Shootist Jeff

The DEFINITIVE Poll on PA Gun attitudes

The Definitive PA Gun Attitude Survey  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you feel about the 2nd Amendment as it relates to American Society?

    • It is still relevant and should not be changed - the current SCOTUS interpretation is correct to allow for armed Self Defense and Militia service as required
      21
    • It is relevant only in a milita context - private ownership outside of that context should be abolished
      4
    • The 2A is only about Hunting
      1
    • The current SCOTUS interpretation is wrong - The 2A should be modified under a Constitutional Convention to severely limit the private ownership of firearms
      19
    • The 2A should be repealed completely
      7
  2. 2. On the question of gun regulations - how do you describe your stance?

    • The 2A says "Shall not be infringed" - so there can be NO gun laws at all. I favor zero restrictions on gun ownership
      5
    • I favor reasonable restrictions on the ownership and use of guns such as strengthening background checks, better enforcement, sharing LE databases, Red Flag Laws, etc - but as long as I have a clean record I should be able to posses most any common gun
      14
    • Current gun laws do not go far enough - I favor Universal background checks, registration, training, licensing, mandatory locks, insurance, etc. But I stop short of calling for gun bans
      14
    • I favor gun bans on all semi-automatic "assault weapons" that include large capacity (>10 ROUNDS) rifles, shotguns and handguns
      17
    • I favor a complete ban on all privately owned firearms. Only Military, Law Enforcement and state licensed hunters for game control purposes should have firearms
      2
  3. 3. Getting into more details on Gun bans

    • There should be no firearm bans at all. Ever. The 2A says "Shall not be infringed".
      5
    • No outright Bans, but I'm Ok with more intensive (but more streamlined and efficient than current) background checks and licensing for for such things full-auto weapons, suppressors, short-barrels, etc.
      9
    • Reasonable bans are OK if the State can show a compelling justifiable reason to ban a particular type of firearm, accessory or feature - for example Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs)
      14
    • I favor banning all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns capable of using high capacity detachable magazines - but not handguns (Hi capacity = Capable of more than 10 rounds)
      3
    • I favor banning ALL semi-automatic weapons capable of using large capacity detachable magazines - including all semi-auto handguns
      10
    • I favor banning all weapons other than traditional hunting long guns such as bolt action rifles, O/U shotguns, single shot firearms, Olympic style target guns, etc.
      10
    • I want ALL guns completely banned from private ownership.
      1
  4. 4. On the question of legislative Efficacy of gun bans - what do you think will be the population's compliance with the gun ban laws?

    • MOST law-abiding gun-owning citizens AND criminals will turn them in. There will be very few guns left in circulation in the US
      1
    • MOST law-abiding gun-owning citizens will turn them in but most criminals will not comply
      18
    • SOME law-abiding gun-owning citizens will turn them in, as many or more will have Boating accidents where the guns are mysteriously "lost". Most criminals will not comply
      28
    • There will be a revolt against the government by the "From My Cold Dead Hands" faction
      5
  5. 5. IF a partial or full gun ban was put into effect nationwide - how should it be enforced?

    • Mandatory turn in - No compensation
      3
    • Mandatory turn in with fair compensation. Sometimes called a "buy-back" program even though the gov't didn't own them in the first place.
      29
    • Mandatory turn in with/or without compensation. After the grace period is over - House to house searches, road checkpoints, stop and frisk, etc should be used to get any of the remaining guns out of hiding.
      4
    • None of the above will matter because the black market will kick into gear as it has for all other prohibited things in our history and guns will pour across our porous borders.
      16
  6. 6. What is your affiliation to the US and guns?

    • I am an American Citizen - Gunowner
      22
    • I am an American Citizen - I do not own guns, but may buy one at some point in the future
      8
    • I am an American Citizen - I do not own guns and NEVER will own one, but have no problem with those who do
      6
    • I am an American Citizen - I do not own guns and NEVER will own one and will not associate with those that do own guns
      1
    • I am a foreign national living in the US
      3
    • I am a foreign national and do not live in the US
      12


Recommended Posts

nah , no police state , you are simply playing the fool , the question will never be asked because with out a doubt there is no comparison nor will one need to be forfeited at the expense of the other .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mid said:

nah , no police state , you are simply playing the fool , the question will never be asked because with out a doubt there is no comparison nor will one need to be forfeited at the expense of the other .

Sure it is.  That need is already there.  Children, certainly innocents of all ages, are dying everyday because of privacy and due process rights.  Every. Day.  That we are not scrambling to change them and severely curtail those rights tells me in black and white that those rights ARE more important than children.  It’s happening in your country too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah jeffie the issue is your precious guns and the less precious lives of American children .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mid said:

nah jeffie the issue is your precious guns and the less precious lives of American children .

You can deny and deflect, but you know its true.  Murderers get off on technicalities all the time.  Drug dealers kill children every day because the laws prevent LE from stopping them, even though they are known drug dealers.  Mentally ill people kill others and themselves because their privacy rights trump the ability of the state to incarcerate them.  Do you deny this happens?  

ALL or most of those deaths could have been prevented in a police state without privacy or due process rights.  So yes, we value those rights over the rights of those people to not be killed.  It’s literally IS the price we pay for that freedom.  And when I say “we”, I mean all western democracies.  AUS, EU, US.... we all do to some degree or another.  

