Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[East Ustya]

Also, if I hear loud bang noises I usually run and hide out of a reflex, and you can call me a coward if you want.

Thats not new.

I would run too if placed in your situation.

Ok.

Did not expect that.

[Estanglia]

There's the 'unfair burden on a right' argument;

You don't require a license to speak, which is covered by the first amendment, so why should another right have that restriction?



The right to bear arms is an extension of the right to defend oneself, as a gun is the ultimate tool to protect oneself.

Why, sorry, I can not follow that logic.

Which logic, the first or the second?

For the first one;
The 2A guarantees the right to bear arms, just as the first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech (and just as other amendments guarantee other rights).

Gun licenses are a burden upon the right to bear arms that doesn't exist for other rights like freedom of speech, as you don't require a license to speak but you do to buy a gun.
Thus, gun licenses are a burden upon a right that doesn't exist for other rights, and thus shouldn't exist.

For the second logic:
You have a right to defend yourself against threats to yourself (e.g a violent attacker).
As guns are the best tool for this for a variety of reasons (you don't have to be physically stronger to end the threat, you can shoot from a distance so you are further away from danger etc.), you should be allowed to own a gun to ensure that your right is carried out.

[East Ustya]

Why, sorry, I can not follow that logic.

Which logic, the first or the second?

For the first one;
The 2A guarantees the right to bear arms, just as the first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech (and just as other amendments guarantee other rights).

Gun licenses are a burden upon the right to bear arms that doesn't exist for other rights like freedom of speech, as you don't require a license to speak but you do to buy a gun.
Thus, gun licenses are a burden upon a right that doesn't exist for other rights, and thus shouldn't exist.

For the second logic:
You have a right to defend yourself against threats to yourself (e.g a violent attacker).
As guns are the best tool for this for a variety of reasons (you don't have to be physically stronger to end the threat, you can shoot from a distance so you are further away from danger etc.), you should be allowed to own a gun to ensure that your right is carried out.

Hmm, I get what you are saying.

Thanks.

[Kowani]

Why, sorry, I can not follow that logic.

Which logic, the first or the second?

For the first one;
The 2A guarantees the right to bear arms, just as the first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech (and just as other amendments guarantee other rights).

Gun licenses are a burden upon the right to bear arms that doesn't exist for other rights like freedom of speech, as you don't require a license to speak but you do to buy a gun.
Thus, gun licenses are a burden upon a right that doesn't exist for other rights, and thus shouldn't exist.

The 4th and 9th amendments would like to speak with you.

[Telconi]

I would run too if placed in your situation.

Ok.

Did not expect that.

Why not?

[Estanglia]

Which logic, the first or the second?

For the first one;
The 2A guarantees the right to bear arms, just as the first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech (and just as other amendments guarantee other rights).

Gun licenses are a burden upon the right to bear arms that doesn't exist for other rights like freedom of speech, as you don't require a license to speak but you do to buy a gun.
Thus, gun licenses are a burden upon a right that doesn't exist for other rights, and thus shouldn't exist.

The 4th and 9th amendments would like to speak with you.

I mean, it's just the argument that I've heard. I don't agree with it (because I do not understand the US constitution enough to have an informed opinion on its amendments).

[Telconi]

Which logic, the first or the second?

For the first one;
The 2A guarantees the right to bear arms, just as the first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech (and just as other amendments guarantee other rights).

Gun licenses are a burden upon the right to bear arms that doesn't exist for other rights like freedom of speech, as you don't require a license to speak but you do to buy a gun.
Thus, gun licenses are a burden upon a right that doesn't exist for other rights, and thus shouldn't exist.

The 4th and 9th amendments would like to speak with you.

I'm not aware of any licenses being issued to permit people to be secure against searches and seizures...

[East Ustya]

Ok.

Did not expect that.

Why not?

I am used to being called a coward becuase I get scared of loud noises.

It has become a reflex to expect that.

[Kowani]

The 4th and 9th amendments would like to speak with you.

I mean, it's just the argument that I've heard. I don't agree with it (because I do not understand the US constitution enough to have an informed opinion on its amendments).

Ahh. That’s…somewhat fair, I suppose.

The 4th and 9th amendments would like to speak with you.

