It is time to demilitarize American society. This fascist march to autocratic authority has to be reversed, and Andy has to take back Mayberry from the Barney invasion...........How did we let this get so bad.
This is precisely why, even though I'm a gun owner, I don't feel safer with concealed/open carry idiots around. For one thing, if you don't feel safe walking around public without a firearm, you're too skittish for me to trust your judgement. And for another... enough accidents, such as this one, happen with trained law enforcement officers. They go through regular, supervised training, and they still screw up. If some wanna-be Wyatt Earp shows up blazing away, there'll be even more chaos.
I saw some open-carry clown a few weeks ago when I went to see Sicario 2: Day of the Soldato at the theater. This goon (I figure he was probably there for Ant Man & Wasp since he looked a helluva lot like the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons) was walking out with a Glock and about five spare clips strapped to his waist. This dude was probably 400 pounds of very-loose flab (that pudding-in-a-bag kind of fat that takes a helluva lot of Cheetos to make), which was hanging over his gun. I'm pretty sure he'd have to lay down and roll over like a manatee to draw the damn thing. He was wearing a purple shirt, some kind of cap with a fake badge on it, and what appeared to be women's slacks, because I've never seen pants that loose and flow-y on a man. Oh, and these silly little cowboy boots he could barely walk in; the pants were tucked into one of 'em, draped over the other. He was wheezing on his way to his car, which was this long-suffering beater about 20 feet from the entrance.
This was a dude too scared to go to the movies without a weapon. When his real enemy is... butter. This dude's blood pressure would probably make a good SAT score, and he's thinkin' terrorists are what's gonna lay him low. He looked like the end result of at least a thousand bad decisions, and I don't think any of us wanted to be part of his next one. I get it, people can be scary, the real world isn't for everybody, but if somebody can't go to the movies without feeling the need for ordnance, then they should do themselves and everyone else a favor and stay home and watch TV from under the bed.
Accidents are gonna happen, even if with a cop. But I'd still trust the cops more than I would some Gomer who's watched a few YouTube videos and read some comics and is just sure he's gonna be a hero.
zsomething wrote:This is precisely why, even though I'm a gun owner, I don't feel safer with concealed/open carry idiots around. For one thing, if you don't feel safe walking around public without a firearm, you're too skittish for me to trust your judgement. And for another... enough accidents, such as this one, happen with trained law enforcement officers. They go through regular, supervised training, and they still screw up. If some wanna-be Wyatt Earp shows up blazing away, there'll be even more chaos.
I saw some open-carry clown a few weeks ago when I went to see Sicario 2: Day of the Soldato at the theater. This goon (I figure he was probably there for Ant Man & Wasp since he looked a helluva lot like the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons) was walking out with a Glock and about five spare clips strapped to his waist. This dude was probably 400 pounds of very-loose flab (that pudding-in-a-bag kind of fat that takes a helluva lot of Cheetos to make), which was hanging over his gun. I'm pretty sure he'd have to lay down and roll over like a manatee to draw the damn thing. He was wearing a purple shirt, some kind of cap with a fake badge on it, and what appeared to be women's slacks, because I've never seen pants that loose and flow-y on a man. Oh, and these silly little cowboy boots he could barely walk in; the pants were tucked into one of 'em, draped over the other. He was wheezing on his way to his car, which was this long-suffering beater about 20 feet from the entrance.
This was a dude too scared to go to the movies without a weapon. When his real enemy is... butter. This dude's blood pressure would probably make a good SAT score, and he's thinkin' terrorists are what's gonna lay him low. He looked like the end result of at least a thousand bad decisions, and I don't think any of us wanted to be part of his next one. I get it, people can be scary, the real world isn't for everybody, but if somebody can't go to the movies without feeling the need for ordnance, then they should do themselves and everyone else a favor and stay home and watch TV from under the bed.
Accidents are gonna happen, even if with a cop. But I'd still trust the cops more than I would some Gomer who's watched a few YouTube videos and read some comics and is just sure he's gonna be a hero.
Florida should be one big prison state, starting with Mar A Lagoon.
The chief said he would wait until the investigation was completed before determining what consequences, if any, the officers involved in the gun battle would face internally. But on its face, he said, the officers’ decision to shoot at Atkins appeared justified.
