New GOP gun law.

[Machinegunner]

Have any of you seen the new Bumpski Bill??? There is no mention of bumski stocks in it. It addresses speed increasers. It is very vague and could be interpreted to be anything they decide. If you get caught with any gun or part that can increase the speed of a semi auto it's 5 years in jail. The Dems. want 10 years. If it passes, and 10 Reps signed on, they could immediately out law all semi autos over night. There are many ways to increase the ratr of fire just by the way you hold the weapon. Looks like only outlaws and terrorists will be able to have them.

[ARtraveler]

You raise good points. :bbq::bbq::bbq::bbq:

[Bob Denman]

You're being just a bit paranoid... It's the ownership of the parts necessary to "speed things up" that causes the problem. :lecturef_smilie:It's not the semi-automatic firearm!

Give the scumbags a mandatory 20 year term behind bars: we need to save our firearms rights for those of us who are willing to own them in a responsible manner... nojoke

[Navydad]

Problem is a lot of the folks in government can't or refuse to differentiate between scumbags and those of us who are willing to own them in a responsible manner.

[UtahPete]

Problem is a lot of the folks in government can't or refuse to differentiate between scumbags and those of us who are willing to own them in a responsible manner.

Anybody on this forum work for the government? Want to address that?

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Problem is a lot of the folks in government can't or refuse to differentiate between scumbags and those of us who are willing to own them in a responsible manner.


Anybody on this forum work for the government? Want to address that?
I worked for Uncle and have been involved in writing and enforcing various regulations and contract provisions. Can't is a much more accurate word than is refuse as used in the quote above. And it's not can't because of incompetence or inability, it's can't because there is such a variation differentiating the two sides that it is impractical, if not impossible, to determine where the sharp line needs to be to have a fair binary split.

You can just as readily use the words responsible and irresponsible, considerate and selfish, and so on. When the actions of the negative side become so egregious or widespread that legislators at any level feel the need to create limitations and restrictions, they invariably will be onerous to some of those on the positive side. As an illustration, if all drivers were concerned about the safety of children around schools and so drove slowly and watchfully in those areas, there would no need for school zone speed limits which for some conscientious drivers are unnecessarily restrictive.

[wyliec]

I worked for Uncle and have been involved in writing and enforcing various regulations and contract provisions. Can't is a much more accurate word than is refuse as used in the quote above. And it's not can't because of incompetence or inability, it's can't because there is such a variation differentiating the two sides that it is impractical, if not impossible, to determine where the sharp line needs to be to have a fair binary split.

You can just as readily use the words responsible and irresponsible, considerate and selfish, and so on. When the actions of the negative side become so egregious or widespread that legislators at any level feel the need to create limitations and restrictions, they invariably will be onerous to some of those on the positive side. As an illustration, if all drivers were concerned about the safety of children around schools and so drove slowly and watchfully in those areas, there would no need for school zone speed limits which for some conscientious drivers are unnecessarily restrictive.


Can you condense that into one or two sentences of words with one or two syllables? Also, check out your last sentence. I think you are missing a word of one syllable.

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

better buy your bazooka's while you still can

[Bob Denman]

Can you condense that into one or two sentences of words with one or two syllables? Also, check out your last sentence. I think you are missing a word of one syllable.
Ron... "Gov-Speak" 'Nuff said! :roflblack:

[Fatcycledaddy]

As an illustration, if all drivers were concerned about the safety of children around schools and so drove slowly and watchfully in those areas, there would no need for school zone speed limits which for some conscientious drivers are unnecessarily restrictive.

If the conscientious drivers are driving at normal speeds and obeying the law, then they don't find speed zone unnecessarily offensive, what they find offensive is when a NEW or SECOND law that restricts them further is put into place because others are breaking the current law.
If the drivers who are not concerned about safety and do not drive conscientiously around schools now breaking the law, what makes you think they will obey the next law that is put in place.

