Another example of USA Gun Laws (or lack of...)?

Message boards : Politics : Another example of USA Gun Laws (or lack of...)?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 . . . 234 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 1797946 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 15:08:22 UTC - in response to Message 1797909.  

Can someone explain why the Law was not changed ??

The US gun laws changes all the time.
For some reason every state has it's own law.
Wouldn't it better if gun laws where federal?
And enforce the law of course.

Even the Second Amendment has changed but it was a long time ago.
The history of the Second Amendment.
http://sputniknews.com/radio_thom_hartmann_show/20160621/1041665718/second-amendment-gun-violence.html
The article is written by Thom Hartmann, an American radio host, author, former psychotherapist, entrepreneur, and progressive political commentator.
He is also an Op-Ed contributor to Russian Sputnik but I'm certain he got the history part right:)

Hi Jan,

No offense is intended. OK?

I read what that idiot thinks of the 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights and I went out looking for some real history of the amendment. This is what I found. It is lengthy and I read about 80% of the whole thing. It explains the history with references very clearly. The 2nd Amendment definitely protects my right to "keep and bear arms". Very compelling. :)

Peace! :)
CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 1797946 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1797951 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 15:29:41 UTC - in response to Message 1797946.  

JM provided clear explanations when I asked a question. What can be seen on this thread is the 2nd Amendment is thrown at people that are not Americans.

For those of us commenting on this thread, we accept the 2nd amendment as a given. No issues with that whatsoever.

With all what has been happening , all (at least myself) are asking is this: -

Why isn't the security & safety of the issuing of those weapons tightened up?

I accept the fact that they can be obtained illegally but the impression received is that those who obtain them legally argue against any tighter restrictions because of the Illegal ways of obtaining them & that the legal holders shouldn't be restricted any further than what they are.

Shouldn't everyone be working to cut down on illegal access?
ID: 1797951 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 1797972 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 16:24:55 UTC - in response to Message 1797951.  

-[ snip ]-

Shouldn't everyone be working to cut down on illegal access?

Yes, I agree with that. But taking away MY right to have my guns in no way helps to prevent the illegal access. That is what we fight for, our legal right to legally have guns. The liberals (H. Clinton comes to mind for some reason) are the ones that want to take our right away by repealing the 2nd Amendment. That will not prevent Joe Criminal from pulling another Orlando.

Some may a argue with the Columbine incident. That is the fault of the 2 students parents not every other law abiding gun owner in the U.S.A. Actually, society as a whole can also be blamed for that because it is getting near impossible to reprimand our children without them contacting the authorities and claiming "child abuse". They can virtually get away with murder.

Anyway, yes, I agree with you in that attention should be centered on curtailing illegal access and illegal guns.

Peace! :)
CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 1797972 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1797977 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 16:43:31 UTC - in response to Message 1797951.  

Shouldn't everyone be working to cut down on illegal access?

America banned booze at one point. It simply made criminals of the majority of Americans and brought out criminal gangs. It is those gangs now that old ban created that are a problem. Do another ban? What will that bring forth?

The very real issue is the inability of the USA to address mental issues. If you look at the gun death numbers something like 75% are suicide. That does not include the ones called suicide by cop, or terrorists hell bent on being martyred.

We need to have a debate about databases. How names go on them. How names come off them. But the bureaucrats will not cede their secrecy and allow this debate to happen, perhaps because it would show their incompetency.

We also need mental health care in the USA. A change in attitude that it isn't a leper condition. Mental health care also needs to drop the religious crap about sexuality.

Finally I can assure you no NRA member wants the guy in the next lane at the gun range to be a crazy or a terrorist. He justs want to be sure some officious bureaucrat can't label him as one, unless he is one.
ID: 1797977 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1797978 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 16:46:11 UTC - in response to Message 1797977.  

We need to have a debate about databases. How names go on them. How names come off them. But the bureaucrats will not cede their secrecy and allow this debate to happen, perhaps because it would show their incompetency.

