Gun Safe Zones

pgprescott

YukonRon said:

4 or 20, What difference will it make?

You hit on something! Like Hilary said "what difference does it make" whether they were killed by gun violence or in a traffic accident on an icy road, they are dead either way. It does make a difference, doesn't it? That's right, it does matter what happened and why. It matters here and it matters there. It surely matters to those involved. Anyway, just some hypocricy.
  Couldn't help myself. 

YukonRon

pgprescott said:

YukonRon said:

4 or 20, What difference will it make?

You hit on something! Like Hilary said "what difference does it make" whether they were killed by gun violence or in a traffic accident on an icy road, they are dead either way. It does make a difference, doesn't it? That's right, it does matter what happened and why. It matters here and it matters there. It surely matters to those involved. Anyway, just some hypocricy.
  Couldn't help myself. 

It was a shot at sarcasm, based on the previous response prior to mine. If that is true trying to get the definition of mass murder to go from 4 to 20, what difference will it make, Killing 19 is not as awful?

People have lost their minds, how do they feed themselves?

JohnInCarolina

Sardonicus said:

What does "well-regulated militia" mean?

Nine year olds with concealed carry permits, I'm sure.

HendersonTRKing

This very quickly gets into a discussion of constitutional law, which is something that few are prepared to have on any type of forum, BBQ or not.  

With that said, "shall not be infringed" is not absolute, despite the use of the word "shall."  Whether one goes back to what's called "original intent" (i.e., what the framers of the constitution actually intended by their words, as informed solely by the meaning at that time -- if and to the extent that can be known) OR whether one instead looks to the meaning of the words as the world exists today (which allows for consideration of the vast number of things not in existence or contemplation when the constitution was written) one thing is clear:  no right in the constitution is absolutely absolute and therefore entirely beyond some form of reasonable regulation based on the compelling needs of the nation's people and the republic.

The most well-worn example used to illustrate this concept is the old saying that free speech doesn't give you the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater (when there is no fire in the theater, of course . . .).  And, everyone well knows that the government -- local, state, federal -- can and DOES regulate various types of speech and assembly in the interests of public health, safety and our collective welfare.  Even POLITICAL speech and assembly are subject to these types of regulations, as contrary to the constitution as that might sound:  the Supreme Court does not permit protesters on its steps, political candidates may not solicit votes within x feet of polling places, certain kinds of speech are crimes, etc.  Examples are everywhere, and while some may disagree with the particular restrictions (I know I do!!), most everyone agrees that reasonable regulation is appropriate (required!) where there is a compelling community, societal, or national interest (call it "governmental" interest -- this governmental interest is "WE," as in We the People, as reflected by our democratically elected officials).

The notion that regulation of 2nd Amendment rights somehow is different is a narrative that's gained a huge amount of purchase over the years.  Some say it's fueled (funded!) by the NRA, which pours millions into the political system and will give absolutely NO quarter on any type of regulation, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of its members support common sense rules and requirements that reflect their very values.  Others use "original intent" to suggest -- inappropriately I submit -- that the Framers Of The Constitution absolutely barred ANY type of regulation of guns (despite the "Well regulated militia" language in the 2nd amendment, which routinely is omitted if not entirely read out of the text).

It's well past time to for me to slide down the dinosaur and head for home, and I don't mean to be arguing with the interwebs on these points.  Further, I mean no disrespect to those who feel or believe differently. But suffice to say, we are living through an epidemic of killing and gun violence, it's happening in all sectors of this great republic (army bases, schools, movie theaters, cities, towns, etc.) and the answer cannot be "there's nothing we can do about it."

Peace, out.

OMG, can someone please post a picture of a hot and juicy brisket???

nolaegghead

pgprescott

YukonRon said:

pgprescott said:

YukonRon said:

4 or 20, What difference will it make?

You hit on something! Like Hilary said "what difference does it make" whether they were killed by gun violence or in a traffic accident on an icy road, they are dead either way. It does make a difference, doesn't it? That's right, it does matter what happened and why. It matters here and it matters there. It surely matters to those involved. Anyway, just some hypocricy.
  Couldn't help myself. 

It was a shot at sarcasm, based on the previous response prior to mine. If that is true trying to get the definition of mass murder to go from 4 to 20, what difference will it make, Killing 19 is not as awful?

People have lost their minds, how do they feed themselves?

I get it. I was just using your words and logic to make a similar point. Get it? Btw, I agree, with your point on arbritrary head counts. 

pgprescott

Why haven't we continued this discussion over at that annoying brisket my way thread? Jk!!

Sardonicus

nolaegghead said:

That's real purty 'n all, but I'd rather have me some brisket.
No offense.

nolaegghead

Sardonicus said:

nolaegghead said:

That's real purty 'n all, but I'd rather have me some brisket.
No offense.

HendersonTRKing said:

OMG, can someone please post a picture of a hot and juicy brisket???

