Meanwhile, 1500 miles from the Mexican border

[HWoodNixon]

https://abc7chicago.com/live--aurora-shooting-leaves-multiple-wounded-large-police-presence-confirmed-by-kane-county-sheriff/5140701/

It ain’t the brown migrants you have to worry about. It’s the psychopathic dumbass white peoples with penis envy with guns. Lmao

[boutons_deux]

"an active shooter situation" :lol

"neutralized" :lol

"officer-involved shooting" :lol

fucking stupid cop speak, must have been indoctrinated in Army speak.

[DMC]

https://abc7chicago.com/live--aurora-shooting-leaves-multiple-wounded-large-police-presence-confirmed-by-kane-county-sheriff/5140701/

It ain’t the brown migrants you have to worry about. It’s the psychopathic dumbass white peoples with penis envy with guns. Lmao

But the odds of being attacked by someone with a gun are pretty insignificant, therefore you don't need a gun to protect yourself. Right?

[HWoodNixon]

Trump supporters awfully quiet. Bunch of fucking idiots. White people are the bigger threat and national emergency in the country lol

[HWoodNixon]

Not about gun control man. Just saying that mass shootings are a bigger threat to the country than “illegals”

[DMC]

Not about gun control man. Just saying that mass shootings are a bigger threat to the country than “illegals”

Not necessarily. It's just the flavor of the moment. If mass shootings were such a threat everyone should be armed. Sensational events don't equate to systemic issues. Undocumented immigrants are systemic, chronic issues. It's not just about "illegal" but "undocumented". There are plenty documented illegal aliens in the US.

I find it interesting that the left thinks an individual should be required to register an inanimate object like a firearm but then people can simply be here completely off the grid, undocumented that they even exist.

[HWoodNixon]

Not necessarily. It's just the flavor of the moment. If mass shootings were such a threat everyone should be armed. Sensational events don't equate to systemic issues. Undocumented immigrants are systemic, chronic issues. It's not just about "illegal" but "undocumented". There are plenty documented illegal aliens in the US.

I find it interesting that the left thinks an individual should be required to register an inanimate object like a firearm but then people can simply be here completely off the grid, undocumented that they even exist.

going by your logic poor health care, quality of education, the wealth gap, poverty, are ALL systemic issues.

also, I don’t see “undocumented” people shooting up schools and movie theaters.

[DMC]

going by your logic poor health care, quality of education, the wealth gap, poverty, are ALL systemic issues.

also, I don’t see “undocumented” people shooting up schools and movie theaters.

They are systemic issues. Do you see escaped convicts shooting up schools and movie theaters? How about people who are carrying the Ebola virus? Child molesters? What about serial killers? Ergo none of them are an issue.

[spurraider21]

Not necessarily. It's just the flavor of the moment. If mass shootings were such a threat everyone should be armed. Sensational events don't equate to systemic issues. Undocumented immigrants are systemic, chronic issues. It's not just about "illegal" but "undocumented". There are plenty documented illegal aliens in the US.

I find it interesting that the left thinks an individual should be required to register an inanimate object like a firearm but then people can simply be here completely off the grid, undocumented that they even exist.
not everybody believes that moar guns is the solution to guns

[HWoodNixon]

They are systemic issues. Do you see escaped convicts shooting up schools and movie theaters? How about people who are carrying the Ebola virus? Child molesters? What about serial killers? Ergo none of them are an issue.

The problem is this. Your statement implies that because something like mass shootings is non-systemic (which is arguable at best) and happens infrequently, it’s not an issue. But mass shootings do happen more frequent in our country than in any other developed one. Secondly, they affect our safety in public. If you argue that terrorism on our soil (which trump implies is brought on by illegals) affects our safety, then you have to argue that mass shootings do the same.

[DMC]

not everybody believes that moar guns is the solution to guns

Because not everybody believes themselves to be in imminent danger. Oddly moar guns are called in to neutralize guys like this. Seems like the solution at the time, certainly those who were shot didn't seem to have a petition to sign at the time requesting tighter gun control laws.

[DMC]

The problem is this. Your statement implies that because something like mass shootings is non-systemic (which is arguable at best) and happens infrequently, it’s not an issue. But mass shootings do happen more frequent in our country than in any other developed one. Secondly, they affect our safety in public. If you argue that terrorism on our soil (which trump implies is brought on by illegals) affects our safety, then you have to argue that mass shootings do the same.

Why does it matter if it's a mass shooting or a single person shot? If you're the victim, it's the same thing. As a 3rd party remote viewer you're more appalled by mass shootings and more frightened, but you have higher odds of being shot by someone you know than being involved in a mass shooting. I'm not saying it's not an issue, I'm saying that statistically mass shootings are insignificant.

Either way, if you're concerned about being caught up in a situation like that, would you rather be armed or disarmed?

[spurraider21]

Because not everybody believes themselves to be in imminent danger. Oddly moar guns are called in to neutralize guys like this. Seems like the solution at the time, certainly those who were shot didn't seem to have a petition to sign at the time requesting tighter gun control laws.
you're too smart to believe the shit you spew, tbh

that's such a spurtacular level distortion of logic

[HWoodNixon]

Why does it matter if it's a mass shooting or a single person shot? If you're the victim, it's the same thing. As a 3rd party remote viewer you're more appalled by mass shootings and more frightened, but you have higher odds of being shot by someone you know than being involved in a mass shooting. I'm not saying it's not an issue, I'm saying that statistically mass shootings are insignificant.

Either way, if you're concerned about being caught up in a situation like that, would you rather be armed or disarmed?

Changing the subject. The argument is that mass shootings and domestic terror at the hands of disgruntled white dudes are a bigger threat than what’s at the border.

[DMC]

you're too smart to believe the shit you spew, tbh

that's such a spurtacular level distortion of logic

Do you think you can stop mass shootings? If not, how would you hope to defend yourself if you were ever involved in one? Show that the shooter has contradicted himself at some point in the past and hand him an lol emoji?

[DMC]

Changing the subject. The argument is that mass shootings and domestic terror at the hands of disgruntled white dudes are a bigger threat than what’s at the border.

