How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, May 25, 2022.

  1. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    66,755
    Likes Received:
    14,923
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't know you were so loose with the constitution.

    I guess you don't read very well, for I have posted to you, that there are no absolute rights. And you agree with that.
    All rights are granted and enforced by man.

    That's why we have laws that actually violate the constitution. Laws you are in agreement with.
    You just seem unable to actually admit there can be laws that go against the constitution.

    You won't even admit when asked if we should be able to own nukes, claymors, flamethrowers, etc.
    You want those laws against the 2A but deny you are for that.
     
  2. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    34,394
    Likes Received:
    32,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    do you always do nothing but project against others?

    You were the one making the argument you should be able to own nuclear weapons. And I know why you were doing it and I know you don't really believe it and I know you think you're clever but I saw what you were doing from the word go
     
  3. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    66,755
    Likes Received:
    14,923
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When I ask one a direct question several times and they don't answer and deflect that means they agree with the premise of the question.

    Like when I've asked you several times point blank, should we be able to own nukes, claymors, etc and you dodge and deflect.
    That is because you don't think we should own them, even though that is against the 2A.

    If you think we should be able to own them, then state it.

    What is it I have been doing from the word go?

    Stop dilly dallying and make an actual point for once.
     
  4. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    16,486
    Likes Received:
    9,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In principle, they are the same or similar insofar as prohibition doesn't work for each. But structurally they are different warranting different solutions.
    Sure, mental health issues are appropriate for school shooters, but catching them before they kill is not easy, but more effort, of course, should be mead. Mafia, more powerful criminals, might be able to smuggle, and so forth, but regulating guns will go a long ways to prevent school shooters, who dono't have the power, connections to acquire those weapons if they were regulated. Maybe we can't slow the mafia much, or similar caliber criminals, but we could on the school shooting front, which gets the lion share of publicity. In fact, I believe we should make it illegal to publish school shootings, since they are motivated by the notoriety they will receive by doing it. They are sick in that way.
    The exact opposite is true. The logic behind the war on drugs is that it can be stopped altogether via prohibition, which was the same logic behind prohibition of alcohol.

    If you realize you can't stop alcohol, but only put a dent in it, then you will lift prohibition in favor of education and treatment.

    Same goes for drugs.

    That's not a point of logic, it's a statement of fact.

    That being said, no one is suggesting making murder and other criminal acts, not of vice, but of greed and desire to injure others, legal.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2022
  5. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    66,755
    Likes Received:
    14,923
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Let's make this very very simple.
    Since you want to run away.

    Is the constitution explicit and absolute? Especially the topic we are discussing. Arms rights. Yes Or NO, Question.

    Is the constitution allowed restrictions and infringements? Yes Or NO, question.


    Make your actual point and not run away.
     
  6. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,944
    Likes Received:
    709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ...and now the US is the despised laughing stock in the democratic world.

    "Tyrannical governments" cannot be elected in functioning democracies. The electorate chooses the government they want in a democracy.

    In fact what you are really doing is protecting your vicious 'survival of the fittest' "right" to claim as much as the nation's resources for yourself as you can.

    That's exactly what I said; namely, the 2nd....to arm yourselves against the natives, and the British (!) in the 18th century....

    The NRA hinders gun control measures...and Texas is not Democrat controlled.

    Given the current monetary orthodoxy - in which the public sector must tax or borrow from the self-interested 'dog eat dog' private sector - a non vicious population would raise sufficient taxes to house and employ everyone.

    " Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" : Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

    But your predatory survival of the fittest ideology always seeks to minimize taxes. Even 'Patriotic Millionaires' are disgusted by the current taxation loopholes for the wealthy.

    Er...Texas?

    Predators always overcome the weak, that's the law of the jungle. But your vicious "individual rights" ideology converts predation in nature, to 'greed is good' in human society. Hence turning your back on homelessness and entrenched poverty, always finding excuses to blame the victims.

    Examined above. Let's see now crippling US hyper-partisanship becomes, as greed - backed by the 2nd ("to prevent a tyrannical government ") tears the nation apart.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2022
  7. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    34,394
    Likes Received:
    32,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one is running away from you.

    Far from it. You are the one that made the argument that it allows you to own nuclear weapons.

    So before I answer your questions I want you to answer mine.... Do you believe the second amendment allows you to own nuclear weapons?
     
  8. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    20,188
    Likes Received:
    19,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It sounds like Trudeau is being responsive and proactive. I wish we had competent leadership.


    Image2.jpg
     
  9. Condor060

    Condor060 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    10,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then you should move to a more Enlighted entitled country. Like North Korea. They have everything you want

    You should tell that to Cuba and Venezuela. :roflol:

    :roflol:

    :roflol:

    Non vicious = Entitled lol

    Why would anyone blame the homeless for their own success :roflol:
     
  10. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,944
    Likes Received:
    709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Er, Canada is closer....