“I believe it’s what they needed to do in order to defend the people of Los Angeles, defend the people in that store and to defend themselves,” Moore said. “I ask that you place yourself in these two officers’ positions and ask yourself ‘What would you have done?”
The chief said he would wait until the investigation was completed before determining what consequences, if any, the officers involved in the gun battle would face internally. But on its face, he said, the officers’ decision to shoot at Atkins appeared justified.
“I believe it’s what they needed to do in order to defend the people of Los Angeles, defend the people in that store and to defend themselves,” Moore said. “I ask that you place yourself in these two officers’ positions and ask yourself ‘What would you have done?”
Anyone care to take that question on?
I'm not blaming the cops overmuch. It's a tragic accident, but it was a dangerous situation and tragic things happen. Bruce Willis never misses, but he's an actor. Real cops don't have those advantages. The cop was probably doing the best he good, and he fucked up. Somebody died, and that's horrible, but people aren't infallible. I imagine the cop was following his training and doing what he was supposed to do, but, in a gunfire situation, things aren't "neat." It's easy to Monday-morning-quarterback anything, but I haven't heard any details that would make me think something different should have been done... other than the obvious "do a better job of target acquisition," but that's easier to say than do. I'm sure if he had a second chance, he would.
That's why I'm saying I don't like concealed/open-carry people who tote guns everywhere and think they're "sheepdogging" the rest of us. Nobody fuckin' asked 'em, and if an officer who's trained for the job can cause a life-ending mishap, it just underlines the fact that Billy Bob Piddleshit who's played a lot of Call of Duty and thinks he's Jason Bourne now really doesn't need to be brought into the situation. Situations like that are dangerous enough with trained professionals who've had most of the incompetents weeded out first. Don't need some LARPin'-LEO dude who believes he could be Audie Murphy if he just got his chance.
The chief said he would wait until the investigation was completed before determining what consequences, if any, the officers involved in the gun battle would face internally. But on its face, he said, the officers’ decision to shoot at Atkins appeared justified.
“I believe it’s what they needed to do in order to defend the people of Los Angeles, defend the people in that store and to defend themselves,” Moore said. “I ask that you place yourself in these two officers’ positions and ask yourself ‘What would you have done?”
Anyone care to take that question on?
I'm not blaming the cops overmuch. It's a tragic accident, but it was a dangerous situation and tragic things happen. Bruce Willis never misses, but he's an actor. Real cops don't have those advantages. The cop was probably doing the best he good, and he fucked up. Somebody died, and that's horrible, but people aren't infallible. I imagine the cop was following his training and doing what he was supposed to do, but, in a gunfire situation, things aren't "neat." It's easy to Monday-morning-quarterback anything, but I haven't heard any details that would make me think something different should have been done... other than the obvious "do a better job of target acquisition," but that's easier to say than do. I'm sure if he had a second chance, he would.
That's why I'm saying I don't like concealed/open-carry people who tote guns everywhere and think they're "sheepdogging" the rest of us. Nobody fuckin' asked 'em, and if an officer who's trained for the job can cause a life-ending mishap, it just underlines the fact that Billy Bob Piddleshit who's played a lot of Call of Duty and thinks he's Jason Bourne now really doesn't need to be brought into the situation. Situations like that are dangerous enough with trained professionals who've had most of the incompetents weeded out first. Don't need some LARPin'-LEO dude who believes he could be Audie Murphy if he just got his chance.
0
I agree, even though I do have a CWP I very rarely "carry" and that is usually when I go fishing in case of water moccasins (hate those things). Having seen some combat time in my former military life I can tell you when crap is flying around (especially at night) it's very confusing. The thing I find amazing is talking to some folks who LOVE to carry a weapon but never even go to the range to learn how to effectively shoot even under controlled circumstances. Like I tell them - you aren't going to be able to hide behind your CWP because every bullet you shoot has a lawyer attached to it.
I agree, even though I do have a CWP I very rarely "carry" and that is usually when I go fishing in case of water moccasins (hate those things). Having seen some combat time in my former military life I can tell you when crap is flying around (especially at night) it's very confusing. The thing I find amazing is talking to some folks who LOVE to carry a weapon but never even go to the range to learn how to effectively shoot even under controlled circumstances. Like I tell them - you aren't going to be able to hide behind your CWP because every bullet you shoot has a lawyer attached to it.
They are dangerous.