Edgewood MD shooter was arrested 42 times, he was a convicted felon who could not own a firearm and yet was arrested for having an illegal gun and ammo in his car, this in itself was a felony, he had a restraining order against him filed by the employer where the shooting took place.

So if a person is willing to break the law by killing someone, break the law by owning a gun as a felon, break the law of the restraining order, how would one more law have stopped this?

NO NUMBER OF LAWS WILL STOP IT, if people want to kill someone they will find a way to do it no matter what laws are in place.

That is why new laws only restrict the law abiding or conscientious citizen, and have NO affect on the people who want to kill.

[Bob Denman]

The problem isn't the laws: it's the lack of swift, severe, and certain punishment. :gaah:
If punishments are harsh enough: the scumbags will eventually figure out that it's just not worth it. nojoke

[Orange Spyder Man]

The "anti-gun establishment" constantly looks for opportunities to disarm Americans... once they get a foot in the door its game over.. :sour:

osm

[Fatcycledaddy]

The problem isn't the laws: it's the lack of swift, severe, and certain punishment. :gaah:
If punishments are harsh enough: the scumbags will eventually figure out that it's just not worth it. nojoke

So are you saying that the punishment for gun law violation should be harsher than the punishment for murder?

For years we had the death penalty for murder, for years there was quick and sometimes incorrect punishment with the wrong people being put to death because of the quickness, and yet there were and still are murders each and every day.

So what would you suggest as swift, severe, and certain punishment that goes beyond the death penalty and would stop this?

[Bob Denman]

As responsible gunowners: we owe it to ourselves to follow the rules and act responsibly. EVERY firearm tragedy just adds ammo to their arsenal... and robs us of ours! nojoke

[BitSlayer]

More laws are not the issue. The true issue is enforcement of the existing laws. We need to get a judicial system that is concerned with enforcement the laws and not legislating what they want the laws to be.

[Machinegunner]

Semi automatics were invented in the 1890s. These weapons are not the problem. Something happened to our society, we have to fix that, not the guns.

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

enforce to the fullest extent the existing laws that we have. if you are caught during a felony crime with an unlicensed
gun then no plea bargain and no good time for early release.

[UtahPete]

enforce to the fullest extent the existing laws that we have. if you are caught during a felony crime with an unlicensed
gun then no plea bargain and no good time for early release.

Laws vary from state to state. Licensing isn't a requirement in most places any more.

[UtahPete]

More laws are not the issue. The true issue is enforcement of the existing laws. We need to get a judicial system that is concerned with enforcement the laws and not legislating what they want the laws to be.

What laws is the judicial system not enforcing?

[UtahPete]

Can you condense that into one or two sentences of words with one or two syllables?

I'll try. Since when in America is there a dividing line between 'folks in government' and those of us being governed? I find the whole proposition of that post to be ludicrous and unhelpful in understanding the issue.

[Bob Denman]

"What laws is the judicial system not enforcing?"

Plea-bargaining, and minimum sentences that never seem to keep a scumbag incarcerated for even that short period of time...

[UtahPete]

Semi automatics were invented in the 1890s. These weapons are not the problem. Something happened to our society, we have to fix that, not the guns.

When semi-automatics were invented, we didn't have the NRA promoting their unlicensed ownership, propelled by irrational fear of government control. In fact, we don't have to go back that far to a time when widespread ownership of guns by the general populace was unheard of. Then, the weapons manufacturers, who weren't satisfied with a shrinking market after the major wars wound down, used the NRA to promote gun ownership any way they could. The rest is history.

[UtahPete]

"What laws is the judicial system not enforcing?" Plea-bargaining, and minimum sentences that never seem to keep a scumbag incarcerated for even that short period of time...

That could be said for any number of crimes. I'm asking which gun control laws are not being enforced, which if better enforced would negate the need for more gun control?

