|
#551
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#552
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The main point is that some of the very strictest gun control laws in this country, for decades, have existed in Chicago. Simultaneously, some of the highest gun murder rates have existed in Chicago. So what does a former President, and you, say to that? You both lament not having stricter gun control laws. I live in a rural area where just about every household has some kind of gun, often more than one. My neighbors are hunters and some, like me, are NRA members. We have almost no murders out here and a primary reason is that criminals know this is a dangerous place for them to commit crime. Clear your mind of your preconceptions for just one minute and really think about what I'm going to say here. Don't worry, it won't hurt. Ready? Okay, now, if a guy is contemplating committing mass murder, what does it mean to him when he sees on a building's doors: NO GUNS ALLOWED ON THESE PREMISES? Does he think: a) Well, I can't shoot up this place because I'm not allowed to bring my gun inside or b) Wonderful, I can murder to my heart's content with assurance there won't be anyone armed inside to stop me. ? The harder you make gun ownership and conceal/carry laws for law abiding people, the easier you make it for criminals to murder. Common sense to many.... baffling concept for some. |
#553
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But if you look at gun deaths per capita at the state level, it lines up pretty well with states that have loose gun laws and high rates of guns per capita. Here are the 10 states with the highest gun deaths per capita: Alaska (24.5 per 100k people) Alabama (22.9 per 100k people) Montana (22.5 per 100k people) Louisiana (21.7 per 100k people) Mississippi (21.5 per 100k people) Missouri (21.5 per 100k people) Arkansas (20.3 per 100k people) Wyoming (18.8 per 100k people) West Virginia (18.6 per 100k people) New Mexico (18.5 per 100k people) https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...apita-by-state Here are the 10 states with the highest rates of gun ownership: Montana (66.30%) Wyoming (66.20%) Alaska (64.50%) Idaho (60.10%) West Virginia (58.50%) Arkansas (57.20%) Mississippi (55.80%) Alabama (55.50%) South Dakota (55.30%) North Dakota (55.10%) https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...rship-by-state Last edited by cgjackson222; 06-23-2022 at 10:06 AM. |
#554
|
|||
|
|||
Supreme Court ruled in favor of a constitutional right to carry. Big changes will have to be made in left-wing ban heavy jurisdictions that only give permits to friends of the sheriff.
|
#555
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#556
|
||||
|
||||
These days, there are "facts" and "alternative facts"...
__________________
_ Successful transactions with: Natswin2019, ParachromBleu, Cmount76, theuclakid, tiger8mush, shammus, jcmtiger, oldjudge, coolshemp, joejo20, Blunder19, ibechillin33, t206kid, helfrich91, Dashcol, philliesfan, alaskapaul3, Natedog, Kris19, frankbmd, tonyo, Baseball Rarities, Thromdog, T2069bk, t206fix, jakebeckleyoldeagleeye, Casey2296, rdeversole, brianp-beme, seablaster, twalk, qed2190, Gorditadogg, LuckyLarry, tlhss, Cory |
#557
|
|||
|
|||
|
#558
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Also, I wonder how gun ownership is measured among non registered and illegal guns like those owned by gangs and criminals. Furthermore, cause and effect might suggest gun ownership goes up after crime goes up, as people seek to defend themselves. In other words, criminals/murderers are the cause, and higher gun ownership is the result. Here are the 10 states with the highest murder rate, using your source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...-rate-by-state Louisiana (12.4 per 100k) Missouri (9.8 per 100k) Nevada (9.1 per 100k) Maryland (9 per 100k) Arkansas (8.6 per 100k) Alaska (8.4 per 100k) Alabama (8.3 per 100k) Mississippi (8.2 per 100k) Illinois (7.8 per 100k) South Carolina (7.8 per 100k) |
#559
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#560
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Where there are murders, there will be more law abiding people seeking to defend themselves. |
#561
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But keep on believing whatever you want. Last edited by cgjackson222; 06-23-2022 at 11:05 AM. |
#562
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But keep believing strict gun laws work. |
#563
|
|||
|
|||
As of this morning, strict gun laws may be a thing of the past. This ruling establishes pretty directly that the 2nd is not special and is to be treated like other constitutional rights. It will be used to overturn more.
|
#564
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Great news for those of us who prefer not to be their prey. |
#565
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The Supreme Court has a lot of power. Hopefully the pendulum swings back the other way later this century. Last edited by cgjackson222; 06-23-2022 at 11:33 AM. |
#566
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This court is interpreting the Constitution and respecting its own limitations. The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly enumerated as a right guaranteed by the federal government. Many things are not, and the right to legislate them belong to the states. This is the role of the Supreme Court - to be an umpire and rule on laws expressly under their review, not to create laws as they choose. |
#567
|
|||
|
|||
I too am a fan of enforcing laws on the books.
