WTF? (**NSFW**)

[Vertigo]

3 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

A-I lost all of my firearms in a tragic boating incident in the Gulf of Mexico. 

B-if your sworn to support and defend the constitution, you should have a really hard time with a blanket ban and/ or confiscation .... unless there are changes to the constitution. 

 

A- Thus proving the adage "If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". By not complying with the law you then have made the decision to become a criminal.

B- Hence my use of hypothetical. Now can you answer the question? If, hypothetically, a gun ban law was passed in legislation that repealed 2A, was signed, and cleared SCOTUS. What then?

[HossHarris]

A-sometimes right and legal diverge  I’ll chose right every time  

 

B-I’ll be long dead before all those wickets are run. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by HossHarris

[matmacwc]

3 hours ago, Vertigo said:

I need some help with this comparison... can you point me out an article where 59 people died and another 500 were wounded by a man with a jug of acid? I can't seem to find any.

You missed the point, a few pages ago I linked an article showing a country where guns are severely restricted (I'm being generous) and they are looking into banning knives, now its acid.  In effect, I'm saying banning anything will not stop this behavior.  I think your point is the gun makes the attack more massive, and while correct, Timothy McVeigh, any 9/11 attacker and so on might disagree with you.  I'd argue cars are more dangerous.

And a seriously restrictive gun law will not be passed, at least in the next few decades, not even worth arguing about.  

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by matmacwc
Hillary didn't win

[Vertigo]

So no one is willing to answer the question straight up. Telling. 

[matmacwc]

I did, its not going to happen.

[Hacker]

2 hours ago, Vertigo said:

So no one is willing to answer the question straight up. Telling. 

Telling of what?

That you hypothesize an unlikely lengthy series of legislative events, and want people to say what they would hypothetically do if they occurred?

Yeah, we're law abiding citizens and we'd comply.  Is that what you're so desperate to hear?

[Hacker]

10 hours ago, Seriously said:

Yeah, but there is a line. You aren't allowed to own your own fighter and an inventory of Mk 82s either... as much fun as that would be.

Yeah...actually you are.  There are plenty of legally owned fighter aircraft that are capable of employing ordnance, and explosives may be legally owned as destructive devices under the NFA.

[Hacker]

7 hours ago, Vertigo said:

That's the same BS argument used when gay marriage was being debated "People will marry their dogs, or their toasters".

When someone wants to discuss reasonable, common sense, gun control measures, it's disingenuous to reframe it as a discussion about abolishing firearms.

So, you would not consider the incremental addition of firearms laws over the last 100 years...

- NFA 1934

- GCA 1968

- Brady Bill 1993

- AWB 1994

- the varied state AWB/magazine/etc bans implemented since then

...as prima facie evidence a "slippery slope" of increasing restrictions over time?

BTW, the fundamental difference between a topic like gay marriage and gun control is that one issue is trying to increase liberty, and the other is trying to restrict it.  Increasing liberty has no finite end...it is potentially boundless.  Restricting liberty has a very specific finite end that it can reach.

[Warrior]

Yeah, but there is a line. You aren't allowed to own your own fighter and an inventory of Mk 82s either... as much fun as that would be. 
I don't think banning bump stocks would do much anyways. You can bump fire with a belt loop, and you can make minor mods to turn a semi-auto AK-47 into full auto (sort of..).

What are you talking about Smalls?

You sure as hell can own your own fighter. I don’t know anyone who owns Mk 82s but in theory they wouldn’t be any different than claymores which are legal to own under NFA. You must register and pay your $200 tax stamp to register each one as a destructive device.

Your second paragraph is the point-how the do people who talk about “the shoulder thing that goes up” write a law that doesn’t end up banning belt loops?

