lot of people coming up with anything in particular to discuss. It's talked about in generalities without bothering to get into the specifics, and unfortunately, that's where politicians like to keep it because then they can't be held accountable for doing anything (or doing nothing). We're never going to ban all guns (SCOTUS already said we can't) and we're never going to amend the Constitution to rewrite the 2nd so if we want to do something else other than talk about it then we need a compromise position that isn't just ban all guns.Col Hogan wrote:
I’m just trying to prove they can’t compromise...a word they toss around but don’t really mean...
That response wasnt directed at you......I get itCol Hogan wrote:I’m just trying to prove they can’t compromise...a word they toss around but don’t really mean...ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:2nd amendment supporters need to just shut up. There is NOTHING to discuss with the left.
You need to prove I am not "well regulated" or a "militia".........which for the sake of this (nonarguement) have both been taken care of on my end.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
93henfan wrote:The Second Amendment makes no stipulation that anyone bearing arms has to be part of a well regulated militia.
That's a liberal creation that is easily, ahem, shot down.
2A simply opens with a statement that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (against all enemies foreign and domestic, including its own government - implied), so to facilitate the creation of this well regulated militia when needed, we must assure the right of the people to keep and bear the arms that will allow them to maintain the security of that free state.
You read it how you like, but it's pretty damn clear to me that this was written as an anti-tyranny amendment.
And then the liberal will say something like, "c'mon man, the military has tanks and nukes and artillery and all kinds of big scary things" and rationalize that because of this, the ship has sailed on a peoples' militia resisting the federal government.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:93henfan wrote:The Second Amendment makes no stipulation that anyone bearing arms has to be part of a well regulated militia.
That's a liberal creation that is easily, ahem, shot down.
2A simply opens with a statement that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (against all enemies foreign and domestic, including its own government - implied), so to facilitate the creation of this well regulated militia when needed, we must assure the right of the people to keep and bear the arms that will allow them to maintain the security of that free state.
You read it how you like, but it's pretty damn clear to me that this was written as an anti-tyranny amendment.
BANG!
AZGrizFan wrote:Oh, and 93 is rippin' the TITS off this thread.
As I said, I don't believe they know everything yet - CNN reported that nothing showed up in his background check, so I was assuming it wasn't a straw purchase. But, as CNN has abandoned journalism since last November, a second source on the background check would be recommended.AZGrizFan wrote:We know for a fact he purchased the weapon himself?
You assume he purchased his gun legally (“such as why did his background check show nothing...”GannonFan wrote:Picking this thread up again as there's another shooting. This time, even with the right laws in place (the guy who did the shooting was dishonorably discharged, basically the equivalent of a felony, and did time for domestic violence), a guy who shouldn't have been able to purchase and own a gun did and went on to commit mass murder with it. Certainly still more to come out on this, such as why did his background check show nothing, but a good time to talk again about what actual solutions would look like, i.e. how to stop these types of things, and any other gun violence (mass shootings get the press, but they're tiny in terms of gun related violence) from happening. In this case, it looks like all the gun control laws you'd want were in place and yet they still failed.
Still plenty to come in on this - reporting so far has this guy buying a gun from a sporting goods store in San Antonio and he passed the background check because nothing in the background check flagged him as a guy who legally wasn't allowed to buy a gun. I agree, the back channels for guns means if you try hard enough you can probably get a gun, but so far this guy didn't have to work that hard to get these guns.Col Hogan wrote:You assume he purchased his gun legally (“such as why did his background check show nothing...”GannonFan wrote:Picking this thread up again as there's another shooting. This time, even with the right laws in place (the guy who did the shooting was dishonorably discharged, basically the equivalent of a felony, and did time for domestic violence), a guy who shouldn't have been able to purchase and own a gun did and went on to commit mass murder with it. Certainly still more to come out on this, such as why did his background check show nothing, but a good time to talk again about what actual solutions would look like, i.e. how to stop these types of things, and any other gun violence (mass shootings get the press, but they're tiny in terms of gun related violence) from happening. In this case, it looks like all the gun control laws you'd want were in place and yet they still failed.
Criminals do not undergo background checks, because they don’t purchase their guns through licensed dealers...
This past Friday, a Democrat and Republican introduced a bill to “expand” background checks...do you think criminals will pay any attention to this???
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/articl ... /171109912
The cow is long out of the barn...the only thing that will prevent this type of crime from happening again...and again...is the total and complete outlawing and confiscation of guns...and that is not going to happen...
But, I’ll wait over here to evaluate any other ideas...
He did pass his background check because the Air Force failed to file paperwork on his Domestic Abuse conviction with the FBI...so when he filled out the paperwork to purchase guns in Colorado and Texas, he lied about having a disqualifying item, and NICS did not have the information to challenge his lie...GannonFan wrote:Still plenty to come in on this - reporting so far has this guy buying a gun from a sporting goods store in San Antonio and he passed the background check because nothing in the background check flagged him as a guy who legally wasn't allowed to buy a gun. I agree, the back channels for guns means if you try hard enough you can probably get a gun, but so far this guy didn't have to work that hard to get these guns.Col Hogan wrote:
You assume he purchased his gun legally (“such as why did his background check show nothing...”
Criminals do not undergo background checks, because they don’t purchase their guns through licensed dealers...
This past Friday, a Democrat and Republican introduced a bill to “expand” background checks...do you think criminals will pay any attention to this???
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/articl ... /171109912
The cow is long out of the barn...the only thing that will prevent this type of crime from happening again...and again...is the total and complete outlawing and confiscation of guns...and that is not going to happen...
But, I’ll wait over here to evaluate any other ideas...
CID1990 wrote:Repeal the 2nd Amendment or STFU
Still can't agree with much of this. Any vengeful ex can file a domestic violence charge against you. And I guess once a felon, always a felon? Glad you're not on the parole board.GannonFan wrote:- Be clear about disqualifying events - if you have a domestic violence charge against you, you can be disqualified from having a gun. If you're a felon, you don't get a gun. If you've been dishonorably discharged from the military, you don't get a gun. You have a mental health condition that makes it reasonable for you not to have a gun, then you don't get a gun. And however the background system works, make it really easy to enter the information so we don't get another Texas church event because people didn't do their jobs.
