Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

The point I was responding to was the claim that resisting a tyrannical government was "Treason" under US Law. You are arguing counter-factuals that do not bear on the point under discussion.

 

Limiting the ability of the law abiding to protect themselves from the lawless does not enhance their safety. A self defense situation can require a LOT of rounds. For example: Police emptied 210 casings in the final conflict to end the threat from the Marathon Bombers.

If you want a package of legislation, then support this:

i) Increase mandatory sentencing for gun felons: Promptly re-incarcerate violent felons violating their probation by owning firearms. Homicide in this country plummeted by over 60 percent precisely over the same period that gun ownership soared. Why? Thanks to Reagan’s Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), we actually deterred violent criminals with stiff mandatory sentencing. Yet, they were only mandatory from 1987 to 2005. Following the Booker decision of the Supreme Court, they have just been advisory. Take bad guys who use guns (or other weapons) off the streets, not guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

ii) Fix court loophole allowing violent felons back on the streets: In Johnson v. U.S, the Supreme Court ruled that the “crime of violence” provision in the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague. It is simply astounding that Congress has not tried to fix this law, especially in light of Democrats supporting gun control. Now, armed robbers pointing short-barreled shotguns at store clerks avoid tougher sentencing at the same time liberals claim they want to “do something!” about gun violence.

iii) Allow good guys to carry everywhere: While we seek to deter bad guys with guns, peaceful citizens who undergo a background check and licensing to be able to carry in all 50 states with such a license, just as with driver’s licenses. No state has the right to deny an unambiguous constitutional right, and one of the reasons we have a federal government is to protect those rights when states infringe on them.

iv) Fast-track death penalty for mass murderers: It now takes over 20 years to execute someone, essentially rendering capital punishment worthless as a deterrent. Attackers who don’t kill themselves as they attack or are arrested are just the folks that would be deterred by a swift death penalty.

v) Declare war on sanctuary cities: The only thing worse than letting career criminals back on the streets is letting other countries’ career criminals remain in the country.. Nearly every day we see the endless murders, sex assaults, and drunk driving incidents by illegal aliens who are allowed to remain in this country, often after committing other crimes, thanks to sanctuary cities. By definition, these are the most avoidable deaths imaginable. If Democrats are demanding to do something!, we should begin with getting rid of other countries’ criminals by immediately punishing sanctuary cities and by allowing citizens to sue sanctuary officials who release criminal aliens. Congress should also create a fund for victims of illegal aliens out of the money saved from denying grant programs to sanctuaries.

 

Treason? Like our Founding Fathers did?

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm glad that our Founding Fathers raised their guns against the British government and committed treason.

I'm blessed to be living in the greatest country in the World.

Thank you Founding Fathers.

 

Yep, you can.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...4E3CE5666A42E6C86C554E3CE5666A42E&FORM=VDRVRV

 

That is not what the New Hampshire State Constitution Bill of Rights says. It says that only idiots let bureaucrats run over them.

Article 10
Text of Article 10:
Right of Revolution
Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
https://ballotpedia.org/Part_First,_New_Hampshire_Constitution

 

Texas allows ex-convicts to own guns. Why do you want to restrict people’s constitutional freedoms? Would you eliminate an ex-convict’s right to a jury trial in a new case?

In Texas a convicted felon may possess a firearm in the residence in which he lives once five years have elapsed from his release from prison or parole, whichever is later, however if the felony conviction was outside of Texas, Federal Law prohibits possession unless the gun rights of the possessor have been restored in the jurisdiction under which the felony occurred in.[citation needed] A convicted Felon once 5 years removed from release from prison or probation may also private purchase a firearm.[citation needed]Under Texas Penal Code §§ 12.33, 46.04, the unlawful possession of a firearm is a third degree felony with a punishment range of two to ten years for a defendant with one prior felony conviction and fine up to $10,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas

BTW, the push to control guns and limit freedom is led by Jews such as Daniel Horowitz. Why don't they want Gentile Americans to have guns?

 

Gun regulation is never quid pro quo. How bout a 10 round magazine limit in return for concealed carry reciprocity.

