October 16, 2018 7:33 am at 7:33 am #1605276
We can all agree that it makes no sense to have a law forbidding weapons but not do much else about it, right? So why is that done?October 16, 2018 11:09 am at 11:09 am #1605464JosephParticipant
I do not agree that it makes no sense to have a law forbidding weapons.October 16, 2018 11:28 am at 11:28 am #1605449CTLAWYERParticipant
Reasons it makes sense:
#1 Feel Good legislation. You’ll vote to reelect the legislator, but he’ll still get gun money support
#2 Gun control legislation has to be passed incrementally, one small restriction/requirement at a time. A true control bill with teeth won’t pass
#3 It allows for conviction of a criminal on some charges even when the main case fails. Can’t convict on the armed robbery and get bad guy off the street? Get him for possession of the illegal/unregistered/un-permitted gun and get him off the street.
There is a method to the madnessOctober 16, 2018 11:29 am at 11:29 am #1605451GadolhadorahParticipant
Why is “what” done? I think with few exceptions, we all agree that gun ownership for self-protection and sports/hunting (for the goyim hopefully) is both common sense and protected under the Second Amendment. Where the consensus quickly breaks down is on what are “reasonable” limitations on types of weapons (aka semi-automatic), numbers of weapons (who needs more than 1 AK-47) magazine rounds (do you really need a clip with more than 10 rounds), screening criteria and timing (is 48 hours enough time given the chaotic state of mental health and court records) etc.October 16, 2018 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm #1605525yitzykParticipant
I think you mis-read the OP. He is not asking whether of not gun-control laws make sense. He asked, assuming that there are in fact going to be (or already are) gun-control laws, why are they not enforced?
There was probably an assumption that we would know what he is referring to – but I don’t. From the question and CTL’s response I am guessing that some law was proposed that is un-enforceable or will purposefully be looked away from to allow things to continue as is but to nevertheless have the law ‘on the books’.October 16, 2018 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm #16055541Participant
The actual Democrat position is to take away guns, totally. The party of JFK is the party of Marx.October 16, 2018 3:11 pm at 3:11 pm #1605808
No, some places have such laws.October 16, 2018 3:11 pm at 3:11 pm #1605836
It’s wrong to have laws that are just there to give you an excuse to arrest certain people whom you already wanted to arrest. Also, it is far more important to prevent shootings than it is to arrest shooters after they’ve already killed people.October 17, 2018 6:54 pm at 6:54 pm #1606742ToiParticipant
First thing the fascist governments do is…yep, you guessed it, take away the people’s guns. 1 is correct. The democratic party today has clearly shifted so far left that Schumer and Pelosi are running leftward trying to keep up. Sanders is probably closer to the base of the party these days than they are. And they are crazy enough. Todays dems are the party of the mob, of Waters and Cortez, a party where due process is only for black LGBTQs, and victim/intersectional politics. There’s a reason Warren was pretending to be an indian- as a white woman, she’s so far down on the victim totem pole, she’s irrelevant.October 18, 2018 11:08 pm at 11:08 pm #1607350Doing my bestParticipant
What are proponents of guns saying to explain why they need assault rifles?
Why can’t everyone agree to keep only handguns legal for only those without a history of violence?October 18, 2018 11:28 pm at 11:28 pm #1607368
Doing my best, the Second Amendment makes no such exception, so it would be unconstitutional.October 19, 2018 8:54 am at 8:54 am #1607428akupermaParticipant
One needs to remember that in 1791 when the 2nd amendment was adopted, the situation was that the militia has during the past 150 years mobilized itself and overthrown (and in one case, murdered) three kings (Charles I, James II and George III). In England the response was to get rid of the “right to bear arms”. In America, the response was to include it in the Bill of Rights. The militia, under the common law, consisted of all free adult males (but being modern, it is no longer restricted to men, and the concept of unfree people was abolished in by the 13th and 14th amendments). One should note, that unlike the people running the government today, the founding fathers of the USA were actually a bunch of radicals with a strong libertarian streak.October 19, 2018 10:47 am at 10:47 am #1607460ubiquitinParticipant
“Doing my best, the Second Amendment makes no such exception, so it would be unconstitutional”
Note, you didnt answer the question. Even assuming your statmtnt is true (which 4/9 supreme court justices disagreed with in Heller, and the court in general disagreed with for the first 220 years or so of the amendments existence.
