Borderline Bar & Grill Shooting

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2018, 12:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wow!  I had no IDEA you were over 200 years old!   

I know a lot about WW2, yet I was not alive when it took place.  There's a subject called History, it is studied by many, both amateur and professional.  I'm give you a small lesson in it right now.  The entire Bill of Rights is about limiting the power of the government over the people.  You think the 2A was the only time they decided to break from their guiding principle?  Educate yourself on the time, the intent and the meaning of the term "well regulated" in the context it is used.  Maybe then you can debate this subject intelligently.

Quote:LMAO!  Yes, a person without the knowledge of algebra and physics voting is the same as anyone being able to buy a weapon and receive no training. You're a hoot.

But it was your false equivalency question.

I take it this is an admission that your analogy was a poor one.

Quote:I keep forgetting that only when it comes to gun laws does the "criminals don't obey laws" argument come into play.

My bad.

Have a great weekend!

You please do the same.  When you have educated yourself on this subject please feel free to attempt to engage in debate on it again.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2018, 12:45 PM)Au165 Wrote: More so the "violently" opposed ones. 

To this point the Supreme Court and various courts are always trying to figure out how our rights work in today's world. Especially in terms of speech, searches, and such. The whole bio metric unlocking of phones have been a huge issue with various cases going various ways.

 I think people trying to be "purest" never do holistically when looking at the constitution only when they want it to back up their argument. The idea that people hundreds of years ago had all the answers I think someday will be viewed as insane. While it's great that the document is hard to change, I think again no one could have seen how divisive things would become today.

Yet the Constitution and it's amendments are the foundation for the most successful nation this world has ever produced.  Of course modern inventions and events require the documents to be interpreted in their effect on said inventions and events.  But the foundation is a solid one as it is built on a timeless principle, that the government should answer to the people and not the other way around.

[Au165]

(11-09-2018, 12:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: that the government should answer to the people and not the other way around.

Interesting.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2018, 12:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would argue the position they take that any restriction on firearm ownership is a violation of the 2A as lacking a firm constitutional foundation. Hell, it hasn't yet been a decade since our courts recognized that there was any constitutional foundation to a right to personal firearms ownership, and this has been going on for much longer than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

This would disagree with you.

Quote:I think that they are extremist in their views and have lost the original vision of the organization in favor of lobbying on behalf of the firearms industry rather than the owners, but that part boils down to where their money comes from. The individual members give a paltry sum to them when compared to the manufacturers they protect.

You also don't think anyone has a need to own a semi-automatic firearm.  I would consider that view to be rather extreme.  I will concur that the NRA can go too far, but I'll take an organization defending a constitutional right being overzealous at times to not zealous enough.

Quote:As for the social issues, that has been something that has cropped up most recently with NRATV, which really is just a cesspool of the worst the NRA throws out there. Essentially, as someone that has my specific issues with the organization being a sportsman and former member/trained instructor, NRATV represents everything I have grown to dislike about the organization.

You've mentioned NRATV several times, I've never watched it.  I do like Colion Noir and watch his stuff on YouTube.  I'll have to give it a watch to see why it has earned such contempt from you.

[GMDino]

Mind you I have already said this time it appears more related to the government failing our vets when they come home...but this will remain true for the foreseen future.

[Belsnickel]

(11-09-2018, 01:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

This would disagree with you.

Presser still attaches the right to bear arms to the condition of militia membership. It wasn't until Heller that the individual right to bear arms, independent of an organized militia, was recognized as a right. That case was just a decade ago, this year.

(11-09-2018, 01:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You also don't think anyone has a need to own a semi-automatic firearm.  I would consider that view to be rather extreme.  I will concur that the NRA can go too far, but I'll take an organization defending a constitutional right being overzealous at times to not zealous enough.

I don't think anyone needs one, but it doesn't mean I think they should be barred from owning one. Hardly an extremist view when the data would support my position based on the number of shots fired in the vast majority of civilian defensive situations or the number of rounds required for hunting.

(11-09-2018, 01:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You've mentioned NRATV several times, I've never watched it.  I do like Colion Noir and watch his stuff on YouTube.  I'll have to give it a watch to see why it has earned such contempt from you.

It can make Fox look like CNN.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   It's a good thing there are those among us who still push personal responsibility and accountability.  

Actually you oppose accountability.  If every gun was registered to an owner then we could hold owners responsible for those guns.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Probably has something to do with not making training mandatory to exercise a constitutional right.  Seeing as you disagree you'd also be in favor of requiring at least a high school diploma before someone can vote, right?

