pfife Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 47 minutes ago, pfife said: Looks like someone is going to tryu to grease the skids on the slippery slope.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 I think their problem will be is in their definition of assault weapon. There really is no such thing as an assault gun but these liberals that don't know anything about firearms believe it has to do with how a rifle looks. I can show two rifles that look completely different but they fire the same ammunition at the same rate and have the same capacity. However, one is looked at as an assault rifle and the other is not. They also need to remember their is an Amendment to the US constitution that allows people to own firearms. I don't recall an Amendment for a right to have abortions. The United States would be better off if California just left the union and became their own country or the could become part of Mexico. That way they wouldn't have millions of illegals living in their state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 They use guns to assult and kill people. That's all I need to know. Anything else is picking at nits. Waiting period Education License Insurance Demand these things and we'll talk turkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, Archie said: I think their problem will be is in their definition of assault weapon. I think their problem is 5+ bad faith justices on the supreme court that will pick and choose what and who's rights are saved and destroyed based on their personal preferences only. Edited December 12, 2021 by pfife 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 the hilarious thing about all of this "definite assault weapons" nonsense is that it was the law for well over a decade and absolutely 0 courts said anything of the sort. Just more winger dipshittery. If assault weapons can't be defined, how did they do it successfully for over a decade and literally no one succeeded in proving they didn't in a court of law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 I'm pretty sure California will define an assault weapon in much the same way Texas defined a baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: I'm pretty sure California will define an assault weapon in much the same way Texas defined a baby. Roe was instituted in the mid 1970's. There's a lot more medical technology today that could give them better information on development. Also, as I mentioned there is no Constitutional amendment that gives a woman a "right" to an abortion. There is a Constitutional right to own and bear arms. I think the problem with abortion issues is the all or nothing mentality. The left wants mass abortions with drive through abortion clinics when they service anyone. The right want a 100% ban on abortions. I am against abortion, or lets say mass abortion. I believe they should be allowed for medical reasons or in cases of rape or incest. I don't believe abortion should be a means of birth control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 (edited) good thing technology hasn't impacted guns what a ridiculous argument Edited December 12, 2021 by pfife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 54 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: They use guns to assult and kill people. That's all I need to know. Anything else is picking at nits. Waiting period Education License Insurance Demand these things and we'll talk turkey If a background check works and they do, why do we need a waiting period. I have been in a gun store more than once and saw where a person what not allowed to purchase a firearm. Most gun owners are educated in firearms and firearm safety. Any firearm owner that legally carries a conceal firearm in Michigan is licensed to carry it. I don't keep up on laws in other states but some have more relaxed carry laws. Why do people need insurance to own a gun? Is that something that you want to make it more expensive to own a firearm that is not necessary? I get it you don't like guns, are scared of them or both. It doesn't make it wrong for other people to own them that don't have the same issues you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 "most gun owners are educated in.... firearm safety" meanwhile this happens all the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 11 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: Looks like someone is going to tryu to grease the skids on the slippery slope.... 1) california wont do that. its click bait politics. 2) the supreme court was asked the question of whether the abortion providers' lawsuit for injunctive relief could proceed against a slate of government defendants. remember, the law is constructed in a way to avoid such a request for injunctive relief to proceed by making private citizens rather than government officials as the "enforcers" of the law. the theory being the abortion providers would have no standing to sue until someone had attempted to enforce the law. ultimately, the supreme court held that the suit for injunctive relief could proceed against certain defendants but not all defendants. so the abortion providers "won". the court ruled narrowly on the narrow question that was presented to it by a vote of 8-1. only thomas - who is not a fan of any injunctive relief petitions in general - dissented from that part of the ruling. there were two concurring/dissenting opinions. one from roberts and one from sotomayor. both would have allowed the injunctive relief suit to proceed against all of the defendants and thrown out the law. roberts' was a short opinion on how the supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of the law and that this texas law was a bunch of legal shenanigans designed to avoid judicial review and the court shouldnt allow that to happen. sotomayor was about how the court should have overturned the law because its obviously unconstitutional. i think the concurrence/dissent is ultimately right and they should have overturned the law. i think the actual effect of the decision will be to send it back to the 5th circuit and they will decide on the injunction, so it would ultimately be ruled unconstitutional anyway. this was just a matter of standing. that said, the real action on abortion is the dodds decision. it will be interesting to see if roberts can craft a narrow decision that preserves some of casey. the oral argument didnt go particularly well for the pro abortion side and most people seem to think they will overturn it in some manner. i think roberts would like to keep parts of it (probably the right to "privacy" portion) but get rid of the viability portion. im not sure he has the votes to do that. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 8 hours ago, Archie said: I think their problem will be is in their definition of assault weapon. There really is no such thing as an assault gun but these liberals that don't know anything about firearms believe it has to do with how a rifle looks. I can show two rifles that look completely different but they fire the same ammunition at the same rate and have the same capacity. However, one is looked at as an assault rifle and the other is not. They also need to remember their is an Amendment to the US constitution that allows people to own firearms. I don't recall an Amendment for a right to have abortions. The United States would be better off if California just left the union and became their own country or the could become part of Mexico. That way they wouldn't have millions of illegals living in their state. Killing machines. That's all we need to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 I would require military service as a prerequisite to gun ownership. I know this would never happen, but I think it is very reasonable. It would guarantee proper training. Guns were originally intended for a well organized militia, so it makes sense that gun owners at least served in the well organized professional military at one point in their lives. Avid gun owners usually claim to be great patriots, so spending some time in the miltary should not be a problem for them. There would be no shortage of service people ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Tiger337 said: Killing machines. That's all we need to know. They could be called killing tools. People who use them to kill others are the killing machines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 4 hours ago, buddha said: 1) california wont do that. its click bait politics. 