So it would be ok if it was disgruntled black dudes?

How many unsolved murders exist right now in El Paso Texas because there's no fingerprints on file for the killers? Bet you have no idea.

[spurraider21]

Do you think you can stop mass shootings? If not, how would you hope to defend yourself if you were ever involved in one? Show that the shooter has contradicted himself at some point in the past and hand him an lol emoji?
do you really think gun control legislation is supposed to work by stopping mass shootings that are currently underway?

[HWoodNixon]

So it would be ok if it was disgruntled black dudes?

How many unsolved murders exist right now in El Paso Texas because there's no fingerprints on file for the killers? Bet you have no idea.

I Dont see disgruntled black dudes shooting up concerts theatres or schools. Want to avoid black dudes with a gun? Get the hell out of south Chicago. Want to avoid disgruntled white dudes? Harder to hide from that. They are the bigger threat.

[spurraider21]

DMC it's like saying smallpox vaccines are worthless because they do nothing to help somebody who already has smallpox

[DMC]

do you really think gun control legislation is supposed to work by stopping mass shootings that are currently underway?

No, which is why i don't rely on legislation to protect me.

[DMC]

DMC it's like saying smallpox vaccines are worthless because they do nothing to help somebody who already has smallpox

Except there's no vaccine for this. Are you saying a person who is in a situation where a mass shooting is unfolding is sentenced to die already? If so I disagree, which is why I say they should be armed. If it was smallpox, they should be vaccinated. You're saying rely on legislation to protect you from smallpox instead of being vaccinated.

A vaccine is the body's version of being "armed". It doesn't stop smallpox from existing, but it does prevent/mitigate the damage it does.

[HWoodNixon]

Want to avoid disgruntled white dudes? You can avoid:
—churches
—temples
—schools
—movie theatres
—concerts
—night clubs
—colleges
—las vegas
—your work place

You know, just about everywhere in the country.

[HWoodNixon]

Except there's no vaccine for this. Are you saying a person who is in a situation where a mass shooting is unfolding is sentenced to die already? If so I disagree, which is why I say they should be armed. If it was smallpox, they should be vaccinated. You're saying rely on legislation to protect you from smallpox instead of being vaccinated.

Sure as long as you register and get a psych evaluation every year. Oh and your children too.

[DMC]

Sure as long as you register and get a psych evaluation every year. Oh and your children too.

Good luck getting that to pass. Everyone wants to be a single person legislative body but all these Utopian fantasies do jack shit to solve the issue.

[DMC]

Want to avoid disgruntled white dudes? You can avoid:
—churches
—temples
—schools
—movie theatres
—concerts
—night clubs
—colleges
—las vegas
—your work place

You know, just about everywhere in the country.

I don't feel the need to avoid them. If you can respond when the time comes, you're all set. The fear is that you'll be a sitting duck, waiting to be shot. If you feel that way you have the ability (perhaps, you could be a felon) to carry a firearm and have some semblance of a fighting chance.

[boutons_deux]

Not about gun control man. Just saying that mass shootings are a bigger threat to the country than “illegals”

homegrown rightwing terrorists have killed more Americans in USA than Muslim terrorists.

Anybody every heard of an illegal immigrant being a mass murderer?

Trash just defunded two Obama :lol programs meant to de-radicalize / rehab white extremist / terrorists.

[spurraider21]

Except there's no vaccine for this. Are you saying a person who is in a situation where a mass shooting is unfolding is sentenced to die already? If so I disagree, which is why I say they should be armed. If it was smallpox, they should be vaccinated. You're saying rely on legislation to protect you from smallpox instead of being vaccinated.

A vaccine is the body's version of being "armed". It doesn't stop smallpox from existing, but it does prevent/mitigate the damage it does.
the point im making is that the legislation is intended to be preventative in nature, and its absurdly disingenuous to make the point you did (victims didnt have a petition while they were getting shot). i didnt say it would eliminate all shootings like a vaccine would eliminate a disease.

[midnightpulp]

Convicted of felony assault in 1995. If he purchased his weapon legally, then yeah, the current gun control provisions aren't working. Reminder: No sensible gun control advocate wants to ban guns, just make as hard as possible for felons and other mentally unstable people to walk into a Turners and buy a gun like he can buy lunch. It's easier to be legal gun owner in this country then to be a legal HAM radio operator. Think about that.

[Trill Clinton]

https://media.giphy.com/media/ygqMjv2x8KSxW/giphy.gif

[HWoodNixon]

homegrown rightwing terrorists have killed more Americans in USA than Muslim terrorists.

Anybody every heard of an illegal immigrant being a mass murderer?

Trash just defunded two Obama :lol programs meant to de-radicalize / rehab white extremist / terrorists.

amen!

[DMC]

the point im making is that the legislation is intended to be preventative in nature, and its absurdly disingenuous to make the point you did (victims didnt have a petition while they were getting shot). i didnt say it would eliminate all shootings like a vaccine would eliminate a disease.
While the legislation is being tossed back and forth for political scores, I'd prefer to have the individual ability to protect myself and my family. You can hope to rely on legislation. I prefer not to.

Vaccines don't eliminate disease. They make you immune to it. The disease exists still.

Long term solution is not my immediate concern. If everyone at that site in Aurora were armed, likely the guy doesn't try that. How many shootings like that occur in police stations? Surely there are some disgruntled police officers. They seem to occur where it's obvious people have no ability to defend themselves.

This has been pointed out time and again. You won't get it though.

[Will Hunting]

Want to avoid disgruntled white dudes? You can avoid:
—churches
—temples
—schools
—movie theatres
—concerts
—night clubs
—colleges
—las vegas
—your work place

You know, just about everywhere in the country.
Grocery stores too, that’s where the incel who was a huge Alex Jones fan shot Gabby Giffords.

[DMC]

Convicted of felony assault in 1995. If he purchased his weapon legally, then yeah, the current gun control provisions aren't working. Reminder: No sensible gun control advocate wants to ban guns, just make as hard as possible for felons and other mentally unstable people to walk into a Turners and buy a gun like he can buy lunch. It's easier to be legal gun owner in this country then to be a legal HAM radio operator. Think about that.

