"National Walk-Out Day"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 05:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since the framers did not even envision a standing army, what would have been the source of this "monopoly"?

The militia?

What was George Washington in charge of during the Revolution?

[Dill]

(03-19-2018, 05:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What was George Washington in charge of during the Revolution?

Not a standing army.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 05:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We "let" some criminals own guns to protect us from having the guns of law abiding citizens taken from them.

How about a law that continues to allow law abiding citizens to own guns but just makes it harder for criminals.

What would be the damage from a law like that which would justify letting criminals have easy access to guns.

[Dill]

(03-19-2018, 05:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since the framers did not even envision a standing army, what would have been the source of this "monopoly"?

The militia?

Actually, they did by 1784--and that was settled three years before the drafting process for the Constitution began.  Difficulties with British withdrawal from some forts post war made it clear that some standing force would be needed. And Hamilton was always pushing for one.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Don't know where you got your statistics, and I don't know why you think it should be legal to murder anyone who has a criminal conviction on his record,

(03-19-2018, 04:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, Fred.  Why must you engage in such insane levels of hyperbole?

It is not hyperbole when you claim those murders "don't count"

(03-19-2018, 04:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Around 8k of them are criminals killed by other criminals. 

BTW where did you get that number?

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 05:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Criminals aren't allowed unlimited access to buy guns.  A convicted criminal can't legally buy any guns, much less have unlimited access to buying them.

As long as private sales are allowed without background check and there is no gun registry it is impossible to enforce these laws in many cases.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 05:28 PM)Dill Wrote: Not a standing army.

I hadn't had my daily dose of semantics yet today, so I thank you.

(03-19-2018, 05:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How about a law that continues to allow law abiding citizens to own guns but just makes it harder for criminals.

Yes, please!

Quote:What would be the damage from a law like that which would justify letting criminals have easy access to guns.

If the government subsequently used this law to take away your legally purchased firearms.

(03-19-2018, 05:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not hyperbole when you claim those murders "don't count"

I didn't say they don't count.  I implied that they don't represent the danger of being killed with a firearm for the general populace.  This isn't a difficult concept, Fred.

Quote:BTW where did you get that number?

I could have sworn I got it from the BJS, but for the life of me I can't find it.  After thinking about it, it may have been from a training, because I can vividly recall myself and some work colleagues talking about the fact that ~60-66% of gun related homicides involve criminals killing other criminals.  If you choose to discount this number, please feel free as I cannot currently substantiate it.  Even so, I think it's very fair, and difficult to dispute, to say that a sizable number of gun related homicides involve criminals killing other criminals.

(03-19-2018, 05:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: As long as private sales are allowed without background check and there is no gun registry it is impossible to enforce these laws in many cases.

I see them get enforced all the time.  As the violent crime rate was dropping for a quarter century until recently I'd say the laws were working.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 07:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't say they don't count.  I implied that they don't represent the danger of being killed with a firearm for the general populace.  This isn't a difficult concept, Fred.

The general populace includes a lot of people with DUIs, simple possession, shoplifting or other "criminal" charges on their record.  Don't know why they should not be protected from getting murdered.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 07:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If the government subsequently used this law to take away your legally purchased firearms.

So basically nothing.

When you balance current problems against something that "might happen in the future" you have no balance.

If there was some "causation" then you might have a point, but none exists between licensing and registration laws and confiscation of legally purchased firearms.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-19-2018, 07:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The general populace includes a lot of people with DUIs, simple possession, shoplifting or other "criminal" charges on their record.  Don't know why they should not be protected from getting murdered.

As far as I understand, they ARE protected.  Just the same as you, I, or anyone else under the law.  Murder is already a crime, has been for quite some time.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 07:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As far as I understand, they ARE protected.  Just the same as you, I, or anyone else under the law.  Murder is already a crime, has been for quite some time.

Thank you, sometimes I get weary stating the obvious.  

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 07:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As far as I understand, they ARE protected.  Just the same as you, I, or anyone else under the law.  Murder is already a crime, has been for quite some time.

SSF is trying to claim that if you have a DUI conviction then he does not care if you get murdered.

Only murder victims with no criminal convictions count for him.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 07:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: SSF is trying to claim that if you have a DUI conviction then he does not care if you get murdered.

Hahahaha, oh my god, thank you.  This gave me an honest good audible laugh.

Quote:Only murder victims with no criminal convictions count for him.

Yes, I am so evil! 

[SunsetBengal]

(03-19-2018, 07:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: SSF is trying to claim that if you have a DUI conviction then he does not care if you get murdered.

Only murder victims with no criminal convictions count for him.

Really?  I never read that.  What I did read, was you attempting to imply that.

[Dill]

(03-19-2018, 07:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I hadn't had my daily dose of semantics yet today, so I thank you.

You did ask, right?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 11:14 PM)Dill Wrote: You did ask, right?

If an army was an army?  Yes.

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 12:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If an army was an army?  Yes.

If Fred says the Framers" did not envision a standing army,"

and you ask "What was George Washington in charge of during the Revolution?"

Then you were just wondering if an army was an army, not whether it was a standing army?

Because if Washington was in charge of an army that would refute a claim that the Framers did not envision a standing army?

[*michaelsean*]

I think the founders did envision the possibility of a standing army, and they placed checks on it by putting the President in charge, but requiring Congress to pay for it every two years.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 07:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hahahaha, oh my god, thank you.  This gave me an honest good audible laugh.


Yes, I am so evil! 

(03-19-2018, 07:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Really?  I never read that.  What I did read, was you attempting to imply that.

It is impossible for me to know what SSF is saying because he never explained exactly what he meant.  All he said was that "criminals" getting killed did not count as murders for his purposes.

If anything I said was wrong he can correct me with additional information. 

Or else he can just make some more meaningless snarky comments that explain nothing.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-20-2018, 09:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is impossible for me to know what SSF is saying because he never explained exactly what he meant.  All he said was that "criminals" getting killed did not count as murders for his purposes.

If anything I said was wrong he can correct me with additional information. 

Or else he can just make some more meaningless snarky comments that explain nothing.

How I read it was he wasn't talking about your average misdemeanor guy, but your violent felons such as gang members, meth dealers etc.