19 students 2 teachers dead in Texas elementary school shooting

[+Hammerclaw]

6 minutes ago, Timothy said:

 

I hear you.

And we all know there’s not an easy fix.

It would take a sustained campaign over a decade with amnesty’s and buybacks and public awareness etc.

But, a decade later; the criminals have less access to guns.

And in 20 years, harder to find guns.

30 years, maybe don’t have to even think about guns.

You're naivety is...charming. All that would do is give coyotes something else to smuggle over our undefended, wide open Southern Border. Then there's the matter of all the unregistered firearms that even a police state couldn't account for. It may happen, someday, in a century, perhaps, unless the world goes to hell in a hand basket and nobody gives a damn, anymore.

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

But you’re not the only one in this thread. 
 

But I'm not, and have not been saying there's a one size fits all solution. I agree that there is not. Each solution has to be tailored to the situation.

3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I’ve had family members killed by firearms. And I worry about my son who is a police officer. 

I'm asking about your experience in a gun free culture and a gun culture. 

I've seen both. I remember seeing guns for sale in K mart. 

3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Defense. It’s my right to defend myself and my family, as I see fit, within the law. It’s not anyone’s right to tell me I can’t. 
 

cormac

Guns are not the only form of defence. Yes you have a right to defence but guns locked up in a cupboard isn't going to be much use there are they. 

There are genuine uses. I agree with that. I don't agree that everyone in America had a genuine reason to own a gun. 

[Autochthon1990]

5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You're naivety is...charming. All that would do is give coyotes something else to smuggle over our undefended, wide open Southern Border. Then there's the matter of all the unregistered firearms that even a police state couldn't account for. It may happen, someday, in a century, perhaps, unless the world goes to hell in a hand basket and nobody gives a damn, anymore.

Dude we have record apprehensions on the border, it's not 'wide open', they're being caught and busted. 

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

They should've armed the good ones to shoot the bad ones. More guns needed. American logic while their children die.

There's a comment on here it's England's fault because of the way the 2nd amendment is written. Seriously? You've had long enough to sort your gun problem out and you do nothing. Get with the rest of the civilised world. 

What number mass shooting will it take before you act? 

Like the stars

[+Hammerclaw]

12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

If that's the case any law about arms impinges on 2A.

Not reasonable laws. It shouldn't be easier to get a gun than to get a driver's license. Mental health evaluations would be OK. Ownership of semiautomatic firearms should be for a need-to-own situation. All gunowners should be evaluated for fitness to own. 

[cormac mac airt]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Do you realise as a rural dweller that gun regulations would not affect you? Our farmers are exempt. 

It would make certain other citizens are responsible and cannot buy a gun without demonstrating a genuine usage for it.

What's actually wrong with that? 

Yours maybe, ours while given a bit of latitude I wouldn’t exactly call exempt. 
 

Responsible citizens isn’t the problem though. 
 

Generically speaking “you” don’t determine my rights, especially from the comfort of another country, that’s what’s wrong with that. 
 

cormac

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Exactly. That's the difference between a tool and a weapon. 

I agree. Hell, we have even had swimming pools compared. That actually turned out funny and is now something of an inside joke. A lot of laughs were provided through that silly comparison. Every now and then you will see the comment about the only thing stopping a bad guy with a pool is a good guy with a pool

Now cars are regulated and those regulations change and we comply for community safety. I'm happy with that. But apply that to guns and Americans lose their minds. It works. There's too much success to say otherwise. 

Don't forget the denial that vehicle proof bollards are vehicle proof.

[cormac mac airt]

16 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

The point is your toys aren't worth quite so many human lives. Gun control needs to happen for the good of the people because frankly, folks are tired of having their kids come home in coffins.

And how many of those people did I shoot? Exactly. NONE!

cormac

[Autochthon1990]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And how many of those people did I shoot? Exactly. NONE!

cormac

Sorry, but they need to be restricted. Could be stolen, could end up on the black market, could end up in the hands of, say, your son going off his nut someday. You'll need to get trained, licensed, and the most dangerous ones will need to be confiscated. 