[UtahPete]

The "anti-gun establishment" constantly looks for opportunities to disarm Americans... once they get a foot in the door its game over.. :sour: osm

Well, we know who the pro-gun establishment is - the NRA. Who is the anti-gun establishment?

[Bob Denman]

HCI... or whatever it is, that they're calling themselves now.

[UtahPete]

More laws are not the issue. The true issue is enforcement of the existing laws. We need to get a judicial system that is concerned with enforcement the laws and not legislating what they want the laws to be.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Which courts are now acting as both the judicial and the legislative branches?

[UtahPete]

Problem is a lot of the folks in government can't or refuse to differentiate between scumbags and those of us who are willing to own them in a responsible manner.

Here's a question. How would you suggest we (as in 'we the government') go about sorting out the scumbags who don't deserve to possess guns from responsible citizens who do?

[Firefly]

The problem isn't the laws: it's the lack of swift, severe, and certain punishment. :gaah:
If punishments are harsh enough: the scumbags will eventually figure out that it's just not worth it. nojoke

That simply doesn't work in the real world... otherwise states with Capital Punishment shouldn't have any murders.......

[Firefly]

Well, we know who the pro-gun establishment is - the NRA. Who is the anti-gun establishment?

Who is the anti-gun establishment?

Sane people... that's who... ;)

[Bob Denman]

Here's a question. How would you suggest we (as in 'we the government') go about sorting out the scumbags who don't deserve to possess guns from responsible citizens who do?
Branding the scumbags might be fun... :clap:

[UtahPete]

Branding the scumbags might be fun... :clap:

You're dodging the tough questions.

[Bob Denman]

Am I?
If you brand a felon across their forehead: wouldn't this action make a person less likely to choose that path?

[UtahPete]

Am I? If you brand a felon across their forehead: wouldn't this action make a person less likely to choose that path?

Okay, so any felon is a scumbag and should be so branded. Got it.

[Grandpot]

Am I?
If you brand a felon across their forehead: wouldn't this action make a person less likely to choose that path?

Unfortunately this may not be a deterrent. It just might become a right of passage, like beating into a gang.

I'm a firm believer that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. After 21 years as a cop, I never leave home without my .45.

[Fatcycledaddy]

Well, we know who the pro-gun establishment is - the NRA. Who is the anti-gun establishment?

The NRA is a PRO constitutional right called the second amendment, not pro gun!
Nice little twist to make it sound like people are either for or against guns, not a constitutional right. I am pro second amendment and I refuse to let anyone take that right away from me!

Are you Pro Life or Anti-life?
Of course that sounds to harsh so it is changed to Pro Choice, not pro death or anti life.

[Bob Denman]

I'm Pro-NRA! :thumbup:

154884

[UtahPete]

The NRA is a PRO constitutional right called the second amendment, not pro gun! Nice little twist to make it sound like people are either for or against guns, not a constitutional right. I am pro second amendment and I refuse to let anyone take that right away from me!

Are you Pro Life or Anti-life? Of course that sounds to harsh so it is changed to Pro Choice, not pro death or anti life.

It's the NRA that is spinning this debate into a pro- or con- Second Amendment argument. When you become part of a well-regulated militia, come and talk to me about your unfettered right under the second amendment to possess and carry as many and whatever kind of weapon you choose.

It is the religious right that has spun their anti-abortion campaign into a pro- or anti- life argument when it is actually about whether or not a woman should have her freedom to choose denied her. I am for freedom of choice. I don't think you, I or the government should be taking away a woman's freedom to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term.

What makes your freedom to own and carry guns sacrosanct, beyond government control, but a woman's right to choose how she deals with an unwanted pregnancy is legislated away without another thought to the constitutional principles involved? Your freedoms as a gun-owner trump a woman's freedoms; you don't see a problem with that?

[Bob Denman]

Pete,
You're way off the rails now... Where did the abortion discussion come from? :dontknow:

And when the framers of our Constitution were discussing "militias"; they meant each and every citizen.

