An American 2nd Amendment thread (Page 3/23)
rinselberg SEP 30, 11:46 AM
So (2.5) did you see my first message in this thread, about 2A in Pennsylvania?

The reason I singled out that NBC News report is that it was published under the title or banner of "model" system for background checks.

Seeing as you are (undeniably!) one of the Pennock's forum's leading commentators on 2A, it makes me curious to think about what you might think about it.
2.5 SEP 30, 12:23 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

So (2.5) did you see my first message in this thread, about 2A in Pennsylvania?
.



Once again current laws already on the books were failed by government bureaucracy. Per the article "the man's involuntary mental health commitment — which should have barred him from buying weapons — had been lost in transit between the county and state."

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-30-2020).]

rinselberg SEP 30, 01:04 PM
You've laid down a marker that (perhaps) some of the other 2A-minded forum members will come here to examine.

Maybe if they see "rinselberg" in that Last Reply column on the main page. They might see that and say "rinselberg... what's he got to say about 2A? He's not a 2A guy. I better go in there and sort this mess out."

That's my hope. So don't reply, at least for awhile yet.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-30-2020).]

Blacktree SEP 30, 02:21 PM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5: Once again current laws already on the books were failed by government bureaucracy.


People always seem to forget how inept the government bureaus are. Also, people seem to think that passing a law magically makes it happen.

While I agree that stringent background checks would be a good idea, I also have to wonder about the practicality. To effectively implement such a thing, the government would actually need to be effective... which is asking a lot. The typical answer would be "add more government bureaucracy." But ironically, the bigger the bureaucracy gets, the more inept it becomes.

Just a thought: maybe more government isn't the answer.
2.5 SEP 30, 05:30 PM
Using fear and emotion to sell the elimination of our rights.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpzmvz2aXoQ

"Universal background check" ..."national registry" ..."executive order"

**See the video posted earlier "The secret history of gun confiscation" and the steps leading up to it.**

Using lies and expoiting misconceptions, for the same ultimate reason.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bez526z4JD8

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-30-2020).]

olejoedad SEP 30, 07:23 PM
I suspect that very few of the participants in this thread actually understand the current background check system, and how it works.

I also suspect that even fewer of you know the penalties for illegal use of a firearm, or just how deep the pile of doodoo is if a felon is ignorant enough to break firearm regulations.

The problem isn't the current background check system, or the laws dictating the penalties.

The problem is that many states do not supply the required info to the NICS database, and the courts proclivity in plea bargaining offenders to a lower offense.

All crimes involving firearms should immediately be dropped into the Federal courts, no plea deals, and no leniency on sentencing.

Laws that are not enforced are not worth the ink on the paper.
MidEngineManiac SEP 30, 07:29 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:


Laws that are not enforced are not worth the ink on the paper.



"Shall not be infringed". "Inalienable" ..... (cant be taken away)

the laws themselves are illegal, null and void. What's so hard to understand ? It's not open to debate, discussion, interpretation, or 3rd-party approval.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 09-30-2020).]

maryjane SEP 30, 07:58 PM

quote
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:


"Shall not be infringed". "Inalienable" ..... (cant be taken away)

the laws themselves are illegal, null and void. What's so hard to understand ? It's not open to debate, discussion, interpretation, or 3rd-party approval.



False. The 2nd amendment (and any other) can be nullified by the same process in which it was created...thru congressional activity.
In all liklihood, it would take another amendment and ratification by 2/3 of the states but it has happened before.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-30-2020).]

MidEngineManiac SEP 30, 10:56 PM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

False. The 2nd amendment (and any other) can be nullified by the same process in which it was created...thru congressional activity.
In all liklihood, it would take another amendment and ratification by 2/3 of the states but it has happened before.




Ya mean back when the Danes, Ojibway, Spaniards, Mexicans, Catholics, Irish Protestants, Navajo...and a few others didnt really give a fruck what words were written on paper...

A mans freedom has never been been restricted by another mans rules.....not since 100,000 BC....or thereabouts.
maryjane SEP 30, 11:35 PM
I mean since 1789 and presented for ratification in 1791, which was when the words you quoted ("shall not be infringed upon") were written into the US Constitution.

I find it more than a bit ironic that anyone would say "not open to debate, discussion, or interpretation" while doing exactly that in a thread that was created solely for debating, discussing, and interpreting the 2nd amendment.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-30-2020).]