The Challenge is made: Gun Control

[reddog1951]

Nope, there is an in between, has been since the Elliot Ness era in re automatics. It's not so much as "rights" as the "line"...by the way, "people" is different than "person" grammatically...something to ponder for the strict constitutionalists.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

To all especially sapper. Yes, 18 is currently adult in most cases although have to be 21 to but cigarettes in my locale. That makes no sense logically. I see nothing wrong with raising legal age of majority to 21 for all "adult" activity as it once was (maybe except for 18 y/o pussy LOL) with perhaps except for active military duty as a good career path for some youth, but IMO even then no voting till 21. I know I'll raise a shit storm, but there is no conscription currently..all voluntary enlistment, so in my view just another job.

Good idea, now propose that to your local Democrat representative and see how they react. *hint - it's not gonna fly because young ignorant voters are part of the Democrat base.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

The constitution does not specially address guns...it addresses "arms", the definition of which is debatable.

Not really. Arms are generally defined as small arms... like you'd arm a militia with. The standard arm of the day was a musket... Just like the standard small arm of the modern era is the semi-automatic rifle... like an AR-15 platform.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

One already cannot legally "bear" an automatic "gun". Too lazy to search, but I think generally not nuclear weapons, surface to air missles, etc., so it's an issue of where the "line" is drawn.

yup - You're a democrat alright... too lazy to know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

Our reverered founding fathers were great, but could never have envisioned the "lines" presented today, so they wisely granted mechanisms to adapt to what they couldn't envisioned. "Strict" constitutionists sometimes miss that point, either fundamentally or intentionally.

It's generally helpful when writing to be clear and concise. I have no idea what "lines" you are talking about... try to do better. If you're talking about the weapons then I already addressed it... arms refers to small arms... rifles the equivalent of what an individual volunteer soldier would be armed with.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

Not opposed to mandatory jail time as suggested above for certain offenses, actually in favor of accountability for negligent parents or other enablers of such offenders as I have previously posted, so don't know where that whine comes from.

So you're going to visit the sins of the child on the father? LOL... there's this thing called due process... you'll never get this one to fly with the Democrats either mainly because it's be confusing as shit on who to lockup in the ghetto when some kid shoots someone for his air jordans.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

es, there was a woman that "saved the day" by taking out a shooter. She should be applauded, I agree.

But you called her Barney fife... make up your mind

Originally Posted by reddog1951

I know a few like her and wouldn't mess with her. I also know a few (maybe many) armed cowboys whose dicks are shorter than their guns...and they worry me, especially after a drink or two.

So? What do you want the world to do about short dicked people that worry you? Maybe you are just a bad judge of character?

Originally Posted by reddog1951

Police definitely failed at Ulvade, I agree.

So again, you just invalidated all the stupid shit you wrote in your last post because it was based on disarming the populace and have "trained professionals" protect everyone. Which is patently absurd as the Uvalde police so pathetically demonstrated.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

I also think that police can't respond "in time" in most situations due to logistics.

So you agree with the fact that trained professionals aren't there when you need them and even when present they still can't cut the mustard.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

Do I think a 100 lb 23 y/o recent grad female teacher (forgive my sexism..should have said hot teacher) would take out a gun man..wouldn't bet on it even if "trained"....

Any woman that wants to teach under an armed process would have to get certified... maybe it's phased in, but there should be no such thing as a defensive gun free zone.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

oh, yeah she should be paid far more for hazardous duty. Or your priest, or rabbi, etc.

Nope. It's not hazardous in the least... we don't pay them extra now in case they get shot at... we're just expecting more of them. If you think that warrants greater pay, tough shit. I don't. We expect teachers to have passed English 101... no reason not to expect them to pass Basic handgun marksmanship and take annual refresher training.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

Like I said, I don't have the "answer", and I doubt you do either. But, something needs to change and all might have to "give" a bit.

You made it abundantly clear you don't have any answers other than the same old let's punish the innocent because there are crazy people. You're wrong. I do have answers.. they just can't be implemented because of Democrat obstruction.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

Sidenote: WTF does funding for Ukraine have to do with this topic? Diversion 101 course, I guess.

See your funding questions, dumbass. It's a matter of priorities... people like you want to arm Ukraine with AR-15s but want to take them away from law abiding American citizens. It's not diversion... it's illustration of your side of the aisles priorities. I will say it again, Democrats will NEVER let school shooting be curtailed... in fact Democrats are gleeful everytime there is a school shooting because the bodies of dead children are politically useful to them in their quest to disarm Americans so they can REALLY be totalitarians. (See Robert Francis O'Rourkes most recent shenanigans if you doubt that). You will never see Democrats talking about how Chicago crime needs to be stopped even though more people die there from gun violence every year than in all school shootings combined since 2000... why? Because it's not politically useful.

