Sign in to follow this  
Mid

At least 2 injured in shooting at New Jersey high school football game

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Hi Guy,

I finally have a couple of minutes.  First, thank you for your kind thoughts regarding my mom.  We are not politically aligned on many hot topics but I've always appreciated your arguments.  Again, thank you.  

Changes to the 2A?  These are just some random thoughts and should piss some people off.  I'm not sure they would all be incorporated into the Amendment per se but could be referenced.  I am an engineer, not a lawyer.  

1.  Rewrite the 2A (of course in a new Amendment) to get rid of well regulated and infringed.  Write it to reflect today's environment.  Make it 'may' have the right to bear arms when certain qualifications are met.  Not the right wording, but the wordage needs an overhaul.  

2.  Regulate gun ownership MINIMUMS on a Federal level.  Some states (notably FL and TX) do a shit job of screening gun purchases and the Feds should step in and have some uniform restrictions.  This should include many of the thoughts Jeff B had on mental health for example. How about a why do you need this gun review?  I would have flunked that question.  My answer would have been that I like to go to movie theaters and don't want to be killed without fighting back.  Movies are one of my few carry places.     

3.  Limit the number of guns a citizen can own from each category with category to be defined (e.g., handgun, shotgun, rifle, with discriminators for single shot, semi automatic, magazine size).

4.  No reciprocity between states on concealed carry.  Unlike AmEx, leave home without it.  

5.  Maintain a real inventory.  It's not a big deal for gun owners to verify gun ownership and do it on at least an annual basis.  With the internet, I could see a system where a gun owner uploads photos on a website and verifies his/her guns are still in their possession.  I realize that if one of my guns goes missing, I am obligated to report it...but that's a passive vs active approach that would cost next to nothing in the scheme of things.  

6.  Quit selling assault-like weapons.  We have enough in circulation.  Details TBD.  

7.  Increase penalties for those who do not practice responsible gun ownership.  A 4yo should not have access to a handgun.  Throw mom or dad in jail.  I'm sure that is a repeat of a Jeff B thought that I readily support.

Just some random thoughts and it's starting to sound like a rant more than a suggestion.  My biggest issues would make gun ownership a 'may' allow vs a 'shall' allow.  Set uniform Federal Standards for ownership.  And limit the arsenal any citizen can own.  

Timeframe?  The impact of any of the above won't be felt realistically in my lifetime but might show some results in 30-100 yrs.  All I know is that we're not going in the right direction as a country wrt guns and anything is better than nothing.  And the problem is big enough where anyone would be justified to throw their hands up and say there's nothing that can be done.  We need to change that culture.  

I won't be able to respond to any comments quickly but will when time allows.  

Thanks again for your kind words.  The near-term is looking great.  

Cal, I don't agree with all of your suggestions, but some I do.  But I won't bore you again with why.  My thoughts are well known on this topic by any who cares to actually pay attention.  But I wanted to say thanks for at least acknowledging that you bothered to read and digest what I said in previous posts about gun regulations.  Its nice that someone paid attention for a change and doesn't assign a position to me based on their personal biases.  Its funny, even after some of my lengthy screeds on what gun regulations I would support - I still am continually accused of advocating for ZERO gun regulations and that I want a return to the wild west days of shoot em ups in the streets outside the saloon.  

Again, good luck and good thoughts with your mom.  I'm glad things are better now and improving, at least for a while.

Share this post


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

I agree with a lot of this, pretty much all of it. But I don't see what's the point of the 2A AFTER it. Why not just let the government regulate guns on a par with cars?

We should not have military grade weaponry in civilian hands. Guns and gun owners should be registered and licensed, a privilege. Purchases and purchasers should be screened. Concealed carry should require professional level licensing. That's reading back a lot of what you wrote. I would add insurance. But I'm not sure what is left or or what the point of the 2A is after that.

There is no point after all of that.  So I suggest you get on with repealing it.  Because until you do, most of that stuff ain't happening.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

How many virgins does your life insurance policy provide on your death? :o

Meh.  Who wants virgins?  I will however gladly spend time in the after life with some of the Russian and Asian hookers I see walking around Dubai..... Yowza!!  :lol:

Share this post


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

I'm not a "merc".   I work for a globally traded company that provides training services to militaries all over the world,

Got it.

