Fox News Poll: Most back gun restrictions after shootings, Trump ratings down

Discussion in 'United States' started by FlamingLib, Aug 14, 2019.

  1. MissingMayor

    MissingMayor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7,845
    Likes Received:
    5,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. The new Democratic Platform should include:
    1) Gun registrations
    2) Universal background checks
    3) Assault weapons ban
    4) National red flag laws / support
    5) More mental health triggers for red flag laws, including mandatory mental health checks for people with a poor juvenile record.
     
  2. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does number 4 include red flags based off social media posts? If yes, I have a very important follow up question.
     
  3. MissingMayor

    MissingMayor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7,845
    Likes Received:
    5,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If threats are made over social media, of course. There are probably other ways that social media could indicate a state of mind, but I will leave that up to the judges.

    Is there any reason you would want to exclude social media posts?
     
  4. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What if the threat doesn't mention a weapon specifically?
     
  5. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry didn't answer the part in bold:

    No, I do not want to exclude. I'm trying to figure out why Obama didn't agree with you on these details. If he had, the boston bombers would have never executed their plan.
     
  6. MissingMayor

    MissingMayor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7,845
    Likes Received:
    5,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It should count. Threats are a crime on their own.
    Obama was personally involved in investigating the Boston bombers? News to me. Not that any of that would be remotely on subject.
     
  7. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who said Obama was personally involved in the investigation? I'm talking about a tweet he made.

    Do you intentionally ignore everything he did wrong and just the things you "believe" he did great? Do you do the opposite with Trump?
     
  8. MissingMayor

    MissingMayor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7,845
    Likes Received:
    5,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just spit out whatever it is you are going to complain that Obama did or didn't say about the Boston Bombers. Then please tell me what web site you get this nonsense from.
     
  9. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are a dealer you have to run a NICS check. If you are even slightly in the business of selling guns you are legally a dealer. If you know of a violation call the ATF. IMHO your failure to report a crime is not a valid reason to take away my rights. To put it another way, maybe the laws in place need to be better enforced before proposing additional laws.
     
  10. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Republican platform should include concealed carry reciprocity.

    With respect to gun control I would support raising the age to buy a firearm. There are so many people in their 20s living at home as dependents and being "children" with respect to health insurance, unable to form meaningful relations with a significant other, and so forth, we need to perhaps redefine what an adult is.
     
  11. MissingMayor

    MissingMayor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7,845
    Likes Received:
    5,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Too many states treat concealed carry like a right anyone can have automatically. Most states want to review who can carry. So I don't think that is a go.

    As for raising the age requirement, I think that the juvenile record item (#5) could take care of that. If they had disciplinary issues in high school, raise the age to 25 and require a mental health check. It does seem that most of these mass shooters have mental health issues as a juvenile, and some are just waiting until they turn 18 to buy a gun.
     
  12. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    AK-47s could be produced in garage workshops pretty easily.
     
  13. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Tavors aren't bulky.

    Lightweight rifle bullets tend to quickly shed energy when penetrating a wall. I'm not saying they are harmless, but most other weapon choices tend to be even worse.

    Rifles are necessary for dealing with home invaders wearing Kevlar.


    Need is irrelevant. If people want to defend themselves with rifles, they have the right to do so.
     
    Grau likes this.
  14. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Assault weapons have been tightly regulated since 1934, and are not really a problem. There is really no reason to ban them.


    It is a right that people can have automatically.


    What they want is irrelevant. Force it on them.
     
    Grau likes this.
  15. Sage3030

    Sage3030 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    Messages:
    5,518
    Likes Received:
    2,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All 50 should treat it as such. It is a right, a civil right at that, to keep and BEAR arms. Would you prefer open carry instead? Either way, we all have the right to bear them and all 50 states should recognize that right and allow it.

    This excludes, of course, those who have gone through due process and had their right removed(felons, the legally insane), and those that didn’t have the right in the first place(like illegal aliens for example).
     
    Toggle Almendro likes this.
  16. Grau

    Grau Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    9,035
    Likes Received:
    4,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Thank you for noting that:
    "Killers in Kevlar"
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics...r-how-many-felons-wear-bulletproof-vests.html
    EXCERPT "But armor, like guns, is easy to get, and bad guys are catching on."CONTINUED


    Citizens should be able to defend themselves from the increasing number of thugs who wear body armor with the weapon of their choice
     
    Toggle Almendro likes this.
  17. MissingMayor

    MissingMayor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7,845
    Likes Received:
    5,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation. States can require a license to own and also maintain a registry of guns. Open and concealed carry are not civil rights. You can bring a gun with you, but states can control how that gun is carried (how you "bear" it).

    If you want to challenge the Supreme Court, then you can have an argument. But if you do that we can take a 2nd look at the militia clause.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2019
  18. Sage3030

    Sage3030 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    Messages:
    5,518
    Likes Received:
    2,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I get they disagree. Doesn’t change my opinion on bearing arms. The Supreme Court gets things wrong all the time. The Supreme Court also says that it is a right not connected to the militia and that it protects weapons in common usage and those suitable to be in a militia(uh oh, AR-15 is both).

    The constitution is explicitly clear: the right of the people to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed. The court for some reason feels it’s ok for the government to infringe a little bit on it though. I will always disagree on that. I also disagree with many other rulings the court has made over the years and you know what, I know you do too.
     
  19. MissingMayor

    MissingMayor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7,845
    Likes Received:
    5,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Two problems:
    1) if you are going to debate as if the Supreme Court ruling could be overturned then you aren't really debating the issues at hand. We are talking about laws that can be proposed by either party.
    2) The theory that the 2A was intended to be as strictly interpreted as you feel it should doesn't make sense. There were restrictions on guns in all sorts of settings immediately before and after the Constitution was enacted. Your interpretation was never the interpretation by anyone in the history of the US.
     
  20. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Supreme Court has yet to address this issue.

    It can't be said that they agree or disagree with anything related to carrying guns in public.


    Only if it is a shall-issue license.


    I agree that the state can mandate one or the other. But one or the other is necessary.


    Let's take a second look at the militia clause. :D

    Militiamen have the right to have effective combat weapons. That includes things like 84mm bazookas.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4

    If I am to be classified as a militiaman now, that means I get to keep a closet full of bazookas at home.

    And let's see a criminal home invader's personal body armor withstand a direct hit from one of those.
     
  21. MissingMayor

    MissingMayor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7,845
    Likes Received:
    5,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yet those state laws have been upheld. That is all I am referring to. Reciprocity has not been decided, but likely would never pass on the national level and would likely be struck down at the SC if passed.

    The militia would control what you can take home. Further states could control the militia. There are actually a few official ones still around, but they aren't gun nuts so the nra doesn't talk about them.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2019
  22. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's going to be just the opposite. If reciprocity is not passed by Congress first, the Supreme Court is going to eventually force the remaining states to allow people to carry guns in public.


    The courts would not allow such control. The Second Amendment protects the right of militiamen to keep their weapons as well as to bear them.


    If someone is not part of the militia, then no militia regulations apply to them.

    So either someone is in the militia, and they get to keep a closet full of 84mm bazookas at home. Or they're not in the militia, and militia regulations don't apply to them.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2019

Share This Page