You don't have a constitutional right to be a HAM operator.

[CosmicCowboy]

homegrown rightwing terrorists have killed more Americans in USA than Muslim terrorists.

Anybody every heard of an illegal immigrant being a mass murderer?

Trash just defunded two Obama :lol programs meant to de-radicalize / rehab white extremist / terrorists.

9/11 says hi!

[ducks]

Pistols can be your friend or having one might make someone think before taking theirs out to use

[spurraider21]

Pistols can be your friend or having one might make someone think before taking theirs out to use

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvEXasGJVps

[DMC]

Pistols can be your friend or having one might make someone think before taking theirs out to use

Too many monday morning QBs here. They don't get it that you cannot stop what you don't know to be happening, you can only respond as well as you are prepared to. This isn't a Sims game.

[DMC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvEXasGJVps

This is the level of "give a shit" I associate with you most of the time. You probably concern yourself more with your choice of shoes than self defense.

[HWoodNixon]

You don't have a constitutional right to be a HAM operator.

Outdated. Sophisticated firearms didn’t exist back then and a militia was force enough to handle a corrupt gvt . Now? Not so much.
No one is threatening to take away yer guns.

[ducks]

Too many monday morning QBs here. They don't get it that you cannot stop what you don't know to be happening, you can only respond as well as you are prepared to. This isn't a Sims game.
I see many people carry pistols in Yuma
No mass shootings here

[spurraider21]

This is the level of "give a shit" I associate with you most of the time. You probably concern yourself more with your choice of shoes than self defense.
more narratives

[midnightpulp]

You don't have a constitutional right to be a HAM operator.

In what world does selling a killing machine to a former felon convicted of an aggravated crime make sense? "Well, he paid his debt to society, so he's a de facto free man now and should enjoy all the life, liberty, and happiness pursuits guaranteed by the constitution." Sex offenders are typically banned from using computers/internet for life, banned for life from being within certain distances of schools, playgrounds, etc. This tramples on the sex offender's freedom of speech and freedom of association rights to a degree, but we all see it as a sensible post-incarceration restriction because sex offenders are recividist threats. Violent felons usually are, too.

[Will Hunting]

I see many people carry pistols in Yuma
No mass shootings here
Yeah no shit, it’s fucking Yuma. If a nuclear war were to ever break out I’d move to Yuma because it’s a place that looks like it’s already been nuked.

[HWoodNixon]

In what world does selling a killing machine to a former felon convicted of an aggravated crime make sense? "Well, he paid his debt to society, so he's a de facto free man now and should enjoy all the life, liberty, and happiness pursuits guaranteed by the constitution." Sex offenders are typically banned from using computers/internet for life, banned for life from being within certain distances of schools, playgrounds, etc. This tramples on the sex offender's freedom of speech and freedom of association rights to a degree, but we all see it as a sensible post-incarceration restriction because sex offenders are recividist threats. Violent felons usually are, too.

stop if you’re making too much sense.

[midnightpulp]

You don't have a constitutional right to be a HAM operator.

More on this point. I could argue that I do under the 1st amendment.

[midnightpulp]

Yeah no shit, it’s fucking Yuma. If a nuclear war were to ever break out I’d move to Yuma because it’s a place that looks like it’s already been nuked.

We can reply. "I see many people without guns in Australia, no mass shootings there."

[HWoodNixon]

Grocery stores too, that’s where the incel who was a huge Alex Jones fan shot Gabby Giffords.

That and malls.

[Will Hunting]

We can reply. "I see many people without guns in Australia, no mass shootings there."
:lol don’t even need to do that:
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/az/yuma/crime

Yuma’s crime rate is worse than 85 out of every 100 US cities, so ducks promoting it as if it’s the Mecca of safe gun ownership is just his usual autistic bullshit :lmao

[Will Hunting]

:lmao Yuma also having an unemployment rate over 20%

https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/this-labor-day-these-cities-have-the-highest-unemployment-rate-in-the-u-s.html/

Making the rest of the country more like fucking Yuma is a retarded idea even by ducks’ standards :lol

[spurraider21]

how do hong kong and singapore stop mass shooters oh wait they just dont have any

[Chris]

OP boiled down:

Brown people good.

White people bad.

Orange man bad.

[Chris]

And:

Orange fan mad.

Yes, I'm very upset.

[midnightpulp]

Also, why does the pro-gun crowd always leave out that pesky "well regulated militia" part?

Now granted, we can interpret that phrase in a limitless amount of ways and gun-grabbers have went so far as to claim well regulated militia means military, but if we simply interpret the words by their definitions (regulated: controlled or supervised; militia: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency), I read the phrase to mean "a well trained and trusted (through supervision) civilian population." So requesting prospective gun owners to take a thorough gun safety class and to be of a certain age (21-25) and have a certain background (i.e. not be convicted of violent crime) doesn't in any way trample on your 2nd amendment right.

It's organizations like the NRA that actually trample on the 2nd amendment in their undermining of the well regulated militia concept in order to make guns as easily obtainable as cheeseburgers.

[DMC]

how do hong kong and singapore stop mass shooters oh wait they just dont have any

Except the ones committed by the government.

[Chris]

"Shall not be infringed"

[DMC]

More on this point. I could argue that I do under the 1st amendment.

So you think you are protected by the First Amendment to use any frequency you wish to transmit and receive?

[SpursforSix]

In what world does selling a killing machine to a former felon convicted of an aggravated crime make sense? "Well, he paid his debt to society, so he's a de facto free man now and should enjoy all the life, liberty, and happiness pursuits guaranteed by the constitution." Sex offenders are typically banned from using computers/internet for life, banned for life from being within certain distances of schools, playgrounds, etc. This tramples on the sex offender's freedom of speech and freedom of association rights to a degree, but we all see it as a sensible post-incarceration restriction because sex offenders are recividist threats. Violent felons usually are, too.

