bear arms

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sculptor, Apr 28, 2021.

  1. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Let me preface by stating that while I don't own a gun, I'm not against the right to ''bear arms.'' But, gun violence is a problem in the United States. And while it is a ''right'' under the Constitution, it stands to reason that there are limits to those rights. Any rights. Personally, I don't see a (valid) reason why any citizen needs to own a stockpile of weapons, let alone rifles that were originally designed to be used by the military.

    I'm pro-gun regulation, and tightening up such regulations so sociopaths aren't able to legally own a gun (of any kind). I wholeheartedly believe that stricter gun laws can coexist with the Second Amendment. Do you feel that it's not possible to have ''common sense'' gun control, without violating Second Amendment rights?
     
    billvon likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    compulsory mental health examinations prior to permit approval ?

    you know thats never going to happen in the usa or any other country.

    compulsory mental health examinations
    versus
    its a never will win anything
    outcome
    no change
    versus
    change

    indoctrinated into people from birth as bi-partisan self political identity ...

    its a big cultural issue

    why does a modern civilized well policed society need to carry guns around ?

    people are indoctrinated and brain washed to deliver a preachers virtue signal to some overt form of fascism prior to giving their opinion


    when we apply your "sociopaths" comment
    to domestic homicide via gun violence
    it becomes invalid
    "sociopath" purely panders to the random stranger mass shooter event
    which is a miss representation of the core societal mental health & gun access issue
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    extend a little...
    Making the gun users responsible for their 2nd amendment "rights" would be a great way for the industry to become more responsible as a whole.
    Perhaps taxing ( sales tax or other) all fire arms with a victims compensation fund. Especially semi automatic assault rifles. In other words let the gun groups take responsibility for the carnage they are associated with.
    Good Idea!!!!!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    That's not what he said.

    Instead of stating your actual opinion, you seem to be overly defensive and twisting what others are saying and avoiding answering questions in regards to your opinions on the matter.

    Another example:

    And you responded with:
    She answered your questions in regards to what constitutes an assault rifle.

    You ask her to define an assault weapon, she defines it and then you respond with why she wants to ban them when she had not said so at that point.

    And then you decide to lecture her about a response she never actually gave.

    How about this.

    Why don't you explain why you don't think these weapons should have bans or restrictions placed upon them? Or perhaps why you think there should be bans or restrictions on them if you believe that should be the case?
     
    RainbowSingularity and exchemist like this.
  8. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    he is blatantly trolling(playing around the houses word games to re direct whos intentions are being defined[psychological manipulation of imperialist horse play, very common but not very honest])
    trying to play around the site rules
    playing games with the subject instead of directly discussing it.
    probably to avoid the moral hypocrisy that is sitting in there somewhere when it comes to being accountable

    usa needs desperately to ban assault weapons & hand guns

    how is freedom and liberty served by turning civil society into a Waring militia ?
    its going in the opposite direction

    buying a gun should be for sport
    need a club membership
    and/or be for hunting purposes

    you cant create a civil order by defining weapons as needed for use against your own neighbors
    then selling fear, denying social services including mental health
    and then defining self actuation be right of ability to inflict death or damage with a gun
    its insanity
     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Isn't the right to bare arms contingent on the militia being well regulated?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    I heard someone say on CNN that gun control would come without delay as soon as "Black Militants" took up arms.
     
  11. candy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    I believe it was Jefferson who opined that we would only find out how important the 2nd was when someone tried to take it away.

    I do like like Rainbow's idea of liability insurance for guns like cars.
     
  12. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    The details are not as important as that any regulation should conform with the wishes of the general public.

    If the politicians are in the pockets of commercial interest groups ,that is its own problem.
     
  13. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    What does that mean?
     
  14. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I believe guns are covered under homeowners insurance for theft, etc (property coverage) but any liability that would come from using a gun would result in a crime of some type to be sorted out in both civil and criminal courts. But let’s say two kids are playing with a gun and one of them accidentally shoots the other (this has happened in the US), clearly it was an accident and the liability portion of the policy should pay out, imo. But, people can always sue above and beyond the policy limits and then there would still be the issue of negligence on the part of the gun owning parent who didn’t safeguard the gun. But, that’s an interesting idea!