I’ve already given you a strategy to save not just one child but thousands if not hundreds of thousands of children worldwide.  Police state w/o privacy, due process, and freedom of speech. Because if the people had free speech rights, they would very quickly speak out about the abuses of the police state and we can’t have that.  It’s all about public safety, right?  That you refuse to embrace this strategy tells me you DON’T actually value children over your precious rights.  Face it, Rights > Children.  As evadent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

enough , I am clearly convinced that you value guns over the lives of innocent children and that is a sickness that you will live with .

 

rest assured I would never break bread with you .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mid said:

enough , I am clearly convinced that you value guns over the lives of innocent children and that is a sickness that you will live with .

 

rest assured I would never break bread with you .

No great loss.  But its just a shame you are so triggered by my harsh reality that you can’t acknowledge the truth to what I’m saying.  AS I said, I know its an emotional and touchy subject, but the harsh reality is that privacy and due process rights result in dead children.  You cannot refute that.  If you don’t call for changes or restrictions in those rights, then you are condoning the killing of children as being less important than those rights.  You can run away from it all you want, and I know you will.  But you know the truth down in the bottom of your soul.  I apologize profusely for speaking the harsh truths than no one else will.  But someone has to do it.  Apologies I made you confront it.  Now please return to your blissful ignorance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff is right on the broad question "are collective rights more important than the imperative to protect an individual life."

OTOH, that is a fairly contorted view of a specific right which was codified with substantial qualification in the Constitution, which may be amended to allow modern definitions, grammar and learned wisdom.

We already substantially limit access to modern weaponry to civilians in society. The question is simply where do we draw those regulatory lines. Jeff and Tom would allow certain weapons that others would restrict. They are trying to make greater regulation into a Constitutional issue, and although the Constitution does reference this area of law, precedent is clearly in favor of allowing the government to restrict access to weapons. 

Now I know that activist judges are extremely popular with righties these days. Reinterpreting old laws or simply ignoring them is all the rage. But it used to mean something. We shall see if our country can survive this liberal assault on our laws in order to allow liberals to enjoy a trip to the movies without feeling the need to carry a concealed firearm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I apologize profusely for speaking the harsh truths than no one else will.  But someone has to do it.  Apologies I made you confront it.  Now please return to your blissful ignorance.

Jeffy.jpg.f218f6a07690c269515ac8e1e369e11f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Importunate Tom said:

Hey Mid,

How does confiscating museum collections protect the cheeruns?

Not sure Tom, but this one is more than 100 years old, surely it is harmless!

PI9211LP_1200x782.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to the ridiculous notion that millions of weapons could be legally confiscated somehow, question #6 is the real deal. The question has 45 responses, 34 of which are from citizens. Of the 34 Americans, only one is totally against guns in this sample. 

What other nice folks think elsewhere really doesn't matter. 

This is a practical world of 7+ Billion. There is no one true God. In the US alone we have about 480,000 yearly deaths from smoking. Another 1.25 mil die yearly in auto accidents. That's 3300 a day. Each and every death arguably preventable. Half of those are under 45. Toss in the homeless issues, and health care issues and the kids murdered by maniacs are a drop in the bucket. Toss in Trump and policing the rest of the planet .... Some of you really need a sense of scale.

All the above are the price of liberty. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You can deny and deflect, but you know its true.  Murderers get off on technicalities all the time.  Drug dealers kill children every day because the laws prevent LE from stopping them, even though they are known drug dealers.  Mentally ill people kill others and themselves because their privacy rights trump the ability of the state to incarcerate them.  Do you deny this happens?  

ALL or most of those deaths could have been prevented in a police state without privacy or due process rights.  So yes, we value those rights over the rights of those people to not be killed.  It’s literally IS the price we pay for that freedom.  And when I say “we”, I mean all western democracies.  AUS, EU, US.... we all do to some degree or another.  

I’ve already given you a strategy to save not just one child but thousands if not hundreds of thousands of children worldwide.  Police state w/o privacy, due process, and freedom of speech. Because if the people had free speech rights, they would very quickly speak out about the abuses of the police state and we can’t have that.  It’s all about public safety, right?  That you refuse to embrace this strategy tells me you DON’T actually value children over your precious rights.  Face it, Rights > Children.  As evadent.

I am trying to stay out of this discussion but you just go too far.  A very, very, very, infinitesimally small amount of murders are committed by mentally ill people.  If you want to count personality disorders, which are technically a form of mental illness, albeit a minor one, then maybe.  But the fact is most murders are committed by people who clearly know right from wrong.  You are insulting and doing a tremendous disservice to the vast majority of people with mental illnesses that will never hurt anyone, including themselves.  That old cliché should have gone away years ago, this is the 21st century.

You can defend your love of the 2A all you want but please keep your arguments in the realm of reality; not old wives tales, half truths, and stupid statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

In addition to the ridiculous notion that millions of weapons could be legally confiscated somehow, question #6 is the real deal. The question has 45 responses, 34 of which are from citizens. Of the 34 Americans, only one is totally against guns in this sample. 

What other nice folks think elsewhere really doesn't matter. 

This is a practical world of 7+ Billion. There is no one true God. In the US alone we have about 480,000 yearly deaths from smoking. Another 1.25 mil die yearly in auto accidents. That's 3300 a day. Each and every death arguably preventable. Half of those are under 45. Toss in the homeless issues, and health care issues and the kids murdered by maniacs are a drop in the bucket. Toss in Trump and policing the rest of the planet .... Some of you really need a sense of scale.

All the above are the price of liberty. 

 

 

Look you aging crustacean, you are in Jeffie's camp making illogical statements.  Smoking is a personal choice, so is driving drunk or without a seatbelt.  I doubt that getting gunned down in a movie theater or at a concert is on anyone's bucket list. 

