- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This is the ONLY answer to school shootings
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:35 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:35 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Nothing personal, but I've found the people who have the strongest anti gun opinions are the ones least qualified to discuss them.
I didn't come in claiming to be an expert on guns. I came in simply of the opinion that the status quo is not working and to me a major cause is the availability of guns and the sheer number of people who have easy access to them.
How we change that is the question. I've already got a day job so I can only post about it
0
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:36 pm to Chucktown_Badger
I am 100% for more severe prosecution of people charged with gun crimes and holding those involved in "straw purchases" more responsible.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:37 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Which has been interpreted to include the right to self protection in Heller.
quote:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.
It dealt with her right to own a gun in the first place, not the wait to get it.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:37 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
But then it gets into, well, the 2nd amendment is not as written in stone as many would have us believe.
Sure it is. People lose rights the otherwise would be entitled to when they commit felonies.
quote:
And I digress, because the second amendment isn't at issue here, given no one is saying ban all guns.
The fact that you believe the second amendment only applies to complete bans is quite frightening.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:40 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
It dealt with her right to own a gun in the first place, not the wait to get it.
You can't be serious. If a regulation were passed tomorrow that said there is a 1 year waiting period for all gun purchases then, by definition, anyone that doesnt currently own a gun would be prohibited from owning a gun for 1 year.Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:40 pm to Breesus
quote:
Are you ok with literacy tests, background checks, strict grueling bureaucracy, long waiting periods, and semantic arguments about the meanings of your specific rights before you can enact your right to vote or free speech or refusal to quarter soldiers or against unreasonable search and seizure?
You're talking apples and oranges. While all are constitutional rights, the discussion of a right to vote (a person casting a vote has never killed another person as far as I know) vs. buying/selling/owning certain types of guns is quite different.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:41 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I am 100% for more severe prosecution of people charged with gun crimes and holding those involved in "straw purchases" more responsible.
This is the start of a discussion that looks at solutions
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:42 pm to UpToPar
quote:
The fact that you believe the second amendment only applies to complete bans is quite frightening.
Serious question...does it cover any gun of any type? I've not seen anything to that effect in what I've read.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:42 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
You're talking apples and oranges.
No I'm not.
Your argument is that while the constitution does permit you certain rights it does not say how you can use those rights or how long it will take you to be able to use those rights or what hoops you have to jump through to use those rights and so the government should be able to decide when and how you use those rights and things like long waiting periods and excessive hoops are justifiable.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:43 pm to UpToPar
quote:
If a regulation were passed tomorrow that said there is a 1 year waiting period for all gun purchases then, by definition, anyone that doesnt currently own a gun would be prohibited from owning a gun for 1 year.
I guess that would be the case, based on your hypothetical.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:44 pm to Indfanfromcol
quote:
Why does a gun have to be the only god damn solution to problems? Yeah, there are issues that only guns can solve. Completely agree and will not hide that fact. But everything you just described doesn’t have to be “go buy a gun” problem. There is an argument for a gun with the ex boyfriend, but there are also women’s self defense classes and other weapons out there that aren’t semi automatic.
Because, like most solutions, you want to choose the most effective.
If you place anyone in a situation where violence in imminent and you ask them to choose how they can defend themselves they choose what?
a. self defense class
b. a knife
c. pepper spray
d. a gun
Probably the choice that immediately removes them from the violent situation.
quote:
scenarios that you should contact the police immediately.
You seriously cannot be this naive to the real world. Real violence often doesn't even begin until police are called, they leave after nothing is done, and abuse begins.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:44 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
Serious question...does it cover any gun of any type? I've not seen anything to that effect in what I've read.
It covers "arms." Interpret that as you may. what it doesn't do is say that some infringement is okay as long as a total ban is not in place.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:46 pm to Breesus
quote:
Your argument is that while the constitution does permit you certain rights it does not say how you can use those rights or how long it will take you to be able to use those rights or what hoops you have to jump through to use those rights and so the government should be able to decide when and how you use those rights and things like long waiting periods and excessive hoops are justifiable.
quote:
Interpret that as you may. what it doesn't do is say that some infringement is okay as long as a total ban is not in place.
I'm guessing that those discussions will be happening in the high courts sooner rather than later.
As an aside, a test to exhibit some working knowledge of how government and society works would be nice prior to allowing people to vote
This post was edited on 2/16/18 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:47 pm to UpToPar
I can say that I don’t know everything that goes into the background check process that makes purchasing an automatic weapon different than a semi automatic weapon. I don’t know what the average is 9 months to a year process entails.
But frick, lets just say we do the same background check only for semi automatic rifles only as we do fully automatic weapons. Is that such an issue then? You can still buy pistols and semi automatic shotguns the day of. But can people compromise somewhere at some point? I mean frick, I fully think there should be more resources for people to seek mental health help. But I’m still not going to take an alcoholic to a bar. At some point, there has to be some kind of compromise. And blaming it solely on mental health won’t fix anything.
But frick, lets just say we do the same background check only for semi automatic rifles only as we do fully automatic weapons. Is that such an issue then? You can still buy pistols and semi automatic shotguns the day of. But can people compromise somewhere at some point? I mean frick, I fully think there should be more resources for people to seek mental health help. But I’m still not going to take an alcoholic to a bar. At some point, there has to be some kind of compromise. And blaming it solely on mental health won’t fix anything.
This post was edited on 2/16/18 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:50 pm to Indfanfromcol
It's a good thing handguns and shotguns have never been used in a mass shooting.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:51 pm to Indfanfromcol
quote:
But frick, lets just say we do the same background check only for semi automatic rifles only as we do fully automatic weapons. Is that such an issue then? You can still buy pistols and semi automatic shotguns the day of.
Yes. You're infringing on a fundamental right, so you have the burden to show why limiting access to this
is necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:54 pm to Indfanfromcol
quote:
But can people compromise somewhere at some point?
By "compromise" you really mean "give me everything I want". Where are you willing to compromise?
Here's where I am willing to compromise:
Background checks
Limited magazines
Waiting periods
Seller restrictions
Automatic weapons ban
Felons can't own guns
Required gun safety training
Age restrictions
Etc...
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:55 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Yes. You're infringing on a fundamental right, so you have the burden to show why limiting access to this
If there are already extended waiting periods for certain types of guns (and I believe there are), you already have your answer...it's constitutional.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:56 pm to Indfanfromcol
What about this fine piece of Americana? You never hear about it being in mass killings
14 shot semi auto
14 shot semi auto
Posted on 2/16/18 at 1:56 pm to Breesus
quote:
By "compromise" you really mean "give me everything I want". Where are you willing to compromise?
It's never about compromise. They pretend to be "giving up" an all out ban when they know it will never happen.
Page 12 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News