    If that ever were to happen, we would see serious guns restrictions because insurance companies don’t enjoy paying claims.

    Edit - I found this info on homeowners policies regarding limited liability for gun owners:

    The homeowners policy provides limited coverage for firearms liability. Accidental losses are generally covered. For example, if you are cleaning a handgun, do not realize it's loaded and the gun accidentally discharges and injures someone, there would be coverage.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2021
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    speaking of bare arms
    we had a peculiar trend in this country a few years ago
    wherein, when a politician held a televised "town hall" meeting, he would begin the meeting by rolling up his shirt sleeves
    ok
    curious that
    and I wondered,
    "marketing ploy" or
    "is he planning on washing the dishes?"

    such dishonest, blatant, stupid, theatrical affectations became quite common

    and politicians wonder why we do not trust them?
     
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    reference us v miller
    (Miller was convicted of bearing a sawed off shotgun)
    The court reasoned,in part:

    "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

    OK
    does that not imply that the 2nd protects weapons that are part of ordinary military equipment? (which would include fully automatic weapons---[ and a lot of other stuff too deadly to imagine])
    -----------------
    be that as it may-------the supreme court has not clarified this issue, and may never do so.

    That is not what the supreme court will consider this coming autumn
    The will, most likely, have a narrow focus in the "bear arms" portion of that one sentence in the bill of rights.
    (but, then again, I could be wrong)

    ...............................................
    as previously stated, I tend to avoid people who wander about in public bearing arms

    ......................................................................
    as I told a professor long ago
    "don't expect answers from me, I am a student, and mostly what I have are questions"
    (but, that's a story for another time-----if you want to read it---just ask)
     
  17. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    It means that if there is a perception that the blacks are using weapons against the established order that the infatuation with" gun toting individualists" will dissipate.
     
    foghorn likes this.
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    The right to bare arms is contingent upon wearing a T-shirt or tank top.
     
    candy likes this.
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    It means that once blacks start using their Second Amendment rights, conservatives will be all about banning those rights.

    Case in point - California had an open carry law until the Black Panthers started carrying weapons openly. Then they couldn't sign gun control legislation fast enough - because BLACKS had guns! Scary BLACKS! The bill was even signed into law by none other than conservative icon Ronald Reagan.

    Google the Mulford Act for more info.
     
    foghorn likes this.
  20. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,454
    Those killed in school massacres didn't get the choice to avoid ''people who wander about in public bearing arms''.

    You can tell a lot about a person by the type of questions they ask, and those questions they choose to ignore... So they say.
    There's your answer Bells.. He's above answering questions. Give this ''man'' a gun.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2021
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    foggy
    you really should get over your misogynistic view that bells is incapable of thinking for herself
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Any excuse to ignore or even outright disdain any question of regulation.

    If we consider cult, code, and creed of gun veneration, it's not necessarily a full-blown religious delusion, but the need to constrain Amendment II has been a nearly reflexive behavior among the faithful for decades.

    • • •​

    Very nearly the same reason we didn't have to put a stamp on our mail-in ballots during the last election.

    The legalese is that compulsory insurance would be a burdensome financial gateway to accessing and exercising one's rights.

    The political point is a result that one can be too poor to access and exercise their Second Amendment rights. There are, of course, ways around this, but imagine socialism not brought at the barrel of a gun, but for the sake of guns. Imagine socializing firearm access before socializing food security. At least the shootouts for a loaf of bread will make spectacular newsreel.
     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” does seem to be the operative clause of the 2nd amendment.

    2 points 2 answers
    A) If I had the answers Tiassa, I would surely share them.
    B) as/re constrain Amendment II-------isn't constrain just another way of saying infringe upon?

    back to A
    The libertarian part of me dislikes regulation which I have not previously agreed to.
    Freedom isn't free--------we all have to determine the price/sacrifice we are willing to pay/make for that elusive quality.
     

Share This Page