With false equivalences such as you and Jeff keep throwing around, it's little wonder that many people here give little credence to what you say.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:

Smoking is a personal choice, so is driving drunk

I'm sure that being killed by a drunk driver was on the bucket list of these 2 kids.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-drunk-driver-amish-buggy-children-dead

Not only should cars be banned, so should alcohol. If it just saves one life, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't make up the numbers, Ed. And I could have used many other metrics. 

You can't eat pie-in-the sky.

As a practical matter, we could do a lot of things to save a bunch of lives --millions yearly-- that would make real differences that don't even begin to approach voiding constitutional rights. Let's start there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I didn't make up the numbers, Ed. And I could have used many other metrics. 

You can't eat pie-in-the sky.

As a practical matter, we could do a lot of things to save a bunch of lives --millions yearly-- that would make real differences that don't even begin to approach voiding constitutional rights. Let's start there.

 

I don't doubt the numbers are true but my point stands.  People engaging in behaviors that can harm these same people is one thing.  Going out and randomly killing others is another ball of cheese entirely.

I just read an article from the Washington Post (oops, I just self identified as a liberal didn't I!) and the writer said that attempt should be made to amend the 2A to include some reasonable restrictions.  If the people want it, it will pass, if not it won't.  Not a bad idea.  I for one would be willing to abide by the result either way.  That's yer democracy at work right there, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

Not only should cars be banned, so should alcohol. If it just saves one life, right?

Imagine folks are calling for gun bans. Just imagine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

Imagine folks are calling for gun bans. Just imagine!

What is funny is that your post follows one from Ed, who has directly called for it. Imagine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I’m honestly not “hung up” on anything. The reading from the Founders was very clear that while they desired to NOT have a standing army, they knew it was likely inevitable.  And that an armed populace, whether specifically organized into militias or not (and they also assumed it was unlikely to have regular militias), would be the check against another oppressive monarch with a standing army like all the other European nations had at the time.  Read the quotes from the Federalists 29 and 46 I posted above.  Their mindset and intentions can’t get much clearer than that.  While the wording of the 2A is a bit tortured, although I’m sure it made perfect sense at the time in 1789 language, the Federalist papers were an attempt to put into plain language why the amendments say what they say.

So no, the presence of as standing army does not invalidate the need for an armed populace, of of which comprise the “militia”.  I don’t need to go march once a month with my musket to be considered part of the militia.  The SC court considered MIller part of the militia and he didn’t regularly drill that anyone is aware of.  Because what is continually lost in all this militia BS is that the militia was intended to be BOTH the protector of the gov’t (mostly the State Gov’t more than Federal) as well as a protection AGAINST the federal gov’t should a standing army ever come to be.  Because they had seen and had legitimate fears what an authoritarian strongman with an army can do.  And they wanted to prevent that from happening.  I have already addressed all this in post #82.  

Remember, the oath of office of military and gov’t service says:  “I swear to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic......”. The FF’s knew that it was foolish to rule out the possibility of this experiment in democracy going tits up and Amerika reverting to authoritarian rule - which is far more the norm.  So they created a mechanism within the constitution itself to allow for that internal protection.  It’s called the 2A.  Fortunately, we’ve never come close to needing it and don’t appear to be close now - although with Trump, we are seeing the glimmerings of what that could look like.  Just saying.

That’s some grade “A” bullshit there folks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Jeff is right on the broad question "are collective rights more important than the imperative to protect an individual life."

OTOH, that is a fairly contorted view of a specific right which was codified with substantial qualification in the Constitution, which may be amended to allow modern definitions, grammar and learned wisdom.

Thank you.  It's nice to finally have someone acknowledge that.  

And I agree, the Constitution was meant to be amended as necessary.  However, I have seen no effort so far to amend the 2A. I think that would at least be the correct way to do it.  What's happening now is an end run around that process.  If the ends justify the means, just remember it works both ways for all the other rights as well.  

But back to the collective rights issue.....  I want to make sure we are clear that the 2A is not the only "collective right" killing children and other innocents.   The 4A and the 5A and to a lesser extent the 1A are killing innocents.  Everyday.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shootist Jeff said:

Thank you.  It's nice to finally have someone acknowledge that.  

And I agree, the Constitution was meant to be amended as necessary.  However, I have seen no effort so far to amend the 2A. I think that would at least be the correct way to do it.  What's happening now is an end run around that process.  If the ends justify the means, just remember it works both ways for all the other rights as well.  

But back to the collective rights issue.....  I want to make sure we are clear that the 2A is not the only "collective right" killing children and other innocents.   The 4A and the 5A and to a lesser extent the 1A are killing innocents.  Everyday.  

Individual rights, Can be regulated. Sorry for your meltdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, random said:

Not sure Tom, but this one is more than 100 years old, surely it is harmless!

PI9211LP_1200x782.png

100 years old???  I don't think so.  I'll bet you $1000 that you're full of shit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

All the above are the price of liberty. 

DING DING DING!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Jeff is right on the broad question "are collective rights more important than the imperative to protect an individual life."

OTOH, that is a fairly contorted view of a specific right which was codified with substantial qualification in the Constitution, which may be amended to allow modern definitions, grammar and learned wisdom.

We already substantially limit access to modern weaponry to civilians in society. The question is simply where do we draw those regulatory lines. Jeff and Tom would allow certain weapons that others would restrict. They are trying to make greater regulation into a Constitutional issue, and although the Constitution does reference this area of law, precedent is clearly in favor of allowing the government to restrict access to weapons. 

