America is under attack': Dem candidates call for gun control after shootings

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, mclumber1 said:

 

The only means of communication in the 1790s was with your own voice or an actual, literal, printing press.  Electronic methods of communication were not even invented for another ~50 years with telegraph. 

I'm not seeing how that makes a difference to what I said.

[TheGreatGamble]

26 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I only see the one first amendment. What constitution are you reading? 

Oh, stop with the pedantic shit, you know what I meant.

 

1 hour ago, Emblazon said:

No where in the 2nd amendment is there a mention of "ammo". So that would be a hilarious solution. 

I have enough brass to reload for years to come.

[legend]

30 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

No where in the 1st amendment is there a mention computers.  I suppose the government could ban porn on everything except printed media. 

 

Except that would be stupid and gun regulation isn't.

 

 

If you're going to insist on clinging to the amendments as some arbiter of good policy, you should at least cling to what the reasoning was when the amendment was made and under what conditions it was considered useful, rather that what the literal words say, because it's the reasoning that actually matters.

 

The reasoning for freedom of speech applies just as well to mediums back then as it does to computers of today.

 

The reasoning for the second amendment and its conditions, on the other hand, does not apply to our modern situation.

[TheGreatGamble]

1 hour ago, Emblazon said:

No where in the 2nd amendment is there a mention of "ammo". So that would be a hilarious solution. 

It says arms, also, not guns. That includes ammo, I’m pretty sure.

[TheGreatGamble]

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

Except that would be stupid and gun regulation isn't.

 

 

If you're going to insist on clinging to the amendments as some arbiter of good policy, you should at least cling to what the reasoning was when the amendment was made and under what conditions it was considered useful, rather that what the literal words say, because it's the reasoning that actually matters. The reasoning for freedom of speech applies just as well to mediums back then as it does to computers of today.

 

The reasoning for the second amendment and its conditions, on the other hand, does not apply to our modern situation.

But it does apply. The constitution doesn’t just apply to the year it was written.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, TheGreatGamble said:

It says arms, also, not guns. That includes ammo, I’m pretty sure.

That is exactly the point where the case would be litigated.

[legend]

Just now, TheGreatGamble said:

But it does apply. The constitution doesn’t just apply to the year it was written.

 

I didn't say it only applied to year it was written... I even explicitly described how there are times when it is just as valid today with our new technology as it was when it was written. Did you even read what I said?

[TheGreatGamble]

2 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I didn't say it only applied to year it was written... I even explicitly described how there are times when it is just as valid today with our new technology as it was when it was written. Did you even read what I said?

But you are arguing it’s more valid than the 2nd, or at least that’s what I understood you typed.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

8 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

It says arms, also, not guns. That includes ammo, I’m pretty sure.

And bombs of all kinds, tanks, jets, attack helicopters, rockets and launching platforms, weaponized chemical and biological agents. 

[TheGreatGamble]

2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

And bombs of all kinds, tanks, jets, attack helicopters, rockets and launching platforms, weaponized chemical and biological agents. 

There’s a line drawn between arms and weapons of mass destruction. Also, many attack helicopters and jets, and tanks are in private hands, just without their heavy weapons systems.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

There’s a line drawn between arms and weapons of mass destruction.

A false and arbitrary line that is obviously unconstitutional.

 

If we are going to say that this privilege exists, then let's take it to its natural and logical ends.

[legend]

15 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

But you are arguing it’s more valid than the 2nd, or at least that’s what I understood you typed.

 

I argued that the reasoning that led to the first amendment is still valid under the current conditions, but the reasoning that led to the 2nd is not still valid under the current conditions.

 

 

 

Also, you realize we're talking about amendments, right? One of the very reasons for amendments to exist is because the circumstances in which a law was originally written are subject to change, rendering the original law no longer reasonable and in need of amendment.

[TheGreatGamble]

17 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I argued that the reasoning that led to the first amendment is still valid under the current conditions, but the reasoning that led to the 2nd is not still valid under the current conditions.

 

 

 

Also, you realize we're talking about amendments, right? One of the very reasons for amendments to exist is because the circumstances in which a law was originally written are subject to change, rendering the original law no longer reasonable and in need of amendment.

Yes, but not easily, and the last thing anyone should want is a constitutional convention. That opens up a ton of other cans of worms.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Yes, but not easily, and the last thing anyone should want is a constitutional convention. That opens up a ton of other cans of worms.

I would be more than happy to open that can if it meant finally tossing that ridiculously archaic piece of blathering bourgeois liberal Enlightenment-era nonsense into the shredder of history once and for all.

[legend]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Yes, but not easily, and the last thing anyone should want is a constitutional convention. That opens up a ton of other cans of worms.