[cormac mac airt]

15 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

But I'm not, and have not been saying there's a one size fits all solution. I agree that there is not. Each solution has to be tailored to the situation.

I'm asking about your experience in a gun free culture and a gun culture. 

I've seen both. I remember seeing guns for sale in K mart. 

Guns are not the only form of defence. Yes you have a right to defence but guns locked up in a cupboard isn't going to be much use there are they. 

There are genuine uses. I agree with that. I don't agree that everyone in America had a genuine reason to own a gun. 

I’ve lived in Europe too, both England and Germany. Different cultures different ways of doing things but I’ve NEVER tried telling anyone from either country what their rights should or shouldn’t be based on what mine were in my own country. 
 

It keeps them out of the hands of children and anyone else who doesn’t need to be using them. 
 

Not everyone in America has a gun. 
 

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

5 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Sorry, but they need to be restricted. Could be stolen, could end up on the black market, could end up in the hands of, say, your son going off his nut someday. You'll need to get trained, licensed, and the most dangerous ones will need to be confiscated. 

So could the swords I have in my collection. Are you now going to be telling me I can’t have those either? I don’t think I’d give a damn. 
 

cormac

[+Hammerclaw]

33 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Dude we have record apprehensions on the border, it's not 'wide open', they're being caught and busted. 

I want some of what you're smokin' dude.

Nearly 1.06 Million CBP Encounters at Southwest Border Thus Far in FY 2022 (cis.org)

Edited May 25, 2022 by Hammerclaw

[Autochthon1990]

8 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

So could the swords I have in my collection. Are you now going to be telling me I can’t have those either? I don’t think I’d give a damn. 
 

cormac

When an incel can kill half his class with a sword in a matter of minutes, then we'll talk about those. 

[Golden Duck]

15 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Not reasonable laws. It shouldn't be easier to get a gun than to get a driver's license. Mental health evaluations would be OK. Ownership of semiautomatic firearms should be for a need-to-own situation. All gunowners should be evaluated for fitness to own. 

Not according to Vandercoy.

Quote

I. INTRODUCTION

...

The purpose of this Article is only to define those shares of liberty the Framers intended to retain and those given up in the context of the Second Amendment. By way of preview, this Article will contend that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect each individual's right to keep and bear arms, and to guarantee that individuals acting collectively could throw off the yokes of any oppressive government which might arise. Thus, the right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government.

...

VI. CONCLUSION

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

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 governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=vulr

If the people aren't armed to a level equal to the standing army, the people's rights have already been impinged.

Disposing of military assets to the people might even mitigate some of the deficit.

[+Hammerclaw]

4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Not according to Vandercoy.

https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=vulr

If the people aren't armed to a level equal to the standing army, the people's rights have already been impinged.

Disposing of military assets to the people might even mitigate some of the deficit.

Not necessarily. You could buy surplus B.A.R.s in 1920's and '30s or any other surplus automatic weapon from any country. Now, you have to have a special permit as a collector or dealer to own one. The general public is forbidden to own one.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Hammerclaw

[psyche101]

20 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Yours maybe, ours while given a bit of latitude I wouldn’t exactly call exempt. 

The point is there's a reason farmers have a gun. That means regulations don't affect them. It would not affect you. It would affect clowns with basements full of uzis, militant groups and people who simply don't need one. Like people who settle Facebook fights with a gun. If it didn't end, regulations would definitely minimise that impressively.

20 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Responsible citizens isn’t the problem though. 

Responsible citizens upgrade and sell second hand as cheap.

That supplies the criminal sector. As long as guns run loose as they do, that market will continue to be supplied. Did you know a black market pistol here goes upward of 15k? Criminals can't afford guns when regulations are introduced. That alone solved a lot of problems or need for them at all.

20 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Generically speaking “you” don’t determine my rights, especially from the comfort of another country, that’s what’s wrong with that. 
 

cormac

I have a different view. I'd say a right is not just something some individual subjectivist pronounces. There is a process, a review and a consensus. That can't be done fairly in a closed population. Kids are dying every year. A lot of innocent people are. It's natural to be distressed at such a situation that looks pretty circular from an outside view. More often than not, two heads are better than one. 