Now I know that activist judges are extremely popular with righties these days. Reinterpreting old laws or simply ignoring them is all the rage. But it used to mean something. We shall see if our country can survive this liberal assault on our laws in order to allow liberals to enjoy a trip to the movies without feeling the need to carry a concealed firearm.

 

8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Thank you.  It's nice to finally have someone acknowledge that.  

And I agree, the Constitution was meant to be amended as necessary.  However, I have seen no effort so far to amend the 2A. I think that would at least be the correct way to do it.  What's happening now is an end run around that process.  If the ends justify the means, just remember it works both ways for all the other rights as well.  

But back to the collective rights issue.....  I want to make sure we are clear that the 2A is not the only "collective right" killing children and other innocents.   The 4A and the 5A and to a lesser extent the 1A are killing innocents.  Everyday.  

Ok, you heard the part where I agreed with you... what did you think of the rest of the post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

I am trying to stay out of this discussion but you just go too far.  A very, very, very, infinitesimally small amount of murders are committed by mentally ill people.  If you want to count personality disorders, which are technically a form of mental illness, albeit a minor one, then maybe.  But the fact is most murders are committed by people who clearly know right from wrong.  You are insulting and doing a tremendous disservice to the vast majority of people with mental illnesses that will never hurt anyone, including themselves.  That old cliché should have gone away years ago, this is the 21st century.

You can defend your love of the 2A all you want but please keep your arguments in the realm of reality; not old wives tales, half truths, and stupid statements.

But yet an infinitesimally small amount of gun murders are committed by law abiding gun owners.  You seem to want to wave your hand and pass the vast majority of the mentally ill who won't commit crime but not the vast majority of the gun owners who won't do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But yet an infinitesimally small amount of gun murders are committed by law abiding gun owners.  

I think infinitesimally small does not mean what you think it does.

More than 50% of domestic violence-associated gun murders are committed with legally owned guns.  And a substantial percentage of school shootings are with legally owned and purchased guns.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:
6 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

All the above are the price of liberty. 

DING DING DING!!

These people are free to sleep almost anywhere they like.

Herring-Tent-Cities-16-1020x680.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But yet an infinitesimally small amount of gun murders are committed by law abiding gun owners.

Because as soon as they pull the trigger they are not law abiding.  Then there are the kids.

US leads the world in child gun deaths

180214190104-worst-u-s-shootings-parklan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Jeff is right on the broad question "are collective rights more important than the imperative to protect an individual life."

OTOH, that is a fairly contorted view of a specific right which was codified with substantial qualification in the Constitution, which may be amended to allow modern definitions, grammar and learned wisdom.

We already substantially limit access to modern weaponry to civilians in society. The question is simply where do we draw those regulatory lines. Jeff and Tom would allow certain weapons that others would restrict. They are trying to make greater regulation into a Constitutional issue, and although the Constitution does reference this area of law, precedent is clearly in favor of allowing the government to restrict access to weapons. 

Now I know that activist judges are extremely popular with righties these days. Reinterpreting old laws or simply ignoring them is all the rage. But it used to mean something. We shall see if our country can survive this liberal assault on our laws in order to allow liberals to enjoy a trip to the movies without feeling the need to carry a concealed firearm.

Exactly,    Even lacking non weapons regulated or prohibited by the.FCC and FAA would hamstring any militia.  Against FBI intelligence and a militarized police force with repurposed mechanized infantry weapons a patriotic individual standing up against government overreach would be run down as easily as a Chinese student.   There is no practical way to subvert the government through violence if the police and feds remain loyal.   Nor is there reason to.  

Trump shows the unarmed path to power is to subvert a party with wealth, mass media and a dynamic social media campaign.   The aid of a former KGB psyop expert clearly helps.    Guns are just a distraction in those mind games.   They serve no other purpose to the party.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I think infinitesimally small does not mean what you think it does.

More than 50% of domestic violence-associated gun murders are committed with legally owned guns.  And a substantial percentage of school shootings are with legally owned and purchased guns.

What is infinitesimally small is the number of people killed by random armed nutjobs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.28c88c008a6393ea255b8e737774d4d8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then in a country with very different laws.  Ahhhh like Australia.  Gun deaths do not rate a mention.

image.png.34edbf20b9c7e071e5da495c2017435c.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your Honor, I suggest to you that if the USA adopted the same gun laws as Australia, that the figures for gun deaths would fall below that of 'Birth Defects' which is 4.8%.  A two-thirds reduction."

The USA is pretty much fucked, when a country starts sacrificing children at the alter of the $, game over.

250px-Tlaloc,_Codex_Rios,_p.20r.JPG

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 5:04 PM, Shootist Jeff said:
On 6/8/2019 at 5:00 PM, justsomeguy! said:

The only rights you have are those you can take and keep for yourself.

Wow!  Do you really believe that?  That sounds strikingly like how it would work in that libertarian utopia called Somalia.  

You might be shocked how quickly the veneer of civilisation can fall apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 11:35 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

How is that a “look at me” thread???  The fact is that 20K people are not being murdered with guns, its a lie.  But even more importantly, what LenP says is absolutely true. Privacy rights of the mentally ill and of drug dealers is > people’s right to not die of drug abuse or neglect.  

20,000; 15,000. Annually

How many since about 85 when the NRA went nuts?

You guys are some sick fucks celebrating death like you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Imagine folks are calling for gun bans. Just imagine!

Imagine TeamD Senators saying what they mean.

Imagine someone quoting them.
 

Quote

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Assault Weapons Ban of 2017’’

 

Why is using the term they recommend bad?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, random said:

So your Honor, I suggest to you that if the USA adopted the same gun laws as Australia

...we'd be prohibited from owning squirrel shooters in the censored caliber and we'd have grabbers confiscating museum collections, like Australia does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

But gunz!  