I didn’t think a convicted felon could own a gun right out of prison.

[DMC]

more narratives

You're not much of a conversationalist here. I don't spend too much energy on you. You take a shot and disappear.

[DMC]

Also, why does the pro-gun crowd always leave out that pesky "well regulated militia" part?

Now granted, we can interpret that phrase in a limitless amount of ways and gun-grabbers have went so far as to claim well regulated militia means military, but if we simply interpret the words by their definitions (regulated: controlled or supervised; militia: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency), I read the phrase to mean "a well trained and trusted (through supervision) civilian population." So requesting prospective gun owners to take a thorough gun safety class and to be of a certain age (21-25) and have a certain background (i.e. not be convicted of violent crime) doesn't in any way trample on your 2nd amendment right.

It's organizations like the NRA that actually trample on the 2nd amendment in their undermining of the well regulated militia concept in order to make guns as easily obtainable as cheeseburgers.

The Supreme Court left out the well regulated militia part.

[Chris]

I know :-)

lol Stephen King is that you?


https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1096551045671645184

[Chris]

Sooner or later, your shit’s getting infringed on, whether you like it or not. Orange Man just guaranteed it :lmao

Nah, I'm good.

[midnightpulp]

So you think you are protected by the First Amendment to use any frequency you wish to transmit and receive?

HAM radio frequencies are for public use.

[DMC]

HAM radio frequencies are for public use.

Because they are assigned as such by the Federal Communications Commission but they are not for public use because of the Constitution.

[midnightpulp]

The Supreme Court left out the well regulated militia part.

Are you referring to Scalia playing loose with the definition? Before the NRA started lobbying in the late-70s, the definition of the amendment was quite to clear to previous supreme courts. But yeah, let's just arbitrarily not consider a part of the amendment because it's politically convenient. The founders inserted the "well regulated militia" phrase for a reason.

[DMC]

Are you referring to Scalia playing loose with the definition? Before the NRA started lobbying in the late-70s, the definition of the amendment was quite to clear to previous supreme courts. But yeah, let's just arbitrarily not consider a part of the amendment because it's politically convenient. The founders inserted the "well regulated militia" phrase for a reason.

Well we can't turn to the Supreme Court as interpreters of the Bill of Rights only when it suits us. There is precedence and that's what counts.

Caetano v. Massachusetts(2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare."

The founders also inserted shall not be infringed upon but the courts have interpreted that as meaning not Unlimited. I've seen that use here time and again as a defense for over the top gun control suggestions.

The founders did not say only to support a well regulated militia.

Transportation to and from your job being vital to the livelihood of your family, your right to drive a vehicle shall not be infringed upon.

So if you lose your job do you lose your right to drive?

[midnightpulp]

Because they are assigned as such by the Federal Communications Commission but they are not for public use because of the Constitution.

Point is they are for public use ultimately, but to be a HAM radio operator, you need to display competence with the equipment through a licensing procedure. I can say this "draconian" licensing procedure prevents/inconveniences me from broadcasting my opinions (or using them to inform people in my area when an emergency happens) to a wider audience on these so-called public frequencies set aside by the government, thus placing a restriction on my 1st amendment rights.

[midnightpulp]

Well we can't turn to the Supreme Court as interpreters of the Bill of Rights only when it suits us. There is precedence and that's what counts.

Caetano v. Massachusetts(2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare."

Conservatives tend to be constitutional literalists, and I agree. The 2nd amendment uses pretty clear language in my opinion. I suppose it's up to us to decide who and what is "well regulated." Is an 18 year old "well regulated?" Does "well regulated" mean trained? But ultimately, the word regulated exists in the phrase, and regulated means "supervised." A kid walking into a gun shop on his 18th birthday to buy a shotgun without question doesn't meet the criteria of "supervised."

[DMC]

Point is they are for public use ultimately, but to be a HAM radio operator, you need to display competence with the equipment through a licensing procedure. I can say this "draconian" licensing procedure prevents/inconveniences me from broadcasting my opinions (or using them to inform people in my area when an emergency happens) to a wider audience on these so-called public frequencies set aside by the government, thus placing a restriction on my 1st amendment rights.

Would you like for the HAM radio community to be like reddit or 4Chan?

I can buy a radio without getting any kind of license. I just won't get a number or call sign. Same with handguns. I can't conceal a handgun legally without going through lengthy class and vetting procedure from the federal government and local authorities. That's probably ten times more than what a ham radio operator has to go through.

[midnightpulp]

Would you like for the HAM radio community to be like reddit or 4Chan?

Exactly! That's why the restrictions make sense. On the same token, I don't want my city's community to look like the Wild West nor do I want my educational community (i.e. schools) to like a prison, with armed guards around, metal detectors, and active shooter drills.

[DMC]

Conservatives tend to be constitutional literalists, and I agree. The 2nd amendment uses pretty clear language in my opinion. I suppose it's up to us to decide who and what is "well regulated." Is an 18 year old "well regulated?" Does "well regulated" mean trained? But ultimately, the word regulated exists in the phrase, and regulated means "supervised." A kid walking into a gun shop on his 18th birthday to buy a shotgun without question doesn't meet the criteria of "supervised."
It doesn't list regulated militia as being a requirement to own a firearm though. It just says that the right to own a firearm shall not be infringed upon and gave one reason why, but that doesn't make it the only reason. An 18 year old can certainly join the Army and get shot in the face.

Also the Second Amendment doesn't grant that right, the right already existed which is why it says it shall not be infringed upon.

[spurraider21]

It doesn't list regulated militia as being a requirement to own a firearm though. It just says that the right to own a firearm shall not be infringed upon and gave one reason why, but that doesn't make it the only reason. An 18 year old can certainly join the Army and get shot in the face.
its pretty weird that in a 27 word amendment, 13 of the words are just throwaways and merely a suggestion...


Also the Second Amendment doesn't grant that right, the right already existed which is why it says it shall not be infringed upon.
:lol i mean yeah everything is legal until there is a law that makes it illegal

[midnightpulp]

It doesn't list regulated militia as being a requirement to own a firearm though. It just says that the right to own a firearm shall not be infringed upon and gave one reason why, but that doesn't make it the only reason. An 18 year old can certainly join the Army and get shot in the face.

