Good gun control policy in CA

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • marshallnoise
    replied
    Originally posted by nando
    for sure the parents are at fault, but isn't it highly likely that they were law abiding gun owners?

    I mean, let's take your point about other "things" that can kill. like cars - except you need a license to drive a car (although the requirements are pretty low, you still need one). Why not require a license to own a gun? Something that would require training and being responsible with storage.
    The license is called the 2nd Amendment in case you forgot.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsleeve
    replied
    Originally posted by BraveUlysses
    What about carrying guns in bars, nightclubs or courthouses?

    Yes of course I'm aware felons lose their right to vote, but this thread isn't about voting is it?
    If your not drunk then why not, after all its already ILLEGAL to carry a weapon when your too drunk (.08 ) to drive too drunk to carry....... As far as the govt is concerned anyway, private property rights and allowing the proprietor to make that determination might be a better way to go about it. The govt has to have its sanctum where only it can have firearms right???

    Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun - Chairman Mao Zedong (the little red book)


    A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the charter of the user - Theodore Roosevelt


    Nando: if you fail to remember the last time I explained this that its on you. But "regulated" in the context of the 2a does not convey the meaning you think it does or are implying it does. Frank has generalized it for you already. I believe a right is for all, I suppose we should put conditions and training on free speech, free press, and freedom of religions too right........ After all history has proven time and time again the pen is mightier than the sword.

    Leave a comment:


  • frankenbeemer
    replied
    Originally posted by nando
    I expect that you're quite educated on gun use and ownership, and proper storage. so should people who are irresponsible/uneducated have the same rights as you?

    doesn't the document specifically say "well regulated"? wouldn't that imply rules to keep certain people from doing dumb stuff like shooting up schools?

    and anyway, "arms" is a pretty loose definition. A rocket launcher is "arms" but you can't just go buy one..
    Well regulated was used (at that time) to imply "proficient" , I believe you knew this, Nando.

    This is the best (IMHO) study of the second amendment, written by a prominent legal scholar (and ACLU member), and is worth reading at least twice.

    Yale Law Journal; The Embarrassing Second Amendment, by Sanford Levinson


    From the Yale Law Journal 1989.

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    I expect that you're quite educated on gun use and ownership, and proper storage. so should people who are irresponsible/uneducated have the same rights as you?

    doesn't the document specifically say "well regulated"? wouldn't that imply rules to keep certain people from doing dumb stuff like shooting up schools?

    and anyway, "arms" is a pretty loose definition. A rocket launcher is "arms" but you can't just go buy one..

    Leave a comment:


  • BraveUlysses
    replied
    What about carrying guns in bars, nightclubs or courthouses?

    Yes of course I'm aware felons lose their right to vote, but this thread isn't about voting is it?

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsleeve
    replied
    Loaded question is loaded................................. yes and no mostly no.

    Firearms ownership is not the only rights forefited when convited of a felony though now is it

    Leave a comment:


  • BraveUlysses
    replied
    Originally posted by mrsleeve
    Driving is a privilege. Firearms ownership is a right. Need I explain the differance
    So, do you support felons or mentally unstable people being allowed to own and carry guns?

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    it's a right that some people shouldn't have, no? because they go crazy and shoot a bunch of people, or they're irresponsible and leave it where a 7 year old can get their hands on it. is that not a problem?

    I'm not certain, but I don't think they had problems with nut jobs walking into schools and killing everyone back in the 1700s. am I wrong?

    last I saw, the redcoats weren't roaming the streets and the military could crush even well armed civilians.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsleeve
    replied
    Driving is a privilege. Firearms ownership is a right. Need I explain the differance

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    Originally posted by mrsleeve
    The shooter was a 7th grader. I didn't see the type of weapon used but its a fairly sure bet that he's not allowed to own a gun by law yet. There for he stole it to pull this stunt.

    You have consistanty argued to limit rights and regulate tools and inanimate objects based on what someone might do with them. Yet don't propose similar regulation and restrictions on other objects and tools that have just as much probability to be missused. Just getting to your own implied poinnt before you do
    for sure the parents are at fault, but isn't it highly likely that they were law abiding gun owners?

    I mean, let's take your point about other "things" that can kill. like cars - except you need a license to drive a car (although the requirements are pretty low, you still need one). Why not require a license to own a gun? Something that would require training and being responsible with storage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Farbin Kaiber
    replied
    ^The ACA should be banned then, because it could hurt people. Sure, it could save people's lives, but it will also cause people to die, so, I say we ban it.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsleeve
    replied
    The shooter was a 7th grader. I didn't see the type of weapon used but its a fairly sure bet that he's not allowed to own a gun by law yet. There for he stole it to pull this stunt.

    You have consistanty argued to limit rights and regulate tools and inanimate objects based on what someone might do with them. Yet don't propose similar regulation and restrictions on other objects and tools that have just as much probability to be missused. Just getting to your own implied poinnt before you do

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    when did I mention blaming guns?

    the solution from the right is still "good guys don't do bad stuff". Until they walk into a school and blow a bunch of kids away.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsleeve
    replied
    Yup that was the fault of the firearm, it just got all vendictive and shit annd took itslef too the school and began shooting people all by itself


    Cultural problem when the news media glorfies this shit for weeks on end after they happen further inspiring other shit heads with an ax to grind and piss poor parrents trying to be their best friends and not parrents

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    yay, another school shooting!



    when is enough going to be enough?

    they are so commonplace now, it's not even very shocking.

    Leave a comment:

Working...