I'm not aware of any licenses being issued to permit people to be secure against searches and seizures...

No, but unreasonable searches happen all the time. You know, burdens upon rights and all that.

[Telconi]

I mean, it's just the argument that I've heard. I don't agree with it (because I do not understand the US constitution enough to have an informed opinion on its amendments).

Ahh. That’s…somewhat fair, I suppose.

I'm not aware of any licenses being issued to permit people to be secure against searches and seizures...

No, but unreasonable searches happen all the time. You know, burdens upon rights and all that.

Violation of a right is not the same as legal burden.

[Grinning Dragon]

Which logic, the first or the second?

For the first one;
The 2A guarantees the right to bear arms, just as the first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech (and just as other amendments guarantee other rights).

Gun licenses are a burden upon the right to bear arms that doesn't exist for other rights like freedom of speech, as you don't require a license to speak but you do to buy a gun.
Thus, gun licenses are a burden upon a right that doesn't exist for other rights, and thus shouldn't exist.

The 4th and 9th amendments would like to speak with you.

This makes no sense.
The 9th is to prevent the the application of the statutory rule of interpretation.
The 4th being a check on unreasonable searches and seizures and warrants to be issued on probable cause.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Starting to think it's time to have a second shot heard round the world in MA.. the state where freedom was born and is likely to die first.

S.1389 - One gun a month, may be some other stuff but that's the core thing
S.1387 - Firearm, ammo, and parts sales tax of 4.75%, 50 BMG ban, private sales must be at dealers and imposes $25 limit on fee charged for transfer, some other crap.
H.2040 - Bans "imitation firearms" (basically airsoft guns and the like)
H.2039 - Something about tracing and gathering stats on "crime guns"
H.2048 - Allows self-adding to a "no guns list" and allows others to place you on that list seemingly fairly easily
H.3843 - Bans "ghost guns"
H.3576 - Requires annual affidavit from LTC/FID holders saying no lost or stolen guns
H.2046 - Punishment for reckless discharge of firearms
H.2045 - Some "crime gun" nonsense
H.2044 - Allows suing gun owner whose gun is lost or stolen, who fails to report the loss or theft, whose gun is subsequently used in a crime.
H.2077 - Allows taking away the vehicle of someone who transports a firearm illegally in it.
H.3577 - Establishes a "firearm violence institute" within the Department of Public Health.
H.2097 - Microstamping requirement, 15 gun per year limit, some other crap.
H.2096 - Bans "ghost guns"
H.2095 - Bans all "large capacity magazines" not registered to a specific owner, no more transfers.
H.2094 - Extra penalties for selling guns not on the "Approved Firearms Roster"
H.2093 - Requires liability insurance for gun owners. Completely non-specific, requires commissioner of insurance to promulgate regulations for minimum terms of liability insurance policies.
H.2092 - Requires dealer for private sales, sets $25 max fee
H.2091 - Live fire requirement for license courses
H.2089 - Includes "dangerous" weapons in the definition of "violent crime"
S.1451 - I believe this mostly just increases punishments for various weapon-related crimes.
H.2117 - "Smart gun" Task Force
H.3782 - Requires every firearm sold by a dealer to be sent to state police to be test fired, photographed, and have a ballistics report made.
H.3783 - Annual inspection of every firearm owned, initial inspection within 10 days of receipt.
H.3781 - 10 day waiting period, 1 gun a month
H.3780 - 1 gun a month
S.1361 - Bans "ghost guns"
S.1360 - Same as H.2093 - Requires liability insurance for gun owners. Completely non-specific, requires commissioner of insurance to promulgate regulations for minimum terms of liability insurance policies.
H.3927 - Straw purchase ban

Christ, some of that is worse than California.

Indeed. I also can't help but look at this and wonder how it's even able to pass muster, as it's basically placing undue burden/poll taxes of a sort on being able to lawfully exercise a constitutional right. Which last I checked, besides being a shitty thing to do, was also illegal as all hell.

Every single one of those piss poor ideas will not stop crime, won't even put a dent in it, the only thing every one of those ideas represent is a burning hatred for individual freedom, designed to affect the less fortunate and minorities. All in the name of govt is father, govt is mother.

