Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[khan9739321]

Windows 10 Product Key is a sequence of personal computer operating systems produced by Microsoft as part of the Windows NT family of operating systems. It was released on July 29th; 2015. Windows 10 up till now has now become the world’s most popular operating system as 400 million users. The best feature of this windows operating system is that it brings you the most original gadgets and security tools that will not only make your device secure but also enables you to perform your daily task most creatively and quickly.


Windows 10 Professional W369N-WF78L-LMX95-4CJ69-T880X
Windows 10 Professional N M007W-NTYVK-86PLW-C4287-HIQK3
Windows 10 Enterprise PO3R9-FWDCX-POMWR-H872K-Y986K
Windows 10 Enterprise N RE6XZ-3DP9E-4X9Q3-WRKSA-KHJW4

[Mafic]

I think the important part is that there is a method to change the 2nd amendment, if folks wanted to rewrite it to specify "national guard" or whatnot. The fact that there is no general support for such is blamed on many things, but the simple fact is that the anti-gun lobby long ago learned to demonize specific subsections so they can take chunks of the rights away without having to confront the basic right.

National guard?

There are entire militias that volunteer to patrol US southern border. There are consequences by making big changes like that.

[bladeXcrasher]

National guard?

There are entire militias that volunteer to patrol US southern border. There are consequences by making big changes like that.

From CBP last year:
C.B.P declined our request for an interview, but said in a written statement it "does not endorse or support any private group or organization from taking matters into their own hands, as it could have disastrous personal and public safety consequences."

In Arizona, there are more than a dozen self-described militia groups. None of which were created or sanctioned by the state.

The Arizona State Militia posts YouTube videos of its training to become quote, "the last line of defense" against everything from illegal immigration to an outbreak of disease.

People like that are exactly the issue, these vigilantes.

[Mafic]

From CBP last year:
C.B.P declined our request for an interview, but said in a written statement it "does not endorse or support any private group or organization from taking matters into their own hands, as it could have disastrous personal and public safety consequences."

In Arizona, there are more than a dozen self-described militia groups. None of which were created or sanctioned by the state.

The Arizona State Militia posts YouTube videos of its training to become quote, "the last line of defense" against everything from illegal immigration to an outbreak of disease.

People like that are exactly the issue, these vigilantes.

Of course they don't endorse them but that doesn't mean militias that patrol the border don't exist either. The border isn't something so easy to protect as people believe due to several geographical limitations.

[Shadowferal]

I think the important part is that there is a method to change the 2nd amendment, if folks wanted to rewrite it to specify "national guard" or whatnot. The fact that there is no general support for such is blamed on many things, but the simple fact is that the anti-gun lobby long ago learned to demonize specific subsections so they can take chunks of the rights away without having to confront the basic right.

What rights are taken away?

[Svifnymr]

What rights are taken away?

chunks of rights. "You have the right to a firearm, but not this one, or that one, because they're evil". "You have the right to free speech, but you can't say this, or that."

[Shadowferal]

chunks of rights. "You have the right to a firearm, but not this one, or that one, because they're evil". "You have the right to free speech, but you can't say this, or that."

Apologies. My mistake. I thought you were referring to the NRA.

[misterpuk]

What rights are taken away?

Antigunners do this all the time. They try to strip away rights to own piece by piece, then claim "but you can still have X". They do not understand the phrase "shall not be infringed"

Infringe:
act so as to limit or undermine (something)

IMO - ANY legislation that attempts to limit the public from any and all weapons is by default not constitutional. Alas, the NFA and countless other pieces of legislation are on the books anyways.

[Ghostpanther]

No, I don't. 30% of households have firearms, and that number continues to decline. Even if everyone had weapons, you give too much faith believing that people would use them in the first place and if they that they would use them effectively since the vast majority are untrained. Your stance in the end is based on a position of paranoia and the fantasy that you would somehow contribute to your side effectively.

It has dropped to 36%. Not 30%....https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ab18db8bd2f1 and that is based on a poll. Which may or not be accurate.

While the number of carry conceal permits have increased. Up to 15 million now. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/22...ata-shows.html which is based on actual occurred number of permits issued.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand why people go out of their way to harass those that legally own firearms to be honest. For example, I do not see myself ever owning a firearm but I can't see a reason why others are so concerned about other people's hobbies. Sometimes gun culture baffles me and is cringe worthy. But also sometimes I can see how it is an interesting hobby for those that are collectors and hunters.