Toxarch

HendersonTRKing said

Opinion:  My Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not subject to ANY restriction of ANY kind in the interest of public health and safety.

The 2nd Amendment is not subject to restrictions of any kind? What country do you live in? What was the National Firearms Act of 1934? I can't buy a new gun without an FBI background check. I can't buy ammunition in Illinois without a permit. I can't buy a short barrel rifle without an extensive background check and have to pay $200 for the tax stamp and carry the paperwork with the gun. I can't take that short rifle across state lines without written permission from the ATF. I can not own an "assault rifle" in California. I can't have "high capacity magazines" in California or Colorado. I can't carry a concealed gun without a license. I have to go through a class, a shooting test, and background checks and then get the concealed handgun permit. I have to show that permit to any officer that stops me. There are tons of restrictions on guns for all the legal owners. And the Liberals keep trying to add more every time there's a shooting because they want to use the tragedy to push their anti-gun agendy.

After Sandy Hook, a bunch of new laws were passed in Connecticut to prevent it from ever happening again. How many of those new laws would have prevented Sandy Hook if they were passed 20 years earlier? ZERO. That's right, zero of those new laws would have prevented Sandy Hook. None of those laws would have applied to the shooter and the way he stole the guns used. But all those law makers in Connecticut patted themselves on the back for passing those new gun restrictions. 

nolaegghead

Toxarch said:

HendersonTRKing said

Opinion:  My Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not subject to ANY restriction of ANY kind in the interest of public health and safety.

The 2nd Amendment is not subject to restrictions of any kind? What country do you live in? What was the National Firearms Act of 1934? I can't buy a new gun without an FBI background check. I can't buy ammunition in Illinois without a permit. I can't buy a short barrel rifle without an extensive background check and have to pay $200 for the tax stamp and carry the paperwork with the gun. I can't take that short rifle across state lines without written permission from the ATF. I can not own an "assault rifle" in California. I can't have "high capacity magazines" in California or Colorado. I can't carry a concealed gun without a license. I have to go through a class, a shooting test, and background checks and then get the concealed handgun permit. I have to show that permit to any officer that stops me. There are tons of restrictions on guns for all the legal owners. And the Liberals keep trying to add more every time there's a shooting because they want to use the tragedy to push their anti-gun agendy.

After Sandy Hook, a bunch of new laws were passed in Connecticut to prevent it from ever happening again. How many of those new laws would have prevented Sandy Hook if they were passed 20 years earlier? ZERO. That's right, zero of those new laws would have prevented Sandy Hook. None of those laws would have applied to the shooter and the way he stole the guns used. But all those law makers in Connecticut patted themselves on the back for passing those new gun restrictions. 

All that is, like, super inconvenient, right?  And I like grenades, ground-to-air missiles, thermonuclear weapons and GAU-8/A Avenger 30mm hydraulic Gatling guns.  All those are banned too.  How are we to protect ourselves from the government?  And criminals?

HendersonTRKing

Toxarch said:

HendersonTRKing said

Opinion:  My Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not subject to ANY restriction of ANY kind in the interest of public health and safety.

The 2nd Amendment is not subject to restrictions of any kind? What country do you live in? What was the National Firearms Act of 1934? I can't buy a new gun without an FBI background check. I can't buy ammunition in Illinois without a permit. I can't buy a short barrel rifle without an extensive background check and have to pay $200 for the tax stamp and carry the paperwork with the gun. I can't take that short rifle across state lines without written permission from the ATF. I can not own an "assault rifle" in California. I can't have "high capacity magazines" in California or Colorado. I can't carry a concealed gun without a license. I have to go through a class, a shooting test, and background checks and then get the concealed handgun permit. I have to show that permit to any officer that stops me. There are tons of restrictions on guns for all the legal owners. And the Liberals keep trying to add more every time there's a shooting because they want to use the tragedy to push their anti-gun agendy.

After Sandy Hook, a bunch of new laws were passed in Connecticut to prevent it from ever happening again. How many of those new laws would have prevented Sandy Hook if they were passed 20 years earlier? ZERO. That's right, zero of those new laws would have prevented Sandy Hook. None of those laws would have applied to the shooter and the way he stole the guns used. But all those law makers in Connecticut patted themselves on the back for passing those new gun restrictions. 

I live in the US of A, Bro -- greatest country on the planet.  You are, of course, conflating opinion with fact, which was the point of the post, so good on you!  Many hold the OPINION that the 2nd amendment constitutional right is not subject to any restrictions whatsoever. That's why I prefaced the statement with the word "Opinion". Perhaps you couldn't see it through your eagerness to demonize liberals and "agendas" in the wake of our most recent national tragedy. 

For my part, I'm glad the restrictions you cite are in place. They sound reasonably calculated and balanced given what we know and have experienced in this great country of ours. But you sound mad, Bro. What's the matter?  Worried that the gubmit's coming for your weaponry?  Surely you don't believe that silliness, right?  Right?

