Home Off Topic

Mass shooting in Pittsburgh

1235»

Replies

  • jcbcpajcbcpa Posts: 1,931 Captain
    1outlaw said:
    cadman said:
    If you believe Kerrci is not in favor of banning guns, I got a great price on a bridge in New York I will sell you. 

    Even if he wasn't, there are many members who are in favor. I think it is worth the effort to educate them on the impossibility of such an idea. But maybe I am wrong to advocate the right to own guns. 
    I never understood why they continue the argument! Its never going to happen! I personally have 10s of thousands of dollars wrapped up into guns and ammo. Im not alone by a long shot. How would you ever logistically get people to turn them in? LOL 
    Lol. Yea, I told my x-wife who owns a jewelry store that shopping on the internet would never replace people coming in and shopping. I couldn't have been more wrong. I agree with you though that what guns we already own are safe but restrictions on gun sales and also ammunition sales are probably inevitable. I hope not, but then never say never. 
    I can't give you a sure-fire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time.
    Herbert Bayard Swope
    US editor & journalist (1882 - 1958)
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 23,346 AG
    You wouldn't have to get people to turn guns in. Say, outlaw all guns that can hold more shells, cartridges, etc. than you can legally hunt with. Then arrest anyone that is found with those guns.
  • jcbcpajcbcpa Posts: 1,931 Captain
    1outlaw said:
    cadman said:
    If you believe Kerrci is not in favor of banning guns, I got a great price on a bridge in New York I will sell you. 

    Even if he wasn't, there are many members who are in favor. I think it is worth the effort to educate them on the impossibility of such an idea. But maybe I am wrong to advocate the right to own guns. 
    I never understood why they continue the argument! Its never going to happen! I personally have 10s of thousands of dollars wrapped up into guns and ammo. Im not alone by a long shot. How would you ever logistically get people to turn them in? LOL 
    Cyclist said:
    You wouldn't have to get people to turn guns in. Say, outlaw all guns that can hold more shells, cartridges, etc. than you can legally hunt with. Then arrest anyone that is found with those guns.
    See 1outlaw how easy that was. lol
    I can't give you a sure-fire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time.
    Herbert Bayard Swope
    US editor & journalist (1882 - 1958)
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,689 AG
    Cyclist said:
    You wouldn't have to get people to turn guns in. Say, outlaw all guns that can hold more shells, cartridges, etc. than you can legally hunt with. Then arrest anyone that is found with those guns.
    No such law will get past the current Supreme court in my opinion. I am betting the court starts looking at some state cases similar to those they refused to see before the new justice was confirmed. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 10,104 AG
    kellercl said:
    mplspug said:
    kellercl said:
    The issue I have with a ban...  there is what 300 million guns in this country, not too mention a massive geographic square footage.  The idea just isn't feasible.
    That's your only issue with it?
    In a sense.  There are multiple levels of investigation, but it fails at the top feasibility level, so further digging in understanding isn't worth the effort.  I mean in short, why investigate an impossibility?
    How about the fact that it is one of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights??
    do you feel the same about other freedoms? Like speech, assembly, innocence etc.?
     The reason I own firearms is the fact there are people who despise my rights and liberties. A couple are on this site!
  • AaronCannonAaronCannon Northwest ArkansasPosts: 866 Officer
    edited October 2018 #127
    Cyclist said:
    You wouldn't have to get people to turn guns in. Say, outlaw all guns that can hold more shells, cartridges, etc. than you can legally hunt with. Then arrest anyone that is found with those guns.
    You volunteering to round them up?
    Wait we could just grab a mob of underemployed crazy people to do it, 2 birds with 1 stone.
    I believe there a bunch of advocacy groups you could hire them from.
    The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.
    Jeff Cooper
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 23,346 AG
    Cyclist said:
    You wouldn't have to get people to turn guns in. Say, outlaw all guns that can hold more shells, cartridges, etc. than you can legally hunt with. Then arrest anyone that is found with those guns.
    You volunteering to round them up?
    You don't round them up. You just make them illegal. If all your guns are illegal, you gonna take them to the range, use them around strangers, etc.?
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 23,346 AG

    The second is not settled, maybe with current court make up...but not set in stone.

    Anyone actually know the following? I did not.

    Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

    The law has also changed. While states in the Founding era regulated guns—blacks were often prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on government rolls—gun laws today are more extensive and controversial. Another important legal development was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Although there is substantial evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876).




  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,402 Admiral
    kellercl said:
    mplspug said:
    kellercl said:
    The issue I have with a ban...  there is what 300 million guns in this country, not too mention a massive geographic square footage.  The idea just isn't feasible.
    That's your only issue with it?
    In a sense.  There are multiple levels of investigation, but it fails at the top feasibility level, so further digging in understanding isn't worth the effort.  I mean in short, why investigate an impossibility?
    How about the fact that it is one of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights??
    do you feel the same about other freedoms? Like speech, assembly, innocence etc.?
     The reason I own firearms is the fact there are people who despise my rights and liberties. A couple are on this site!
    As previously stated, that is one of many hurdles, which is why the concept fails immediately.  It isn't a viable option.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,689 AG
    The second has been settled for quite some time at the federal level. The court has stepped into the state rights issue only a little bit. Last few times the court has refused to hear any of the state cases concerning assault bans and such. I suspect that may change with the latest addition to the court and the states are going to find most of their gun ban laws are going to be thrown out the next time a challenge makes it to the Supreme Court. 


    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • mplspugmplspug Palmetto FloridaPosts: 12,603 AG
    Cyclist said:
    You wouldn't have to get people to turn guns in. Say, outlaw all guns that can hold more shells, cartridges, etc. than you can legally hunt with. Then arrest anyone that is found with those guns.
    That'd work great if amendment 2 was about hunting.  It's not which would make your law unconstitutional.

    Captain Todd Approves

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,752 AG
    cadman said:
    Cyclist said:
    You wouldn't have to get people to turn guns in. Say, outlaw all guns that can hold more shells, cartridges, etc. than you can legally hunt with. Then arrest anyone that is found with those guns.
    No such law will get past the current Supreme court in my opinion. I am betting the court starts looking at some state cases similar to those they refused to see before the new justice was confirmed. 
     Scalia is deceased.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 23,346 AG
    mplspug said:
    Cyclist said:
    You wouldn't have to get people to turn guns in. Say, outlaw all guns that can hold more shells, cartridges, etc. than you can legally hunt with. Then arrest anyone that is found with those guns.
    That'd work great if amendment 2 was about hunting.  It's not which would make your law unconstitutional.
    The point is, that it is only constitutional because of certain ilk of jurists.
  • Florida BullfrogFlorida Bullfrog Posts: 3,465 Captain
    The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Although there is substantial evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876).

    This it true. However, that was also true of all of the Bill of Rights prior to a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the early 1900s. 
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,689 AG
    Cyclist said:
    mplspug said:
    Cyclist said:
    You wouldn't have to get people to turn guns in. Say, outlaw all guns that can hold more shells, cartridges, etc. than you can legally hunt with. Then arrest anyone that is found with those guns.
    That'd work great if amendment 2 was about hunting.  It's not which would make your law unconstitutional.
    The point is, that it is only constitutional because of certain ilk of jurists.
    Those ilk of jurists have all agreed for the last 200 years of hearing cases. The federal government can not ban gun ownership. I doubt the "Ilk" changes their opinion in the next 200 years

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 10,104 AG
    Cyclist said:
    mplspug said:
    Cyclist said:
    You wouldn't have to get people to turn guns in. Say, outlaw all guns that can hold more shells, cartridges, etc. than you can legally hunt with. Then arrest anyone that is found with those guns.
    That'd work great if amendment 2 was about hunting.  It's not which would make your law unconstitutional.
    The point is, that it is only constitutional because of certain ilk of jurists.
    Wrong. 
    Read the Federalist Papers. 
    Hunting and self defense are not the reasons for the 2nd. 
     And by the way, there is a coma in the 2nd amendment.  
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 23,346 AG
    Cyclist said:
    mplspug said:
    Cyclist said:
    You wouldn't have to get people to turn guns in. Say, outlaw all guns that can hold more shells, cartridges, etc. than you can legally hunt with. Then arrest anyone that is found with those guns.
    That'd work great if amendment 2 was about hunting.  It's not which would make your law unconstitutional.
    The point is, that it is only constitutional because of certain ilk of jurists.
    Wrong. 
    Read the Federalist Papers. 
    Hunting and self defense are not the reasons for the 2nd. 
     And by the way, there is a coma in the 2nd amendment.  
    I never said hunting was...I mentioned a hypothetical law that could limit all guns to those that currently legal for hunting. It is not a gun ban, it is gun control.
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,487 AG
    It is correct that there is a difference between cars and guns when viewed from the perspective of this argument.  There is no Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to drive a car,,, there happens to be one that pertains to firearms however.