Or as in many cases, they simply are exercising their constitutional right to use them for self defense.

[bladeXcrasher]

It has dropped to 36%. Not 30%....https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ab18db8bd2f1 and that is based on a poll. Which may or not be accurate.

While the number of carry conceal permits have increased. Up to 15 million now. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/22...ata-shows.html which is based on actual occurred number of permits issued.

- - - Updated - - -



Or as in many cases, they simply are exercising their constitutional right to use them for self defense.

So a whopping 6% of the adult population based on 2014 numbers. Earth shattering numbers there.

[Shadowferal]

36% of adult population...that's 45 million people. (2014 number used)

[Ghostpanther]

So a whopping 6% of the adult population based on 2014 numbers. Earth shattering numbers there.

No problem. Did not want you to exaggerate. One thing to keep in mind is, this is stats from a phone call poll. I can tell you in my example, if I get a call asking if I have a firearm and how many, 90% of the time I am going to hang up. The other 10% of the time I will say, " None of your damn business." The truth is, there is no way to know for sure how many have firearms. It is only a guess. While carry conceal permits, there is a actual number we know.

[Daelak]

You are changing it, you can't seem to get it that also a well working militia for us at the time was also included every free Joe minute man with a gun going off to fight when they needed to. that's why they didn't put any of that crap you keep saying in the line, they wanted free man the right to arm and form a militia when ever they felt the need to with out any interference (everything you suggest goes directly against that).

**the fact they used that last line voids everything you're saying, they made a point to say people and not militia or state there.

But a random group of men with no fighting experience wouldn't be a well regulated militia, by definition. That's why it's in there, to ensure a proper militia that has a semblance of military chain of command, uniforms, and regular training. There was no interference, since the onus was on the community to ensure proper readiness. This is why the passage of the militia acts were the death knell for the 2nd amendment, if not before when the federal military was initiated.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the important part is that there is a method to change the 2nd amendment, if folks wanted to rewrite it to specify "national guard" or whatnot. The fact that there is no general support for such is blamed on many things, but the simple fact is that the anti-gun lobby long ago learned to demonize specific subsections so they can take chunks of the rights away without having to confront the basic right.

You don't need to specify a national guard, since that is the current modern evolution of a community militia as written in the second amendment. Which is sad, since communities abrogated their own right to assembling their militias to their states, who then abrogated the responsibility to the federal government with the passage of the militia acts.

- - - Updated - - -

Antigunners do this all the time. They try to strip away rights to own piece by piece, then claim "but you can still have X". They do not understand the phrase "shall not be infringed"

Infringe:
act so as to limit or undermine (something)

IMO - ANY legislation that attempts to limit the public from any and all weapons is by default not constitutional. Alas, the NFA and countless other pieces of legislation are on the books anyways.

That is referring to the people's right to assemble a proper functioning militia to fight a global superpower. Subordinate and disciplined community militias with their armories were literally the reason why they won their independence in the first place. That's what it is there for, not for some nth degree interpretation to proliferate firearms as if they were cracker jacks.

[Kodaline]

Antigunners do this all the time. They try to strip away rights to own piece by piece, then claim "but you can still have X". They do not understand the phrase "shall not be infringed"

Infringe:
act so as to limit or undermine (something)

IMO - ANY legislation that attempts to limit the public from any and all weapons is by default not constitutional. Alas, the NFA and countless other pieces of legislation are on the books anyways.

Yeah, they're like "compromise" and they mean compromise like we want all your gun rights, and you want to give up none, so we'll only take half.

The day will come when we can shoot them, and the world will be a better place.

[Dadwen]

But a random group of men with no fighting experience wouldn't be a well regulated militia, by definition. That's why it's in there, to ensure a proper militia that has a semblance of military chain of command, uniforms, and regular training. There was no interference, since the onus was on the community to ensure proper readiness. This is why the passage of the militia acts were the death knell for the 2nd amendment, if not before when the federal military was initiated.

No your wrong because your confusing of the Term well regulated, they would work as intended coming to defense of state and freedom, Well Regulated does not mean in any stretch of the imagination back then it was completely organized just that it was working as intended or properly functioning (and the proper function of the militia was to come to defense of freedom not wear a uniform and march in a straight line). *(And right in the line they tell you what it needs to properly function, you have to try and find outside sources).