Also the Second Amendment doesn't grant that right, the right already existed which is why it says it shall not be infringed upon.

Their grammatical rules were a bit different then. In modern parlance, it would read: "The rights of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This was clear to previous Supreme Courts before the NRA turned into a lobbying firm.

Furthermore, the government infringes on your 2nd amendment rights anyway by not allowing you to own anything beyond small arms. The 2nd amendment never future proofed itself nor did it specify small arms only. But we don't allow civilians to own SAMs because it makes sense. I think desiring that responsible, trained, and vetted citizens are the only citizens allowed to own firearms makes sense.

[midnightpulp]

Exactly! That's why the restrictions make sense. On the same token, I don't want my city's community to look like the Wild West nor do I want my educational community (i.e. schools) to like a prison, with armed guards around, metal detectors, and active shooter drills.

I also don't want to be forced into buying a gun because I have to worry about the other guy with a gun. But if I know the other guy with the gun went through a comprehensive training course, has a spotless criminal history, and was psychologically evaluated, then I don't have to worry nearly as much. The corollary is driving. When you take the road, you have at least some comfort knowing you're on the road with fellow licensed drivers. If you had to take the road knowing that everyone can be allowed to drive once they turn 16, the situation becomes a lot more stressful.

[phxspurfan]

RIP laser optics

[Chris]

Psychological evaluation to purchase a gun sounds very Orwellian to me.

[midnightpulp]

Psychological evaluation to purchase a gun sounds very Orwellian to me.

I would only approve of it in certain cases, like people with misdemeanor domestic violence charges or war veterans (I know that seems paradoxical. But PTSD isn't a joke, and I don't like the idea of PTSD sufferers having access to firearms for my sake or their own).

[midnightpulp]

Psychological evaluation to purchase a gun sounds very Orwellian to me.

Also, I think you (or any rational person would agree). If a schizophrenic came to you, gave you money, and asked you to buy a gun for him or loan him a gun, I doubt you would. "Well, I wouldn't because if he did something bad, gun would be traced to me." Let's assume gun can't be traced. You still wouldn't loan a schizo a gun because you know it's an idiotic idea. Nor would you probably loan a gun to a vet with severe PTSD.

[DMC]

its pretty weird that in a 27 word amendment, 13 of the words are just throwaways and merely a suggestion...


Ok. And?


:lol i mean yeah everything is legal until there is a law that makes it illegal
Why are you equating rights with laws? I didn't say it was legal. I said it was a right.

[DMC]

Also, I think you (or any rational person would agree). If a schizophrenic came to you, gave you money, and asked you to buy a gun for him or loan him a gun, I doubt you would. "Well, I wouldn't because if he did something bad, gun would be traced to me." Let's assume gun can't be traced. You still wouldn't loan a schizo a gun because you know it's an idiotic idea. Nor would you probably loan a gun to a vet with severe PTSD.

If a schizophrenic came to me and wanted to use the airwaves to broadcast nonsense, knowing they are schizophrenic I would deny them if I was in control of it. That doesn't mean everyone who wants to use the airwaves needs a psychological evaluation.

[Chris]

I would only approve of it in certain cases, like people with misdemeanor domestic violence charges or war veterans (I know that seems paradoxical. But PTSD isn't a joke, and I don't like the idea of PTSD sufferers having access to firearms for my sake or their own).

I'm cool with vets buying guns, and I think backround checks are sufficient if they list mental disorders.


Also, I think you (or any rational person would agree). If a schizophrenic came to you, gave you money, and asked you to buy a gun for him or loan him a gun, I doubt you would. "Well, I wouldn't because if he did something bad, gun would be traced to me." Let's assume gun can't be traced. You still wouldn't loan a schizo a gun because you know it's an idiotic idea. Nor would you probably loan a gun to a vet with severe PTSD.

I wouldn't let anyone borrow my gun, but that's a non sequitur.

[DMC]

Their grammatical rules were a bit different then. In modern parlance, it would read: "The rights of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This was clear to previous Supreme Courts before the NRA turned into a lobbying firm.

Furthermore, the government infringes on your 2nd amendment rights anyway by not allowing you to own anything beyond small arms. The 2nd amendment never future proofed itself nor did it specify small arms only. But we don't allow civilians to own SAMs because it makes sense. I think desiring that responsible, trained, and vetted citizens are the only citizens allowed to own firearms makes sense.

The "makes sense" isn't a poll result taken by Gallup. the Supreme Court is the deciding body. The strawman of surface to air missiles is well worn, but you should have said nuclear bombs.

[Nathan89]

I Dont see disgruntled black dudes shooting up concerts theatres or schools. Want to avoid black dudes with a gun? Get the hell out of south Chicago. Want to avoid disgruntled white dudes? Harder to hide from that. They are the bigger threat.

You are still more likely be killed by a black dude then the rare white guy shooting. They commit 50% of homicides. Your white flight solution is illogical. Move away from blacks because they are dangerous but your position is that whites are the bigger threat. Try again with your narrative. It needs work.

[Winehole23]

As usual, Nathan89 overreads the numbers (61% of murders aren't solved, murders by race only count incidents were one person shot and killed one other person).

His characterization of "white guy shootings " as rare doesn't bear momentary scrutiny. By no reasonable interpretation is ~20% of murders by race rare.

Numbers below are from 2015.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers%3fcontext=amp

[Winehole23]

Note also the small absolute numbers of incidents characterized as white on black (229) or black on white (504) compared to the total number of homicides (15,696).

The numbers do tell a story, but it's one so far from complete that it may be misleading.

[Winehole23]

Sure let's take money from the DOD to fix the crisis of illegal border crossings at a 50 year low:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-army/army-calls-base-housing-hazards-unconscionable-details-steps-to-protect-families-idUSKCN1Q4275?

