Lafayette Shooting

[Indy]

Don't like it? Pass an Amendment.

You don't need to change the constitution. Another case will eventually get to the Court, and this will be over-turned. Even in this decision, the 5 of the justices that voted to overturn the DC law said that there should be limits on the 2nd amendment. They just disagree with how far they should go.

[Dan H]

Same goes for churches being tax exempt.

That's actually the exact opposite. Churches being tax exempt has nothing to do with the Constitution. Actually, as Andy pointed out, it appears to be in direct contrast to the 1st amendment.

Much like you're doing with the 2nd Amendment, you're giving too much weight to the prefatory statement.

My statement was this:

"Same goes for churches being tax exempt. Campaign to get the laws changed if it offends you so much."

[Dan H]

Don't like it? Pass an Amendment.

You don't need to change the constitution. Another case will eventually get to the Court, and this will be over-turned. Even in this decision, the 5 of the justices that voted to overturn the DC law said that there should be limits on the 2nd amendment. They just disagree with how far they should go.

Doubtful. They've refused to take up other cases, citing existing precedent.

[Nodack]

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/c ... tal-health

Mayor Bill de Blasio, commenting publicly for the first time on Wednesday's on-air murders of two television journalists in Virginia, said Thursday that unless action is taken to strengthen the nation's gun control laws and mental health services, similar acts of violence are likely to occur in the future.

[Superbone]

File that under, "Duh".

[Ghost]

I suppose if you wanted to Federally mandate proper discipline and training you might have a leg to stand on, but you're approaching from the basis of regulating the keep and bear arms part

Can someone besides Dan or me who has followed the debate we have been having for what seems like thousands of posts, over the course of years, please confirm that I have ALWAYS, every time, advocated in favor of proper discipline and training, and not regulating the keep and bear arms part? This is not a rhetorical question; my head might explode because I feel like I keep sliding into alternate universes where we have never had this exact conversation.

Someone, please give a two-sentence summary of what I have said about my views on gun control in the past. Please?

Sent from my Nexus 6 to annoy Superbone using Tapatalk

[Indy]

You think people should be forced to control their firearms, to the extent that they can be charged with a crime if their firearms are used to commit a crime where they were found negligent of controlling them. And I believe you mentioned something in the past about having some type of registration and screening process up front, but almost no limits on what type of weapons one could buy.

[Indy]

File that under, "Duh".

No kidding. In fact, I would argue that even if we did those things it would likely happen again.

[Ghost]

You think people should be forced to control their firearms, to the extent that they can be charged with a crime if their firearms are used to commit a crime where they were found negligent of controlling them. And I believe you mentioned something in the past about having some type of registration and screening process up front, but almost no limits on what type of weapons one could buy.

Thank you. So this is the correct universe.

Sent from my Nexus 6 to annoy Superbone using Tapatalk

[Indy]

You think people should be forced to control their firearms, to the extent that they can be charged with a crime if their firearms are used to commit a crime where they were found negligent of controlling them. And I believe you mentioned something in the past about having some type of registration and screening process up front, but almost no limits on what type of weapons one could buy.

Thank you. So this is the correct universe.

Sent from my Nexus 6 to annoy Superbone using Tapatalk

Those two are not mutually exclusive. This could be the wrong universe and those still be your thoughts.

[Superbone]

I might have to switch over to the other universe if that Andy/Ghost doesn't personally annoy me with every. single. post.

And maybe their Phoenix Suns are five time champs!

[Ghost]

I'm annoying in all universes, Bone.

[Ghost]

You think people should be forced to control their firearms, to the extent that they can be charged with a crime if their firearms are used to commit a crime where they were found negligent of controlling them. And I believe you mentioned something in the past about having some type of registration and screening process up front, but almost no limits on what type of weapons one could buy.

Thank you. So this is the correct universe.

Sent from my Nexus 6 to annoy Superbone using Tapatalk

Those two are not mutually exclusive. This could be the wrong universe and those still be your thoughts.

Fair enough.

Sent from my Nexus 6 to annoy Superbone using Tapatalk

[Superbone]

I'm annoying in all universes, Bone.

Dang it! Probably a less funny annoying in the other universe too. OK, I'm staying.

[Ghost]

I'm annoying in all universes, Bone.

Dang it! Probably a less funny annoying in the other universe too. OK, I'm staying.

Definitely. The other mes just walk around saying "Hey bro" and fist pumping.

Sent from my Nexus 6 to annoy Superbone using Tapatalk

[Superbone]

I'm annoying in all universes, Bone.

Dang it! Probably a less funny annoying in the other universe too. OK, I'm staying.

Definitely. The other mes just walk around saying "Hey bro" and fist pumping.

Sent from my Nexus 6 to annoy Superbone using Tapatalk

Ha! Yuck!

[Nodack]

We have been rehashing these things over and over for years Indy. Most here want stricter regulations and training for gun owners. Dan represents the NRA view that everybody should own a gun, there are too many regulations already everybody else wants to take all their guns away no matter what the say.

I have seen a lot of cowboy movies in my day and back then they had similar problems. Guns were a way of life in the old West and everybody had one as part of their survival gear. In a lot of movies the Sheriff would make everybody turn in their guns when they entered the city because it was just too dangerous having a bunch of drunk cattle ranchers and prospectors wandering around the city with guns. People die. They didn't the ask for a Supreme Court ruling or ask anybody for permission, the just did it. Maybe it was just the movies, but I have a feeling the did it in real life. I'm sure there were people arguing that somebody could kill somebody with a horse too back then so why ban guns? Now we have towns with millions of people in them and the Sheriff isn't taking anybody's guns away before they enter town anymore.

Times change. Sometimes people change with the times and sometimes people refuse to change with the times.

[Ghost]

I don't know if that's completely fair. I don't think Dan wants EVERYONE to own a gun. But he wants people to be able own guns, and doesn't like restrictions on that which often serve no real purpose. I agree with him here. Obviously, we disagree on a lot of other parts to this issue. But that's OK.

In the wild west days, many towns were not even part of the US yet, or were in territories or places so remote that they basically functioned independently from the nation. So yeah, the sheriff could make you hand over your gun when you came to town. But that's not really applicable today.

Sent from my Nexus 6 to annoy Superbone using Tapatalk

[Mori Chu]

Here's one thing I'd like to know. Is "banning" things useful, or isn't it? Pro-gun advocates love to say that if you ban guns, outlaws will still acquire them anyway. Okay, fine, let's assume that's so.

Then why do you want to ban abortions? Won't women just get those anyway, often in a riskier illegal manner that is more likely to harm their health?

Not trying to make this thread about abortion at all. I just wanted to hear the difference in terms of effectiveness of legal bans of various actions.

[Indy]

Here's one thing I'd like to know. Is "banning" things useful, or isn't it? Pro-gun advocates love to say that if you ban guns, outlaws will still acquire them anyway. Okay, fine, let's assume that's so.

Then why do you want to ban abortions? Won't women just get those anyway, often in a riskier illegal manner that is more likely to harm their health?

Not trying to make this thread about abortion at all. I just wanted to hear the difference in terms of effectiveness of legal bans of various actions.

The "outlaws will still get guns" argument is just the icing on top of the 2nd Amendment.