Also i propose random searches of people on the street with a metal detector.....if drugs are found but they are declared before search you cant be arrested for that or anything else declared... even if have a warrant for arrest, you would get a mandatory court appearence and receive a ticket but not have to post any bond but if do not show up they are new charges.. basically i dont want police using the random search to target people who then get arrested for other crimes but get the guns off the street... if dont have a license to carry a gun you shouldnt have one on the street .. If someone were to run from a search knowing they cant be arrested for anything other than carrying the gun, it would give good reason for a foot pursuit as we alway hear 'he ran cause had a warrant' etc.... Last edited by 1952boyntoncollector; 06-23-2022 at 12:00 PM. |
#568
|
||||
|
||||
It's illegal to text and drive and people die every day because of someone that was texting and driving but you don't hear about any lobbying for stricter punishment for people that are caught texting and driving.
If I'm involved in an accident caused by someone on a cell phone even if I tell a police officer responding to the accident I saw them on their phone he can't search their phone because it's against their rights to do so but if I have a gun in my vehicle even though I didn't cause the accident you can bet he's going to check to see if it's loaded and legal. |
#569
|
|||
|
|||
Nah, easier for them to get guns. They’ll be ok. Good luck against them.
|
#570
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Personally, the text does not go far enough - it still holds the 2nd to a different standard from the rest by allowing shall-issue permitting. I don't need a permit to exercise my other constitutional rights. I don't need the state to give me a permit to practice a religious faith, or voice an unpopular opinion. Yes, my claims do not make me correct. The text of the document does. I would agree with you that the courts often exceed their original mandates, including on things I even agree with the Courts on. However, enforcing the Bill of Rights in the legal system (unlike many hot topic legal issues, guns are undeniably a constitutional issue - it's in there plain as day) is exactly what the Court is supposed to do. You believe States may or should simply ignore the Bill of Rights if they want too, and that is what states rights means? Even the very pro-state founders (though we like to forget the 10th today too) did not agree with that. |
#571
|
|||
|
|||
This ruling does not, in any way, make it easier or harder to get a gun. That is a fact.
|
#572
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#573
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#574
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#575
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#576
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Yes, the church has to comply with the fire code. So does my sportsmen's club. Again, nobody is trying to change this. Gun owners are not saying the constitution means our meeting places don’t have to meet fire code. What changes is that the 2nd has to be held to the *same* standards as the other amendments, not a separate and different one whereby it can be ignored whenever desired by one side. |
#577
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#578
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If you come up as clean in the database, the store is cleared to give you your gun. Gun stores will typically not even let you try to purchase a gun if you appear to be acting in a suspicious manner; it is illegal for them to sell you a gun if they have reasonable cause to believe you cannot have one, even if this person clears NICS. Some states have more restrictive standards than this one, and will require you to perform a written test, perform a safe handling demonstration of the specific shotgun you are attempting to purchase, purchase a specific type of lock, and/or wait some period of time before the gun is actually given to you. This is what a 4473 looks like: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download |
#579
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Very strict, specific process.
__________________
Need a spreadsheet to help track your set, player run, or collection? Check out Sheets4Collectors on Etsy. https://www.etsy.com/shop/Sheets4Collectors - Hall of Famers Progress: 318/340 (93.53%) - Grover Hartley PC Needs: T207 Anonymous Factory 25 Back, 1914 New York Evening Sun Supplements, 1917 D328 Weil Baking Co., and (possibly) 1917 Merchant's Bakery - Jim Thome PC - Cleveland Indians Franchise Hall of Fame |
#580
|
|||
|
|||
As one of those guys who spends too much time with my FFL, it amazes me that this happens occasionally and I've seen it a coupe times. They are evicted in short order.
|
#581
|
|||
|
|||
Can’t you buy guns online?
|
#582
|
|||
|
|||
If you buy a gun from an online distributor, it is shipped to an FFL (a licensed firearms dealer), who then performs your background check, 4473, and the full process before turning the gun over to you if you clear the check and process. You pay them for their time and work, and the online dealer. You can’t just go to Atlantic Firearms and buy your hypothetical shotgun and have them ship it to you.