[ClearedHot]

[Hacker]

19 hours ago, Vertigo said:

Was I dreaming up Sandy Hook elementary? Columbine? Aurora? Orlando? Ft Lauderdale? San Bernardino? Roseburg, OR? Chattanooga? Charleston? Isla Vista, CA? Ft Hood? Washington Navy Yard? Santa Monica? Newtown? Binghamton, NY? Omaha shopping mall? Virginia Tech? Salt Lake mall? Pennsylvania amish school? Red lake high school? Lockheed Martin? Santee high school? Wakefield, MA? That's just in the 2000's.

And yet, every day hundreds of millions of firearm owners do absolutely nothing illegal or immoral with them.

This type of crime is still exceedingly rare, thus the logic of his point is still completely valid.

[Stoker]

19 hours ago, HossHarris said:

 

B-if your sworn to support and defend the constitution, you should have a really hard time with a blanket ban and/ or confiscation .... unless there are changes to the constitution. 

 

The problem is that too many people have been convinced that the Constitution is something that can only be interpreted by a Federal judge, or at least by someone with a JD and a background in ConLaw. In reality, the Constitution was written by farmers and merchants, not one of whom went to law school, and it was meant to be a document for the people. 

[Seriously]

26 minutes ago, sforron said:

The problem is that too many people have been convinced that the Constitution is something that can only be interpreted by a Federal judge, or at least by someone with a JD and a background in ConLaw. In reality, the Constitution was written by farmers and merchants, not one of whom went to law school, and it was meant to be a document for the people. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Education

Most went to college, several were lawyers, and only 4 were self-taught or had little formal education.

Also, the founding fathers created the judiciary branch so that lawyers could interpret the constitution for the lay people....

[matmacwc]

20 hours ago, Vertigo said:

Was I dreaming up Sandy Hook elementary? Columbine? Aurora? Orlando? Ft Lauderdale? San Bernardino? Roseburg, OR? Chattanooga? Charleston? Isla Vista, CA? Ft Hood? Washington Navy Yard? Santa Monica? Newtown? Binghamton, NY? Omaha shopping mall? Virginia Tech? Salt Lake mall? Pennsylvania amish school? Red lake high school? Lockheed Martin? Santee high school? Wakefield, MA? That's just in the 2000's.

And pretty much all gun free zones, if only they had passed a law.

[Champ Kind]

Truth bomb.

[SocialD]

54 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

And pretty much all gun free zones, if only they had passed a law.

This!  Many (not all...like Vegas) of those shootings would likely have had fewer casualties if just one person had fired back.  A lot of the shooters, dropped and ran, gave up or committed suicide, at the first sign of resistance.  Many of these shooters are comforted in the fact that they know no one will be able to fight back.  They're all cowards.    

[Stoker]

9 hours ago, Seriously said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Education

Most went to college, several were lawyers, and only 4 were self-taught or had little formal education.

Also, the founding fathers created the judiciary branch so that lawyers could interpret the constitution for the lay people....

But the first law school in the US didn't start teaching until 1780. Some were lawyers, but they were self-taught or apprenticed at best. 

And the concept of judicial review didn't come from the founding fathers, it came from the Supreme Court in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison).

[Lord Ratner]

And the concept of judicial review didn't come from the founding fathers, it came from the Supreme Court in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison).

Well, you did a great job completely invalidating your arguments here. Go read Federalist Paper No. 78.

[Hacker]

35 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Go read Federalist Paper No. 78.

The Federalist Papers are mandatory reading for anyone who wishes to have any serious conversation about Constitutional issues with respect to what the Founders really intended.

Folks should also dig deeper into the philosophy aspect of the Founders mindset by reading stuff like Locke's Two Treatises on Government (the second one being the relevant one).

Although it was published well after the Founders did their thing, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is great foundational reading, too.

[FourFans]

1 hour ago, Hacker said:

The Federalist Papers are mandatory reading for anyone who wishes to have any serious conversation about Constitutional issues with respect to what the Founders really intended.