 

Resisting a tyrannical government was pretty much what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the 2nd. By and large they did not really trust a central government.

I have no doubt that the statute reads as you say.

 

They didn't say security from natives, just security.

 

So now lefties define a "mass shooting" as one they want to call attention to for political gain. I noticed they completely ignore the "mass shootings" that happen almost daily in Chicago.

 

Criminals today are just as dangerous than the natives were back in the day. The 2A is more essential now than ever before, especially with the left attempting to strip Americans of their rights.

 

I definitely do not agree. Next you will be saying single shot only, because it will save more lives. Then you will say no guns at all, because it will save more lives. Preservation of our rights is far far more important than individual lives. So many lives were given to secure those rights in the first place. Once the 2A is gone, the rest of our freedoms can be taken or altered at the will of the government.

 

Except for the fact that such conditions do remain today. There are those who do indeed need to hunt in order to feed themselves and their family, and to defend themselves from the potential threat posed by others who live within the area. Simply because native americans no longer remain the source of that threat changes nothing.

 

Attempting to save such a minuscule amount does not justify what would be done in an attempt to achieve such.

 

Tell it to the Bundy family and their supporters. They raised their arms against government, and ultimately prevailed in a court of law.

 

lol@3 seconds to change mags. Maybe if you take the time to put the empty mag into your mag pouch. By letting the mag fall to the ground and concentrating on inserting the new mag instead you,or I, could manage to change mags in 1 second. Or less. And once again if you think that mag capacity has any effect on the number of victims, you are wrong.

The VT shooter had far more victims, using 10 round mags.

Here's some education for you.

 

The path of response is to punish those that actually go out of their way to commit a violent crime, such as mass murder. If they end their own existence before such can be done, then society must accept that another one got away, and simply move on, just as it does in all other matters, rather than attempting to react preemptively in hopes of preventing such from occurring again.

 

The weekend of the Odessa shooting there were 37 shootings in Chicago and 7 fatalities.

 

When the 2A was written, THEY JUST GOT DONE FIGHTING THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT FOR INDEPENDENCE AND TO SECURE THEIR FREEDOM!!!!!!

 

And your point? Because your guessing without the raw numbers of shoppers that day as to what would be the percentage of CCW there. And remember, YOU and your like minded ilk swear more CCW across the state would lower/stop violent crime. Well, this example tells a different story. and in typical revisionist fashion, you construct a scenario out of thin air to protect you ever evident absurd NRA/pro-gun propaganda.

 

Here are the facts...

33 years ago in 1986, there were only 8 states that had "shall issue" CCW permits and one state that was unrestricted (no permit required).

Today, there are 26 states that have "shall issue" CCW permits and 16 states that are unrestricted (no permit required).

Since 1990, the murder rate decreased from about 10% down to about 5% today.

Since 1993, homicides by gun have decreased.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ow-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/

You were saying?

 

Oh GMAFB! Folk like you just can't admit you're wrong on any level.....you jokers have been wailing about gun confiscation for well over 30 years every time a gun control legislation is proposed or actually passed on a state or federal level. TO DATE, IT HASN'T HAPPENED AS YOU SWEAR IT WILL. You're like the guy with the "Repent, the end is near" sign, carrying it until he dies...and the world goes on.

 

Not really, because your right to "bear arms" does NOT remove you from State and federal legislation to REGULATE those arms.....that's been going on since the colonial days, don't cha know. Do your homework without NRA filters and you'll see that.

State and federal regulations affect both cars and guns. What's mind boggling is that folk like you have no problem with license and registration of a vehicle for travel and recreation, yet you pass a brick about such for vehicles of death (aka guns). License and registration of guns would actually protect YOU from any liability by a sales recipient or via theft. Nut jobs couldn't get a weapon through private sales or gun shows. And criminals HATE paper trails. But YOU still get your gun. Win, win.

 

All legislation and regulations infringing on my 2A rights are unconstitutional.

 

You do know that the AWB went into effect in 1994, right? I thought you gun lobby lackeys swore it had nothing to do with lowering crime rates. And again, since there has been NO confiscation via the Brad Bill, what's to fear from license and registration?