Tulsa police: Multiple people shot at medical building

That’ll never happen lol. You can’t throw out the amendment without 3/4 of the states or their representatives agreeing with it.

Which will never happen.

And even if you did… that’s irrelevant because we will not, under any circumstances, give up our firearms. And just like the founders didn’t give a damn what King George did, we don’t give a damn what our government does insofar as the second. Removal of the second is grounds for war. Period.

That is our god given right to protect ourselves and NO MAN will ever take it away.

 

It’s happened before. A previously held amendment was repealed.

And your last sentence is garbage. ALL constitutions, bills and laws are written by men. And they can be changed by men…

 

Oh really? So what you’re saying is that rights aren’t absolute. Correct?

Which means black peoples rights could be summarily removed if enough people wanted it so and even if they didn’t and their government representatives did.

So going with that thought I have an idea for gun regulation that I would HAPPILY agree to and would result in FAR fewer deaths than your ban on AR’s.

I suggest we ban black people from being able to own a firearm. Blacks represent less than 13% of the total population and yet Blacks commit approximately 55% of our total violent gun crime including around 55% of our total murders.

If we ban blacks from having guns, not only will it DRASTICALLY reduce our deaths from guns but it will also drastically reduce our violent crime rate.

How does that sound to ya?

 

Nah we won our war. Y’all are still cucks to England.

 

Mental illness or mental disturbance seems like a difference without a distinction. The insanity defense is difficult to win and in three states actually not allowed. As I said, only the mentally ill would kill people even though they know it's wrong. Their behavior before and/or after the act indicates that.

 

second amendment. The deaths of a few prevent the deaths of millions.

ok, my turn. You’re god for the same time.
1. You can defend yourself from imminent murder by an attacker and you have a gun. Or…
2. You can allow the attacker to kill you while you wait for the cops.

you can only have one or the other.

 

False dilemma. If you choose 2 over 1 what will you do the next time your child is threatened. Pray the killer is aware of your choice the last time?

 

Is vengence a mental silliness? Is anyone who murders someone mentally ill or can they just be evil?

 

Vengeance is a state of mind that is disturbed. Not all mental illness is a permanent condition. Evil is a religious description. I suppose you can go with that, but it won't hold up in court or be considered in psychology.

 

I'm an atheist and I certainly know what is evil, doesn't required any religious faith. Some people can just be evil. And what do you mean "go with it", it is certainly NOT a defense in court anymore than seek vengeance against someone.

 

They get wide on's

 

Firstly, I had only given examples I'd heard, not a complete list, of the current propositions on the table. Secondly, what is up for negotiation is not being presented as anyone's idea of sufficient measures; these are merely those which seem the most doable, in the current political environment. Lastly, your eternal caveat of no further regulations, not knowing what technology will come up with in the future, is an impossible thing to promise, as you must realize.

Nevertheless, I can prove that your argument is bunk. I will begin with recent poll results, that I just heard, on MSNBC. According to the host, 81% of Americans are in favor of increasing background checks, 72% in favor of Red Flag laws, and 62% in favor of banning so-called assault rifle type weapons. Your assertion that no amount of regulation will ever be enough for those who support any gun control, is disproven here, since about 9% of Americans seem to think that expanded background checks, alone, are what is needed. Another 10% favor Red Flag laws, but not the banning of assault rifles. Had one of the questions been, "do you favor the complete abolition of all gun rights, I assure you that those answering in the affirmative, would be FAR, FAR fewer, than 62%. Therefore, it should be easy to see that the majority of those favoring some gun control measures, are not the absolutists, you contend they are.

Since I didn't immediately see the poll that I just quoted, I will include this brief SNIP from another, showing the general disposition of the public, towards at least some action(s), regulating who gets a gun, and possibly what type of gun they can get. Again, it is an untenable position you have proposed, that ALL these people want a complete end to the gun ownership, enshrined in the Second Amendment. But there is another point, as well, I'd like to make, on the other side of this quote.

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/05/gun-control-laws-poll-prioritize

[SNIP]

Seventy percent of Americans think enacting new gun control laws should take precedence over protecting ownership rights, according to an ABC News/Ipsos poll out Sunday.

Why it matters: The findings indicate widespread support for stricter gun control laws in the wake of mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, Uvalde, Texas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The big picture: On the flip side, 29% of respondents believe protecting the right to own a wide variety of guns should be a higher priority than enacting new gun control laws, the poll suggests .