 

410124A4-6B8D-4C99-96C3-75772BDD810B.jpeg

This thread has definitely taken a turn for the better!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

In addition to the ridiculous notion that millions of weapons could be legally confiscated somehow

It's ridiculous and yet we have ongoing confiscation programs in places like California, New Jersey, Connecticut, and others.

The first two are the "you must like murder so give us your property now" variety and compliance rates are almost undetectably low. The one in CT is of the "you must like murder so give us your property when you die" variety, which is somewhat more successful, though a large majority of gun owners are taking the "oops, had a boating accident" route around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

...we'd be prohibited from owning squirrel shooters in the censored caliber and we'd have grabbers confiscating museum collections, like Australia does.

Maybe we should start gut shooting animals like they do where you are dogballs

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 4:27 PM, Shootist Jeff said:
On 6/6/2019 at 4:14 PM, mad said:

I'll have a go at answering, but have hit a minor stumbling block on the first question.

Option 1.

The idea that the 2nd is needed in case of a militia being required is laughable and outdated. I agree that people should have the right to defend themselves though.

None of the other options work for me either.

As stated the militia part is ridiculous.

Its not just about hunting

I don't believe that severely limiting private ownership will ever gain traction or is even enforceable.  Shit, they don't even enforce the current laws that are in place, pointless making anymore until you utilise what you already have in place.

No the 2nd shouldn't be repealed, for all the reasons above.

So if the 2nd is not about hunting or the militia - are you saying its ONLY about self defense?  

And why do you think the militia being required is laughable?  I'm honestly curious.

Apologies for the late reply,

The 2nd may well be based on old requirements for raising a militia.  However, in this modern day, I cannot see a requirement for one, who are you going to raise the militia against?

A foreign led invasion force?  the Federal government/US army?

I'm not arguing against gun ownership, I just feel that using the militia as a prop to the argument is outdated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 5:18 PM, bhyde said:

Sure, no problem. I when D,C,F,B,B,C.

Question #1 is a little tough. I'm not sure the SCOTUS is wrong in it's interpretation of he 2A, I'm just not sure it's useable in this day and age. I don't think the Framers could fully anticipate how far personal ownership of weapons could have gone and what impact it would have on our society.

Question #2 is pretty straight forward. If you want to own a gun, I don't think it's unreasonable to require restriction, just like owning a car or plane or a bengal tiger.

Question #3 I'm going to lean hard left here. If someone wants to own guns for sports/utility shooting (hunting, targets, three gun, pest control, etc.) I have no problem with that. I know many people that enjoy hunting and competition shooting and I wouldn't want to deny them their hobby anymore than I want them to tell me to not sail. Having an arsenal of AK-47's in your closet is problematic. I question a persons intent in those cases. 

Question #4 I think most reasonable, law abiding citizen would comply with a ban if properly compensated. Criminals, of course, won't, that's what makes them criminals.

Question #5 If we're going to ban certain weapons (big if), it's not unreasonable to compensate the owners. It's legitimate property just like land (under emirate domain) and shouldn't just get "grabbed."

Question #6 I've owned guns in the past, but unless Trump is reelected, I don't see the need to topple an oppressive government.

 

Question for you. Let's pretend we could rewrite the 2A for a minute. What would your version look like? Would it be for self-defense, checking the government, national defense or something else?

Pretty much in agreement with the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 8:49 PM, Happy said:

My opinion is irrelevant, I'm Australian.

It is clear that any attempt to seriously restrict or control gun ownership in USA won't work. 

Agreed on attempts to restrict or control much beyond the current situation, however there are plenty of laws and regulations in place that are not checked or adhered to.

I'm British, so my opinion is also irrelevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mad said:

Apologies for the late reply,

The 2nd may well be based on old requirements for raising a militia.  However, in this modern day, I cannot see a requirement for one, who are you going to raise the militia against?

A foreign led invasion force?  the Federal government/US army?

I'm not arguing against gun ownership, I just feel that using the militia as a prop to the argument is outdated.

No government lasts forever. My answers would include both of the above for that reason but also against anarchy that may follow a natural disaster that is continental in scale. Like the last time that Yellowstone blew up. Hasn't happened in a while. Will happen again. Or the solar flare that took out our telegraph lines back when those were about the only electric lines. Hasn't happened in a while. Will happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, random said:

Not sure Tom, but this one is more than 100 years old, surely it is harmless!

PI9211LP_1200x782.png

That's 100 years old!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

No government lasts forever. My answers would include both of the above for that reason but also against anarchy that may follow a natural disaster that is continental in scale. Like the last time that Yellowstone blew up. Hasn't happened in a while. Will happen again. Or the solar flare that took out our telegraph lines back when those were about the only electric lines. Hasn't happened in a while. Will happen again.

A valid point, but in my mind it blurs the line between self defence for such occasions and the need to raise a militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mad said:

A valid point, but in my mind it blurs the line between self defence for such occasions and the need to raise a militia.

I have several neighbors that I trust and we all share a driveway. How many households in a militia?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Importunate Tom said:

I have several neighbors that I trust and we all share a driveway. How many households in a militia?

Good point, what and how many constitute a militia??

What happens when you have 2 or 3 militia groups with differing opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mad said:

Good point, what and how many constitute a militia??

What happens when you have 2 or 3 militia groups with differing opinions?

The others stay out of our driveway unless they come in peace or wish to be shot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mad said:
1 hour ago, Importunate Tom said:

No government lasts forever. My answers would include both of the above for that reason...