    I do not care if it would make someone feel safer or somehow vindicated if firearms were to be banned, ,it isn't going to hapoen. If it were to be foolishly attempted it would rightfully result in the civil war the left seems fond of discussing now.

    And please stop inserting hunting into this discussion ,,, it has nothing to do with the second amendment. 
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • MRichardsonMRichardson Posts: 10,438 AG
    God, it just occurred to me.
    The lawsuits that come out of this are going to be like the world has never seen.
    I have never seen live bones, but I know that they are often used by rich people to decorate the interior.
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,962 Captain
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:

    5) people love guns, there would be riots in the street if a ban was pushed, and the rioters would be gun owners....
    Law abiding gun owners fight at the ballot box, not the streets.


    Perhaps, but I still have no interest in telling 100 million gun owners I'm taking their personal possessions.  Nothing about that seems wise to me.  
    It's not that it it doesn't seem wise, its isnt. The British tried it before.
  • AaronCannonAaronCannon Northwest ArkansasPosts: 866 Officer
    God, it just occurred to me.
    The lawsuits that come out of this are going to be like the world has never seen.
    I think i see what youre doing there, and you shouldnt.
    The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.
    Jeff Cooper
  • ferris1248ferris1248 Posts: 9,075 Moderator
    I deleted 2 comments that were political. You know who you are. If you repeat I'll have to wipe the entire post.
    Please don't.

    "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."

    Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)

  • mplspugmplspug Palmetto FloridaPosts: 12,603 AG
    God, it just occurred to me.
    The lawsuits that come out of this are going to be like the world has never seen.
    I think i see what youre doing there, and you shouldnt.
    I think it was a black comedian that onçe said I wish my stereotype was that I was a rich penny pincher that ruled the world.  I am paraphrasing.

    Captain Todd Approves

  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,487 AG
    Good grief.  

    Moderate away
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • mindyabinessmindyabiness Posts: 6,427 Admiral
    That's remarkable 
    Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to crap on the board and strut around like it won anyway.
  • RStyleRStyle Posts: 1,484 Officer
    Let’s have everyone stop using cars for a week or two so we can see if they have any purpose in our lives. ( apparently other than using it as a weapon as some suggest)
    Seems that in our country cars are not the favorite weapon. 

    We continuously improve car safety ( seat belts, safety glass, air bags , collapsible steering wheels, padded dashboards, better tires) and all without affecting or punishing law abiding citizens or drivers. Actually, making them safer

    US is  by far the largest number of mass murders with firearms than any civilized country,  No doubt about that one.
    ( no...not Venezuela, Yemen etc.)
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 10,104 AG
    edited October 2018 #148
    Rstyle, can you point out the locations of the mass graves in this country? 
     By the way, Yemen is lovely this time of year! :)
     
  • RStyleRStyle Posts: 1,484 Officer
    Rstyle, can you point out the locations of the mass graves in this country? 
     By the way, Yemen is lovely this time of year! :)
     
    So I assume your point is there have not been any mass murders in this country.
    I agree that for people who have a need for owning lots of firearms Yemen would be a lovely and exciting country to live in.
  • RStyleRStyle Posts: 1,484 Officer
    Totally unrelated and do not want to derail the main topic.......but Mustang 190 may want to read about:
    Hart Island in New York
    Fort Richardson Cemetery in Alaska

  • MRichardsonMRichardson Posts: 10,438 AG
    God, it just occurred to me.
    The lawsuits that come out of this are going to be like the world has never seen.
    I think i see what youre doing there, and you shouldnt.
    Lol.  
    I wondered who would.
    I have never seen live bones, but I know that they are often used by rich people to decorate the interior.
Sign In or Register to comment.