[JerryB]

Hi Pete,

Re: you don't see a problem with that?

No, they don't.

Jerry Baumchen

[Bob Denman]

Okay, so any felon is a scumbag and should be so branded. Got it.
Yup! :thumbup:
But I don't think that branding someone who is mentally unfit; would be fair.
For that: I'd like law enforcement agencies to have better access to medical records. This entire HIPPA thing is a pain! nojoke

[UtahPete]

Pete, You're way off the rails now... Where did the abortion discussion come from? :dontknow:

And when the framers of our Constitution were discussing "militias"; they meant each and every citizen.

The abortion issue came from the post that I quoted (FatCycleDaddy); "Are you Pro Life or Anti-life? Of course that sounds to harsh so it is changed to Pro Choice"

On what authority do you base your claim of what the framers of the Constitution meant by a 'militia'? The intent of the 2nd amendment is still being debated and is the source of the great divide over gun ownership in this country as far as I'm aware. If it had been decided by the Supreme Court, then there would be no more debate.

[BitSlayer]

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Which courts are now acting as both the judicial and the legislative branches?
Man, you must live in the liberal bubble. There are so many courts that are trying to legislate from the bench. That is not within their power to do. Take a deep breath and come out of the bubble UtahPete, come out of the bubble.....

[UtahPete]

Man, you must live in the liberal bubble. There are so many courts that are trying to legislate from the bench. That is not within their power to do. Take a deep breath and come out of the bubble UtahPete, come out of the bubble.....

I live in one of the reddest states in the nation. Hardly a liberal bubble. I'm asking you to come up with some hard facts to substantiate your claim that courts are trying to legislate from the bench. I think that's far-right propaganda that you have just digested and regurgitated without questioning it.

This is not a debate between right and left; this is a debate about whether we believe our government (all three branches, federal, state and local) is functioning within the constitution or not. When you make claims like that it would seem you don't trust our government. Or maybe it's just those laws and judicial decisions and executive actions you don't like that you dismiss as unconstitutional?

[UtahPete]

Yup! :thumbup: But I don't think that branding someone who is mentally unfit; would be fair. For that: I'd like law enforcement agencies to have better access to medical records. This entire HIPPA thing is a pain! nojoke

Would you want the Berkeley police department to have access to all your medical records and make the decision as to whether you are mentally fit?

[Bob Denman]

The abortion issue came from the post that I quoted (FatCycleDaddy); "Are you Pro Life or Anti-life? Of course that sounds to harsh so it is changed to Pro Choice"

On what authority do you base your claim of what the framers of the Constitution meant by a 'militia'? The intent of the 2nd amendment is still being debated and is the source of the great divide over gun ownership in this country as far as I'm aware. If it had been decided by the Supreme Court, then there would be no more debate.
The term "militia HAS been held to mean individual citizens, and NOT the military.
It's already been decided!

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

That simply doesn't work in the real world... otherwise states with Capital Punishment shouldn't have any murders.......

when capital punishment takes 10 or 20 years then it doesn't work. in order for punishment to work it must be
enacted upon swiftly not months or years later when the disgust and anger subsides.

[Fatcycledaddy]

It's the NRA that is spinning this debate into a pro- or con- Second Amendment argument. When you become part of a well-regulated militia, come and talk to me about your unfettered right under the second amendment to possess and carry as many and whatever kind of weapon you choose.

It is the religious right that has spun their anti-abortion campaign into a pro- or anti- life argument when it is actually about whether or not a woman should have her freedom to choose denied her. I am for freedom of choice. I don't think you, I or the government should be taking away a woman's freedom to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term.

What makes your freedom to own and carry guns sacrosanct, beyond government control, but a woman's right to choose how she deals with an unwanted pregnancy is legislated away without another thought to the constitutional principles involved? Your freedoms as a gun-owner trump a woman's freedoms; you don't see a problem with that?