    Th homeless aren't experiencing success; your vicious survival of the fittest ideology - enforced by the US constitution - is the cause of their failure.

    See how your reptilian brain (instinct) - triumphing over your cortex brain (rational) - has rendered you incapable of simple logic?

    Speaking of the US constitution:

    (link)

    The Real Reason America Doesn’t Have Gun Control - The Atlantic



    The basic rules of American democracy provide a veto over national policy to a minority of the states.

    After each of the repeated mass shootings that now provide a tragic backbeat to American life, the same doomed dance of legislation quickly begins. As the outraged demands for action are inevitably derailed in Congress, disappointed gun-control advocates, and perplexed ordinary citizens, point their fingers at the influence of the National Rifle Association or the intransigent opposition of congressional Republicans. Those are both legitimate factors, but the stalemate over gun-control legislation since Bill Clinton’s first presidential term ultimately rests on a much deeper problem: the growing crisis of majority rule in American politics.

    Polls are clear that while Americans don’t believe gun control would solve all of the problems associated with gun violence, a commanding majority supports the central priorities of gun-control advocates, including universal background checks and an assault-weapons ban. Yet despite this overwhelming consensus, it’s highly unlikely that the massacre of at least 19 schoolchildren and two adults in Uvalde, Texas, yesterday, or President Joe Biden’s emotional plea for action last night, will result in legislative action.

    That’s because gun control is one of many issues in which majority opinion in the nation runs into the brick wall of a Senate rule—the filibuster—that provides a veto over national policy to a minority of the states, most of them small, largely rural, preponderantly white, and dominated by Republicans.


    The disproportionate influence of small states has come to shape the competition for national power in America. Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, something no party had done since the formation of the modern party system in 1828. Yet Republicans have controlled the White House after three of those elections instead of one, twice winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.

    In their opposition to gun control, Republicans in Congress clearly are prioritizing the sentiments of gun owners in their party over any other perspective, even that of other Republican voters. The Pew polling found that significant majorities of Americans support background checks (81 percent), an assault-weapons ban (63 percent), and a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines (64 percent); a majority also opposes concealed carry of weapons without a permit. Majorities of Republicans who don’t own guns shared those opinions, as did Democratic gun owners, by even more lopsided margins. Even most Republicans who do own guns said in the polling that they support background checks and oppose permitless concealed carry (which more red states, including Texas, are authorizing). Despite all of this, Republican elected officials, in their near-lockstep opposition to gun control, have bent to groups like the NRA in equating almost any restrictions as a sign of disrespect to the values of red America.


    "Red America".... full of instinctively paranoid survival of the fittest thugs who are scared of democratic government. Not that such language will assist with your enlightenment, only the decline of the nation - before its eventual resurrection - will achieve that....
     
  11. Condor060

    Condor060 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    10,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yet California, with some of the strictest gun laws on the books, has the nations highest homeless population.
    So now California is the most vicious survival of the fittest state?
    FAIL

    Says the poster who claims California is the most vicious survival of the fittest ideology.
    FAIL



    Yet each state controls their own gun legislation.
    FAIL

    If it was survival of the fitest, their wouldn't be any lefty (oh that gun hurts my feelings) idiots left to complain about it. lol
    FAIL

    Its the same ole song from the same ole entitled lefties.
     
  12. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,944
    Likes Received:
    709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    O ye of little intellect: CA has the largest population in the US, and it too is subject to the vicissitudes of the dysfunctional NAIRU neoliberal economy.

    No, Ca is among the least vicious, but its large population ensures greater homelessness, and crime (including gun violence) given the dysfunctional economic orthodoxy in the US.

    But the US "crisis of majority rule" as examined in the 'Atlantic article, ensures sensible gun control wanted by the entire nation cannot be legislated across the entire nation. (That monster who murdered 10 blacks in a church the week before traveled from another state).

    And Texas paid the ultimate price a few days ago.

    Your instinctive reptilian brain on full display....the lives of children don't register in your paranoid, 'right to bear arms', anti-government ideology

    Keep digging.....
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  13. Condor060

    Condor060 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    10,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Even in that Liberal utopia?
    Say it ain't so lol

    California is only 11% of the population but has over 22% of the nations homeless.
    The highest homeless rate per population in the country
    If your liberal mythical gun free. Conservative dog eat dog, majority rule, utopia claims were true, then why is the Liberal utopia of California have the highest homeless population per capita in the country, the highest mass shooting statistics, and the highest gun violence in the country?
    Oh, thats right, because you said they have the highest population in the country.
    And if thats true then the you can't even prove a single point you made thus far in your own blue Liberal sanctuary.
    Isn't it so amazing how only you know all this information but you don't have a single state you can reference in your defense. Not even California.
    Hilarious
    FAIL