Yup. However, stopping or reducing crime isn't the goal of the anti's and we all know it. Never has and never will be, the least they could do is be honest about it though instead of playing this piss poor charade of theirs.

Almost every single one of those is designed to inconvenience law abiding gun owners and not do anything else at all.

You got that right. It's almost like the "Democratic" Party hates the idea of individual freedoms, and how anyone can support a party so willing to violate the constitution at will as well as blatantly lie to the populaces face is beyond me.

That's a lousy excuse.

And I meant how do you prevent mass gun violence and spree shootings?

Here in MA? You do NOTHING as it's a literal NON-ISSUE!

These laws being pushed here in MA are in response to (according to table 20 of the FBI's database) 0 people last year being murdered by ANY RIFLE, 0 people being murdered by shotguns, 34 people by handguns, 36 by knives, 29 by other weapons, and lastly 6 by hands/fists/feet. Yup, that's right folks, you are literally 6x more likely to be killed getting punched in the face by a stranger then you are by getting shot by a scary black rifle. Again, these proposed laws are a solution literally looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

[Diopolis]

Christ, some of that is worse than California.

Indeed. I also can't help but look at this and wonder how it's even able to pass muster, as it's basically placing undue burden/poll taxes of a sort on being able to lawfully exercise a constitutional right. Which last I checked, besides being a shitty thing to do, was also illegal as all hell.

Every single one of those piss poor ideas will not stop crime, won't even put a dent in it, the only thing every one of those ideas represent is a burning hatred for individual freedom, designed to affect the less fortunate and minorities. All in the name of govt is father, govt is mother.

Yup. However, stopping or reducing crime isn't the goal of the anti's and we all know it. Never has and never will be, the least they could do is be honest about it though instead of playing this piss poor charade of theirs.

Almost every single one of those is designed to inconvenience law abiding gun owners and not do anything else at all.

You got that right. It's almost like the "Democratic" Party hates the idea of individual freedoms, and how anyone can support a party so willing to violate the constitution at will as well as blatantly lie to the populaces face is beyond me.

The Democrats pass laws that are inconvenient to gun owners because gun owners vote republican- they do the same thing for homeschoolers. It’s incredibly petty and not about their stated goals at all.

[Telconi]

Christ, some of that is worse than California.

Indeed. I also can't help but look at this and wonder how it's even able to pass muster, as it's basically placing undue burden/poll taxes of a sort on being able to lawfully exercise a constitutional right. Which last I checked, besides being a shitty thing to do, was also illegal as all hell.

Every single one of those piss poor ideas will not stop crime, won't even put a dent in it, the only thing every one of those ideas represent is a burning hatred for individual freedom, designed to affect the less fortunate and minorities. All in the name of govt is father, govt is mother.

Yup. However, stopping or reducing crime isn't the goal of the anti's and we all know it. Never has and never will be, the least they could do is be honest about it though instead of playing this piss poor charade of theirs.

Almost every single one of those is designed to inconvenience law abiding gun owners and not do anything else at all.

You got that right. It's almost like the "Democratic" Party hates the idea of individual freedoms, and how anyone can support a party so willing to violate the constitution at will as well as blatantly lie to the populaces face is beyond me.

That's a lousy excuse.

And I meant how do you prevent mass gun violence and spree shootings?

Here in MA? You do NOTHING as it's a literal NON-ISSUE!

These laws being pushed here in MA are in response to (according to table 20 of the FBI's database) 0 people last year being murdered by ANY RIFLE, 0 people being murdered by shotguns, 34 people by handguns, 36 by knives, 29 by other weapons, and lastly 6 by hands/fists/feet. Yup, that's right folks, you are literally 6x more likely to be killed getting punched in the face by a stranger then you are by getting shot by a scary black rifle. Again, these proposed laws are a solution literally looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

Because they judge shop, I mean fuck man the 9th circuit would probably rubber a stamp a law that required gun owners to undergo a decade of gitmo torture before getting a gun.

[Paddy O Fernature]

The Democrats pass laws that are inconvenient to gun owners because gun owners vote republican- they do the same thing for homeschoolers. It’s incredibly petty and not about their stated goals at all.