Absolutely appropriate to carry under some situations... going out in the wilderness, definitely. The ones who worry me are the people who somehow don't feel safe going to Wal-Mart or Chillis without a long-gun. Heck, even Tim Allen thinks they're crazy...
EmeraldGhost wrote:So, tell us 'z' and 'gator' ... what firearms restrictions would you propose? And would those be State by State or nationwide?
Well, mandatory training courses before anyone's allowed a firearm. We have to take driver's ed and pass a test to get a driver's license, so something that's made to kill things should require at least as much.
Weapons capable of a certain rate of fire and magazine capacity, as well as certain ballistic capabilities such as AR's are capable of, would still be available, but you'd need a higher class of license to get them. Really, no one needs such firearms for sport, hunting, or home defense. Somehow, things like class 3 licenses have pretty much become a thing of the past, because -- due partly to the NRA -- nobody's enforcing shit anymore. I'm not opposed to people having weapons that they don't actually "need," but I don't think stricter regulation of who gets those weapons is so unreasonable. Any responsible gun owner would want deeper background checks. If there's a tighter guarantee that some murderous headcase isn't going to get their hands on a certain weapon, then my right to get one will be more protected. People aren't as likely to want to outlaw something that's being treated more responsibly. Same with open-carry and concealed-carry permits. They should be earned, not just handed out.
I'm aware that shotguns, deer rifles, etc. can kill, too, and quite well, but the slower rate of fire and more frequent need to reload give victims of shooters a better chance. Nothing's going to stop all gun violence other than total banning and confiscation, and I'm not for that (nor do I think it's even possible at this point). I don't want people to not be able to protect their homes, or go hunting, or shoot targets, or all the other things that firearms are good for. I hang around some lefty-websites with people way farther to the left than me, and I find 'em to be annoying drips, often, but even they rarely want to make all guns unavailable. Most of 'em have guns, actually. Hunting, sport, and home protection are valued rights that we have. But those things don't require military-grade ordnance.
I'd also put back into place things Trump tore down, such as the law that stops mentally ill people from having guns. I don't know who found that to be unreasonable, but I'd have no problem disagreeing with them. If you have mental problems that impair your judgement, no gun for you. If you've been convicted of a violent crime, no gun for you. If you go around making threats, you lose your right to a gun. We're far too lax on these things. Even the NRA claims they want crazy people not to have firearms, but whenever it actually comes time to do things about it, they balk. I just want the walk to match the talk.
I don't know how well "chipping" actually works, but it's something I think they should continue looking into.
The NRA always wants more done on the mental-health side. I'm not against that, either, although they're always vague about exactly what that is. And since they back Trump's rescinding of the keep-the-guns-out-of-the-hands-of-loonies law, forgive me if I don't take them all that seriously. Honestly, I love my guns, but I think the NRA's full of shit.
And, yeah, I'd make these things nationwide. Hard to enforce them otherwise.
I don't think what I've proposed is all that off-the-wall, but I'm sure some people will find fault with 'em, and that's fine -- propose something else, and if it sounds feasible, maybe I'll back it up. Nor do I think what I propose will stop all killings -- nothing will do that. Human nature is not going to be suspended. And if someone really wants to kill, they'll grab a knife or a hammer, etc. -- although they'll have a much harder time getting as many people. Nothing is perfect. But our nation's kill-rate shows something is fucked up, and badly. Whatever it is we're doing now ain't fuckin' workin', jack, and expecting it to just magically change isn't going to happen. But I do know that the current state of the NRA is this:
Posts : 236 Join date : 2018-07-13 Location : Dallas, TX and Seaside, FL
Firearms training is a good thing and should be encouraged. The government should encourage and maybe even subsidize it in fact. The NRA is a huge proponent of training. But, I disagree it should be mandatory that I have to pay for government approved classes, take government approved tests, have my background investigated by the government, obtain special insurance, and so on and so forth just to exercise what is supposed to be my Constitutionally protected RIGHT to defend myself or rebel against a tyrannical government should it ever come to that.
We don't do that for any other Constitutionally protected RIGHT.
Some people say abortion is a right. I vehemently disagree, it's certainly not mentioned in our Constitution, but whatever. But for those who want to say it is, how about we have special government approved training classes, psychological evaluations, background checks, drug tests, government permits and fees, and all manner of other requirements for those women and men who want to kill their babies? I bet none of you lefties would go for that!