:lol:

Blackwater?

Aegis?

G4S?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 12:57 AM, Cal20sailor said:

Tom, I own 3 handguns and one long balls rifle.  I also have a carry permit that I very rarely exercise.  If I gave up my guns, my life would not materially change one iota.  What would be so horrible about your life if guns didn't play a part.  I'm not baiting, just trying to understand why you have such a strong viewpoint. 

 

 

Disclosure: I did not have the patience to go thru this entire bound to be tedious thread, but this post really struck home. Once upon a time I owned 2 hand guns & 3 rifles, the .32 Browning pistol was in fact the tool my brother killed himself with. Oddly I once tried to carry that same weapon on my person when I was trying to commute to a late night shift on public transit (gave up, not workable for swing shift), totally creeped me out having lethal force on my person.

Eventually over time I divested myself of every tool I owned (kind of needed the money at the time) sold the Browning to some old geezer, dogballs Ithica to a brother Ironworker (only firearm I ever killed an animal with, & it was a feral cat!) the Indian Scout Commemorative rifle & pistol (nickel plate on both), & the Marlin 444 "Sporter" that my step father gave to me as a present with the thought that we might go hunting someday.

I would say the only change in my life was, joining the majority of American citizens that own no firearms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, & my mother also shot herself.

Share this post


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

However the Utah State Troopers still hang out on I-15 near St. George looking for tinted windows.  California allows up to 70% tint.  Nevada I think 65%, but Utah doesn't allow anything over 57%.  They don't write tickets for tint (even though they can), they use the tint as a pretext to pull people over and look for drugs.  You know why?

I'll take a wild guess: Looting.

Share this post


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

Got it.

:lol:

Blackwater?

Aegis?

G4S?

Didn’t Blackwater change it’s name to Xi or Ze or something?

Share this post


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

We get that thinking at the border.

"I'm just driving through to Alaska - my guns & ammo should be O/K while we pass through Canada".

They are truly shocked when their weapons are seized. :rolleyes:

I see controlled national borders a little differently than open State borders in this regard.   I understand and agree with Clean's response, but, my agreement is begrudging in this particular instance.  

Share this post


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

Uh yeah, some of them do. Operate a "gross polluter" on CA roads and you can get a citation & fine. 

It's utterly baffling the backflips people go to to protect their guns. "only big national government can let us keep our guns we need to protect us from big government".

You're being intentionally obtuse, but, I'll bite - and reiterate that I could care less about the weapons themselves, I'm interested in protecting ALL our civil rights, and in proffering change that will address what I think is our shared objective of reducing violence.  But, you keep on bein' you. 

Share this post


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

CARB has a statutory emissions scheme that is subservient to national legistlation enacted under the Commerce Clause.  It is superseded as applied to non-California residents.  Not sure you will understand that.

 However the Utah State Troopers still hang out on I-15 near St. George looking for tinted windows.  California allows up to 70% tint.  Nevada I think 65%, but Utah doesn't allow anything over 57%.  They don't write tickets for tint (even though they can), they use the tint as a pretext to pull people over and look for drugs.  You know why?

Because states are meant to regulate things like that themselves.  Do you hate states' rights?

I'm not sure that *I* understand the bolded part - I'm assuming that it means something a little different than the plain language interpretation? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 I'm interested in protecting ALL our civil rights,

Gun nutterz all talk about that but they seem a little less militant about protecting the right to life - certainly ranks lower that the right to bear arms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Gun nutterz all talk about that but they seem a little less militant about protecting the right to life - certainly ranks lower that the right to bear arms.

You haven't been paying attention Sloop - no surprise, but, I'm all about the right to life.   Silly question?  Why do y'all enjoy spending so much effort to try to minimize those who disagree with you?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's what I do.

From my signature line.

intolerant of all fanatics, fools and ignoramuses,

American 2A gunnies qualify under the Fanatics category.

Share this post


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

It's what I do.

From my signature line.

intolerant of all fanatics, fools and ignoramuses,

American 2A gunnies qualify under the Fanatics category.

Of course, your poor dumb sweetie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

I'll tell her you said that.