We also need mental health care in the USA. A change in attitude that it isn't a leper condition. Mental health care also needs to drop the religious crap about sexuality.

America is not alone there :-(
ID: 1797978 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1797979 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 17:01:54 UTC

I find Brexit interesting in this. Remain and give up your army to a higher level of government. Call that akin to Texas giving up its army (Texas National Guard) to the United States. And you in the UK already gave up your personal gun rights. Perhaps there is some element of that in what is going on in America and gun rights being reflected in Brexit? Fear of faceless bureaucrats.
ID: 1797979 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1797980 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 17:05:19 UTC - in response to Message 1797979.  

Fear of faceless bureaucrats.

Spot on.

Also include "gutless"
ID: 1797980 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1797985 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 17:28:14 UTC - in response to Message 1797946.  

Can someone explain why the Law was not changed ??

The US gun laws changes all the time.
For some reason every state has it's own law.
Wouldn't it better if gun laws where federal?
And enforce the law of course.

Even the Second Amendment has changed but it was a long time ago.
The history of the Second Amendment.
http://sputniknews.com/radio_thom_hartmann_show/20160621/1041665718/second-amendment-gun-violence.html
The article is written by Thom Hartmann, an American radio host, author, former psychotherapist, entrepreneur, and progressive political commentator.
He is also an Op-Ed contributor to Russian Sputnik but I'm certain he got the history part right:)

Hi Jan,

No offense is intended. OK?

I read what that idiot thinks of the 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights and I went out looking for some real history of the amendment. This is what I found. It is lengthy and I read about 80% of the whole thing. It explains the history with references very clearly. The 2nd Amendment definitely protects my right to "keep and bear arms". Very compelling. :)

Peace! :)

Lengthy indeed so I skipped to the conclusion.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government.
Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population.
It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists.
The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia.
Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument.
The whole of the population would comprise the militia.
As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic.
The intent was not to create a right for other (pg.1039) governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Short questions.
What is a tyrannical government?
Does it apply today?

As I understand it, the right to bear arm is to protect you from tyrannical governments, not to protect you from some criminals.
ID: 1797985 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile j mercer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 99
Posts: 2422
Credit: 12,323,733
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1797986 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 17:34:43 UTC - in response to Message 1797985.  

tyranny
noun tyr·an·ny \ˈtir-ə-nē\

Simple Definition of tyranny

: cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others

: a government in which all power belongs to one person : the rule or authority of a tyrant

Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary
...
ID: 1797986 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1797993 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 17:43:43 UTC - in response to Message 1797986.  
Last modified: 22 Jun 2016, 17:47:52 UTC

tyranny
noun tyr·an·ny \ˈtir-ə-nē\

?
Same word in Swedish tyranni.
noun tyr·an·ni \ˈtir-ə-nē\

Oh. Same definition as well.
ID: 1797993 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1797998 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 18:17:07 UTC

ID: 1797998 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1798003 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 18:29:09 UTC - in response to Message 1797998.  

Scary if true

I see the name Hannity attached to that. One can be assured the report is Faux.
ID: 1798003 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11360
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1798004 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 18:29:18 UTC - in response to Message 1797998.  

Consider the source.
ID: 1798004 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1798061 - Posted: 23 Jun 2016, 0:36:40 UTC - in response to Message 1797951.  
Last modified: 23 Jun 2016, 0:37:44 UTC

Shouldn't everyone be working to cut down on illegal access?


No... Its there right in the 2nd , that's the point of the 2nd , right !!. You don't have a right to walk the street without being afraid or intimidated .It's not in the constitution that right

Witch suggests a Country of criminals (ergo: Prohibition was a good money spinner for the mafia)...And to think we started out as a bunch of Convicts but we grew up last Century maybe you need to as well

The whole point of having a weapon is to say , "don't mess with me or else !!"

Intimidation .......
ID: 1798061 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1798068 - Posted: 23 Jun 2016, 1:45:28 UTC - in response to Message 1798061.  