[pgardn]

If a schizophrenic came to me and wanted to use the airwaves to broadcast nonsense, knowing they are schizophrenic I would deny them if I was in control of it. That doesn't mean everyone who wants to use the airwaves needs a psychological evaluation.

He used the ham radio example for licensing thus competence with the equipment. You then tie this to the distribution of mechanical devices to people who are divorced from reality.... mechanical devices that use explosions to hurl projectiles at very high speeds. Fear the deadly radio wave. I find you guilty of habitual use of quantum Leap arguments.

Yet again a seriously awful argument. Waiting for any possible extension of first amendment rights to individual ownership of nuclear weapons.

[HWoodNixon]

You are still more likely be killed by a black dude then the rare white guy shooting. They commit 50% of homicides. Your white flight solution is illogical. Move away from blacks because they are dangerous but your position is that whites are the bigger threat. Try again with your narrative. It needs work.

saying it’s easier to avoid black homicide than white because black homocide is concentrated in poor areas. White men aren’t picky they’ll shoot up that about anywhere

[midnightpulp]

I wouldn't let anyone borrow my gun, but that's a non sequitur.

It's a thought experiment. Not to be taken literally. But I'll rephrase it. You're a gun shop owner and a friend of yours you know suffers from paranoid schizophrenia comes in to buy a gun. He's having a "good day" showing no signs of the symptoms. But you know the severity of his symptoms waxes and wanes day to day, week to week, etc. Do you sell him a shotgun? Unless you have a very loose moral compass, you probably don't. However, if the gun shop owner didn't know him, he'd believe the man to be mentally stable and sell him the shotgun without question.

Now is it fair to deny a schizophrenic his 2nd amendment rights if he has no previous history of violent behavior? I don't know. I would think that's a situation you evaluate on a case-by-case basis via a psychological evaluation. If the sufferer is deemed to be a non-violent threat by a professional, then maybe. Ultimately, I'm not comfortable with schizophrenics or PTSD sufferers having firearms.

[midnightpulp]

The "makes sense" isn't a poll result taken by Gallup. the Supreme Court is the deciding body. The strawman of surface to air missiles is well worn, but you should have said nuclear bombs.

And Supreme Courts can't be biased, lobbied, or manipulated into making decisions that seem to defy common sense? If your argument is, "Well, that's the way our system works. Just have to deal with it and respect it." Fair enough, I suppose, but I don't impart infallibility to the Supreme Court.

I don't think referencing weapons other than small arms to explore arbitrary interpretations and applications of the 2nd amendment is a strawman. Going by the words at face value, you should be permitted to own a nuclear weapon. Like I said, the framers didn't futureproof it nor make a distinction between muskets and cannons. We don't allow citizens to own bombs because it makes sense. Ultimate point though is that the well regulated militia phrase does exist and seems to be willfully ignored or at the very least loosely interpreted.

[pgardn]

And Supreme Courts can't be biased, lobbied, or manipulated into making decisions that seem to defy common sense? If your argument is, "Well, that's the way our system works. Just have to deal with it and respect it." Fair enough, I suppose, but I don't impart infallibility to the Supreme Court.

I don't think referencing weapons other than small arms to explore arbitrary interpretations and applications of the 2nd amendment is a strawman. Going by the words at face value, you should be permitted to own a nuclear weapon. Like I said, the framers didn't futureproof it nor make a distinction between muskets and cannons. We don't allow citizens to own bombs because it makes sense. Ultimate point though is that the well regulated militia phrase does exist and seems to be willfully ignored or at the very least loosely interpreted.

At some point making sense has to become important in the present. We can do this out of a concern for basic humanity instead of silly pseudo intellectual gotcha arguments. Basic human rights did not necessarily come out of some intellectual truth.- Isn’t derived out of some sort of physical constant concerning the universe.

[pgardn]

And I think there are some huge impractical barriers to taking up firearms in the United States.
Some might call this common sense based on peliminary data concerning the widespread use of firearms for many different purposes. In the US of course.

[midnightpulp]

And I think there are some huge impractical barriers to taking up firearms in the United States.
Some might call this common sense based on peliminary data concerning the widespread use of firearms for many different purposes. In the US of course.

I don't think any reasonable person who leans left wants wholesale gun grabbing, just a few more provisions in place to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, like the mentally ill and former felons. I also want my fellow American gun owners to be competent users, which is why I advocate for mandatory training courses before you can get a license to purchase a firearm. Basically, make it like the licensing procedure to drive a car. 21 year old age limit too. 18 year olds are not adults. That was a number picked out of a hat.

[ducks]

Sure let's take money from the DOD to fix the crisis of illegal border crossings at a 50 year low:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-army/army-calls-base-housing-hazards-unconscionable-details-steps-to-protect-families-idUSKCN1Q4275?the army wasted lots of money hiring some company
The company should pay to fix the issues not the army

[Winehole23]

But Trump promised Mezico would pay.

Why is he stealing appropriated funds from the US taxpayers to do it?

That's not what I call keeping a promise, that's what I call Trump ripping us off because his mouth wrote a check his butt couldn't cash.

[DMC]

And Supreme Courts can't be biased, lobbied, or manipulated into making decisions that seem to defy common sense? If your argument is, "Well, that's the way our system works. Just have to deal with it and respect it." Fair enough, I suppose, but I don't impart infallibility to the Supreme Court.

I don't think referencing weapons other than small arms to explore arbitrary interpretations and applications of the 2nd amendment is a strawman. Going by the words at face value, you should be permitted to own a nuclear weapon. Like I said, the framers didn't futureproof it nor make a distinction between muskets and cannons. We don't allow citizens to own bombs because it makes sense. Ultimate point though is that the well regulated militia phrase does exist and seems to be willfully ignored or at the very least loosely interpreted.
Sure it exists but it doesn't exist as a caveat. It doesn't say that a well regulated militia has to exist prior to someone having the right to keep and bear arms. The ability to form a well regulated militia is paramount according to Madison in The Federalist Papers. How can that happen if you don't have the right to keep and bear arms?

Then the Supreme Court rule that a well regulated militia isn't the only reason to keep and bear arms, that's self-defense is a reason as well.

