The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[kmoney]

Some yes, some no. I think that in many cases they might say this person should not have access to guns. I know there have been cases were a doctor warned the police that a patient was dangerous only to have police ignore the warning and the patient went on to kill somebody.

That's unfortunate, but it seems like that's a problem with those police officers, not the laws? Unless the laws don't allow the police to act on that knowledge right now.

 

[Granite]

:think: Though I could be wrong, I got the impression he was referring to the shooters as losers.

I assume so if only to assume the best but the way he put it was...weird.

 

[bybee]

The problem with this, is that your state can't access background information from many other states. And many other states can't access background information from yours. So that these background checks aren't really checking on much of anything.

Also, gun shows are very often exempt form the background check/waiting period mandate, so anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without having been checked at all.

Also, most current background checks are only checking for criminal backgrounds that legally preclude people from owning or possessing a firearm. But they don't check for all kinds of dangerous anti-social behaviors that should reasonably preclude people from owning a firearm. So that the end result is that current background checks don't stop anyone but local previously convicted criminals from buying guns, and they can buy them at gun shows or through friends or illegally, anyway.

So the current restrictions do virtually nothing to curtail gun sales while they create the false illusion that we are regulating gun sales, when we are not. An illusion that people like yourself latch onto and reiterate at every possible opportunity because it fits in nicely with your preconceived bias about guns, politics, blue ribbons, bee hives, and who knows what else.

I hate guns you unmitigated clot! I am not knowledgeable about gun licensure.
And if you were to keep a civil tongue in your head I would be willing to learn from you.

 

[Granite]

I hate guns you unmitigated clot! I am not knowledgeable about gun licensure.
And if you were to keep a civil tongue in your head I would be willing to learn from you.

PureX offered a very good, well-written, well-reasoned post.

You dismissed it completely and called him a name for no reason whatsoever.

What the heck is with you lately? Becoming a mod seems to completely changed you. Not yourself at all.

 

[Stripe]

PureX offered a very good, well-written, well-reasoned post.

:darwinsm:

 

[chair]

Why are there weapons that civilians are not allowed to own? Like machine guns. Or mortars. Shoulder launched missiles. Does the constitutional right to own weapons stop there?

 

[patrick jane]

Why are there weapons that civilians are not allowed to own? Like machine guns. Or mortars. Shoulder launched missiles. Does the constitutional right to own weapons stop there?

Some armaments are not made for civilian use. Throughout history they don't let the people have all the technology. But you can get those things you mentioned if you're ISIS

 

[Granite]

Some armaments are not made for civilian use. Throughout history they don't let the people have all the technology. But you can get those things you mentioned if you're ISIS

But one of the main arguments for the Second Amendment is that it's intended to guarantee the people can stage an armed uprising against the government should the need arise.

Hard to do that when the people have one arm tied behind their back, yes?

 

[Delmar]

:think: Though I could be wrong, I got the impression he was referring to the shooters as losers.

He knew that. For some reason Granite believes that acting stupid wins an argument.

 

[Ktoyou]

Why are there weapons that civilians are not allowed to own? Like machine guns. Or mortars. Shoulder launched missiles. Does the constitutional right to own weapons stop there?

If one has the wealth, they are able to own these. Then they are useless for hunting, as well, unnecessary for self defense. The idea, overthrowing the government is silly; one would be better off leaving than fighting.

 

[Nick M]

Why are there weapons that civilians are not allowed to own? Like machine guns. Or mortars. Shoulder launched missiles. Does the constitutional right to own weapons stop there?

By the law, not it doesn't stop there. The citizens, the people, have the right to form a militia which is a citizen army. And the people have the right to arm themselves.

 

[Nick M]

He knew that. For some reason Granite believes that acting stupid wins an argument.

Maybe granite has not been acting all this time.

 

[Granite]

He knew that. For some reason Granite believes that acting stupid wins an argument.

Your wording was bizarre, pal, whether you realize it or not. And not lavishing these maniacs with attention may help to a point but if they're that demented I doubt lack of coverage on the news will truly stop a would-be maniac from committing a crime. At that point their minds are made up.

 

[rocketman]

I don't think it would work like that. I think there would more likely be a set of criteria that, once met, would disqualify one from obtaining a license to own or use a firearm.

Who sets the said criteria? We are not talking about taking someones drivers license (a privilege extended by the state) we are talking about a person's constitutional rights, much different in severity. Should we also have criteria drawn up to qualify someone to vote? I think it is a good idea but, again we are talking about someones rights here, same with speech I believe that this "Black Lives Matter" outfit uses hate speech to incite people to violence against law enforcement, should their right to speak be taken away? These are dangerous waters your wading into....

That criteria could involve all sorts of things, like past history of anti-social behavior, current dysfunctional and psychological difficulties, cognitive abilities, etc.,.

How do you intend to get around HIPAA to gain knowledge of these conditions, medical records are private. Do you intend to invade a persons privacy as well? If you institute such laws what makes you think people won't seek medical help in fear of losing their rights which could make a bad psychological situation worse? I am not saying these are bad ideas but, you may not be able to know this information without trampling the rights of citizens even further. There really is no easy answer....

 

[Yorzhik]

Why are there weapons that civilians are not allowed to own? Like machine guns. Or mortars. Shoulder launched missiles. Does the constitutional right to own weapons stop there?