Share this post


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

Gun nutterz all talk about that but they seem a little less militant about protecting the right to life - certainly ranks lower that the right to bear arms.

You mean being anti-abortion?  There are probably a LOT of RTL'ers within gun nutterz ranks.

Share this post


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

It's what I do.

From my signature line.

intolerant of all fanatics, fools and ignoramuses,

American 2A gunnies qualify under the Fanatics category.

OK Boomer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
21 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Gun nutterz all talk about that but they seem a little less militant about protecting the right to life - certainly ranks lower that the right to bear arms.

You mean being anti-abortion?  There are probably a LOT of RTL'ers within gun nutterz ranks.

I am not certain but I think he is using the words "Right To Life" in their dictionary meaning, not their code meaning of "anti-abortion supporter of terrorism."

- DSK

Share this post


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

You mean being anti-abortion?  There are probably a LOT of RTL'ers within gun nutterz ranks.

Makes sense - stupid is as stupid does.

Share this post


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

I am not certain but I think he is using the words "Right To Life" in their dictionary meaning, not their code meaning of "anti-abortion supporter of terrorism."

- DSK

You don't think those unborn babies have a right to life too?

Share this post


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

 unborn babies 

what does that mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 unborn babies 

what does that mean?

I figure if people are against abortion they shouldn't have one.

"Religious freedom" or whatever the cry is doesn't only go one way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

what does that mean?

Nothing.

Share this post


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

You mean being anti-abortion?  There are probably a LOT of RTL'ers within gun nutterz ranks.

I fervently hope with all my heart that everyone is anti-abortion.  Abortion is a horrible, horrible procedure to literally scrape away what could be a viable human being from a woman's body.  Horrible, and I can't imagine anyone supporting it.  

However, I do, if that's a woman's choice and her last court of appeal after deciding she didn't want the child.  Hopefully, not an easy choice or one made routinely, but her choice nonetheless.  

A woman's right to choose outweighs my personal thoughts on the atrocity of abortion.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIAC until men can get pregnant they should STFU about abortion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

I fervently hope with all my heart that everyone is anti-abortion.  Abortion is a horrible, horrible procedure to literally scrape away what could be a viable human being from a woman's body.  Horrible, and I can't imagine anyone supporting it.  

However, I do, if that's a woman's choice and her last court of appeal after deciding she didn't want the child.  Hopefully, not an easy choice or one made routinely, but her choice nonetheless.  

A woman's right to choose outweighs my personal thoughts on the atrocity of abortion.

 

 

 

 

As Bill Clinton said, abortion ought to be safe, legal an rare.

As for this: “ There are probably a LOT of RTL'ers within gun nutterz ranks”

ive thought it weird, inconsistent, and contradictory that a person can be a right to life advocate, pro 2nd Amendment, and in favor of capital punishment.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I suspect commonplace.

Share this post


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

aive thought it weird, inconsistent, and contradictory that a person can be a right to life advocate, pro 2nd Amendment, and in favor of capital punishment.  

I started to add a comment similar to this but felt it would be misunderstood.  Appreciate you doing it better than I attempted.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

I started to add a comment similar to this but felt it would be misunderstood.  Appreciate you doing it better than I attempted.  

My pleasure.  Lots of really bizarre inconsistencies out there no doubt.  Some like these have serious and real world consequences.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

I fervently hope with all my heart that everyone is anti-abortion.  Abortion is a horrible, horrible procedure to literally scrape away what could be a viable human being from a woman's body.  Horrible, and I can't imagine anyone supporting it.  

However, I do, if that's a woman's choice and her last court of appeal after deciding she didn't want the child.  Hopefully, not an easy choice or one made routinely, but her choice nonetheless.  

A woman's right to choose outweighs my personal thoughts on the atrocity of abortion.

First of all, I've been on record here from the beginning as being a staunch pro-choice advocate.

But we are talking about the right to life.  The "right to life" was invoked here as a reason to get rid of all gunz.  I'm simply asking if that doesn't also translate to the right to the unborn child to have a right to that same chance at life as the relatively few children who are murdered with gunz each year.  In 2017, there were 3256 children who who died as a result of a gunshot (Murder AND self-murder).  In 2017 there were 862,300 abortions.  What about that latter category's "right to life"?  Do they not count too?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

First of all, I've been on record here from the beginning as being a staunch pro-choice advocate.