*if any of that stuff you were saying were even slightly true, they would have changed that last part to have been something of the effect of people's militia rights is un-infringed not just "people"

[Ghostpanther]

Yeah, they're like "compromise" and they mean compromise like we want all your gun rights, and you want to give up none, so we'll only take half.

The day will come when we can shoot them, and the world will be a better place.

This type of statement is not good. The day we can shoot someone in self defense is already here. Every citizen in the US has the right to express their opinions on gun control and the Second Amendment. Support for or against ether. Along with the right to keep and carry firearms for self defense, is also the right of freedom of speech.

[Ghostpanther]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-shotguns.html

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a slew of gun control measures Friday, including one that raises the age requirement to purchase rifles and shotguns.

In a tightening of what many believe are the strictest gun laws in the nation, Senate Bill 1100 now requires all firearms purchasers to be at least 21, the Mercury News of San Jose reported.


Going to be interesting to see how this will be dealt with if a appeal is launched. How can any state, restrict a Constitutional right based on age, if the ages fall within being a legal adult? Also, if someone has ever been involuntary committed to a mental hospital has a life time ban from owning a firearm?

Are they effectively saying no one can ever be cured with mental treatment? If so, then they should not be allowed to exercise a lot of activities in society. Ever. And they can be helped if they voluntary commit themselves and then get a firearm later?

One of the bills signed, in which a citizen wanting to carry conceal permit needs to attend a 8 hour instruction class , with live fire exercise, I have no issues with since this is exactly what we need to do here in Ohio to get our conceal carry license.

[PhaelixWW]

Also, if someone has ever been involuntary committed to a mental hospital has a life time ban from owning a firearm?

Are they effectively saying no one can ever be cured with mental treatment?

That's not precisely what's happening. Currently, if you're involuntarily committed to a mental hospital by the courts, you're barred from possessing firearms for 5 years. The change in the law would make it that if you're involuntarily committed to a mental hospital by the courts twice within a year, that the 5 years is extended to a lifetime ban.

Like most things, that could probably be appealed and overturned at some later point, but it wouldn't automatically go away.

Committed once? Probably treatable. Committed twice in a year? Much less probable.

[Svifnymr]

Are they effectively saying no one can ever be cured with mental treatment? If so, then they should not be allowed to exercise a lot of activities in society. Ever. And they can be helped if they voluntary commit themselves and then get a firearm later?

The issue is similar to criminal stuff, "mental illness" is as vague as "felony". Plenty of non-violent felonies, plenty of non-dangerous mental illnesses. But, really, a lot of folks with mental illnesses can be perfectly fine while medicated, but it's not a permanent solution. When I worked at a shop, a guy that was buying something mentioned his son was some kind of psychotic whatever. (Not being dismissive, but it was 15 years ago.) He was fine as long as he took his medication, but violent when he didn't. The owner of the store and I spoke about it, refused the sale. There was nothing illegal about the sale (the father was buying it for himself) and it's entirely possible that he just went to somewhere else and just didn't tell them.

There are of course two problems with refusing someone with mental disabilities. First would be the fact that some people might refrain from needed treatments because they fear losing rights. In the end they might cause harm that they wouldn't have if they'd received help. Secondly would be the risk that a bad divorce or other arbitrary course of events might put you in the restricted category through no fault of your own. Your soon-to-be-ex decides to tell some made up stories about you and you get landed somewhere for the "good of society", never to recover your status.

[Ghostpanther]

That's not precisely what's happening. Currently, if you're involuntarily committed to a mental hospital by the courts, you're barred from possessing firearms for 5 years. The change in the law would make it that if you're involuntarily committed to a mental hospital by the courts twice within a year, that the 5 years is extended to a lifetime ban.

Like most things, that could probably be appealed and overturned at some later point, but it wouldn't automatically go away.

Committed once? Probably treatable. Committed twice in a year? Much less probable.

Thanks for the correction. I missed that part apparently.

So if a person commits a crime one year and then another in the same year, just keep them in prison for the rest of their lives? It just seems a bit overkill to my liking. If we want to send a message for people to seek help with mental illness, we should not at the same time send one which says they can never be helped if they do wrong within a year more than once.

And the age thing I really think is unconstitutional when it comes to a Constitutional right ( like voting ) when you are a legal adult.