The whole point of having a weapon is to say , "don't mess with me or else !!"
Intimidation .......

Indeed. You could also say "I have a bigger gun then you have".
Today I was talking to my GF about guns and learned that her ex bought a gun.
Illegaly of course.
Why? She don't know but since he was a businessman it was most likely to "impress" on his business partners.
ID: 1798068 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1798074 - Posted: 23 Jun 2016, 2:10:38 UTC

We'll never see our lot do anything like this :-(

Democrats hold "sit-in" protest
ID: 1798074 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile j mercer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 99
Posts: 2422
Credit: 12,323,733
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1798078 - Posted: 23 Jun 2016, 2:33:48 UTC - in response to Message 1798074.  

We'll never see our lot do anything like this :-(

Democrats hold "sit-in" protest

I don't get it.

Our Congress has lost the plot.

What is so hard about have proper vetting and due process gun laws?

You are vetted to get on the list and you have due process to get off the list.

If they would just add vetting and due process it would pass in a flash.
...
ID: 1798078 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1798121 - Posted: 23 Jun 2016, 5:19:03 UTC - in response to Message 1798078.  

We'll never see our lot do anything like this :-(

Democrats hold "sit-in" protest

I don't get it.

Our Congress has lost the plot.

What is so hard about have proper vetting and due process gun laws?

You are vetted to get on the list and you have due process to get off the list.

If they would just add vetting and due process it would pass in a flash.

They don't want it to pass. They want it to fail so they can use it as political points in the next election. The people who are killed are dead because of party politics. The despicable ones are the party strategists.
ID: 1798121 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 1798147 - Posted: 23 Jun 2016, 11:37:16 UTC - in response to Message 1797985.  

Can someone explain why the Law was not changed ??
-[ snip ]-
-[ snip ]-

Lengthy indeed so I skipped to the conclusion.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government.
Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population.
It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists.
The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia.
Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument.
The whole of the population would comprise the militia.
As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic.
The intent was not to create a right for other (pg.1039) governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Short questions.
What is a tyrannical government?
Does it apply today?

As I understand it, the right to bear arm is to protect you from tyrannical governments, not to protect you from some criminals.

Hi Jan,

Ok. This is starting to get weird.

Does it apply today? Yes, at least in my opinion and others I talk to. Today more than ever. Our government has become virtually "all powerful" and to appose it without sufficient numbers would be suicide.

The weird part: I assume you agree about the 2nd Amendment when it comes to a tyrannical government. So, you say we can take up arms against the government, if it becomes tyrannical, but when a criminal breaks into our house we cannot protect our lives or our property? I don't agree. Maybe the 2nd Amendment does not specify it specifically, but I'll sure as hell defend my life and anyone with me with whatever force I see fit to use. If it means I shoot to kill, so-be-it. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and watch my friends or family be killed, or my property get stolen, because some liberals decide that only criminals be allowed to have guns. Look what happened in the UK when they banned guns. Crime rate skyrocketed.

Peace! :)
CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 1798147 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1798151 - Posted: 23 Jun 2016, 12:44:27 UTC - in response to Message 1798121.  
Last modified: 23 Jun 2016, 12:44:49 UTC

We'll never see our lot do anything like this :-(

Democrats hold "sit-in" protest

I don't get it.

Our Congress has lost the plot.

What is so hard about have proper vetting and due process gun laws?

You are vetted to get on the list and you have due process to get off the list.

If they would just add vetting and due process it would pass in a flash.

They don't want it to pass. They want it to fail so they can use it as political points in the next election. The people who are killed are dead because of party politics. The despicable ones are the party strategists.

They all have completely lost the plot if they are lost for words and have no powers of reason and instead have to resort to non-verbal childish schoolyard tantrums.


That is not what politics should be about. A disgrace to you all!

Only in the USA.
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1798151 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 . . . 234 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Another example of USA Gun Laws (or lack of...)?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.