[reddog1951]

So Sapper, we'll never agree and both know it, so I won't waste too much time on you.

But you do make an assumption or two that are not true. I am NOT a democrat; I am also NOT a republican; I AM a open-minded, self thinking Independent who doesn't drink the tea from either party line. We might agree that Biden is not what the country needs...we'll likely disagree that neither is Trump...but though opinions are both our rights to hold (in my opinion, far greater than the right to bear certain "arms"). Discourse in the last few decades has lost the respectful exchange of differing opinion, instead gravitating to labeling, name calling, and diversion of the topic to one more favorable to the responder. When mutual respect and discussion is lost, discourse becomes polarization as we witness today.

In regard to definition of "arms", I find it interesting buy not surprising that you present your OPINION as FACT that a musket in the 1700's is equivalent to an AR today. You have the right to your opinion, but please don't confuse that as fact. Subject to debate, and as yet unresolved and also subject to interpretation as "arms" evolve.

Regarding the woman who took out a shooter, I again praise her as I did originally. But, she is likely the exception...just Google the effectiveness and accuracy of even well trained professionals when actually under fire. I did not and still don't say that an armed "civilian" might sometimes save the day, but don't think that is the answer.

And yes, if the parent, guardian, enabler of a minor or known disturbed individual fails to safeguard access to their "arms" by that individual by not "locking" them down, I think they should be held civilly and criminally liable. Responsibility 101.

I don't have the answer, admittedly, but I don't think you do either. Difference is, I'm willing to try reasonable changes that minimally impact my "rights" in hope of solving the problem.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

So Sap...per, reverts to the usual response of the hard core "rightists" here by attacking the writer personally rather than address the issue.
So, I'll take the high road on one of his posits. Let's say the Uvlade shooter was a pissed off little disturbed kid, which is likely. Now let's say he had to be subject to a background check and a 3 day waiting period before he was allowed to purchase his weapon(s) on his 18th birthday. Maybe the background would have thrown a red flag, maybe he would have cooled off in 3 days....in some regard some of these mass shootings almost ring as crimes of passion. Maybe if your wife catches you cheating and in a rage goes out to buy a gun and off you, a little chill time might make a difference...in your life. Ask the parents of the slaughtered kids, not me.

You are correct that the 2nd amendment could be repealed or modified, but it is people of your mindset, unwilling to consider that a change might(?) be necessary that prevent the topic from even being considered, not the "Libs".

Give a solution that preserves your "rights" and protects others instead of attacking other viewpoints. You want well trained armed guards, ok. Schools, churches, theaters, graduation ceremonies, etc.? What does one cost? You paying? You want armed regular citizens? Ladies and gentlemen, I present you Barney Fife.

The truth that you are missing is that we don't trust the left wing to be truthful or compromising. In nearly every instance in the past, the left has tried to take more than they agreed to. Lied to advance their agenda, and generally been un-American assholes. Modify the 2nd amendment...what the left is talking about, which you ignored, is they don't want to modify the 2nd amendment, they want to repeal it. This is what the left will not understand or acknowledge; like abortion, if the 2nd amendment were repealed, then each state could have its own gun laws to enforce. How many states currently have concealed carry or "constitutional carry"? The majority is the answer. You want to start a civil war? Embolden the left in California, New York, and Illinois to start personal and vehicle searches for weapons on persons trying to enter from other states. You'll get one.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

So Sapper, we'll never agree and both know it, so I won't waste too much time on you.

And yet here you are responding again. Each time you negate anything you previously wrote by acknowledging I'm right. Use your time however you feel is fruitful... I get a good laugh by poking holes in your "deep" thought.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

But you do make an assumption or two that are not true. I am NOT a democrat; I am also NOT a republican; I AM a open-minded, self thinking Independent who doesn't drink the tea from either party line.

Ah yes, the wily independent in his natural habitat. Notice how he drinks from the same watering hole as the common pinko democrat yet camouflages himself as neutral. Although camouflaged his bleatings clearly mark him as just another sheep in the pinko horde.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

We might agree that Biden is not what the country needs...we'll likely disagree that neither is Trump...but though opinions are both our rights to hold (in my opinion, far greater than the right to bear certain "arms").