I am part of a well regulated militia, I am a american citizen who is upholding and abiding by the second amendment.
You constantly question other peoples authority to know what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution, and yet you seam to be an expert in claiming what they say is incorrect.
Because you side or choose to disagree with the 2nd amendment interpretation that is currently held up by the courts, does not make it incorrect.

As far as pro choice, why is it when a pregnant woman is killed there are usually 2 counts of murder against the killer, or if a fetus is lost due to domestic violence it is murder, and in the case of a car accident is it manslaughter, and yet it is a CHOICE when the Doctor or Mother makes it.

[UtahPete]

The term "militia HAS been held to mean individual citizens, and NOT the military. It's already been decided!

Decided by who? The term 'well-regulated militia' most definitely does NOT refer to individuals acting independently of one another, but that hasn't been decided by any authority either. It's still open to debate and the NRA is doing everything in its power to make sure a case that would decide it doesn't make its way to the Supreme Court. At least not until it is stacked with right-wingers.

[Bob Denman]

They sure as Hell DID decide that it is an individual right:

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

Read the first paragraph...

Here's another:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm

[UtahPete]

I am part of a well regulated militia, I am a american citizen who is upholding and abiding by the second amendment. You constantly question other peoples authority to know what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution, and yet you seam to be an expert in claiming what they say is incorrect. Because you side or choose to disagree with the 2nd amendment interpretation that is currently held up by the courts, does not make it incorrect.

I've never done that. I have asked what authority you are quoting when you make these outlandish claims. The opinions of gun lobbyists and talking heads do not constitute authority, any more than my opinion does.

[UtahPete]

They sure as Hell DID decide that it is an individual right:https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php Read the first paragraph...

Thanks for the reference. Read the second paragraph:

The Second Amendment, one of the ten amendments to the Constitution comprising the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html), states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The meaning of this sentence is not self-evident, and has given rise to much commentary but relatively few Supreme Court decisions.

[Bob Denman]

Nonetheless: you're still wrong.
Firearms ownership IS an individual right, and insulting conservative speakers and the Executive Vice-President of the NRA is absolutely rude.

Have we said anything about your Gun-Control advocates; that would be considered to be an insult? :dontknow:

[Bob Denman]

Thanks for the reference. Read the second paragraph:

The Second Amendment, one of the ten amendments to the Constitution comprising the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html), states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The meaning of this sentence is not self-evident, and has given rise to much commentary but relatively few Supreme Court decisions.

...And you're ignoring their explanation of it in the first paragraph... :banghead:
Your highlighted sentence isn't applicable. Explaining the ambiguity, and meaning a dearth of decisions does nothing to change the fact that one of the relatively few decisions; is one that guarantees that it is an individual's right. :thumbup:

[UtahPete]

Nonetheless: you're still wrong. Firearms ownership IS an individual right, and insulting conservative speakers and the Executive Vice-President of the NRA is absolutely rude. Have we said anything about your Gun-Control advocates; that would be considered to be an insult? :dontknow:

Bob, you're trying to deflect my arguments by making it personal. That's politicizing the issue, which doesn't have to happen. I haven't insulted anyone and you know it. I have asked on what basis i.e. what authority you make your claims. The opinions of gun lobbyists and talking heads doesn't constitute authority.

[Bob Denman]

You insulted Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Wayne LaPierre...
I find THAT to be insulting, and think you should delete that post.

I gave you a source for the final decision on this discussion...
I never said that anyone else was an expert: I just happen to agree with their views.

[UtahPete]

...And you're ignoring their explanation of it in the first paragraph... :banghead: Your highlighted sentence isn't applicable. Explaining the ambiguity, and meaning a dearth of decisions does nothing to change the fact that one of the relatively few decisions; is one that guarantees that it is an individual's right. :thumbup:

Sorry, let me clarify. I never said it is not an individual's right to carry. NEVER SAID THAT.

What I've said, which is supported by the authority you quoted, is that the meaning of a "well-regulated militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" within the context of the 2nd amendment has yet to be interpreted by the Supreme Court.

