More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[BIGUN 1,314]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

some modification or repeal of the second will be have to happen. 

Personally, I hope you're wrong. 

[gowlerk 2,193]

4 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

But it is - read the NPR article. 

What I meant is that the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” is not subject to amendment.

[BIGUN 1,314]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” is not subject to amendment.

Without due process of law.

[gowlerk 2,193]

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

Personally, I hope you're wrong. 

I know that. And you are far from the only one. There is a lot of emotion built up around it. On the other hand all the ideas for regulations that you have looked into and support can never be enacted under the 2nd. Or at least not as it is now being interpreted. As I said earlier you can not have your cake and eat it too.

[gowlerk 2,193]

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

Without due process of law.

The huge number of firearms and the easy access to them leads to 10s of thousands of Americans being killed every year without due process of law. I know, everyone will die anyway, and cars accidents kill many more, but gee, I mean really, how much destruction is keeping things the way they are worth? The answer at the moment would seem to be more deaths than are currently happening. But there is a limit somewhere and your nation is clearly on a path to get there sometime.

[timski 80]

On 3/23/2021 at 3:12 PM, BIGUN said:

We don't "feel" that way; it's guaranteed in writing.

And, can we not do the name calling thing. You can make your point without getting inflammatory. I know; I've seen you do it. 

Take a look from the other side. It must be hard being that kid always looking thru the candy store window, but never afforded the possibility (legally) to own such deliciousness... You gotta lash out somehow.    

[timski 80]

On 3/26/2021 at 11:23 AM, JoeWeber said:

If the most if us are either bum fuck crazy, delusional or open to believing the most absurd propositions, and I dare you to argue otherwise, would it still be a people problem? We don't let kids drive for a reason, right? I mean surely there are quite a few who could handle it at 10 years old, yes?

"WE" have glorified the gun. (Hollywood class action???) That should be weighted heavily in the whole mental health problem that plagues the U.S. 

If we all grew up watching too much black belt theatre while young and impressionable, this country could have a serious sword/ninja star problem instead of our current firearm debacle.     

[gowlerk 2,193]

31 minutes ago, timski said:

Take a look from the other side. It must be hard being that kid always looking thru the candy store window, but never afforded the possibility (legally) to own such deliciousness... You gotta lash out somehow.    

Guns are cool. And I could own some pretty cool ones even here in the oppressed land of firearms control. But I don't feel a need to because I don't have to worry that everyone is walking around armed. I have lots of friends who own and some who collect. It is not an all or nothing preposition. And even better yet, our police don't automatically assume that if they can't see someone's hands it is likely because they are reaching for their pistol. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Personally, I hope you're wrong. 

Hi Keith,

I do not hope, I believe that he is right.

IMO the wind is not in your direction.

It will only take a mass killing that gets a CongressCritter's grandchild & things might change quickly.

IMO most Americans are fed up with this mass killing & 'hopes and prayers' being the only response.

Time will tell,

Jerry Baumchen

[tonyhays 86]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Keith,

I do not hope, I believe that he is right.

IMO the wind is not in your direction.

It will only take a mass killing that gets a CongressCritter's grandchild & things might change quickly.

IMO most Americans are fed up with this mass killing & 'hopes and prayers' being the only response.

Time will tell,

Jerry Baumchen

My thoughts and prayers compilation.

 

 

[kallend 2,027]

6 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I believe the US has some important paperwork somewhere that refers to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". I don't believe it is subject to amendments.

Platitudes not enforceable by any court and ignored by politicians.

Excuses made by wealthy tax dodgers and slave owners.

[gowlerk 2,193]

Just now, kallend said:

Excuses made by wealthy tax dodgers and slave owners.

High ideals for a bunch of seditious traitors! And yes, those words were meant to apply to those worthy. Not slaves and god forbid, not Irish. 

[billeisele 130]

The existence and ineffectiveness of these laws proves that the previous attempts failed at preventing mass gun violence. Until laws are written that focus on the root of the problem nothing gets solved. Politicians simply get reelected for doing "something."

Edited March 29, 2021 by billeisele

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

The existence and ineffectiveness of these laws proves that the previous attempts failed at preventing mass gun violence. Until laws are written that focus on the root of the problem nothing gets solved. Politicians simply get reelected for doing "something."

If those are your standards, then the failure of a good guy with a gun to stop this bad guy with a gun before he killed 10 people indicates that the whole argument of "guns prevent violence" has failed utterly.

Quote

Gun control is about controlling the law-abiding.

ALL laws are about controlling the law-abiding.