Look at the lame attempts to build common ground... LOL. No. Your last statement simply proves you're a common fool. You think the 1st amendment is secured by just good ol' human nature. It is in fact secured by the 2nd which is a check on totalitarian government. Without it, you won't get to express your opinion that you don't think Biden is what America needs. LOL.... At least the Democrats are simply communist robots. They are loyal to their ideology... you're just stupid.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

Discourse in the last few decades has lost the respectful exchange of differing opinion, instead gravitating to labeling, name calling, and diversion of the topic to one more favorable to the responder. When mutual respect and discussion is lost, discourse becomes polarization as we witness today.

I guess that's what happens when you call 50% of the population deplorable, bible clinging, Nazis. Cry me river. Again, if you had two brain cells to rub together, you'd understand WHY discourse is no longer possible. But you're an "open minded" (stupid) guy who thinks everyone is at fault. When in fact the climate of discussion is directly related to the Lefts behaviour. I'm old enough to remember having bags of pigs blood thrown at me while in formation in Philadelphia by commie leftists. Why in fact, some leftist tried to kill a Conservative SCOTUS judge. And just a couple years ago, a leftie shot up a Republican softball game. And I seem to remember some lefties burning cities across the Country in "mostly" peaceful protests. It's not worth discussing, you're stupid and you won't matter when the push comes to shove. You're just an ignorant bystander watching your nation burn down and blaming both sides... not the one that wants to "fundamentally change the United States".

Originally Posted by reddog1951

In regard to definition of "arms", I find it interesting buy not surprising that you present your OPINION as FACT that a musket in the 1700's is equivalent to an AR today.

Wow you're fcuking stupid... you find it interesting do you? LOL Answer this simple question... What was the standard infantrymans' weapon in 1789... and what is the standard infantrymans' weapon in 2022? They are completely analogous. That's not an opinion dumbass because you will come up with the same answer to both of those questions unless you're even stupider than you've let on.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

You have the right to your opinion, but please don't confuse that as fact. Subject to debate, and as yet unresolved and also subject to interpretation as "arms" evolve.

You do understand that semi-automatic weapons existed at the time of the creation of the Bill of Rights? That's right, dummy. The Belton repeating flintlock existed in 1777 and was even offered to the Continental Army. 16 tigger pulls, 16 rounds down range... just like an AR-15. LOL... stupid independent...

Originally Posted by reddog1951

Regarding the woman who took out a shooter, I again praise her as I did originally. But, she is likely the exception...just Google the effectiveness and accuracy of even well trained professionals when actually under fire. I did not and still don't say that an armed "civilian" might sometimes save the day, but don't think that is the answer.

Oh? Well tell me what is the success rate of the armed professional responding to school shootings? I know which I'd prefer to rely on... an amateur with a handgun who is on site, than the "trained" professionals who have a 12 minute response time on the best of days and then shit themselves if they might get shot saving a classroom full of children. Seriously, the police performance in Uvalde ought to make independent "thinkers" like yourself conclude that Police response is worthless. They have no obligation to protect you...they're just there to scrape up the guts and jail the criminal until a Democrat DA can dismiss the charges because RAYCISS!!!

Originally Posted by reddog1951

And yes, if the parent, guardian, enabler of a minor or known disturbed individual fails to safeguard access to their "arms" by that individual by not "locking" them down, I think they should be held civilly and criminally liable. Responsibility 101.

well the Uvalde shooter was 18? Watcha gonna do? Sorry parents... you get a pass because he made 18 trips around the sun? LOL... are their any limits to your dumb ideas? No don't answer that, I think you're demonstrated it well enough.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

I don't have the answer, admittedly, but I don't think you do either. Difference is, I'm willing to try reasonable changes that minimally impact my "rights" in hope of solving the problem.

LOL..Once again you admit you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground but you're willing to surrender your rights in HOPES of a solution. Anyone ever tell you HOPE is a really stupid plan? You are exactly who Franklin was referring to when he wrote, "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Your ilk has existed forever... they were content to let the British rule them, they were content to let the Bolsehviks take over the nation, they were content to let the NSDAP heard them ont trains, and you'd be content to hand over you means of self defense when the Democrats attempt to confiscate small arms.

I'm ashamed that Countrymen like you exist.

[reddog1951]

So Barley, you hit the point. By "we", I assume the Right doesn't trust the Left. Newsflash: the Left doesn't trust the Right. What's wrong with thinking for one's self independently and reaching for a common ground, rather than follow strict party lines?

I don't know where your opinion that the Left wants to repeal the 2nd is substantiated as fact, but if true, I'm against that; might support modification though.

Not going there about state's rights to regulate "arms", because its a muddled area constitutionally, just google. And no, I don't want civil war, and I fear we should be careful what we wish for.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

Newsflash: the Left doesn't trust the Right.