No.  It takes a public safety issue to justify limiting constitutional rights.

Seeing as you think there should be no limits on constitutional rights you would be oppose to any law against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, right?  


How many times do I have to crush that exact same argument before you stop trying to use it?

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why would someone need a piece of paper to prove they know how to safely handle a firearm?

Because guns are deadly weapons that pose a threat to public safety when not use properly.

You really couldn't figure that out yourself?

(11-09-2018, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know gun owners who've never taken a safety course and are highly responsible when it comes to gun safety.

O really?

(11-09-2018, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree.  I think firearm safety training is immensely important.  I've left ranges where the range master wasn't addressing idiots being idiots with their firearms.  I also think you'll find that the vast majority of gun owners have educated themselves on gun safety.  The one pistol owner who's fired their gun once the day after they bought it not included.

[*bfine32*]

Folks have once again taken a tragedy to stand on their soapboxes. This was an individual training in the use of fire arms, legally owning a handgun, in the strictest state in the Nation.

yet folks drag out the same tired arguments that have 0 to do with the tragedy.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Gun ownership laws only affect those who are inclined to obey the law. 

I see this speaking point a lot, but it is absolutely ridiculous.

You actually think the people in jail for violating gun laws are not effected by them?

Again, this argument is complete joke.  I am amazed that you keep throwing it out there.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  What does a criminal who's going to kill someone care if the gun they possess isn't legal to own in CA? 

They would care if they got arrested for possessing it BEFORE they were able to kill a bunch of people.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We already have limits set on our right to own a firearm.  Further limits, such as those imposed in CA, have had zero effect on gun violence. 

This just is not true.  Under current laws anyone can buy a gun anytime they want.  People from California just have to go over the border.  Felons possessing firearms can come in contact with police without fear of being arrested because police do not run the criminal history of every person they talk to.  People make lots of money selling guns to criminals because there is no way to trace the activity.

Simple registration and licensing laws would do a lot to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

[GMDino]

(11-09-2018, 03:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks have once again taken a tragedy to stand on their soapboxes. This was an individual training in the use of fire arms, legally owning a handgun, in the strictest state in the Nation.

yet folks drag out the same tired arguments that have 0 to do with the tragedy.

Well that's because people have a tic that makes them defend their guns even if their guns weren't being attacked.  I agree that is sad.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 12:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yet the Constitution and it's amendments are the foundation for the most successful nation this world has ever produced.  Of course modern inventions and events require the documents to be interpreted in their effect on said inventions and events.  But the foundation is a solid one as it is built on a timeless principle, that the government should answer to the people and not the other way around.

So if the people, through the democratic guidelines set out in the Constitution vote for and enact gun control laws will you abide by them?

Or do you just love the Constitution when it works for you?

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 03:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks have once again taken a tragedy to stand on their soapboxes. This was an individual training in the use of fire arms, legally owning a handgun, in the strictest state in the Nation.

yet folks drag out the same tired arguments that have 0 to do with the tragedy.

He used a high capacity magazine that would have been illegal to posses under California law if it had not been blocked by a federal court.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/08/thousand-oaks-shooting-court-blocked-law-barring-gunmans-magazine/1928201002/


But at least you got your mandatory "thoughts and prayers" post in here.

[Dill]

(11-09-2018, 12:59 PM)Au165 Wrote: Interesting.

"Timeless" part is interesting too.

[Dill]

(11-09-2018, 03:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks have once again taken a tragedy to stand on their soapboxes. This was an individual training in the use of fire arms, legally owning a handgun, in the strictest state in the Nation.

yet folks drag out the same tired arguments that have 0 to do with the tragedy.

Saw a crying mother on tv last night doing that. Using the loss of her son to push an anti-gun agenda.

A hired actor maybe, like those supposed Florida HS students?

How low will "the Left" go to challenge our Constitutional rights?

[Dill]

(11-09-2018, 01:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Mind you I have already said this time it appears more related to the government failing our vets when they come home...but this will remain true for the foreseen future.

Thoughts and prayers go out to the NRA at times like this. 

Well, not mine. But some folks'.

[Benton]

(11-09-2018, 03:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks have once again taken a tragedy to stand on their soapboxes. This was an individual training in the use of fire arms, legally owning a handgun, in the strictest state in the Nation.

yet folks drag out the same tired arguments that have 0 to do with the tragedy.

And you just did the same. In attempting to decry those calling for realistic gun safety, you pulled your soapbox out to say "hey, gun control doesn't work, look at this guy."