But we are talking about the right to life.  The "right to life" was invoked here as a reason to get rid of all gunz.  I'm simply asking if that doesn't also translate to the right to the unborn child to have a right to that same chance at life as the relatively few children who are murdered with gunz each year.  In 2017, there were 3256 children who who died as a result of a gunshot (Murder AND self-murder).  In 2017 there were 862,300 abortions.  What about that latter category's "right to life"?  Do they not count too?

I meant to quote you, not vote you up or subsequently down.  

Bullshit argument Jeff, 

How many of the children that were killed by gunshot, had mothers that CHOSE for them to be killed.  

Get serious.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

ive thought it weird, inconsistent, and contradictory that a person can be a right to life advocate, pro 2nd Amendment, and in favor of capital punishment.  

Me too.   I'm pro-choice, pro-2A and pro-capital punishment.  At least I'm consistent.

However, I would also say that those of you who are pro-choice yet anti-2A and anti-death penalty are also being extremely inconsistent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cal20sailor said:

I meant to quote you, not vote you up or subsequently down.  

Bullshit argument Jeff, 

How many of the children that were killed by gunshot, had mothers that CHOSE for them to be killed.  

Get serious.  

Not a BS argument, Cal.  If you are a true "RTL'er", the RTL trumps (pun intended) the right of the mother to choose.  Life is either sacrosanct or its not.  You can't cherry pick which one you like when its convienent for you.  

Share this post


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

Me too.   I'm pro-choice, pro-2A and pro-capital punishment.  At least I'm consistent.

However, I would also say that those of you who are pro-choice yet anti-2A and anti-death penalty are also being extremely inconsistent.  

So, you're just waiting for RBG to conk and have another beer drinker on the court?  Roberts is the only thing resembling law anymore.  

Share this post


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

Not a BS argument, Cal.  If you are a true "RTL'er", the RTL trumps (pun intended) the right of the mother to choose.  Life is either sacrosanct or its not.  You can't cherry pick which one you like when its convienent for you.  

I have zero clue of what you are attempting to say.  Try it a different way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Me too.   I'm pro-choice, pro-2A and pro-capital punishment.  At least I'm consistent.

However, I would also say that those of you who are pro-choice yet anti-2A and anti-death penalty are also being extremely inconsistent.  

So, you're just waiting for RBG to conk and have another beer drinker on the court?  Roberts is the only thing resembling law anymore.  

Huh???  What part of pro-choice did you miss?

Share this post


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

@Cal20sailor, BTW - how's your mom doing?

 

Might go home tomorrow, sister arrived taking the heat off me.  Thanks for asking and good luck with yours.  Happy Thanksgiving if you recognize it.

Share this post


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

Huh???  What part of pro-choice did you miss?

I missed the cute RTL references.  

1. I think a woman has the right to choose up until a certain limit defined by law and despite the tragedy, it is her choice.  I agree with Roe v Wade.   

2. Children get shot purposely or by accident each year and that is not defined by law and is a tragedy that demands more effective controls on guns.  

Here you go Jeff, do yours the same way, 1&2 addressing each issue directly as I have.  Let's see where we differ directly.  Cool?  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

I have zero clue of what you are attempting to say.  Try it a different way.  

Sigh.....  The RTL for children was invoked here earlier as a reason to get rid of the gunz.  I simply asked if the RTL of the almost 700 thousand unborn babies counted too?  Apparently they do not, so at least you have that going for you and your elk.  

Personally, IF you believe that all life is sacrosanct, then the right of the mother to choose to kill a life is a non-starter.  I don't subscribe to that, but I don't believe all life is sacrosanct.  I do however think modern medicine and tech is moving the needle away from the pro-choice argument that an unborn fetus is not "alive".  I think there will come a day when the pro-abortion argument that its not a life yet will be taken away.  Then what are you going to do?  

If however, you acknowledge that the fetus IS alive but that the right of the mother to decide and kill it anyway trumps that life, then at least that is a more honest argument.  That ^^ is the argument that I personally subscribe to, FWIW.  

Hope that helped clear up your confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

I missed the cute RTL references.  