What does it mean to keep and bear arms? Is that to be interpreted narrowly or broadly? That's the issue. So let's not confuse it with specious arguments.

What does it mean by 'the people'? Everyone? If so, by what authority does the government take away that right from convicted felons, for instance?

[Bob Denman]

I never said that you said that...
(CRAP! Now my head hurts!)
As regards the rest of your post: chew your own steak. The answers are out there for YOU to find!

[JerryB]

Hi Fatcycledaddy,

Re: why is it when . . .

It depends upon the state laws in which the incident occurred. In Oregon, a pregnant woman being killed does not result in a charge of double homicide. In some other states, it does.

Jerry Baumchen

[UtahPete]

You insulted Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Wayne LaPierre...I find THAT to be insulting, and think you should delete that post. I gave you a source for the final decision on this discussion...I never said that anyone else was an expert: I just happen to agree with their views.

No, I didn't insult them Bob. Unless you consider my saying that their views (your views) don't constitute legal authority is an insult. You are using that excuse to deflect arguments that support views different from your own. I have to wonder why ...

Nonetheless, I will edit, but not remove, my offending post.

[Bob Denman]

I am saying that by demeaning their expertise in the field (and it IS noteworthy!): you insult them.
I will say that I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh very much: no time for radios...
But if he were wrong on this topic: the anti-gunners would have already crucified him. :shocked:
I do watch Sean Hannity, and I respect his level of informed opinions.
But when it comes to Mr. LaPierre: he REALLY knows his stuff! :bowdown:
I've met, and talked with him twice. Have you? :dontknow:

[UtahPete]

I am saying that by demeaning their expertise in the field (and it IS noteworthy!): you insult them. Particularly Mr. LaPierre: he REALLY knows his stuff! :bowdown: I've met, and talked with him twice. Have you? :dontknow:

Ah, now I understand. If I had demeaned his expertise in 'the field', that would not only be insulting, it would be ignorant. But, I didn't do that; what I said was that he does not constitute a legal authority (regardless of his expert opinions).

No, I've not met Mr. LaPierre. What does that have to do with anything? Actually, that's an interesting proposition; how about if we required that anyone expressing an opinion of a person or event have first-hand knowledge of them / it? Sure would make for fewer opinions.

[Fatcycledaddy]

I am saying that by demeaning their expertise in the field (and it IS noteworthy!): you insult them.
Particularly Mr. LaPierre: he REALLY knows his stuff! :bowdown:
I've met, and talked with him twice. Have you? :dontknow:
Bob I think you missed Pete's point.
If he doesn't agree with what they say, they can't be experts in the field.

By the way, I don't quote Rush, Sean, or Wayne ever so it wasn't an insult to me when he said that, if he thinks I sound like them I will take it as a compliment.

We have a little gem here in Michigan that you should check out. I had the privilege of meeting some of these people during a construction project for faculty housing. You should check out their free courses on the constitution.

https://online.hillsdale.edu/dashboard/courses

[Bob Denman]

:D I actually did catch that... I was trying to cut him some slack about it.

[UtahPete]

Bob I think you missed Pete's point. If he doesn't agree with what they say, they can't be experts in the field.

Nope, never said that either. I guess it's easier to argue with my imputed statements rather than my actual ones. That's a favorite tactic of our politicians these days, so you're in good company I guess.

[UtahPete]

:D I actually did catch that... I was trying to cut him some slack about it.

:roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflb lack: No need to Bob. I can stand up for myself thanks.

[UtahPete]

Bob I think you missed Pete's point. If he doesn't agree with what they say, they can't be experts in the field.

By the way, what 'field' are we talking about here? Constitutional law?

[Bob Denman]

:roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflb lack: No need to Bob. I can stand up for myself thanks.