Because a requirement for someone to defend themselves would be the ability to direct a weapon against a particular person. Machine guns and bombs cannot.

 

[Yorzhik]

It was made up by the people oh this country therefore it is a real thing.

People agreeing on a bad idea doesn't make it any less a bad idea. In fact, it makes it a worse idea.

You may not agree with it but that matters not. If you partake of hate speech, you can be prosecuted and you cannot use free speech as a defense.

That's because our free speech rights are unjustly removed from us in this country you idiot.

Again it proves the point: free speech does not mean that you can say anything you want.

Do you say this because you cannot comprehend what Rothbard wrote or are you lazy?

It is an example that the people of this country can and do limit rights found in the constitution. It does not matter if you agree or not, the fact is, gun ownership can be and is restricted.

As long as self defense is not, then that's fine. What you propose limits self defense.

As I said in my original post, the right to defend yourself with a gun is not absolute. You can defend yourself without a gun.

This is false. Anything less than a gun would mean an inability to defend one's self.

I understand that you don't agree with the laws we have created to regulate gun ownership. Is the right to gum ownership so absolute to you that you would sanction gun ownership by people who are mentally unstable and highly like to use a gun to shoot ip a school?

How did we do it before guns were regulated? Or were there no crazy people before 50 years ago? It used to be one could buy a rifle and ammo on the spot, for cash, and walk out of the store with it without so much as mentioning one's name. But we didn't have mass shootings. Obviously, restricting gun ownership isn't the solution.

Post 239 looks at the reality of the situation. People are using guns to kill first graders and college students and any number of others. Why shouldn't society act to stop those shootings? Note that stop does not mean to prosecute the offender, it means to get the guns out of their hands.

Post 239 was shown wrong in my response.

A Christian who wants a gun to kill in order to defend his property is evil.

What the!?!?! What kind of crazy thinking are you on about now?

A Christian who considers killing an intruder is the first course of action is evil.

In every situation? Words fail me here. A proper description of you might include "stupid" "foolish" or "dumb." But really, you seem unable to cognize reality with no hope of recognizing your predicament.

I am neither of those things. Attempting to say that gun ownership has anything at all to do with God is evil.

I only broke up your last paragraph into its 3 sentences because you need be mocked more. God wants me to mock you and it's a shame more Christians won't join in to do God's work.

 

[Delmar]

Your wording was bizarre, pal, whether you realize it or not. And not lavishing these maniacs with attention may help to a point but if they're that demented I doubt lack of coverage on the news will truly stop a would-be maniac from committing a crime. At that point their minds are made up.

If you doubt it would make a difference you would be wrong! To a man, every one of these spree killers has been obsessed with at least one other spree killer. Their obsession feeds and builds on the "glory" of that other killers body count and whips them the afore mentioned demented state.

 

[chair]

Because a requirement for someone to defend themselves would be the ability to direct a weapon against a particular person. Machine guns and bombs cannot.

But "self defense" does not appear in the 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."

 

[CabinetMaker]

People agreeing on a bad idea doesn't make it any less a bad idea. In fact, it makes it a worse idea.


That's because our free speech rights are unjustly removed from us in this country you idiot.


Do you say this because you cannot comprehend what Rothbard wrote or are you lazy?

Did you watch the video clip in this thread? It looked at the second amendment and who granted the rights. The people did. Thus the people, us, can change those rights. Note also that the second amendment dies not say that gun ownership is an inaliable right endowed on men by their creator.

As long as self defense is not, then that's fine. What you propose limits self defense.

I didn't.

This is false. Anything less than a gun would mean an inability to defend one's self.

Chuck Noris might disagree with you. MMA fighters might disagree with you. Soldiers might disagree with you. I disagree with you.

How did we do it before guns were regulated? Or were there no crazy people before 50 years ago? It used to be one could buy a rifle and ammo on the spot, for cash, and walk out of the store with it without so much as mentioning one's name. But we didn't have mass shootings. Obviously, restricting gun ownership isn't the solution.

Whatever worked before is obviously not working anymore. Restricting gun ownership to those who can responsibly use them is a prudent thing to do if you want to deal with reducing the possibility of mass shootings. Why would you support a allowing a sociopath a gun? Why would you let somebody who has told their doctor they are having thoughts of killing people go out and buy all the guns they want?

Post 239 was shown wrong in my response.

You dud not prove it wrong, you simply disagreed with my premis.

What the!?!?! What kind of crazy thinking are you on about now?


In every situation? Words fail me here. A proper description of you might include "stupid" "foolish" or "dumb." But really, you seem unable to cognize reality with no hope of recognizing your predicament.


I only broke up your last paragraph into its 3 sentences because you need be mocked more. God wants me to mock you and it's a shame more Christians won't join in to do God's work.

You were the first to say that my thoughts regarding gun control were evil and that I was evil. I was pointing out that a person who calls himself a Christian and sees killing people to protect stuff as a reasonable response has totally missed the message of Christ.

Would I defend my family? Yes. Would my first choice be to kill an intruder? No.

 

[Ktoyou]

But "self defense" does not appear in the 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."

It is a presumption based on the Amendment.
Understandable, as long as one assumes the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." stands independent of the first, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, " This is the only legal debate and there is constitutional authority on both sides.