 
     |
| An American 2nd Amendment thread (Page 4/23) |
|
MidEngineManiac
|
SEP 30, 11:58 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by maryjane:
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.
|
|
Because I believe, deeply, for the right of all to be armed to defend themselves...sometimes that ideal ends-up as a srew-up,,,,there are only 2 reasons to carry guns, Don...defend yourself from nature, or defend yourself from humans.
I have very few problems with nature.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
OCT 01, 12:27 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
All crimes involving firearms should immediately be dropped into the Federal courts, no plea deals, and no leniency on sentencing.
|
|
That cannot happen unless different gun laws across all 50 states and U.S. territories are standardized as FEDERAL LAW.
That will require a huge comprehensive set of federal gun laws and regulations that do not presently exist.
The attempt create those laws would obviously result in absolute political chaos and turmoil and likely in civil unrest the likes of which nobody can yet imagine.
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
OCT 01, 01:13 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
That cannot happen unless different gun laws across all 50 states and U.S. territories are standardized as FEDERAL LAW.
That will require a huge comprehensive set of federal gun laws and regulations that do not presently exist.
The attempt create those laws would obviously result in absolute political chaos and turmoil and likely in civil unrest the likes of which nobody can yet imagine. |
|
WITHOUT doubt!
|
|
|
Patrick
|
OCT 01, 01:27 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:
...there are only 2 reasons to carry guns, Don...defend yourself from nature, or defend yourself from humans.
|
|
Surely you're not suggesting that those are the "only 2 reasons" that anyone would carry a gun.  There are plenty of other, less noble reasons.
Perhaps you meant... only 2 legitimate reasons.[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 10-01-2020).]
|
|
|
|
Blacktree
|
OCT 01, 11:51 AM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by olejoedad: I suspect that very few of the participants in this thread actually understand the current background check system, and how it works. |
|
I suspect some participants in this thread are unaware of how terrible government agencies are at communicating with each other.
There are firearms related laws in every level of government, from local up to federal. In order for those laws to be effectively enforced, law enforcement agencies on every level of government would need to communicate effectively. Long story short, that's a pipe dream. And for many reasons.
So like mentioned above, firearms laws would all need to be consolidated to the federal level. Of course, that would strip some power away from state and local governments, and make the federal government even more powerful. Do you really want that?
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
OCT 01, 12:51 PM
|
|
"How Pennsylvania created a model gun background check system"
Jane C. Timm for NBC News; November 25, 2017.
https://www.nbcnews.com/pol...check-system-n822026
Read-o-Meter: More than 4 minutes but less than 5.
I think Pennsylvania did itself proud. And they didn't have to pass any restrictive new gun laws like banning the sale of "assault" weapons or higher capacity magazines. Not that I see in this report.
The federal government should create a "booth" to promote Pennsylvania's state level background check system as a model and bring it to firearms industry conventions and gun shows in all of the other 49 states.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-01-2020).]
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
OCT 01, 03:36 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Blacktree:
I suspect some participants in this thread are unaware of how terrible government agencies are at communicating with each other.
There are firearms related laws in every level of government, from local up to federal. In order for those laws to be effectively enforced, law enforcement agencies on every level of government would need to communicate effectively. Long story short, that's a pipe dream. And for many reasons.
So like mentioned above, firearms laws would all need to be consolidated to the federal level. Of course, that would strip some power away from state and local governments, and make the federal government even more powerful. Do you really want that? |
|
They can't even keep track of their own firearms.
gunwalkers
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
OCT 01, 11:12 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
"How Pennsylvania created a model gun background check system"
Jane C. Timm for NBC News; November 25, 2017.
https://www.nbcnews.com/pol...check-system-n822026
Read-o-Meter: More than 4 minutes but less than 5.
I think Pennsylvania did itself proud. And they didn't have to pass any restrictive new gun laws like banning the sale of "assault" weapons or higher capacity magazines. Not that I see in this report.
The federal government should create a "booth" to promote Pennsylvania's state level background check system as a model and bring it to firearms industry conventions and gun shows in all of the other 49 states.
|
|
When the NICS was set up, Congress failed to provide the States with funding to set up reporting systems required by the new statute.
As a result, record reporting was very spotty, as the 'unfunded mandate' was beyond the budget or desire of some of the State legislatures.
I haven't yet read the text of the rules in PA, but funding the data collection system is a good start to making the NICS work as it was designed.
Thanks rinse, good find.[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 10-01-2020).]
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
OCT 06, 12:03 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
You've laid down a marker that (perhaps) some of the other 2A-minded forum members will come here to examine.
|
|
Just curious, referring to the entitety of the thread, or a particular point?
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
OCT 06, 12:45 PM
|
|
The 2A is an issue in our bellwether senate race, but it is not being discussed. Kelly's position should be obvious, he is married to Gabby Giffords. But Arizona is a very pro-2A state, so he is keeping it under his hat.
https://twitter.com/JamesOK...Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
There will be a McSally vs Kelly debate tonight, I hope she has learned since her last debate.
|
|
|
|