 

I'll let the lawyers and courts worry about what kinds of laws are constitutionally permissible without full amendments as a starting point (I certainly wouldn't mind an amendment though!). But I would like for people to recognize that citing the 2nd amendment is an absolutely god awful argument for why we shouldn't be interested in gun regulation.

[Remarkableriots]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-in-iowa-offer-plans-to-combat-gun-violence/ar-AAFCth5?ocid=AMZN

Quote

At a forum in Des Moines, the candidates voiced support for a common set of gun control proposals, like requiring universal background checks and banning assault weapons. And they repeatedly cited the same obstacles in their path: President Trump, the National Rifle Association and Republicans in Congress.

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

[TyphoidHater]

9 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

 

I want this as an actual full size flag

[SuperSpreader]

6 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

I need this as a shirt and a bumper sticker 

[mclumber1]

The government will be arbiter of who gets red flags

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

23 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

The government will be arbiter of who gets red flags

 

I can agree with the bar Donald is setting here. 

 

To own a gun you must be Vulcan. I’m fine with that. 

[skillzdadirecta]

On 8/7/2019 at 6:39 PM, mclumber1 said:

 

As long as the cops are limited to the same guns as civilians?  I'll consider it. 

 

Routinely you see cops outgunned by civilians like the guy in Philly the other day who held off cops for hours.

[mclumber1]

10 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Routinely you see cops outgunned by civilians like the guy in Philly the other day who held off cops for hours.

 

What gun did he use?  I thought it was a pistol.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

What gun did he use?  I thought it was a pistol.

 

I don't know why folks thought all he had was a pistol... where did that assumption come from?

 

Dude had a pistol and an AR-15 of course.

 

Quote

Investigators retrieved the alleged gunman's AR-15 Thursday from the row house where the suspect was barricaded, according to CNN affiliate KYW. Police say it is the same model the gunman shot in the standoff.

 

[mclumber1]

Thanks

[CitizenVectron]

If movies have taught me anything, all it takes to hit a long-range shot with a pistol is to have the criminal hold a hostage in front of them who says "take the shot!" The good guy always hits the bad guy in the forehead.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

2 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

If movies have taught me anything, all it takes to hit a long-range shot with a pistol is to have the criminal hold a hostage in front of them who says "take the shot!" The good guy always hits the bad guy in the forehead.

One of those good guys was Mel Gibson. So is that life imitating art that so many “heroes” are racist? 

[Remarkableriots]

https://www.sfgate.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/At-least-four-shot-at-house-party-in-east-Houston-14340131.php

Quote

At least seven people were shot early Saturday morning at a house party in east Houston, police said.

The victims were standing in front of the house when a suspect opened fire on the crowd, officials said. The victims were taken to the hospital, and their condition was not immediately clear.

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Alleged Thwarted Mass Shooter Left Trail Of Racist And Anti-Transgender Posts

Quote

A Connecticut man who had amassed an arsenal of tactical weapons and body armor, and who police say may have been preparing for a mass shooting, left a trail of virulently racist and anti-trans postings online.

 

Ohio white nationalist, anti-Semite arrested for threatening to shoot up Jewish community center, police say

Quote

Police initially became aware of Reardon on July 11 when he posted a video on Instagram of a man shooting a semi-automatic rifle with sirens and screams in the background. He tagged the Jewish Community Center of Youngstown in the post.

 

[MarSolo]

Meanwhile, I’m getting more jumpy around white people now. Hell, I looked in the mirror today and nearly shit myself.

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, MarSolo said:

Meanwhile, I’m getting more jumpy around white people now. Hell, I looked in the mirror today and nearly shit myself.

He's looking at me!!

[Jwheel86]

My friend solved gun control: capitalism. 

 

Require gun owners carry liability insurance for wrongful deaths up to $1 million dollars per death as well as wrongful injury and cost of First Responders. Gun owners can either purchase insurance that's not underwritten from the Federal Government, or purchase a private underwritten plan. Private insurers would be forbidden from denying coverage but can set premiums based on risk models they develop. They can also develop risk reduction actions the gun owner can do to reduce their risk profile (take a safety class, be a Veteran, take a mental health evaluation). Instead of us trying to decide what is and isn't a risk factor, let's let the invisible hand figure it out. 

[Marcelus]

2 hours ago, MarSolo said:

Meanwhile, I’m getting more jumpy around white people now. Hell, I looked in the mirror today and nearly shit myself.

Welcome to my life

[mclumber1]

3 hours ago, MarSolo said:

Meanwhile, I’m getting more jumpy around white people now. Hell, I looked in the mirror today and nearly shit myself.

 

I was at a store the day after El Paso and I got a look from a latino guy as if he was making sure I wasn't a crazy white nationalist.  I honestly don't blame him.  If I was targeted by a shooter (or an entire movement) because of my ethnicity, I would be wary of people who look like they belong to that group.