I have never carried a firearm in the wilderness unless I was hunting. I have never carried a weapon beyond my home out of fear. I just do not understand how scared a person has to be to need to carry a gun. My father was an avid sportsman and he never kept any of his guns in the house loaded and never carried a weapon out of fear, so I guess it is a learned behavior and cultural thing where folks think they are unsafe. I have had black bears outside my tent in Ontario in the fall when they are all drunked up on fermenting berries and not one of us ever carried a gun.
Now if someone is breaking into my home, I could load my shotgun in about twenty seconds, so it is very simple to install video and motion detectors which give you the twenty seconds. I do not care if you sleep with your gun, if an intruder gets in while you are asleep, you are not prepared despite your gun.
Nobody is taking anybody's gun away. Regulations which deal with gun safety are not a violation of the constitution......not because Seaoat says so....but because the Supreme Court says it........just what we need is more untrained people shooting guns when the police who are trained regularly screw it up. The British system of minimal guns with LEO has a purpose.....to protect the public from a risk.....guns kill.
Posts : 236 Join date : 2018-07-13 Location : Dallas, TX and Seaside, FL
Definition of infringe infringed; infringing transitive verb 1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
District of Columbia V Heller (read it and weep, lefties)
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.Pp. 32–47.(e)
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
The "militia" as written in the founding documents of the time meant any and all able and willing to take up arms. It's interesting (in a radical sense) the way leftists change or manipulate the meaning of words.
General welfare is another constitutional term constantly misconstrued purposefully by the left.
Posts : 236 Join date : 2018-07-13 Location : Dallas, TX and Seaside, FL
PkrBum wrote:The "militia" as written in the founding documents of the time meant any and all able and willing to take up arms. It's interesting (in a radical sense) the way leftists change or manipulate the meaning of words.
As they said in Heller:
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
PkrBum wrote: General welfare is another constitutional term constantly misconstrued purposefully by the left.
Agreed. The phrase "promote the general welfare" was referring to a result of the powers granted to our government by the constitution. It does not bestow any specific "power" in and of itself.
What the looney left doesn't understand, or refuses to admit because it doesn't suit their agendas, is that the Constitution is more of a limiting document that puts constraints on government overreach rather than one that gives power to the government to do anything it wants.
Heller clearly allows regulation of guns. It does affirm the right of owners of guns to have the same in their homes. Beyond that Scalia was certain that regulation is allowed under the constitution.
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Agreed. The phrase "promote the general welfare" was referring to a result of the powers granted to our government by the constitution. It does not bestow any specific "power" in and of itself.
This is not intelligible. I cannot even give a response to constitutional illiteracy. People who do not read cases, and who do not understand the constitution should be careful when spewing nonsense under the guise of understanding the Supreme Court cases and statute.
The statement that "promote the general welfare" does not bestow any specific "power" in and of itself is the dumbest constitutional position I have ever seen on this forum. The enabling powers of Congress as set forth in that paragraph in fact does bestow specific powers on Congress......We are now in an idiotocracy where learned and educated people are being displaced by bumbling folks who cannot read or are not educated. To say that the very enabling powers as set forth in the constitution which enumerates powers of the three branches does not bestow any specific power is simply a merit badge which should be worn proudly by the person who earned it......and which says....I am a dumb asz.....but if I cut and paste things I can prove I understand constitutional concepts......major fail......again this is simply an intelligence thing.
Posts : 2371 Join date : 2012-06-14 Location : Earth
What the looney left doesn't understand, or refuses to admit because it doesn't suit their agendas, is that the Constitution is more of a limiting document that puts constraints on government overreach rather than one that gives power to the government to do anything it wants.[/quote]
What's the 1st line in the 2nd amendment? A well REGULATED Militia. You got a copy of the Reg book? Do they keep a copy down at your Militia HQ? Do you guys meet at Hazels Tavern on "T" street? I gots to know!
Posts : 236 Join date : 2018-07-13 Location : Dallas, TX and Seaside, FL
polecat wrote:
What's the 1st line in the 2nd amendment? A well REGULATED Militia. You got a copy of the Reg book? Do they keep a copy down at your Militia HQ? Do you guys meet at Hazels Tavern on "T" street? I gots to know!
I can only refer you to the Heller decision which I already posted above. Apparently you either did not read it or were unable to comprehend it. You tell me which?
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.[/quote]
Home