If you're going to throw out the Supreme Court decisions with interpretation to the Bill of Rights then you have a long hard road ahead of you. The 2nd Amendment has been around since the original writing of the Bill of Rights and and the couple hundred years since its existence for some reason it's still there. so although technology has changed and certainly our forefathers couldn't have imagined some of the things we have today with regards to firearms, this issue has been Revisited Time and Again by our Supreme Court since it was originally penned. Please don't act like we rely solely on the original text. However the original text does clearly State shall not be infringed upon. Everything you're trying to do includes infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. Whether I agree or disagree with some of your suggestions is beside the point.

If you had a good friend you knew was a raging alcoholic and who drove intoxicated on a regular basis, and you owned a car dealership and your friend wanted to buy a vehicle from you, would you sell it to them?

If you say you would then aren't you just contributing to the eventual death of a family by this drunk driver? If you say you would not, does that mean that everyone who wants to buy a vehicle should have to go through alcohol screening to make sure they're not an alcoholic? Do they have to be observed by a doctor and have blood work taken?

[DMC]

But Trump promised Mezico would pay.

Why is he stealing appropriated funds from the US taxpayers to do it?

That's not what I call keeping a promise, that's what I call Trump ripping us off because his mouth wrote a check his butt couldn't cash.

Would you be okay with the wall if Mexico paid for it?

[DMC]

He used the ham radio example for licensing thus competence with the equipment. You then tie this to the distribution of mechanical devices to people who are divorced from reality.... mechanical devices that use explosions to hurl projectiles at very high speeds. Fear the deadly radio wave. I find you guilty of habitual use of quantum Leap arguments.

Yet again a seriously awful argument. Waiting for any possible extension of first amendment rights to individual ownership of nuclear weapons.

He was talking about the 2nd Amendment I was talking about the first. Wasn't talking about ham radio at all. The rest of your shit is gibberish have no idea what you're talkin about.

[pgardn]

He was talking about the 2nd Amendment I was talking about the first. Wasn't talking about ham radio at all. The rest of your shit is gibberish have no idea what you're talkin about.

Bullshit.

And of course you don’t.
You think wind speed is measured by finger and read in braille.

[CosmicCowboy]

But Trump promised Mezico would pay.

Why is he stealing appropriated funds from the US taxpayers to do it?

That's not what I call keeping a promise, that's what I call Trump ripping us off because his mouth wrote a check his butt couldn't cash.

*benghazi!!!!*

[ducks]

But Trump promised Mezico would pay.

Why is he stealing appropriated funds from the US taxpayers to do it?

That's not what I call keeping a promise, that's what I call Trump ripping us off because his mouth wrote a check his butt couldn't cash.
New trade deal Mexico is paying for it
If Mexico had walls to keep illegall coming in
USA would not need to

[Winehole23]

*benghazi!!!!*yeah, red team couldn't cash that check either.

[DMC]

Bullshit.

And of course you don’t.
You think wind speed is measured by finger and read in braille.

Stop interjecting with your brain droppings you semi-retarded fuck.

[pgardn]

Stop interjecting with your brain droppings you semi-retarded fuck.m

Nice old man!

[Blake]

New trade deal Mexico is paying for it
If Mexico had walls to keep illegall coming in
USA would not need to

Mexico is not gonna pay for anything.

[ducks]

If they were smart the would folk money for solar walls and help their economy
Or
Would
You rather tax all money going there from USA
Since it is their second biggest contribute to their economy

[midnightpulp]

Sure it exists but it doesn't exist as a caveat. It doesn't say that a well regulated militia has to exist prior to someone having the right to keep and bear arms. The ability to form a well regulated militia is paramount according to Madison in The Federalist Papers. How can that happen if you don't have the right to keep and bear arms?

Then the Supreme Court rule that a well regulated militia isn't the only reason to keep and bear arms, that's self-defense is a reason as well.

If you're going to throw out the Supreme Court decisions with interpretation to the Bill of Rights then you have a long hard road ahead of you. The 2nd Amendment has been around since the original writing of the Bill of Rights and and the couple hundred years since its existence for some reason it's still there. so although technology has changed and certainly our forefathers couldn't have imagined some of the things we have today with regards to firearms, this issue has been Revisited Time and Again by our Supreme Court since it was originally penned. Please don't act like we rely solely on the original text. However the original text does clearly State shall not be infringed upon. Everything you're trying to do includes infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. Whether I agree or disagree with some of your suggestions is beside the point.

If you had a good friend you knew was a raging alcoholic and who drove intoxicated on a regular basis, and you owned a car dealership and your friend wanted to buy a vehicle from you, would you sell it to them?

If you say you would then aren't you just contributing to the eventual death of a family by this drunk driver? If you say you would not, does that mean that everyone who wants to buy a vehicle should have to go through alcohol screening to make sure they're not an alcoholic? Do they have to be observed by a doctor and have blood work taken?

But again, you're imparting an infallibility on the Supreme Court. The document is 250 years old, written in a different English standard, so I don't logically see how their interpretation is more valid than anyone else's? Furthermore, that interpretation often changes depending on the political leanings of the judges involved.

Raging alcoholics who like to drive drunk eventually get pinched for a DUI and have their licenses suspended. And yes, a car dealership should be prohibited from selling a vehicle to someone with a suspended license (I think they are anyways). No need for blood tests, since the raging alcoholic's driving record with his litany of DUI arrests will be on record. And yes, it should be against the law to sell a car to a raging alkie who gets arrested for a DUI every year. I'm all for second chances, though, so if the alkie sobers up for 5 years and gets his license reinstated, then sure.

[midnightpulp]

Sure it exists but it doesn't exist as a caveat. It doesn't say that a well regulated militia has to exist prior to someone having the right to keep and bear arms. The ability to form a well regulated militia is paramount according to Madison in The Federalist Papers. How can that happen if you don't have the right to keep and bear arms?

Then the Supreme Court rule that a well regulated militia isn't the only reason to keep and bear arms, that's self-defense is a reason as well.