The gap between the two positions has widened by 9 points since March 2021, when the same poll found that 66% of people favored new gun control laws, while 34% preferred protecting gun ownership rights.
The results were split along partisan lines, with 90% of Democrats and 75% of independents surveyed prioritizing new gun laws.
Fifty-six percent of Republicans in the poll said protecting gun ownership rights takes priority.
[End]

This next article talks about people being very regulation- specific, as to what changes in law they support. Though it is not part of my SNIP, this article also looks at the historic trend, which has been at only a bare majority (52%), who are in favor of "gun control," in general. Once again, this shows that supporters of the 2nd Amendment have no basis for believing that all who think that anything more than current firearm regulation is necessary, want to ultimately outlaw guns, outright. About 40% of people, according to the article, are gun owners, themselves. This percentage, I certainly found to be surprisingly high.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23141651/gun-control-american-approval-polling.

[SNIP]

“The thing about those sort of generic questions: Somebody in Vermont can say yes and someone in California can say no, and they favor the exact same thing,” Chris Poliquin, an assistant professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, who studies gun legislation after mass shootings, told Recode.

When asking Americans about their opinions on more specific gun policies, the results are clearer. A vast majority of Americans supports universal background checks, keeping people with serious mental health issues from buying guns, bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, and so-called “red flag laws” that would allow police and family members to seek court orders to temporarily take guns away from those considered a risk to themselves and others. A majority of Americans, of both political parties, oppose carrying concealed weapons without a permit.
[End]

So these issues, listed above, would content the overwhelming majority of those advocating for stronger gun controls.

 

You could be right about the Aussies, but I'm British.

Americans are jealous of UK history, the current Queen has seen 28% of American history, and Victoria not far behind that, so nearly 60% covered in two reigns. You just have the French helping you in 1776 and a failed Vietnam war, then crap all history since. Bit of a failure you guys tbh.

 

Yes, you do. In fact, I signed an Oath to preserve, protect, and defend Her to the point of giving my very life if necessary, and that Oath came with no expiration date. Did you, or do you count yourself as one of her enemies, foreign or domestic?

 

No see I told you. Add whatever measures you want. We will agree to them as long as they’re not absurd.

But we want a guarantee of no further gun regulation in the future.

Deal?

 

As long as we excluded relevant changes in technology, that might render old laws obsolete, I could agree on that deal. But it is an impractical point, as by the very nature of our political system, all laws are subject to review and altering. Even an agreement to not change any given type of laws, could not be made immune to the legislative actions of the future. This is actually a good thing, as it allows for adjustments to the course we set, when things do not proceed exactly as had been anticipated. I therefore strongly doubt many, on either side, would agree to what you propose. Practical people on the gun control side, would not want to handcuff themselves with laws that could become antiquated; and gun rights advocates, in general, would not trust that future legislators would stick to the guarantees of present lawmakers.

Such a promise as you suggest, though, would make it a more weighty matter, to make any future changes; just as enshrining some concept in our Constitution, does. So perhaps that should be what you are pushing for: an Amendment to our Constitution, saying that no further laws, impacting gun rights, could be passed, after a simultaneous package of these laws was passed. Again, however, this seems a legislative "Hail Mary," when it has been so difficult to pass even a universal background check law, which enjoys broad support; the resistance to your suggestion, would come from the Right, as well as the Left.

 

The same could be said about when you're going to eat breakfast, so that's not a super-high bar.

 

Fair enough. I've seen few atheists refer to morality in a good or evil connotation. It's typically a description used by the religious, but as I stated (and meant) you can "go with it" as a description.

 

what failure was it when we carried 72% of the war for your team a while back? Is that why you’re speaking the kings English and not German?

 

Ill use the gun but only because you used the term 'imminent murder' and only at that point would I use the gun. If I did not have a gun, flight or fight.

 

Nothing false about it, Quite deliberate. Given that virtually no child is killed by a gun down here, if the child is threatened, there will be no gun and I will do what every parent does....defend my child. I'd do the same if there was a gun.

 

Not everyone has the luxury of flight, or in the case of many women and some men, the ability to fight a larger attacker.

 

Ahh, ever heard of the Black market? Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, so if a criminal wants a gun you're not going to stop him from getting one with silly laws. They're not called criminals because they're law abiding citizens.

 

I'd bet money I don't even have that 62% of the American people can't even properly define today's TOTD (Term Of The Day) which is "assault type weapon" in the first place.

 

No flight, then fight. Show me the links which establish that a smaller person thwarted an attack by a larger person because the smaller person was armed. I bet you can't.