Who rounded up US citizens and put them in camps? I'll give you a hint.... the President was a Democrat...

LOL.

You seem not to understand There is NO NEGOTIATION over the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution... because if you're cool with negotiating changes... maybe we should consider bringing back slavery... right? I mean the Amendments to the Constitution are up for modification according to you...

amiright?

[reddog1951]

Barley, please stay on topic without deflecting. Amendment IS constitutionally allowed. As is discussion.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

[eccieuser9500]

All he wanted was a wake-up call. WTF?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

The truth that you are missing is that we don't trust the left wing to be truthful or compromising. In nearly every instance in the past, the left has tried to take more than they agreed to. Lied to advance their agenda, and generally been un-American assholes. Modify the 2nd amendment...what the left is talking about, which you ignored, is they don't want to modify the 2nd amendment, they want to repeal it. This is what the left will not understand or acknowledge; like abortion, if the 2nd amendment were repealed, then each state could have its own gun laws to enforce. How many states currently have concealed carry or "constitutional carry"? The majority is the answer. You want to start a civil war? Embolden the left in California, New York, and Illinois to start personal and vehicle searches for weapons on persons trying to enter from other states. You'll get one.

If you so. And I still feel sorry for your students.


The left, the left, the left! You still sound fuckin' crazy here. You don't sound serious.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

[eccieuser9500]

Ask yourself: "Why are Republicans intent on destroying the essence of our republic?" Racism!

Asked, and answered. Sir.

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Voting Laws Roundup: May 2022


https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...undup-may-2022

Legislation is categorized as restrictive if it would make it harder for eligible Americans to register, stay on the rolls, and/or vote as compared to existing state law. In addition to two such laws enacted in Arizona and Mississippi, a restrictive ballot initiative in Arizona passed both houses and will be placed on the ballot for voters in the November general election.

As of May 4, at least 34 bills with restrictive provisions are moving through 11 state legislatures. Overall, lawmakers in 39 states have considered at least 393 restrictive bills for the 2022 legislative session. Since the beginning of 2021,

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

So Sapper, we'll never agree and both know it, so I won't waste too much time on you.

But you do make an assumption or two that are not true. I am NOT a democrat; I am also NOT a republican; I AM a open-minded, self thinking Independent who doesn't drink the tea from either party line. We might agree that Biden is not what the country needs...we'll likely disagree that neither is Trump...but though opinions are both our rights to hold (in my opinion, far greater than the right to bear certain "arms"). Discourse in the last few decades has lost the respectful exchange of differing opinion, instead gravitating to labeling, name calling, and diversion of the topic to one more favorable to the responder. When mutual respect and discussion is lost, discourse becomes polarization as we witness today.

In regard to definition of "arms", I find it interesting buy not surprising that you present your OPINION as FACT that a musket in the 1700's is equivalent to an AR today. You have the right to your opinion, but please don't confuse that as fact. Subject to debate, and as yet unresolved and also subject to interpretation as "arms" evolve.

Regarding the woman who took out a shooter, I again praise her as I did originally. But, she is likely the exception...just Google the effectiveness and accuracy of even well trained professionals when actually under fire. I did not and still don't say that an armed "civilian" might sometimes save the day, but don't think that is the answer.

And yes, if the parent, guardian, enabler of a minor or known disturbed individual fails to safeguard access to their "arms" by that individual by not "locking" them down, I think they should be held civilly and criminally liable. Responsibility 101.

I don't have the answer, admittedly, but I don't think you do either. Difference is, I'm willing to try reasonable changes that minimally impact my "rights" in hope of solving the problem.

Trying the spike the football when you're standing outside the endzone? I hate to be the one to tell you this...but you lost the argument. Still, I'll take some time to further lambaste you. That is a specious argument about when constitutes an "arm" in the 18th century as opposed to the 21st century. You'll hate the answer. When the founding pass the Bill of Rights a regular citizen could buy, own, and use a musket like the British "Brown Bess" musket. With it a trained man could fire three rounds a minute, or maybe four, or even five. A regular person could also own a rifle like the Kentucky or Pennsylvania and hit targets at 300 yards. A person (lets be real), a man could buy canon and outfit ships as warships. A rich man could build his own cavalry unit. That was acceptable even 80 years later during the Civil War. Even today, if you have enough money and the connections you can legally own a tank, a canon, a machine gun, a warship, or a combat aircraft. John Wayne fished from an old minesweeper, Tom Cruise owns a P51 Mustang.
So many other things you've said are just shit but I've exhausted my patience explaining the word "arms" to you.