(May 27, 2022 at 11:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Also, all rights have limits. Can't make threats, can't defend libel with "freedom of the press", that sort of thing.

The right to bear a firearm should of course be accompanied by restrictions.

Being part of a well regulated* militia where you have to qualify and then complete certain trining before gaining access to guns could be one, and bonus, it's constitutional unlike current gun laws.

* I.e. state controlled at either federal or state level.

But hey, we all know that nothing meaningful is going to happen unless and until one of Ted Cruz's children get caught in one of these situations. Republitraitors never do anything for their country unless it benefits them personally and more.

(May 28, 2022 at 9:25 am)Nomad Wrote:

(May 27, 2022 at 11:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Also, all rights have limits. Can't make threats, can't defend libel with "freedom of the press", that sort of thing.

The right to bear a firearm should of course be accompanied by restrictions.

Being part of a well regulated* militia where you have to qualify and then complete certain trining before gaining access to guns could be one, and bonus, it's constitutional unlike current gun laws.

* I.e. state controlled at either federal or state level.

But hey, we all know that nothing meaningful is going to happen unless and until one of Ted Cruz's children get caught in one of these situations.  Republitraitors never do anything for their country unless it benefits them personally and more.

Yeah - because to date only ( D ) children have been killed!!!


(Doing my impression of a Demodrooler)

Is that the impression you’ve been doing? Shit, I was way off. Thought Glenn beck on meth fucking tucker carlson raw dog.

(May 27, 2022 at 8:36 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 26, 2022 at 5:59 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Your objections to it notwithstanding, I still think psych evaluations would help (not solve the problem, but help). But I'm willing to forego that if gun owners would agree to make owning a firearm no more difficult than owning and operating a car.

-Title and tag at each point of sale.

-Required training.

-Written/practical tests.

-Minimum health requirements (vision, hearing, etc).

-Liability insurance (people who own more than one firearm would be eligible for a multi-gun discount).

-Renewals and inspections at regular intervals.

Boru

Addendum: A point system for violations, leading to suspension or revocation of gun ownership.

Guess the whole "shall not be infringed" means nothing to you.

The Right is more than happy to "infringe" when it involves black folks exercising their 2nd amendment rights, see the Mulford Act...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

Quote:Governor Ronald Reagan, who was coincidentally present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."

A good example of why allowing our government a pretense for class war is a bad idea. They’re never not down for it, it’s a truly bipartisan endeavor.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: The earth belongs to the living, not the dead. The second amendment is outdated by a couple hundred years. Governments must adapt to the times, and it's rather clear that we need to adapt to the times instead of continuing to live in the past. The founding father's won't care. They can't. They're all six feet under, and will be invariably unavailable for comment.

(May 28, 2022 at 9:25 am)Nomad Wrote:

(May 27, 2022 at 11:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Also, all rights have limits. Can't make threats, can't defend libel with "freedom of the press", that sort of thing.

The right to bear a firearm should of course be accompanied by restrictions.

Being part of a well regulated* militia where you have to qualify and then complete certain trining before gaining access to guns could be one, and bonus, it's constitutional unlike current gun laws.

* I.e. state controlled at either federal or state level.

But hey, we all know that nothing meaningful is going to happen unless and until one of Ted Cruz's children get caught in one of these situations. Republitraitors never do anything for their country unless it benefits them personally and more.

For the record, at this point, in American law, the "Militia" is divided into two parts: The Organized Militia and the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia consists of every able-bodied male citizen of the US between 17 and 44 (this definition may be broader in certain states), and as far as I've been able to tell (rather frustratingly, the federal laws say NOTHING about the duties of the unorganized militia), from the state laws I was able to find, it seems their duties seem to consist mostly of waiting to get drafted, mostly in anticipation of foreign invasions (note: the closest we've come to a foreign invasion in my lifetime is when Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001 and before that, we'd have to go back to Pearl Harbor, the Aleutian Islands campaign, some isolated Japanese torpedo attacks and air raids, and a handful of Nazi espionage and sabotage campaigns in World War II.) What's worth noting is that on the off chance that the unorganized militia is called into service, in what would be the first military draft since 1973, as far as I can tell, the military does not allow you to bring your own personal gun into combat. the closest I’ve been able to find in living memory was Patton’s pearl-handled revolver in WW2, but he didn’t get the opportunity to fire it.

The organized militia is just The National Guard and the Naval Militia.

(May 28, 2022 at 12:23 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote:

(May 27, 2022 at 8:36 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Guess the whole "shall not be infringed" means nothing to you.

The Right is more than happy to "infringe" when it involves black folks exercising their 2nd amendment rights, see the Mulford Act...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

Quote:Governor Ronald Reagan, who was coincidentally present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."

Looks to me that the law was aimed (no pun intended) for groups such as The Black Panthers, not all black folks.

But make it about race whenever you can Hugs.  At least you are consistent.

That one was racist as all get out, as was Reagan himself.

Monkeys from Africa, iirc…being a pretty good single line summary of his views…however well guarded otherwise. Officially well guarded, by the way, so long as he was alive…..to respect his privacy. Thus killing irony dead.

(May 28, 2022 at 11:59 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(May 28, 2022 at 9:25 am)Nomad Wrote: Being part of a well regulated* militia where you have to qualify and then complete certain trining before gaining access to guns could be one, and bonus, it's constitutional unlike current gun laws.

* I.e. state controlled at either federal or state level.

But hey, we all know that nothing meaningful is going to happen unless and until one of Ted Cruz's children get caught in one of these situations.  Republitraitors never do anything for their country unless it benefits them personally and more.

Yeah - because to date only ( D ) children have been killed!!!


(Doing my impression of a Demodrooler)

It’s not that, it’s that Republicans don’t care about other peoples’ kids, full stop. Nothing to do with party.

Boru