1. I think a woman has the right to choose up until a certain limit defined by law and despite the tragedy, it is her choice.  I agree with Roe v Wade.   

2. Children get shot purposely or by accident each year and that is not defined by law and is a tragedy that demands more effective controls on guns.  

Here you go Jeff, do yours the same way, 1&2 addressing each issue directly as I have.  Let's see where we differ directly.  Cool?  

Asked and answered in #102

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Might go home tomorrow, sister arrived taking the heat off me.  Thanks for asking and good luck with yours.  Happy Thanksgiving if you recognize it.

Thanks, you as well.  I'll be racing all weekend - OD regatta.  The weather will be epic - I just hope we get good wind for some planning conditions.  So no big turkey dinner for me.  Probably will grab dinner at the sailing club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

Huh?  You quoted the post you were writing?  Awesome!

Yes, because it happened to already answer your questions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I have no real desire to get into either a semantics or an abortion debate.  We are both pro-choice, let's leave it at that.

What I am interested in from you is an answer to my previous question about what rights could be taken away from you that would not materially affect your life.  You never really answered that, and I would still like to know your thoughts.  If you did answer it, I apologize if I missed it - I've been busy trying to sort out a move.

But assuming we had a fairly benign gov't that leaves you alone as long as you're not doing anything wrong - if you lost your right to privacy or the right to assemble to speak out against the gov't, or your right to due process, or your right to practice the religion of your choice - how would that materially affect you?  Would anything really change in your life day to day?  

 

 

Share this post


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

What I am interested in from you is an answer to my previous question about what rights could be taken away from you that would not materially affect your life.  You never really answered that, and I would still like to know your thoughts.  If you did answer it, I apologize if I missed it - I've been busy trying to sort out a move.

But assuming we had a fairly benign gov't that leaves you alone as long as you're not doing anything wrong - if you lost your right to privacy or the right to assemble to speak out against the gov't, or your right to due process, or your right to practice the religion of your choice - how would that materially affect you?  Would anything really change in your life day to day?  

I missed that question, it's fair, but give me a night to ponder.  

I will reserve the right to amend, but looking at your second sentence.  The right to free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy.  Even the idiots voting for Trump would support it.  

I can go through others, but please explain to me how the other rights you have enumerated compare to guns.  Why is that a right?  The SC got it wrong.  Please explain why we as a country have the most guns in circulation, the most guns per capita, the most gun crimes, etc...

You can't.  Maybe Kavanaugh  will get shot by an illegal gun while doing a keg stand at a party in Georgetown while groping a 15yo breast.  That's more likely than you convincing me that gun ownership is a good thing and that we shouldn't stick the 2A up the head of the NRA's ass.  

Edit:  Trump would be cool with all above if it was a Moooooslim that pulled the trigger.  Exta points if they were here illegally.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A woman's right to choose what happens to her body is very important.

Well, except if she chooses to defend herself. That has to be fought on utterly ridiculous grounds all the way to the Supreme Court.

I'm glad the Supreme Court unanimously turned away the absurd argument advanced by the anti-choice crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

I missed that question, it's fair, but give me a night to ponder.  

It was right here (#16) in response to your post where you said your life wouldn't change materially if you gave up your guns. Please read my whole post before you jump on answering it.  Please pay particular attention to my personal example.

And I'm not asking you to comment on guns or how you feel about them.  Please take the question at face value.  The specific question is:  How would it materially affect your life TODAY if those other rights didn't exist or were severely limited?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats Jeff, you have managed to steer the topic from guns to abortion. No mean feat 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A natural pairing - both equally pointless discussion topics.

Share this post


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

Congrats Jeff, you have managed to steer the topic from guns to abortion. No mean feat 

Well, at least you can't accuse me of only talking about gunz :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2019 at 3:05 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

It was right here (#16) in response to your post where you said your life wouldn't change materially if you gave up your guns. Please read my whole post before you jump on answering it.  Please pay particular attention to my personal example.

And I'm not asking you to comment on guns or how you feel about them.  Please take the question at face value.  The specific question is:  How would it materially affect your life TODAY if those other rights didn't exist or were severely limited?  

Damn, it looks like I'm going to have to wait another 2 weeks before I finally get an answer to this question, if ever.  <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this