Toxarch

And I just explained to you how your OPINION is completely wrong, Bro. If you think the US of A is the greatest country on the planet, then why do you want to makes changes to take away Constitutional rights from its citizens. If you don't like or want to own a gun, then don't. But your opinion and your choice shouldn't infringe on the rights of others to own them. And have a look at the news. Your President and other Liberals started calling for more gun control this morning after the shooting, just like they always do. I'm still pretty sure that "assault rifles", "high capacity" magazines, carrying guns into a gun-free zone, and KILLING people were all illegal in California. Those laws didn't stop the shooters.

And no, I'm not mad, Bro. Like, Bro, I don't have a problem with most of the hoops I have to jump through to buy a gun, Bro. I'm a legal gun owner, Bro, so the background checks always come clean, Bro. Bro, I'm not part of the problem, Bro. Like, Bro, you should know, Bro, that criminals don't follow the law, Bro. So, like, more laws aren't going to affect the criminals, Bro. You see, Bro, they like, don't follow the law, Bro.

HendersonTRKing

Not MY opinion -- more likely alligned with those on your side of the aisle. 

Love the passion. Close to rage. Good thing you're armed. And I am too. We're both good guys with guns, right?

Sardonicus

HendersonTRKing said:

Not MY opinion -- more likely alligned with those on your side of the aisle. 

Love the passion. Close to rage. Good thing you're armed. And I am too. We're both good guys with guns, right?

 
I get the impression that you shouldn't call him "Bro."

JohnInCarolina

We'll never pass additional gun legislation that would actually make a difference, whether it be for mass shootings or just safety period.  Any legislation that impacts the bottom line of gun manufacturers in any way is going nowhere in this country.  The gun manufacturer lobby is too powerful.

bgebrent

The gun lobby is powerful.  The problem with more legislation is that it would accomplish nothing.  Case in point:  I know someone in NY state who likes to hunt and shoot, lawfully.  After the legislation of no >10 round mags went into effect, that made his AR-15 and the 30 round mags illegal.  So, he changed the upper out to a Beowolf .50 cal.  Those same illegal 30 round .223 mags became Presto, legal mags that only hold 10 .50 rounds.  Legal gun and mag again.  He is die hard democrat and very industrious.  Laws won't decrease fanatical or mentally ill killers.  Just won't.  Only eliminating the fanatical killers and improving our mental healthcare delivery and monitoring can help some.  Sad truth.

Toxarch

HendersonTRKing said:

Not MY opinion -- more likely alligned with those on your side of the aisle. 

Love the passion. Close to rage. Good thing you're armed. And I am too. We're both good guys with guns, right?

You keep looking for anger where there is none.

Sardonicus said:

 
I get the impression that you shouldn't call him "Bro."

When someone actually types the word "Bro" more that once, it's usually safe to assume they are a "Yeah Bro" guy. I was just trying to put it in words that he could understand by including a bunch of "Bros" and "Likes".

DoubleEgger

nolaegghead

In Louisiana we say "brah".     At least in Kenner (regional joke)

Toxarch

Did anyone see that there's a new term being thrown around in the media after San Bernardino? "Assault Clothing". I'm not sure what it is but I can't wait for the politicians to start using that in their speeches.

Sardonicus

Toxarch said:

Did anyone see that there's a new term being thrown around in the media after San Bernardino? "Assault Clothing". . . . 

That question could take this thread in a whole new direction, Bro.
  

bgebrent

@DoubleEgger, that SRF brisket looks spectacular!  I'm trying to figure out whether or not I own any Assault clothing.

DoubleEgger

Like this @bgebrent ? 

bgebrent

With that who needs a damn gun @DoubleEgger!

HendersonTRKing

DoubleEgger said:

Like this @bgebrent ? 

Who's regulating those guns?

HendersonTRKing

^^ the right to bare arms!!

MelSharples

YukonRon said:

pgprescott said:

YukonRon said:

4 or 20, What difference will it make?

You hit on something! Like Hilary said "what difference does it make" whether they were killed by gun violence or in a traffic accident on an icy road, they are dead either way. It does make a difference, doesn't it? That's right, it does matter what happened and why. It matters here and it matters there. It surely matters to those involved. Anyway, just some hypocricy.
  Couldn't help myself. 

It was a shot at sarcasm, based on the previous response prior to mine. If that is true trying to get the definition of mass murder to go from 4 to 20, what difference will it make, Killing 19 is not as awful?

People have lost their minds, how do they feed themselves?

My post about 4 or 20 was my own attempt at sarcasm regarding the subject. In order to make the issue go away I figured they would just change the name of the issue and stick their heads back in the sand.

DoubleEgger

The Democrats held a supermajority in Congress a few years back. I wonder why they didn't flex their political muscle on gun control back then. Oh yeah, they were more interested in shoving sh!tty healthcare down everyone's throats. 

nolaegghead

Because nothing is less **** than uninsured people getting emergency health care and everyone paying for that, and that's automatic bankruptcy unless you win the lottery.