Folks should also dig deeper into the philosophy aspect of the Founders mindset by reading stuff like Locke's Two Treatises on Government (the second one being the relevant one).

Although it was published well after the Founders did their thing, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is great foundational reading, too.

Concur!

Sadly, in a world where people are too lazy to even type out the words "too long, didn't read", very few will take up the charge of self education, though your recommendations are spot on. 

The laziness of an America that would rather debate their opinions rather than learn facts, analyze them, and put their opinions to the test...possibly even changing them...this is one of the root causes of our problem.  If cowards went out into the world and discover that their situation isn't really as bad as they thought, they wouldn't go on murderous rampages.  Alas, we live in a world where it's all about 'me', and when that world all about 'me' turns depressing, it's everyone else's fault, so I'll kill as many of them as I can before I go out in a blaze of glory...which often actually ends in a tragic homicide/suicide.

You want to change this world right now?  Parent your kids.  Seriously.  If fathers in America simply stood up and fathered their children, events like this wouldn't happen.  I'm not saying it's easy.  It isn't.  But nothing worth doing ever is.

Here's a challenge: If you are a father, put the device down, and engage with the those hearts and minds you created...they're watching everything you do and don't do, and they'll respond in kind.  Teach them your beliefs.  Give them a foundation on which to stand when the world turns ugly, and they'll be able to stand.  Raise men and women, not teenagers who never grew up.

...standing by for the TL, DR response.

Edited October 9, 2017 by FourFans130

[skibum]

Ok mods, how about cutting off the chatter here and creating another thread where people can continue the unrelated discussion. I thought this thread was for stuff like kitten juggling and chicks with three boobs. To get us back on track I provide the following:

https://italychronicles.com/cats-milk-mozzarella/

[HuggyU2]

18 hours ago, Hacker said:

The Federalist Papers are mandatory reading for anyone who wishes to have any serious conversation about Constitutional issues with respect to what the Founders really intended.

Folks should also dig deeper into the philosophy aspect of the Founders mindset by reading stuff like Locke's Two Treatises on Government (the second one being the relevant one).

Although it was published well after the Founders did their thing, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is great foundational reading, too.

Holy shit, Hacker.  And all this time, the only reading I thought you did were P-51 flight manuals, beer labels, and steamy romance novels.  

Look at the big brain on his shoulders!

[HeloDude]

On October 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Vertigo said:

That's the same BS argument used when gay marriage was being debated "People will marry their dogs, or their toasters".

When someone wants to discuss reasonable, common sense, gun control measures, it's disingenuous to reframe it as a discussion about abolishing firearms.

Thanks--I always knew you weren't a real libertarian, just another progressive. 

[Guest]

On 10/7/2017 at 10:06 PM, Smokin said:

Hughes may be part of the problem, but the real 'problem' with banning items is innovation.  As soon as the government passes a law or the ATF issues a letter making a specific thing illegal, people will find a way to get the same result using a new work around that accomplishes a similar result in a legal manner.  It's not just the bump stock, but the arm brace and countless other things to work around the law.  In modern times when a middle class American can afford to buy automated milling equipment and manufacture their own parts or even entire guns, arbitrary laws banning specific items are obsolete before they even take effect.  The problem is only going to get worse as technology increases and prices decrease.  I'm actually surprised we don't have a bigger problem with people buying ARs and retooling them to be full auto, but that will probably happen if the bump stock gets banned.

 

But the true root cause of attacks like this is America as a country deliberately walking away from the moral foundation of our country.  We have banned God and related religious morals from our government and society while simultaneously crying out against the evils of society that inevitably result.  Hatred of people across the political isle is given only cursory public condemnation while de facto encouraged within both political parties.  While a problem with both sides, the easiest example is the "love trumps hate" slogan protesters carry just before they start throwing rocks or worse.

Interesting, when did we have a moral forundation?

Did this just recently occur?

[Shamrock]

If only there was a thread for people to talk about guns, rights, the constitution, etc.