Certain curio and relic firearms are allowed to be delivered to individuals who have been specially licensed by the government through the mail without the FFL. |
#583
|
|||
|
|||
"Gun stores will typically not even let you try to purchase a gun if you appear to be acting in a suspicious manner; it is illegal for them to sell you a gun if they have reasonable cause to believe you cannot have one, even if this person clears NICS."
"We also declined sales up front without a background check because a person was intoxicated or acting in a disorderly manner." Sounds like clear violations of those customers god-given Constitutional rights!
__________________
"If you ever discover the sneakers for far more shoes in your everyday individual, and also have a wool, will not disregard the going connected with sneakers by Isabel Marant a person." =AcellaGet |
#584
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#585
|
|||
|
|||
I think it’s an excellent point. Unless you think those processes and checks should be eliminated we are all then agreeing there are restrictions that should exist. Kids can’t go into a store and buy a gun like a piece of candy, even though the constitution makes no mention whatsoever of an age restriction. And background checks were not required when the bill of rights was written so those are something that have evolved with the times. Once we agree there need to be some restrictions, it’s a matter of both sides agreeing on those. Instead the alt response seems to be over my dead body, stop trampling on my rights, etc. It’s not productive.
|
#586
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
What you and the other banners/regulators in this thread have proposed, banning most all common use firearms or taxing them at 10,000x their value, is blatantly ignoring historical tradition, and is in no way closing an extreme - it’s infringing a basic right. Just as nobody objects to law against inciting using ‘free speech’ We are not saying the 2nd is DIFFERENT from the other amendments, in that we must ignore what was common when it was written and history. We are saying it should be held to the SAME standards as every other amendment. Nobody is saying convicted murderers cannot lose privileges, none of us gun owners have a nuclear bomb. These counter arguments from you are centered on absurdities arguing against things that the other side from you does not even think. I would describe bitching about ‘god given’, which nobody here is arguing (it’s the Constitution, not the Bible) as the opposite of intelligent. I am sure you could argue against what people are actually arguing instead of having to make things up that are easier to argue against. It was somehow better when you simply stalked me around replying “ok” randomly. |
#587
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#588
|
|||
|
|||
You might want to tell that to Wayne LaPierre, literally hundreds of current and aspirational congressmen, and, almost to a man, the patrons of the shooting range I frequent.
__________________
"If you ever discover the sneakers for far more shoes in your everyday individual, and also have a wool, will not disregard the going connected with sneakers by Isabel Marant a person." =AcellaGet |
#589
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
For the thousandth time, these insinuations that people who disagree with you are somehow supporting mass killings is nonsense that makes you sound like an ideologue without reason or common sense. Sleep well. |
#590
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The entire debate in this thread has been legislative and constitutional; not whether the right is natural born or god given. There’s plenty for you to mock, but mocking points literally no one has made is kind of stupid. |
#591
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#592
|
|||
|
|||
It is neither. And I'm sorry that I wantonly threw in a phrase that has been casually tossed around for decades by "no regulationers" in order to make it seem as a settled fact.
__________________
"If you ever discover the sneakers for far more shoes in your everyday individual, and also have a wool, will not disregard the going connected with sneakers by Isabel Marant a person." =AcellaGet |
#593
|
|||
|
|||
Nobody is saying it is. We are talking about the Constitution, not the Bible.
|
#594
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I am finding it ironic that these people who think more laws will solve the problem, seem willing to sidestep, or set aside, the central law of this country since its very founding: the Constitution. |
#595
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#596
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#597
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
plus interesting that people said you should get a shot because it impacts the life of other people...i would think abortion after a viable fetus also impats another life etc.. i not taking side here but just saying please be consistent.. Last edited by 1952boyntoncollector; 06-25-2022 at 04:53 AM. |
#598
|
|||
|
|||
At least one state does that I think but only on second offense.
|
#599
|
|||
|
|||
thats cool to know but still funny they let you DUI once where you could kill people plus all the other times you werent pulled over and then they get you a 'free' DUI.
|
#600
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This will lose 9-0 on the current court. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB Comiskey (ownership years card) for evolving HOF set. | Misunderestimated | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T | 1 | 01-02-2020 07:50 PM |
One more way to ruin the hobby - fractional ownership | Throttlesteer | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 49 | 08-14-2019 01:19 PM |
Help determining ownership status of several high profile items | Sean1125 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 08-29-2015 09:42 AM |
Ownership of old photographs | theantiquetiger | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 5 | 08-17-2011 01:43 PM |
Scan Ownership | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 12-14-2005 12:10 PM |