[Autochthon1990]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Not necessarily. You could buy surplus B.A.R.s in 1920's and '30s or any other surplus automatic weapon from any country. Now, you have to have a special permit as a collector or dealer to own one. The general public is forbidden to own one.

Yeah that's because people kept on using tommy guns to rob banks and massacre rival gangs. 

[Golden Duck]

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Not necessarily. You could buy surplus B.A.R.s in 1920's and '30s or any other surplus automatic weapon from any country. Now, you have to have a special permit as a collector or dealer to own one. The general public is forbidden to own one.

So the views of a Professor of Law from Valparaiso University School of Law expressed in a paper in 1994 are not so valid today?

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, Autochthon1990 said:

Yeah that's because people kept on using tommy guns to rob banks and massacre rival gangs. 

Got that right. Before WW2, there were few semi-auto long guns in civilian hands. Now they're everywhere. They're really neat, fascinating in their assault rifle configuration, fun to own and there's not a legitimate reason to own one, other than that. People use to hunt just fine, without them. All my guns are single action revolvers or lever action. They give me a little more time to think before pulling the trigger.

[Golden Duck]

4 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Yeah that's because people kept on using tommy guns to rob banks and massacre rival gangs. 

But they were criminals, not law abiding citizens.  Arms should have no restriction if the purpose is to keep the government in check.

The people need to be armed equal to that of the standing army.  An M1 or an A10 would be pretty cool for a novelty; but, I reckon an Apache would be more useful for the day-to-day commute.

[+Hammerclaw]

9 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

So the views of a Professor of Law from Valparaiso University School of Law expressed in a paper in 1994 are not so valid today?

His opinion is duly noted, but laws change. The right to keep and bear arms was written for muskets and flintlock rifles. Those type of weapons are merely very refined versions of hand cannons.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Hammerclaw

[cormac mac airt]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The point is there's a reason farmers have a gun. That means regulations don't affect them. It would not affect you. It would affect clowns with basements full of uzis, militant groups and people who simply don't need one. Like people who settle Facebook fights with a gun. If it didn't end, regulations would definitely minimise that impressively.

Responsible citizens upgrade and sell second hand as cheap.

That supplies the criminal sector. As long as guns run loose as they do, that market will continue to be supplied. Did you know a black market pistol here goes upward of 15k? Criminals can't afford guns when regulations are introduced. That alone solved a lot of problems or need for them at all.

I have a different view. I'd say a right is not just something some individual subjectivist pronounces. There is a process, a review and a consensus. That can't be done fairly in a closed population. Kids are dying every year. A lot of innocent people are. It's natural to be distressed at such a situation that looks pretty circular from an outside view. More often than not, two heads are better than one. 

Living in a rural area does not necessarily make one a farmer, so that doesn’t really apply. 

Some do most don’t. My rifle I inherited, when I die it will be passed down within the family.

I don’t think you understand just how many ILLEGAL guns there are here. Regulation will never touch those weapons, for the most part. 
 

cormac

[+Hammerclaw]

4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Living in a rural area does not necessarily make one a farmer, so that doesn’t really apply. 

Some do most don’t. My rifle I inherited, when I die it will be passed down within the family.

I don’t think you understand just how many ILLEGAL guns there are here. Regulation will never touch those weapons, for the most part. 
 

cormac

Not necessarily illegal, just unregistered. We used to not have to register and get background checks for handguns and long guns. You'd walk into Kmart and walk out with cheap Timex and handgun, no worries.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Hammerclaw

[+Hammerclaw]

55 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Don't forget the denial that vehicle proof bollards are vehicle proof.

You haven't seen what a two-ton Dodge Ram Pickup can do....

[cormac mac airt]

6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Not necessarily illegal, just unregistered. We used to not have to register and get background checks for handguns and long guns. You'd walk into Kmart and walk out with cheap Timex and handgun, no worries.

True, it’s a combination. The main point still applies though, no amount of regulation is going to make a damn bit of difference to what’s already out there for criminals and others to misuse. 
 

cormac