    Then you should be able to amend the 2nd amendment easy if that were true.
    But you can't so your fake idea fails under its own weight lol

    Running for the point again? Yeah, I thought you would.
    Got caught with your pants down not knowing each state has its own gun legislation.
    Another fake claim bites the dust

    Personal attacks are the last refuge of the intellectual weak.
    Usually because the poster isn't capable of disputing a claim.
    You do it more than anyone I have ever seen on PF.
    This is the best you have?
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  14. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    66,755
    Likes Received:
    14,923
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Another dodge. Or running away if you will.
    4X now you have not answered. And I made it very simple. Yes or No. And you still could not answer.

    That means you are for infringements of the 2A.
    That we as a society can enact certain restrictions on the constitution.

    ...
    Second Amendment

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    ...
    The 2A is very explicitly defined. Shall not be infringed. Arms.
    A nuclear weapon is an arm.

    Yes, the 2A allows it if is to be followed as written.
    It can't be stated any clearer. Shall NOT be infringed is pretty straight forward with no ambiguity.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  15. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    18,891
    Likes Received:
    1,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't preclude "dangerous weapons" as Scalia said; however, the definition of "dangerous weapon" has yet to be determined precisely other than military weapons. Right now, the way Heller is decided, no ban on any type of firearm is going to happen given the makeup of the Court and the Heller ruling. That is reality. Since we are talking about AR15s, AK47s, and other such weapons that are sold to the general public, the Heller Decision has effectively

    Generally, they are if and only if the administrative process is intact for said red flag laws. However, given the power of the NRA, these laws can only apply at certain states and are generally opposed by the NRA. Hence the problem.

    The reason for special courts, like Drug Courts or Family Courts, it to help alleviate the backlog for said red flag laws. Hearings would have to be within 2 weeks of said notice to determine if there is enough evidence to temporarily take away the firearms based on certain criteria. If we don't, then it could take two, three or even four years for that, and that is too late for red flag laws to be effective IMO.

    I don't see how it is a federal requirement, but a state requirement. Does not apply to the interstate commerce clause.

    That still does not solve the enforcement part. What good are penalities and jail time if the government cannot enforce the laws because of a lack of funding and personnel?

    I agree, but that would require ATF to investigate such crimes. It is their primary responsibility for most firearm and explosive regulatory enforcement, even criminal ones.

    I think it should be mandated as part of selling the firearms. Right now, we have the technology, but gun manufacturers still do not do that on a voluntary basis because of the stance by the NRA.
     
  16. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    34,394
    Likes Received:
    32,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one is running away from you or dodging any damn thing you're nothing to run away from.

    I already answered your question if you'd read the damn post you'd have seen it
     
  17. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    66,755
    Likes Received:
    14,923
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No you didn't. See your post above.

    I did answer yours, now for the 5th, you won't answer.
    If you did, link back to that post.
     
  18. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,944
    Likes Received:
    709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are a confused bunny. CA is neither free of guns nor the current vicious dog eat dog neoliberal economic orthodoxy.

    As the article pointed out, the crisis of majority rule in the US means gun lovers in the smaller population blue states can block legislation desired by the majority of Americans.


    See... your paranoid gun loving, anti - (tyrannical British!) government brain is blinded by its own ideology. State laws need to complement national laws, to reduce chances of both state and interstate gun-violence catastrophes.


    Ad hominems are not a legitimate form of debate, except when an opponent's ideology is responsible for monstrous outcomes like mass slaughter of innocents.

    Your paranoid, instinct-driven fear of government needs to be exposed for what is, namely, a form of psychosis.

    The Canadian PM today asked why would anyone need guns in everyday life...he doesn't understand the paranoid Right's hatred of government.

    Certainly no-one is facing up the causes of all this madness, namely, a mixture of instinctive survival of the fittest greed, and delusional fear of 'tyrannical' government.

    Guess what, Britain is no longer threatening your "freedom"; and no other nation wants to conquer the US whose security is guaranteed by the world's most powerful "well regulated Militia"....

    [Meanwhile international law - outlawing war as a means of dispute settlement between nations - backed by a UNSC without veto would be good thing, in the coming decades when China's economy will be twice and more the size of the US economy...

    But collectively, we have to overcome the double whammy of individuals' (instinctive) paranoia and greed noted above....before we can establish international law].
     
  19. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    34,394
    Likes Received:
    32,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not going to sit here and dig through 3 days worth of exchanges to find the answer I already gave you.

    You should have already read it and if you have not then I don't really care
     
  20. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    18,891
    Likes Received:
    1,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The most common type of firearm used is the handgun. The most common type of firearm used in mass shootings is the AR15 and the AK47. All AR15 and AK47 are semiautomatic unless modified illegally to fully automatic, or close to automatic with bump stocks.