A valid point, but in my mind it blurs the line between self defence for such occasions and the need to raise a militia.

Further on that point, when a government does come to an end, do you know how to tell who has power over whom?

yeltsin533.jpg

Boris may have been drunk but he knew: it's the ones who still have guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

You might be shocked how quickly the veneer of civilisation can fall apart.

A liberal is someone who hasn't been robbed at gunpoint downtown yet.

 

6 hours ago, Raz'r said:

 ...

You guys are some sick fucks celebrating death like you do.

Another ridiculous post by the dilettante brigade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Imagine TeamD Senators saying what they mean.

Imagine someone quoting them.
 

 Assault Weapon Ban.

Why is using the term they recommend bad?

I am in favor of an assault weapon ban. Jeff probably objects to the term ban but he doesn't see the need for bump stocks. Et cetera. But bpm said:

Not only should cars be banned, so should alcohol. If it just saves one life, right?

He's talking about genus and I'm talking about species and y'all are trying to conflate the two. So again, imagine folks are calling for gun bans. Just imagine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

The others stay out of our driveway unless they come in peace or wish to be shot?

Fine in theory, but I can foresee a situation getting out of control pretty quickly.  What next, tribalism, civil war?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun fetishists unite!

a fetish is the only way to describe this mental illness shared by the gun-istas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

The others stay out of our driveway unless they come in peace or wish to be shot?

I've wandered across people's properties looking for a lost dog, or lost on a hike.   I appreciated not being shot, even though the freaked out panicky rural white population of Indiana and Ohio is likely to fear home invasion.   Fake news by the gun nutters propagates this.   My local extremist was talking about the pillaging and crime that occurred in Dayton after the tornadoes.   She knew this from her online sources.   Yet my girlfriend lives nearby and lost her hairdresser, favorite restaurant, etc.   She was amazed at the community spirit.  The pump stations were without power, plus a boil order existed for areas that did have water.   Not only was there  no hoarding, but people were helping her find the multiple locations in Walmart that still had water.   (I also showed her my FEMA stockpile in the basement, for future planning).  The schools were organizing relief.   Libraries provided cell charging stations, information on disaster assistance and faucets as soon as they could be reopened.   Living there, she was amazed how a bunch of rude self centered people in a working class suburb the teenagers call "dirty Dayton" and the rest of the Dayton metro area came together.  If you are a gun enthusiast with ties to militia groups you are terrorized about the dangerous people about to steal your broken TV.   I can provide other examples.  The fearful people are not the vulnerable, but those relying on social media for information.

Question for you as our legal enthusiast.  (Real lawyers seem to take an oath never to give information unless they can double bill the hours).   Why is it that guns are regulated in courthouses, capital buildings, police stations but not on public streets.   This would be a double standard, protecting my Republican lawgivers but not their gerrymandered voters. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, mad said:

Fine in theory, but I can foresee a situation getting out of control pretty quickly.  What next, tribalism, civil war?

A truckers strike, water pollution, electricity off for a few days ... city people will be hungry, thirsty, and desperate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:
1 hour ago, mad said:

Fine in theory, but I can foresee a situation getting out of control pretty quickly.  What next, tribalism, civil war?

A truckers strike, water pollution, electricity off for a few days ... city people will be hungry, thirsty, and desperate. 

And guys who are much better armed than you.... they will have tanks, for example, if they think they need one..... will be even more determined than ever to keep you away from any place where you might either meet somebody responsible for the above, or actually do something about it.

You're in great shape to shoot some poor kid who mistakenly thinks it's Halloween, or a neighbor looking for his dog, so you can call that a "win!" if you like

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

A truckers strike, water pollution, electricity off for a few days ... city people will be hungry, thirsty, and desperate. 

Still living in fear I see. The vast majority of humans living without gunz, and most of those countries are less able to deal with natural disasters (think Philippines after a typhoon) yet they don’t have a complete breakdown of social order. Y’all been watching too many Mad Max movies. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Still living in fear I see. The vast majority of humans living without gunz, and most of those countries are less able to deal with natural disasters (think Philippines after a typhoon) yet they don’t have a complete breakdown of social order. Y’all been watching too many Mad Max movies. 

I sure hope you're right.

I can slip lines and be gone in minutes. I have canned goods, etc. Water, diesel tanks full. Lots of 12v electricity. Rocna at the ready. Spool of 1/2 line. I can repel boarders baby. I like brown people. I'm golden.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supremes don’t seem too inclined to answer Jeff’s poll:

Washington (CNN) — The Supreme Court on Monday left intact a federal law that requires the registration of some firearms, including silencers, and turned away a request to consider whether such firearm accessories are protected by the Second Amendment.
An appeals court had held that a silencer is not a "bearable" arm protected by the Constitution.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So silencers, bumpstocks, etc. are not bearable arms and hence they are just common tools?

Wonder why the douchebag in the golfcart is so hung up on them? I guess this is just one of those amendments that has a convenient penumbra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lark said:

 

I've wandered across people's properties looking for a lost dog, or lost on a hike.   I appreciated not being shot, even though the freaked out panicky rural white population of Indiana and Ohio is likely to fear home invasion.   Fake news by the gun nutters propagates this.   My local extremist was talking about the pillaging and crime that occurred in Dayton after the tornadoes.   She knew this from her online sources.   Yet my girlfriend lives nearby and lost her hairdresser, favorite restaurant, etc.   She was amazed at the community spirit.  The pump stations were without power, plus a boil order existed for areas that did have water.   Not only was there  no hoarding, but people were helping her find the multiple locations in Walmart that still had water.   (I also showed her my FEMA stockpile in the basement, for future planning).  The schools were organizing relief.   Libraries provided cell charging stations, information on disaster assistance and faucets as soon as they could be reopened.   Living there, she was amazed how a bunch of rude self centered people in a working class suburb the teenagers call "dirty Dayton" and the rest of the Dayton metro area came together.  If you are a gun enthusiast with ties to militia groups you are terrorized about the dangerous people about to steal your broken TV.   I can provide other examples.  The fearful people are not the vulnerable, but those relying on social media for information.