That STILL doesn’t answer the question. The constitution isnt Torah misinia ( lehavdil) if there is no justifiable reason for something we should amend it. Just saying “well yes, its pretty terible that we have such a high gun death rate, but oh well its in the constitution” just doesn’t make sense .
Which brings me to my real question, that I have been asking numerous times on this thread.
I get that many feel we need guns to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical. (as Toi, and akuperma seem to be saying) my question is 2 fold:
1) who decides when the govt is tyrannical. I think my taxes are way to high. do you support my right to open fire on the Evil tyrannical government when th IRS comes knocking at the door? What if my whole block agrees our taxes are too high? city? state? How does mobilizing our armed populace to overthrow the government work?
2) Is there any armed rebellion/uprising in the the past 242 years that you support? The whisky rebellion? Waco? The confederacy?
ThanksOctober 19, 2018 2:01 pm at 2:01 pm #1607491
Oh, I don’t believe in the Constitution as originally written. As you may have known before by my previous posts, I am also strongly opposed to slavery, which the Founding Fathers included in their original plan.October 19, 2018 2:01 pm at 2:01 pm #1607482akupermaParticipant
ubiquitin: In much of Europe there was an armed rebellion against the German government (which had recently acquired much of Europe, exclusive of Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and Portugal), and the effectiveness of gun control was such that it seriously handicapped the local population and rendered their resistance to tyranny and genocide ineffective.
It should also be noted that much of the population of the United States lives in fear of being attacked (note many of the lead article in YWN), and this has always been the case (considering the USA was initially populated by people fleeing or being kicked out of the old world, often offered the choice of the gallows or emigration). And note that the American courts have held that the police are under no obligation to protect you from criminals (even if the police disarm you and render you unable to defend yourselves).
However the origin of the 2nd amendment was to reverse the British practice of not allowing “deplorables” (just as Catholics, Jews, non-establishment church Protestants, not to mention political dissidents) from having weapons.October 20, 2018 8:30 pm at 8:30 pm #1607515ubiquitinParticipant
interesting information about historical background regarding the second amendment .
your first paragraph was a bit silly though. TIt blows myu mind how many people repeat this absurdity. some historians are now saying that say the French army was better armed and trained than any ” local population” could be . Yet interestingly that did not stop the German government. It is beyond absurd to suggest. That the French, Belgian, Polish, Dutch, Czech, Greek etc’s armyis were all defeated. But if only the local population was armed THEY would have been the ones to finally make a difference.
As you may know though that was written over 200 years ago. IT is absurd (to say the least) that we should continue to allow easy access to firearms just because over 200 years ago the British didnt allow deplorables t o have weapons
“It should also be noted that much of the population of the United States lives in fear of being attacked”
I was not aware of that.
Attacked by whom? Is that fear justified?
At any rate you haven’t really answered my questions.October 20, 2018 8:31 pm at 8:31 pm #1607516CTLAWYERParticipant
Please stop lying. I dare you to show where ion the Democrat national party platform it calls for taking away all guns. It doesn’t
I m a Democrat, active in politics, serve on town and state committee and have been a national delegate 5 times. I take our platform very seriously, have helped to write 2 in the past.
I resent when someone such as yourself lies about the official party position.
Gun control laws are not gun elimination laws. I would not fire a gun, it doesn’t interest me. That doesn’t men I oppose responsible adults with proper training and vetting having gun permits.October 25, 2018 9:44 am at 9:44 am #1610559
The Founding Fathers probably never imagined the kind of population density we have in cities now.October 25, 2018 10:36 am at 10:36 am #1610643yungerman1Participant
No offense, but from an intelligent person such as yourself that is a ridiculous comment.
The official platform does not necessarily reflect the opinions and statements of the democrat politicians.
Does the official platform call for open borders? Obviously not, but I dont hear democrat politicians talking about the invasion or so called “caravan” of Central Americans headed this way. They just bash Trump for talking about defending our borders, or his comments that terrorists hide among crowd.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.