:D Just trying to keep things light and friendly... :thumbup:

I never told you the story of my local Yamaha snowmobile dealership...
I insured the owner's weekend place up on Tug Hill: it was right on the snowmobile trail system! :yes:
He invited us up there to ride with him... :bowdown:
I asked him what his friends would think: I rode Polaris sleds.
He said, "No problem: I'll just tell them that you're ignorant, and don't know any better!"
By the way: the riding was GREAT!

[UtahPete]

I am saying that by demeaning their expertise in the field (and it IS noteworthy!): you insult them. I will say that I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh very much: no time for radios...But if he were wrong on this topic: the anti-gunners would have already crucified him. :shocked: I do watch Sean Hannity, and I respect his level of informed opinions. But when it comes to Mr. LaPierre: he REALLY knows his stuff! :bowdown: I've met, and talked with him twice. Have you? :dontknow:

Bob, we all tend to 'like' those who help reinforce our opinions. No surprise there. And, that's fine as long as we recognize them as opinions or points of view and don't confuse them with facts. The fact is, the Supreme Court has never ruled on what the authors of the Constitution meant by such terms as 'well-regulated militia' 'the people' or their right to 'keep and bear arms'.

So, unless their 'expertise' is in constitutional law (and that I would feel compelled to dispute), their opinions are irrelevant to the discussion, wouldn't you agree?

[Bob Denman]

The HELL they didn't! :gaah:
Their ruling in 2008 clearly says that they did. nojoke

[UtahPete]

:D Just trying to keep things light and friendly... :thumbup: I never told you the story of my local Yamaha snowmobile dealership...I insured the owner's weekend place up on Tug Hill: it was right on the snowmobile trail system! :yes: He invited us up there to ride with him... :bowdown: I asked him what his friends would think: I rode Polaris sleds. He said, "No problem: I'll just tell them that you're ignorant, and don't know any better!"

In the interest of keeping it light and friendly, I won't take offense at that!

[Bob Denman]

:D He was talking about me, and my choice of ride... :roflblack:
I would never suggest, that any other meaning needs to be attached to the conversation.

[UtahPete]

The HELL they didn't! :gaah: Their ruling in 2008 clearly says that they did. nojoke

No, as explained in the second paragraph, the decision was a narrow one, in which they decided a state did not have the right to deny individuals their right to keep and bear arms. The author made it quite clear that the court has never ruled on an interpretation of the language of the second amendment. :gaah: Thus, the debate continues.

[UtahPete]

:D He was talking about me, and my choice of ride... :roflblack: I would never suggest, that any other meaning needs to be attached to the conversation.

I realize that. But, if I was inclined to be reactionary I could take it a different way (which I don't).

[UtahPete]

I guess the last post wins the argument. Hah!

[Grandpot]

http://yosemitesamquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/Yosemite-Sam-Quotes-300x281.png (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjiu73dyIfXAhVPz2MKHd4gD4EQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fyosemitesamquotes.com%2F&psig=AOvVaw0kGHCg6UobxfWjtrrMz8OY&ust=1508876393685448)

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Nonetheless: you're still wrong.
Firearms ownership IS an individual right, and insulting conservative speakers and the Executive Vice-President of the NRA is absolutely rude.

Have we said anything about your Gun-Control advocates; that would be considered to be an insult? :dontknow:

the first amendment is a constitutional right whether you like it or not, agree with it or not. now i agree the insults
should not be at a speaking engagement but unfortunately it might just be legal.