Question for you as our legal enthusiast.  (Real lawyers seem to take an oath never to give information unless they can double bill the hours).   Why is it that guns are regulated in courthouses, capital buildings, police stations but not on public streets.   This would be a double standard, protecting my Republican lawgivers but not their gerrymandered voters. 

 

Glad to hear her area reacted to a local natural disaster much like Punta Gorda reacted to Charlie. But I was talking to mad about continental-scale disasters and recovery could be a bit more complex when civilization and infrastructure are not intact an hour away.

I see that you don't answer questions but ask them.

On 6/9/2019 at 6:10 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Tell me, what do you think of this bold statement from a noted judge?

Quote

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.


But I'll answer anyway. Your question makes no sense because guns are often heavily regulated on public streets. For examples, see the Supreme Court case posts of late in the Cuomo thread. Saying this doesn't happen is like saying that we can't DO SOMETHING when the fact is that "doing something" means banning "assault weapons" (which are guns that go BANG) and it has happened quite often. Maybe it doesn't go far enough for you, which would make sense since there seems to be no such thing as gun control going too far, but it has happened.

Apart from the false premise, the question is a straw man because government can and does provide security in sensitive locations but they can't and don't on the streets. One standard applies where government is expected to provide security, can and does. Another standard is appropriate where those things are not true.

Now please answer my question, preferably without looking up who said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Olsonist said:
On 6/10/2019 at 4:14 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Imagine TeamD Senators saying what they mean.

Imagine someone quoting them.
 

 Assault Weapon Ban.

Why is using the term they recommend bad?

I am in favor of an assault weapon ban. Jeff probably objects to the term ban but he doesn't see the need for bump stocks. Et cetera. But bpm said:

Not only should cars be banned, so should alcohol. If it just saves one life, right?

He's talking about genus and I'm talking about species and y'all are trying to conflate the two. So again, imagine folks are calling for gun bans. Just imagine!

What are "assault weapons" if not guns?

In Washington State, they passed a ballot initiative. In addition to expressing the will of the voters that corporations are people, it defined "assault weapons" to be semi-auto's that are not antiques.

That seems to me to be the end game of this "assault weapon" terminology, which is why proposed bans cover things like my squirrel gun.

So if your elk wish to ban all semi-auto's, let's have that discussion and not pretend we're banning "military" guns or some vague "new" technology. Let's have an honest discussion of going full Aussie on that subject, complete with grabbers confiscating museum collections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

What are "assault weapons" if not guns?

In Washington State, they passed a ballot initiative. In addition to expressing the will of the voters that corporations are people, it defined "assault weapons" to be semi-auto's that are not antiques.

That seems to me to be the end game of this "assault weapon" terminology, which is why proposed bans cover things like my squirrel gun.

So if your elk wish to ban all semi-auto's, let's have that discussion and not pretend we're banning "military" guns or some vague "new" technology. Let's have an honest discussion of going full Aussie on that subject, complete with grabbers confiscating museum collections.

Thanks for all the confusion, and the fog, and the vapor too.

If these  guns are a blessing to society, they will be okay. If they are a problem, this problem will be scrutinized.

Gunz will make their own bed and dogballs will sleep in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 the douchebag in the golfcart 

Tom said he shot a sick alligator with a dogballs gun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

So if your elk wish to ban all semi-auto's, let's have that discussion and not pretend we're banning "military" guns or some vague "new" technology. Let's have an honest discussion of going full Aussie on that subject, complete with grabbers confiscating museum collections.

Tom-boy.  Your cred here vaporised quite some time ago, but it seems like you do not understand that.  You continue to posture as if anyone gives a fuck what you say.   Just trying to help mate. 

BTW, got anymore unintelligible tables we can investigate?

I miss Brady's Best.  How come you don't quote it anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 1:08 PM, mad said:

Apologies for the late reply,

The 2nd may well be based on old requirements for raising a militia.  However, in this modern day, I cannot see a requirement for one, who are you going to raise the militia against?

A foreign led invasion force?  the Federal government/US army?

I'm not arguing against gun ownership, I just feel that using the militia as a prop to the argument is outdated.

I disagree.  I'm not using the miltia prop as an argument, but I don't think the militia is as outdated as you think it is.  I'll respond more on that later, I have to finish a brief now and PA has already sucked too much of my time as it is.....  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

PA has already sucked too much of my time as it is.....  :D

Shootist Jeff

  • Super Anarchist
  •  
  • Shootist Jeff
  • Members
  • 807
  • 53,912 post
  • This is your job Jeffy, either that or you are really ripping someone off.  Would the Arabs like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Glad to hear her area reacted to a local natural disaster much like Punta Gorda reacted to Charlie. But I was talking to mad about continental-scale disasters and recovery could be a bit more complex when civilization and infrastructure are not intact an hour away.

I see that you don't answer questions but ask them.