If you're going to throw out the Supreme Court decisions with interpretation to the Bill of Rights then you have a long hard road ahead of you. The 2nd Amendment has been around since the original writing of the Bill of Rights and and the couple hundred years since its existence for some reason it's still there. so although technology has changed and certainly our forefathers couldn't have imagined some of the things we have today with regards to firearms, this issue has been Revisited Time and Again by our Supreme Court since it was originally penned. Please don't act like we rely solely on the original text. However the original text does clearly State shall not be infringed upon. Everything you're trying to do includes infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. Whether I agree or disagree with some of your suggestions is beside the point.

If you had a good friend you knew was a raging alcoholic and who drove intoxicated on a regular basis, and you owned a car dealership and your friend wanted to buy a vehicle from you, would you sell it to them?

If you say you would then aren't you just contributing to the eventual death of a family by this drunk driver? If you say you would not, does that mean that everyone who wants to buy a vehicle should have to go through alcohol screening to make sure they're not an alcoholic? Do they have to be observed by a doctor and have blood work taken?

Oh, also you probably think I'm advocating compulsory psych evaluations for ALL would be gun owners. Not at all. But if the background check comes in that the buyer was committed for bi-polar disorder last week, then he should be prohibited from purchase until cleared by a professional.

[DMC]

But again, you're imparting an infallibility on the Supreme Court. The document is 250 years old, written in a different English standard, so I don't logically see how their interpretation is more valid than anyone else's? Furthermore, that interpretation often changes depending on the political leanings of the judges involved.

Raging alcoholics who like to drive drunk eventually get pinched for a DUI and have their licenses suspended. And yes, a car dealership should be prohibited from selling a vehicle to someone with a suspended license (I think they are anyways). No need for blood tests, since the raging alcoholic's driving record with his litany of DUI arrests will be on record. And yes, it should be against the law to sell a car to a raging alkie who gets arrested for a DUI every year. I'm all for second chances, though, so if the alkie sobers up for 5 years and gets his license reinstated, then sure.

There's no higher court. I don't consider them infallible, but the constitution grants them the power to interpret these things. This is the same constitution you're considering infallible by the way.

A gun dealer is prohibited from selling to a convicted felon or to someone adjudicated as mentally disabled. You're moving the goalpost.

Should the dealership require a medical evaluation to determine if the potential buyer has a drug or alcohol issue?

Illinois law

720 Ill. Rev. Stat. § 5/24-3.

A person commits the offense of unlawful sale or delivery of firearms when he or she knowingly:

Sells or gives any firearm to any person who has been a patient in a mental institution within the past 5 years; or

Sells or gives any firearms to any person who is a person with an intellectual disability.

720 Ill. Rev. Stat. § 5/24-3.1.

A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or firearm ammunition when:

He has been a patient in a mental institution within the past 5 years and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession; or

He is a person with an intellectual disability and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession.

[DMC]

Oh, also you probably think I'm advocating compulsory psych evaluations for ALL would be gun owners. Not at all. But if the background check comes in that the buyer was committed for bi-polar disorder last week, then he should be prohibited from purchase until cleared by a professional.

That's already the law. How educated are you on existing gun laws? Wouldn't you think that's the first order of business before rallying for new ones?

[midnightpulp]

There's no higher court. I don't consider them infallible, but the constitution grants them the power to interpret these things. This is the same constitution you're considering infallible by the way.

A gun dealer is prohibited from selling to a convicted felon or to someone adjudicated as mentally disabled. You're moving the goalpost.

Should the dealership require a medical evaluation to determine if the potential buyer has a drug or alcohol issue?

Illinois law

720 Ill. Rev. Stat. § 5/24-3.

A person commits the offense of unlawful sale or delivery of firearms when he or she knowingly:

Sells or gives any firearm to any person who has been a patient in a mental institution within the past 5 years; or

Sells or gives any firearms to any person who is a person with an intellectual disability.

720 Ill. Rev. Stat. § 5/24-3.1.

A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or firearm ammunition when:

He has been a patient in a mental institution within the past 5 years and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession; or

He is a person with an intellectual disability and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession.

I don't consider the constitution infallible, just that it might be a better tactic to attach meaning to the actual words themselves than attempt a variety of subjective interpretations, considering how long ago the document was written. "Well regulated" exists, and I believe a 2008 court decision defined well regulated as responsible and trained. States don't have identical gun laws. In your native Texas, the mentally ill are only prohibited from buying handguns.


Tex. Gov’t Code § 411.172.
A person is eligible for a license to carry a handgun if the person:
Is not a chemically dependent person; and
Is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun.
A person is incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person:
Has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability;
Suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition that:
Is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or
Requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment.
Has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person’s own affairs; or
Has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Furthermore, it's much harder to "commit" someone to an institution today. Many times they're released after a 72 hour hold (my aunt went through this nightmare with my schizophrenic cousin. They kept releasing him after 72 hours when it was clear to anyone with a brain he should've been committed). Though I'm not sure if a 72 hold constitutes involuntary commitment. In any event, it probably allows a loose interpretation of the commitment and patient concepts.

[midnightpulp]

That's already the law. How educated are you on existing gun laws? Wouldn't you think that's the first order of business before rallying for new ones?

"Cleared by a professional" or "adjudicated by a professional" is not included in many of the gun laws from state-to-state (nor in the federal law). Here's Alabama's:


Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-11-72.
No person of unsound mind shall own a firearm or have one in his or her possession or under his or her control.

Who's the determiner here? A psychologist? The state/courts? The gun shop owner? Also, these provisions don't seem to have much efficacy in certain states. Cruz legally bought his gun, despite there existing video of him cutting his arms and saying he hates n---ers. He was also Baker Acted (but never hospitalized, illustrating my point that you basically have to be a raving lunatic times ten for them to commit you). He was also on meds.

[Th'Pusher]

Oh look. DMC turned another thread into a second amendment discussion.

[ducks]

6 illegal immigrants linked to Mexican cartel arrested in NC for drug trafficking operation, officials say