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

No, as explained in the second paragraph, the decision was a narrow one, in which they decided a state did not have the right to deny individuals their right to keep and bear arms. The author made it quite clear that the court has never ruled on an interpretation of the language of the second amendment. :gaah: Thus, the debate continues.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you! I just read the entire majority opinion of the 2008 SC ruling cited above, and that is exactly what it does. The militia is a subset of the population, specifically back in the founding day, men who could carry weapons. The SC opinion states that the right to bear arms is not limited to the organized militia, but that the militia is made up from all citizen men. What the SC opinion also says is the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal Government specifically. States are free to pass laws controlling the bearing of arms. They are not free to prohibit carrying arms, nor to restrict their readiness within the owner's home, i.e., trigger locks cannot be required to be installed when the gun is in a home. They kind of tiptoed around what kinds of guns can be restricted or outlawed, but it is clear that the ownership of ordinary type guns used for hunting and self defense cannot be prohibited. They left in place the law outlawing machine guns that was established in the '30s. Licensing requirements and restrictions, by the states, on mentally ill and felons was left in place. In other words, 'all citizens' is not an absolute 100% inclusive phrase. Concealed carry laws are left in place.

Read the entire SC opinion. It's good bedtime reading, i.e., it'll put you to sleep.

Don't take my comment above as endorsing all the arguments of the pro gun groups. I don't, and I don't agree totally with the SC opinion, but it is what it is.

[UtahPete]

The militia is a subset of the population, specifically back in the founding day, men who could carry weapons. The SC opinion states that the right to bear arms is not limited to the organized militia, but that the militia is made up from all citizen men. What the SC opinion also says is the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal Government specifically. States are free to pass laws controlling the bearing of arms. They are not free to prohibit carrying arms, nor to restrict their readiness within the owner's home, i.e., trigger locks cannot be required to be installed when the gun is in a home. They kind of tiptoed around what kinds of guns can be restricted or outlawed, but it is clear that the ownership of ordinary type guns used for hunting and self defense cannot be prohibited. They left in place the law outlawing machine guns that was established in the '30s. Licensing requirements and restrictions, by the states, on mentally ill and felons was left in place. In other words, 'all citizens' is not an absolute 100% inclusive phrase. Concealed carry laws are left in place.

That's good to know, thanks. I was just going with what the author of the citation seemed to be saying, but I should have read further, as you did.

[Bob Denman]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you! I just read the entire majority opinion of the 2008 SC ruling cited above, and that is exactly what it does. The militia is a subset of the population, specifically back in the founding day, men who could carry weapons. The SC opinion states that the right to bear arms is not limited to the organized militia, but that the militia is made up from all citizen men. What the SC opinion also says is the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal Government specifically. States are free to pass laws controlling the bearing of arms. They are not free to prohibit carrying arms, nor to restrict their readiness within the owner's home, i.e., trigger locks cannot be required to be installed when the gun is in a home. They kind of tiptoed around what kinds of guns can be restricted or outlawed, but it is clear that the ownership of ordinary type guns used for hunting and self defense cannot be prohibited. They left in place the law outlawing machine guns that was established in the '30s. Licensing requirements and restrictions, by the states, on mentally ill and felons was left in place. In other words, 'all citizens' is not an absolute 100% inclusive phrase. Concealed carry laws are left in place.

Read the entire SC opinion. It's good bedtime reading, i.e., it'll put you to sleep.

Don't take my comment above as endorsing all the arguments of the pro gun groups. I don't, and I don't agree totally with the SC opinion, but it is what it is.
Have we reached the:

154892

moment yet?? :roflblack:

[UtahPete]

Have we reached the:

154892

moment yet?? :roflblack:

I don't know. Did the fat lady sing?

[Bob Denman]

I would NEVER discuss the weight of a Woman... :yikes:
Some misandrist somewhere; would call me a misogynist!

Besides: this one was a cooler picture! :clap:

[UtahPete]

I would NEVER discuss the weight of a Woman... :yikes: Some misandrist somewhere; would call me a misogynist! Besides: this one was a cooler picture! :clap:

"You're probably right", he said reluctantly.

[Bob Denman]

Besides: ALL women are beautiful...nojoke

[UtahPete]

Besides: ALL women are beautiful...nojoke

...and all the men are handsome, and the children are all above average...I think we just described Lake Wobegon...

[Bob Denman]

:opps: I'm not handsome... :opps:
But I am truthful! :D