2) the supreme court was asked the question of whether the abortion providers' lawsuit for injunctive relief could proceed against a slate of government defendants. remember, the law is constructed in a way to avoid such a request for injunctive relief to proceed by making private citizens rather than government officials as the "enforcers" of the law. the theory being the abortion providers would have no standing to sue until someone had attempted to enforce the law. ultimately, the supreme court held that the suit for injunctive relief could proceed against certain defendants but not all defendants. so the abortion providers "won". the court ruled narrowly on the narrow question that was presented to it by a vote of 8-1. only thomas - who is not a fan of any injunctive relief petitions in general - dissented from that part of the ruling. there were two concurring/dissenting opinions. one from roberts and one from sotomayor. both would have allowed the injunctive relief suit to proceed against all of the defendants and thrown out the law. roberts' was a short opinion on how the supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of the law and that this texas law was a bunch of legal shenanigans designed to avoid judicial review and the court shouldnt allow that to happen. sotomayor was about how the court should have overturned the law because its obviously unconstitutional. i think the concurrence/dissent is ultimately right and they should have overturned the law. i think the actual effect of the decision will be to send it back to the 5th circuit and they will decide on the injunction, so it would ultimately be ruled unconstitutional anyway. this was just a matter of standing. that said, the real action on abortion is the dodds decision. it will be interesting to see if roberts can craft a narrow decision that preserves some of casey. the oral argument didnt go particularly well for the pro abortion side and most people seem to think they will overturn it in some manner. i think roberts would like to keep parts of it (probably the right to "privacy" portion) but get rid of the viability portion. im not sure he has the votes to do that. I remember when overturning Roe and banning abortion would have been considered clickbait politics. The Republicans only talked about for votes but would never go through with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Tiger337 said: I would require military service as a prerequisite to gun ownership. I know this would never happen, but I think it is very reasonable. It would guarantee proper training. Guns were originally intended for a well organized militia, so it makes sense that gun owners at least served in the well organized professional military at one point in their lives. Avid gun owners usually claim to be great patriots, so spending some time in the miltary should not be a problem for them. There would be no shortage of service people ever. But a militia is made up of civilians. The definition of a militia is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 Just now, Archie said: But a militia is made up of civilians. The definition of a militia is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency: Sounds like the definition of the National Guard which is already in place in every state. Now if all gun owners were willing to undergo physicals, do the yearly training exercises and attend the monthly (or quarterly) meetings.... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 39 minutes ago, Archie said: They could be called killing tools. People who use them to kill others are the killing machines. What else would they use therm for? Killing iswhat they are designed to do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 39 minutes ago, Archie said: But a militia is made up of civilians. The definition of a militia is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency: I know what a militia is. We don't have any well regulated militia, so people shouldn't have guns according to the constitution. I am trying to make a compromise here because I knowhow important guns are to you guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichiganCardinal Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 7 hours ago, Archie said: The Second Amendment was instituted in the 1790s. There's a lot more weaponry today that could give them problems not foreseen by the writers. Also, as I mentioned there is no Constitutional amendment that gives a person a "right" to a firearm. There is a Constitutional right for a militia to own and bear arms. I think the problem with gun issues is the all or nothing mentality. The left wants sensible gun laws which service everyone. The right wants unfettered access to firearms by anyone and everyone. FTFY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 It sounds like you want to penalize all gun owners because of a few idiots. I'm not too worried about it because we will never give up firearms or have them confiscated. There are millions of firearm owners in the US and it'ss one of the few issues that will make liberals vote against democrats. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 46 minutes ago, Archie said: It sounds like you want to penalize all gun owners because of a few idiots. I'm not too worried about it because we will never give up firearms or have them confiscated. There are millions of firearm owners in the US and it'ss one of the few issues that will make liberals vote against democrats. I understand that America's strange gun culture is here to stay. However, there are a lot of idiots and I want to make it more difficult for those people to access guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 1 hour ago, Archie said: It sounds like you want to penalize all gun owners because of a few idiots. I'm not too worried about it because we will never give up firearms or have them confiscated. There are millions of firearm owners in the US and it'ss one of the few issues that will make liberals vote against democrats. To penalize the many for the few argument as reason to forestall legal change doesn't actually hold though because that is exactly what is done every where in society. Some people drive safely enough that the marginal value of a seat belt is small. Society decided their being 'penalized' was a sufficient price to pay. You find a thousand similar cases - some people could keep opiates in their medicine cabinets and use them responsibly - no dice on that either. So as a general complaint - complain away should such laws be passed, but as a precedent to prevent the law from acting anyway (should the majority ever actually find it's political will) it's a losing arg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.