    You are not doing that at all. You have not taken responsibility here in this forum with some of your posts, but that is a different discussion.


    Some of our first laws were import laws in which certain flintlocks were not allowed to be imported into the United States. The first "ban" happened in the South after the Civil War when the Southern States began to ban the sale of firearms to the newly free black slaves living in the South. That law was overturned in 1875 by the Supreme Court in the United States vs Cruikshank.

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

    I fail to see what suicides in Japan have to do with anything other than the fact that you don't know much about Japan. Yes, suicides in Japan do go up, but what you fail to understand is that suicides in Japan is considered a good thing, not a bad thing. It is considered an "honorable" death to save face when a person fails to do something, such as not passing a test to get into a top university, or failed their job, or failed their parents, etc.

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

    There has technically been no detailed studies you are thinking of when it comes to mass casualty events. Mass shootings are intermingled with all other homicides under FBI statistics in a general sense unless the FBI conducts an additional study. However, of the past 22 mass shooting incidents, a majority were either .223 caliber style, semiautomatic rifles and/or high capacity magazines. In addition, some mistakes were made such as Dylan Roof and a few others. What is causing the problems is not the type of firearm, but the availability of firearms that can be obtained, quite literally, in every street corner of the country, especially in private sales. And in a lot of these cases, there is some warning signs but people either ignored them or excused them. Thus, compounding the problem.

    Yes, politicians love to step up on the podium and use fear tactics, especially people like Ted Cruz. This problem has been intensifying over the past two decades and it has now come to a point where a mass shooting is occurring on a regular basis. Uvalde is the latest, not the last. And the only thing that is happening right now is one side accuses the other side and vice versa. And that's basically it.


    Arguments for owning firearms is categorized into several broad categories, but each category does not even begin to explain why we are having more mass shootings today than 50 years ago. We need to exclude the regular homicides like in Chicago for instance. Conservative groups love to intermingle the two types of groups to


    There is a clear definition of what an "assault weapon is" based on the 1994 law. However, politicians, especially conservative politicians and the NRA, love to obfuscate the definition to include pretty much any firearm to the uneducated.


    Not really. Those same gun manufacturers make the kits to make those weapons fully automatic and sell them to the public. It is not as simple as filing down the firing pin, but the kits are there. There are kits such as bump stocks that can take a semiautomatic and make them "near" automatic. The point is that gun manufacturer are just as culpable, but not as obvious about it.


    It's not semantics. They are against any and all measures, no matter what they are.


    And the NRA is against all of them, period. They have had that philosophy since 2016.
     
  21. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    66,755
    Likes Received:
    14,923
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK, then what is your answer?

    Since you've never given it, that's why you can't go back and find it.
    Just run run run.

    Finish this question then, The 2A allows infringement of some weapons because.... This is where you can make your claim
     
  22. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    66,755
    Likes Received:
    14,923
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here I did it for you.
    All the way back to Saturday. 4 days of your posts to me.

    Kindly point out your answer. And it only took 2 minutes.
     
  23. Condor060

    Condor060 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    10,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Another deflection
    If your claimed vicious dog eat dog neoliberal economic orthodoxy is about gun loving conservatives, why does the most liberal state in the country have the most mass shootings and the highest homelessness per capita in the country?
    But you go ahead and keep running from that question as it only proves ones thing.
    It doesn't fit into you crazy conspiracy theory.

    So Democrat run states are all gun lovers too? Funny

    Gun laws are regulated on a state level and gun laws vary from one state to the next. There are many federal firearm laws in place, and they apply to all 50 states, but beyond the laws set forth by the federal government, state gun laws cannot be changed by the federal government.
    The fact that you ignore this fact means you are clueless and have no idea what your talking about.

    Everything else you posted was just mindless blah blah blah.
     
  24. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    34,394
    Likes Received:
    32,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess you simply can't see the second post of mine that you quoted then?

    I was agreeing with you but I don't think either one of us believes you can own nuclear weapons and we both know that.

    I knew what you were up to as soon as you asked the question you're trying to make the argument that the second amendment can be limited but my counter argument is who the hell determines how it can be limited by who when and where?
     
  25. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    34,394
    Likes Received:
    32,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not trying to go and delete all of your posts that I'm not responding to but I just wanted to address one point....

    In regards to the first gun laws being made in the South to keep blacks from having guns that would have been the Democrats and to this day it is the Democrats that are still trying to keep guns out of the hands of poor people.

    *Edit..

    Did you know that you can bump fire any semi-automatic firearm with a simple way that you hold the forestock and your trigger finger?

    And you don't file down the firing pin to make a full auto you file down the sear.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2022

Share This Page