[gowlerk 2,193]

23 minutes ago, billvon said:

ALL laws are about controlling the law-abiding.

What a simple concept, eh?

[kallend 2,027]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

The existence and ineffectiveness of these laws proves that the previous attempts failed at preventing mass gun violence. Until laws are written that focus on the root of the problem nothing gets solved. Politicians simply get reelected for doing "something."

The same stupid arguments come up every time.

Following that logic, all laws are pointless because criminals won't abide by them anyway.

Stupid!

[billeisele 130]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

The same stupid arguments come up every time.

Following that logic, all laws are pointless because criminals won't abide by them anyway.

Stupid!

Seems that the fallacy in that statement is that most laws aren't impacting a Constitutional right. 

Help everyone understand how the gun laws in Chicago are working, and how more restrictive laws would be better.

It is not a stupid argument, it is a fact. Criminals ignore laws. Making it more restrictive for a private law abiding citizens to own and provide self-protection with a gun is problematic.

[billeisele 130]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

If those are your standards, then the failure of a good guy with a gun to stop this bad guy with a gun before he killed 10 people indicates that the whole argument of "guns prevent violence" has failed utterly.

ALL laws are about controlling the law-abiding.

The good guy has to be present and willing.

The fact that the guy wasn't stopped before killing ten does not invalidate the fact that there is a reduction in deaths when a bad guy is stopped. How many more would he have killed if he wasn't stopped? All or most bad guys are stopped by the good guys, the good guys (usually) include the police.

[BIGUN 1,314]

11 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Keith,

I do not hope, I believe that he is right.

IMO the wind is not in your direction.

It will only take a mass killing that gets a CongressCritter's grandchild & things might change quickly.

IMO most Americans are fed up with this mass killing & 'hopes and prayers' being the only response.

Time will tell,

Evening, Jerry.

You know my position on the matter and have proposed some strong legislation, but I do not think we have to sacrifice the 2nd Amendment to do it. And, every time the Democratic Party mentions it; the pendulum swings again. That strategy is not working and IMO needs to be re-visited. 

[billvon 2,991]

19 minutes ago, billeisele said:

The good guy has to be present and willing.

So one cop was present and entered the store soon after arriving.  Are you claiming the slain cop was unwilling?  Or that he was not one of the good guys?

Quote

The fact that the guy wasn't stopped before killing ten does not invalidate the fact that there is a reduction in deaths when a bad guy is stopped.

OK!  Fair enough.  In that case, the fact that this guy wasn't stopped by Colorado's gun laws does not invalidate the fact that there is a reduction in mass murder when assault weapons are banned.  Glad you agree.

[gowlerk 2,193]

9 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You know my position on the matter and have proposed some strong legislation, but I do not think we have to sacrifice the 2nd Amendment to do it.

Every time anyone proposes even weak legislation the 2nd Amendment defenders jump all over it and claim that it is a "slippery slope". Why? Because it is. I like your proposals. But they are irrelevant because they can't be enacted. You have to give something up to solve the problem and you are not yet willing to.

[Phil1111 1,149]

[kallend 2,027]

10 hours ago, billeisele said:

Seems that the fallacy in that statement is that most laws aren't impacting a Constitutional right. 

 

Irrelevant.  The stupidity is claiming that "criminals ignore gun laws" is logically different somehow from "criminals ignore laws".

 

But the gun lobby trots out the same stupidity after every mass shooting.

[gowlerk 2,193]

11 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Evening, Jerry.

You know my position on the matter and have proposed some strong legislation, but I do not think we have to sacrifice the 2nd Amendment to do it. And, every time the Democratic Party mentions it; the pendulum swings again. That strategy is not working and IMO needs to be re-visited. 

At one time slavery was recognized by the US Constitution. The nation survived changing that, but it took a civil war. Compared to that changing the 2nd should be easier. Maybe.

[billeisele 130]

11 hours ago, billvon said:

So one cop was present and entered the store soon after arriving.  Are you claiming the slain cop was unwilling?  Or that he was not one of the good guys?

OK!  Fair enough.  In that case, the fact that this guy wasn't stopped by Colorado's gun laws does not invalidate the fact that there is a reduction in mass murder when assault weapons are banned.  Glad you agree.

Unfortunately the cop was not successful and lost his life. I should have said present, willing and successful, and whatever else is required to stop the assailant. Now the split hair is stuck back together.

So we're back to the same old issue. Since "assault weapon" is not an officially defined term, what do you think the attributes are that define an assault weapon?