But I'll answer anyway. Your question makes no sense because guns are often heavily regulated on public streets. For examples, see the Supreme Court case posts of late in the Cuomo thread. Saying this doesn't happen is like saying that we can't DO SOMETHING when the fact is that "doing something" means banning "assault weapons" (which are guns that go BANG) and it has happened quite often. Maybe it doesn't go far enough for you, which would make sense since there seems to be no such thing as gun control going too far, but it has happened.

Apart from the false premise, the question is a straw man because government can and does provide security in sensitive locations but they can't and don't on the streets. One standard applies where government is expected to provide security, can and does. Another standard is appropriate where those things are not true.

Now please answer my question, preferably without looking up who said it.

The government doesn’t provide security on the streets?  I’ll explain that to the next cop that attempts to question me.    

I do have an attempted asset seizure story from a friend sick in Iowa when I have more time, under the guise of bathroom security in a truck stop.    

Your link asks for money.    The second amendment states that individual arms are for collective right to defense.    You can have a gun to help the neighbor protect his farm, and both of you are expected to help protect the bridge into the hollow for the entire population. Your squirrel rifle, or even moose rifle, is inadequate against a high altitude drone attack on the bridge,   Cyberattack means they won’t have to destroy the bridge to isolate and bankrupt the feisty population in your hollow.   The amendment is obsolete.   I’m not anti gun, just oppose the American sport of mass murder.   I’m also for regulation of electronics devices to protect aircraft safety, and automobile operation to protect commuter safety.   I’m even for food and factory regulation.   All these things infringe on interstate commerce, but allow greater commerce.   Infringing on public defense paradoxically keeps the public safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" the American sport of mass murder"

"... celebrating death"

Two comments in this thread are good examples of why thinking people can't discuss ideas with the fringes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Glad to hear her area reacted to a local natural disaster much like Punta Gorda reacted to Charlie. But I was talking to mad about continental-scale disasters and recovery could be a bit more complex when civilization and infrastructure are not intact an hour away.

I see that you don't answer questions but ask them.


But I'll answer anyway. Your question makes no sense because guns are often heavily regulated on public streets. For examples, see the Supreme Court case posts of late in the Cuomo thread. Saying this doesn't happen is like saying that we can't DO SOMETHING when the fact is that "doing something" means banning "assault weapons" (which are guns that go BANG) and it has happened quite often. Maybe it doesn't go far enough for you, which would make sense since there seems to be no such thing as gun control going too far, but it has happened.

Apart from the false premise, the question is a straw man because government can and does provide security in sensitive locations but they can't and don't on the streets. One standard applies where government is expected to provide security, can and does. Another standard is appropriate where those things are not true.

Now please answer my question, preferably without looking up who said it.

So, you are still math challenged then? Real danger from tools in the house vs imagined danger from continental sized disasters. What a maroon. Face it, you’re just a fetishist, and a dumb one at that. But I’ll give you fetishists this, you love to write about your precious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

So, you are still math challenged then? Real danger from tools in the house vs imagined danger from continental sized disasters. What a maroon. Face it, you’re just a fetishist, and a dumb one at that. But I’ll give you fetishists this, you love to write about your precious.

^^^^^ fringe^^^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, random said:

Tom-boy.  Your cred here vaporised quite some time ago, but it seems like you do not understand that.  You continue to posture as if anyone gives a fuck what you say.   Just trying to help mate. 

BTW, got anymore unintelligible tables we can investigate?

I miss Brady's Best.  How come you don't quote it anymore?

 

Three dollar bill, Brady Best.PNG

FDLE, firearmmurders.gif

brady-vs-census.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, random said:

Tom-boy.  Your cred here vaporised quite some time ago, but it seems like you do not understand that.  You continue to posture as if anyone gives a fuck what you say.   Just trying to help mate. 

BTW, got anymore unintelligible tables we can investigate?

I miss Brady's Best.  How come you don't quote it anymore?

Ycmtsu: random commenting on someone else's cred. He's not wrong but ... jeebus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

^^^^^ fringe^^^^^

^^^^^^^^ math idiot ^^^^^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

^^^^^ fringe^^^^^

No. Gun fetishists imaging and preparing for some "continental scale disaster" are fringe idiots - little different* than the medieval freak  LARPers sword fighting in the park. The biggest problem with the gun cult is you guys have all these assumptions on whats "rational" that aren't at all rational, just bits of the religion you trade amongst yourselves. 

*other than the medieval freak LARPers have women participate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

" the American sport of mass murder"

"... celebrating death"

Two comments in this thread are good examples of why thinking people can't discuss ideas with the fringes.

It is a bit of hyperbole but we are the outlier for first world countries and generally an outlier for the planet.

Among first world countries we're number one in per capita gun deaths by a wide margin, a factor of 4 over Finland. We are 1st in the world for guns per capita. We're 2nd in gun suicides after Greenland.

When gun purchases surged after Newtown it's hard to call that anything but celebrating death. If that's hyperbole then what would you call it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

What are "assault weapons" if not guns?

So we can put you down for all guns are assault weapons. That does simplify things considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

It is a bit of hyperbole but we are the outlier for first world countries and generally an outlier for the planet.

Among first world countries we're number one in per capita gun deaths by a wide margin, a factor of 4 over Finland. We are 1st in the world for guns per capita. We're 2nd in gun suicides after Greenland.

When gun purchases surged after Newtown it's hard to call that anything but celebrating death. If that's hyperbole then what would you call it?

In all sincerity - I would say that you're projecting a very prejudicial and incorrect perception, that the "surge in gun sales" was more a reaction to the potential for a legislative ban on purchases than anything to do with "celebrating death".   You know that, but, still you say stuff like this..... 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites