djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2015 22:06:36 GMT -5
Lots of people. It's all over the news on a regular basis. Some people want to repeal the second amendment (there's even a " Repeal the Second Amendment" facebook page!). Some people want to make gun ownership a crime (too many links to decide on just one, just Google "wants to ban guns" with the quotes intact). Hillary Clinton thinks a forced buy back of guns in America is an idea worth considering. linkhand guns. that is not "guns". and it was not FORCED. there was no ban in Australia. and Australia is not the topic. so, again: who called for a ban on guns....IN THE UNITED STATES (just to be clear)?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 23:30:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 22:29:21 GMT -5
Lots of people. It's all over the news on a regular basis. Some people want to repeal the second amendment (there's even a " Repeal the Second Amendment" facebook page!). Some people want to make gun ownership a crime (too many links to decide on just one, just Google "wants to ban guns" with the quotes intact). i don't do facebook. i will wait for links. I don't "do" facebook either. That was just the first link when I googled "repeal second amendment". I just thought it interesting they had their own facebook page.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 23:30:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 22:33:25 GMT -5
Reasonable people will understand it's the person that's the problem though... not what weapons he/she may have or be using. People raised in a gun culture are the problem. Wrong. People that want to do bad things are the problem (but don't let the facts get in the way of your misguided belief). If guns didn't exist or weren't available, people that want to do bad things would still find a way to do them. Ever hear of "suicide vests"? Ever hear of "shoe bombs"? Ever hear of "abandoned packs containing various explosive devices"? Guns aren't the problem. Bad people with bad intentions are.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2015 22:38:00 GMT -5
People raised in a gun culture are the problem. Wrong. People that want to do bad things are the problem (but don't let the facts get in the way of your misguided belief). If guns didn't exist or weren't available, people that want to do bad things would still find a way to do them. Ever hear of "suicide vests"? Ever hear of "shoe bombs"? Ever hear of "abandoned packs containing various explosive devices"? Guns aren't the problem. Bad people with bad intentions are. I agree the guns aren't the problem. The gun culture we live in is the problem.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 18, 2015 22:43:15 GMT -5
Richard, if the below was your Facebook, "repeal second amendment", site you mentioned, 2,465 people like the site. I doubt that is going to change the Second Amendment. Facebook: "repeal second amendment"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 23:30:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 22:47:42 GMT -5
Hillary Clinton thinks a forced buy back of guns in America is an idea worth considering. linkhand guns. that is not "guns". and it was not FORCED. there was no ban in Australia. and Australia is not the topic. so, again: who called for a ban on guns....IN THE UNITED STATES (just to be clear)? Fine. Here's a link for you. More are available if you want to look for them though. This is just one to get you started:
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 23:30:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 22:49:00 GMT -5
Wrong. People that want to do bad things are the problem (but don't let the facts get in the way of your misguided belief). If guns didn't exist or weren't available, people that want to do bad things would still find a way to do them. Ever hear of "suicide vests"? Ever hear of "shoe bombs"? Ever hear of "abandoned packs containing various explosive devices"? Guns aren't the problem. Bad people with bad intentions are. I agree the guns aren't the problem. The gun culture we live in is the problem. The people are the problem... not the so-called "gun culture". Get with reality.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 23:30:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 22:51:22 GMT -5
Richard, if the below was your Facebook, "repeal second amendment", site you mentioned, 2,465 people like the site. I doubt that is going to change the Second Amendment. Facebook: "repeal second amendment"I never said it was overly burdened by heavy traffic... did I? Nope. I just said it's there. It only takes a few people to start a movement, you know. Maybe this one is in it's infancy and can be stopped before it causes any damage.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2015 2:10:28 GMT -5
hand guns. that is not "guns". and it was not FORCED. there was no ban in Australia. and Australia is not the topic. so, again: who called for a ban on guns....IN THE UNITED STATES (just to be clear)? Fine. Here's a link for you. More are available if you want to look for them though. This is just one to get you started: ok, thanks. that is one ANONYMOUS BLOGGER. anyone i know? anyone with any power and influence? that having been said, i have LITERALLY never seen this opinion in print before, so thanks again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 23:30:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 5:53:20 GMT -5
Fine. Here's a link for you. More are available if you want to look for them though. This is just one to get you started: ok, thanks. that is one ANONYMOUS BLOGGER. anyone i know? anyone with any power and influence? that having been said, i have LITERALLY never seen this opinion in print before, so thanks again. As I said... many more are available, that was just one to start you off. You said " who called for a ban on guns"... the title had "ban guns completely" in it... it was on page one of my search results... I went with that one.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Oct 19, 2015 6:46:11 GMT -5
Never heard about this blog or generally a call to repeal the 2nd amendment. Since it appears that others haven't heard about it either, tells me that is not such a popular idea and hasn't surfaced to the general public. If I were to chose between "deporting all immigrants at once" and banning 2nd amendment, I believe that the deportation would happen first. The conclusion is based on the fact that there is more public awareness about deporting illegals than the banning of 2nd amendment. We all know and understand that neither will ever happen. Both are impossible to achieve. However, from a practical stand point, it is easier to round up 11 million illegals and load them in busses than to remove an estimated 300 million firearms from which probably not even half are declared.
If it were made public the attempt to repeal the 2nd, a very limited number of people would suport it. Would never get any traction. I for one, would not suport it! I will suport however, the enforcement of the laws and rules adjacent and pertaining to the second amendment: gun registration, background check etc. That is more realistic and it should be done but we all know that would be a massive undertaking and big big issues to overcome.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 19, 2015 6:51:43 GMT -5
Richard, if the below was your Facebook, "repeal second amendment", site you mentioned, 2,465 people like the site. I doubt that is going to change the Second Amendment. Facebook: "repeal second amendment"I never said it was overly burdened by heavy traffic... did I? Nope. I just said it's there. It only takes a few people to start a movement, you know. Maybe this one is in it's infancy and can be stopped before it causes any damage. That Facebook site has been in existence since late 2012. Less than 2,500 'Likes'. The only way to stop it in its infacy is to take away their 1st Amendement rights.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 19, 2015 7:35:36 GMT -5
I think a voluntary buyback of guns would be great!
Just to insure good participation in this, let's start with a "decent" repurchase price for the guns, Say a $1000. and up per gun.
Yes, I would be happy to turn in a lot of guns under those circumstances.
I would start with my non functioning .22, I bought when I was seven years old. since it has great sentimental value and is an antique it would have a fairly high value.
So if you want some of the guns off the street, Put your money where your mouth is!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 19, 2015 8:53:59 GMT -5
... repeal the 2nd amendment. ... banning 2nd amendment, ... The conclusion is based on the fact that there is more public awareness about deporting illegals than the banning of 2nd amendment. We all know and understand that neither will ever happen. Both are impossible to achieve. However, from a practical stand point, it is easier to round up 11 million illegals and load them in busses than to remove an estimated 300 million firearms from which probably not even half are declared. If it were made public the attempt to repeal the 2nd, a very limited number of people would suport it. Would never get any traction. I for one, would not suport it! I will suport however, the enforcement of the laws and rules adjacent and pertaining to the second amendment: gun registration, background check etc. That is more realistic and it should be done but we all know that would be a massive undertaking and big big issues to overcome. I have no idea what "banning 2nd Amendment" means. Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would remove the "right" to gin ownership from the level of constitutional protection. Gun control laws are basically doing that already. Repeal would simply send a signal that we are finally ready to get serious about closing the Wild West. It does not mean gums would not be allowed for those who show the maturity to possess them.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Oct 19, 2015 11:09:11 GMT -5
There is neither as of now: attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment or to ban guns altogether which would equal banning 2nd amendment rights. Todays gun control laws and rules don't even come close to those two option but as we are to understand from the "gun rights activists"(?) that's what is intended. Which is a false on its own. Buy back programs wouldn't work much because as oldcoyote stated already- he'd sell them his nonfunctioning weapons.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 11:48:29 GMT -5
I am pro-"gun rights", pro-carry, and pro-"use when necessary"... Once the bad guy shot at him he had every right to return fire. Problem is... the bad guy had every right to fire once he saw a weapon was pointed at him FIRST. He has a right to his own self defense as this was a separate issue from the robbery which had already concluded and he had exited the Waffle House. This makes a certain amount of sense, but according to a law enforcement officer here in Brevard County, FL, it's wrong. In Florida, you have no self defense claim during the commission of a felony- e.g. armed robbery. This may be different in other states, but in Florida at least (and I'm looking up the law to verify this) according to one cop- nope. Sorry.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 11:52:16 GMT -5
OK, found it:
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 11:58:22 GMT -5
Yes. Question How do you raise that fighting force if the citizens do not have a right to have guns in the first place? Answer: You can't. The Second Amendment creates the individual right to keep and bear arms because arms are required to have a "well regulated" (working and effective) militia. No, it created a collective right in order to ensure the ability to raise a militia. The militia WAS the defense, since there was a deep opposition to a standing army. We have today a standing army. In addition, we have state militias. The National Guard are the state militias of today. Given those two things, it is illogical to suggest that any average citizen should be able to amass an arsenal in his house, and there is absolutely nothing to preclude things like registration and background checks even if one were to assume an individual right. Incorrect. The purpose of the bill of rights was to clarify a number of precisely INDIVIDUAL rights. The ninth amendment states that the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Given your completely ridiculous, illogical, and totally discredited argument, it would follow that the GOVERNMENT has a 4th Amendment right, a 5th Amendment right, and other rights but that there's no individual right to privacy, or individual right to refuse to incriminate themselves.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 12:01:17 GMT -5
... repeal the 2nd amendment. ... banning 2nd amendment, ... The conclusion is based on the fact that there is more public awareness about deporting illegals than the banning of 2nd amendment. We all know and understand that neither will ever happen. Both are impossible to achieve. However, from a practical stand point, it is easier to round up 11 million illegals and load them in busses than to remove an estimated 300 million firearms from which probably not even half are declared. If it were made public the attempt to repeal the 2nd, a very limited number of people would suport it. Would never get any traction. I for one, would not suport it! I will suport however, the enforcement of the laws and rules adjacent and pertaining to the second amendment: gun registration, background check etc. That is more realistic and it should be done but we all know that would be a massive undertaking and big big issues to overcome. I have no idea what "banning 2nd Amendment" means. Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would remove the "right" to gin ownership from the level of constitutional protection. Gun control laws are basically doing that already. Repeal would simply send a signal that we are finally ready to get serious about closing the Wild West. It does not mean gums would not be allowed for those who show the maturity to possess them. Like most of the rest of the constitution, the domestic enemies of the Constitution don't have to bother with the procedural hassle of amending it when they can rely on an ignorant and apathetic public to permit them to simply ignore or re-interpret it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 12:06:08 GMT -5
So who is in favor of the new NRA plan and state enacted crazy where all restrictions and training have been thrown out the window so that anyone without a legal reason to not possess a gun can legally carry it? Anyone with a pulse can buy and carry a weapon- considering the makeup of Americans that scares the shit out of me. So ironic- I carry a firearm not because I am scared of criminals, but because I am afraid of nutball gun owners that tend to road rage. I have a solid plan- like military- one of these shits even points at me I am running them over or dumping lead into them until I am out of ammo. That's what is required in this country. Not taking chances. Don't screw with this 'Liberal' I am 100% in favor of " Constitutional Carry". There's nothing particularly scary to me about natural born adult citizens of the US being able to own and carry a firearm without input, oversight, or regulation by government.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2015 13:01:43 GMT -5
ok, thanks. that is one ANONYMOUS BLOGGER. anyone i know? anyone with any power and influence? that having been said, i have LITERALLY never seen this opinion in print before, so thanks again. As I said... many more are available, that was just one to start you off. You said " who called for a ban on guns"... the title had "ban guns completely" in it... it was on page one of my search results... I went with that one. i also said THANK YOU. i was just hoping someone more notable than an anonymous blogger would be used as an example. you gave your example. thanks. there are at least a few dumbasses out there. that is certainly something to know about.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 23:30:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 18:32:22 GMT -5
... repeal the 2nd amendment. ... banning 2nd amendment, ... The conclusion is based on the fact that there is more public awareness about deporting illegals than the banning of 2nd amendment. We all know and understand that neither will ever happen. Both are impossible to achieve. However, from a practical stand point, it is easier to round up 11 million illegals and load them in busses than to remove an estimated 300 million firearms from which probably not even half are declared. If it were made public the attempt to repeal the 2nd, a very limited number of people would suport it. Would never get any traction. I for one, would not suport it! I will suport however, the enforcement of the laws and rules adjacent and pertaining to the second amendment: gun registration, background check etc. That is more realistic and it should be done but we all know that would be a massive undertaking and big big issues to overcome. I have no idea what "banning 2nd Amendment" means. Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would remove the "right" to gin ownership from the level of constitutional protection. Gun control laws are basically doing that already. Repeal would simply send a signal that we are finally ready to get serious about closing the Wild West. It does not mean gums would not be allowed for those who show the maturity to possess them. I think that the bolded would take reinstatement of prohibition... (sorry... that was just the perfect typo!)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 23:30:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 18:34:40 GMT -5
I am pro-"gun rights", pro-carry, and pro-"use when necessary"... Once the bad guy shot at him he had every right to return fire. Problem is... the bad guy had every right to fire once he saw a weapon was pointed at him FIRST. He has a right to his own self defense as this was a separate issue from the robbery which had already concluded and he had exited the Waffle House. This makes a certain amount of sense, but according to a law enforcement officer here in Brevard County, FL, it's wrong. In Florida, you have no self defense claim during the commission of a felony- e.g. armed robbery. This may be different in other states, but in Florida at least (and I'm looking up the law to verify this) according to one cop- nope. Sorry. Problem is... the confrontation wasn't "during the commission of a felony" The robbery was already over, the robber had left the building with the loot. The "commission" of the crime was over.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 23:30:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 18:35:42 GMT -5
O.k. ... since the statute includes "escaping after the commission"... I agree it doesn't apply.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 18:45:08 GMT -5
O.k. ... since the statute includes "escaping after the commission"... I agree it doesn't apply. I would note that it doesn't necessarily provide for intervention by a private citizen to stop said escape-- just means "self defense" is not available as a defense by the escapee.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 23:30:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 18:45:58 GMT -5
O.k. ... since the statute includes "escaping after the commission"... I agree it doesn't apply. I would note that it doesn't necessarily provide for intervention by a private citizen to stop said escape-- just means "self defense" is not available as a defense by the escapee. I understood that.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 18:49:37 GMT -5
This makes a certain amount of sense, but according to a law enforcement officer here in Brevard County, FL, it's wrong. In Florida, you have no self defense claim during the commission of a felony- e.g. armed robbery. This may be different in other states, but in Florida at least (and I'm looking up the law to verify this) according to one cop- nope. Sorry. Problem is... the confrontation wasn't "during the commission of a felony" The robbery was already over, the robber had left the building with the loot. The "commission" of the crime was over. In principle, we likely agree on the role of the private citizen's involvement in attempting to stop a fleeing suspect- terrible idea. I disagree that the "commission of the crime was over"- it was in progress. The suspect was in the escape phase. I carry because I want to go home at night safe and sound. I don't carry because I'm looking for an opportunity to shoot someone- let alone get into a shoot out with an armed robbery suspect. Good Lord! That being said, I think it would not serve the public well to start prosecuting citizens who do get involved. It just sends the wrong message. The more criminals have the idea some random idiot might shoot them, the better.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 19, 2015 19:25:43 GMT -5
... The more criminals have the idea some random idiot might shoot them, the better. Except for the criminals who decide they had better shoot all the bystanders in case one is a random idiot.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 19, 2015 20:24:32 GMT -5
So who is in favor of the new NRA plan and state enacted crazy where all restrictions and training have been thrown out the window so that anyone without a legal reason to not possess a gun can legally carry it? Anyone with a pulse can buy and carry a weapon- considering the makeup of Americans that scares the shit out of me. So ironic- I carry a firearm not because I am scared of criminals, but because I am afraid of nutball gun owners that tend to road rage. I have a solid plan- like military- one of these shits even points at me I am running them over or dumping lead into them until I am out of ammo. That's what is required in this country. Not taking chances. Don't screw with this 'Liberal' I am 100% in favor of " Constitutional Carry". There's nothing particularly scary to me about natural born adult citizens of the US being able to own and carry a firearm without input, oversight, or regulation by government. Except the Constitution allows input, oversight and regulation. I think if you want to carry in public then you should have to complete adequate training and carry liability insurance. When you don't have training this stupid stuff happens- which could have killed someone: www.kwch.com/news/local-news/salina-police-investigate-theater-shooting/35892080"Then seconds later, a man sitting three rows behind Heather and her husband Domenic, yells out for help. "This guy started shouting 'Oh my God, I just shot myself! I just got my concealed and carry,' and then everybody jumped up and that's when we heard call 9-11. According to Salina police, the man accidentally shot himself once in the leg." And that was just recent- this kind of thing happens all of the time and it all boils down to the same thing- lack of training and playing with it. Probably won't be charged in this crazy country- but I have to know- do you think someone who discharges a firearm in a theater should be charged with a crime or lose their carry permit? Does is take actually shooting and injuring someone else for that to happen?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 23:30:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 21:40:42 GMT -5
He was likely charged with (some variation of) "the unlawful discharge of a firearm"... if not, he should have been.
According to a little Googling: It seems as if (a)(3)(A) could apply.
|
|