The part that I find absolutely hilarious when people openly try and defend them and their actions on pointless gun control, is the fact that those that do so are overlooking the glaring fact that if they (Democratic Lawmakers) are this willing to flat out lie to your face about an issue as easy to disprove as gun control, then what else are they lying about to you that isn't as easily debatable.

Because they judge shop, I mean fuck man the 9th circuit would probably rubber a stamp a law that required gun owners to undergo a decade of gitmo torture before getting a gun.

They are doing more then just Judge Shopping these days.. they are flat out making direct threats against the Supreme Court to either stay out of their way or else. In my opinion, those who made such threats should be stripped from their position and thrown into jail immediately no questions asked.

[Telconi]

The Democrats pass laws that are inconvenient to gun owners because gun owners vote republican- they do the same thing for homeschoolers. It’s incredibly petty and not about their stated goals at all.

The part that I find absolutely hilarious when people openly try and defend them and their actions on pointless gun control, is the fact that those that do so are overlooking the glaring fact that if they (Democratic Lawmakers) are this willing to flat out lie to your face about an issue as easy to disprove as gun control, then what else are they lying about to you that isn't as easily debatable.

Because they judge shop, I mean fuck man the 9th circuit would probably rubber a stamp a law that required gun owners to undergo a decade of gitmo torture before getting a gun.

They are doing more then just Judge Shopping these days.. they are flat out making direct threats against the Supreme Court to either stay out of their way or else. In my opinion, those who made such threats should be stripped from their position and thrown into jail immediately no questions asked.

Well that's an awfully merciful view IMO

[Paddy O Fernature]

The part that I find absolutely hilarious when people openly try and defend them and their actions on pointless gun control, is the fact that those that do so are overlooking the glaring fact that if they (Democratic Lawmakers) are this willing to flat out lie to your face about an issue as easy to disprove as gun control, then what else are they lying about to you that isn't as easily debatable.



They are doing more then just Judge Shopping these days.. they are flat out making direct threats against the Supreme Court to either stay out of their way or else. In my opinion, those who made such threats should be stripped from their position and thrown into jail immediately no questions asked.

Well that's an awfully merciful view IMO

I honestly think them being stripped of power and having to watch helplessly from the sidelines would be harder on them to cope with then say traditional tar and feathering.

[Aclion]

They are doing more then just Judge Shopping these days.. they are flat out making direct threats against the Supreme Court to either stay out of their way or else. In my opinion, those who made such threats should be stripped from their position and thrown into jail immediately no questions asked.

I'll see jail and raise you, to the tune of charging them with a capital offence.

[Paddy O Fernature]

They are doing more then just Judge Shopping these days.. they are flat out making direct threats against the Supreme Court to either stay out of their way or else. In my opinion, those who made such threats should be stripped from their position and thrown into jail immediately no questions asked.

I'll see jail and raise you, to the tune of charging them with a capital offence.

I'm very much OK with this.

[Telconi]

Well that's an awfully merciful view IMO

I honestly think them being stripped of power and having to watch helplessly from the sidelines would be harder on them to cope with then say traditional tar and feathering.

I was thinking prison too, but I'd include bill sponsors and yes voters, as well as signing executives.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I honestly think them being stripped of power and having to watch helplessly from the sidelines would be harder on them to cope with then say traditional tar and feathering.

I was thinking prison too, but I'd include bill sponsors and yes voters, as well as signing executives.

Certainly would be a good start for oppressing pointless tyranny and dealing with corrupt politicians.

[Crockerland]

Terrorizing and traumatizing your children so much they are afraid of fireworks epic style to own the NRA.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

(Image)

Terrorizing and traumatizing your children so much they are afraid of fireworks epic style to own the NRA.

Agreed. Let's be honest, an average citizen has a very small chance of being the victim of a crime like that.

[Kernen]

Exactly. Essentially what they're proposing is "guilty until proven innocent".

How about you DON'T jump to conclusions ok?

Please ask before you assume I mean A or B.....

I mean what about a Gun license?

You have a drivers license, so why not?

You can't license a right and then hold it out as a right. A licensed right is a privilege. It's not the Bill of Privileges.

[The Two Jerseys]

(Image)

Terrorizing and traumatizing your children so much they are afraid of fireworks epic style to own the NRA.

Does Heidi also calm the kid down by putting meth in his coffee?