Can't drive, can't buy beer, or cigarettes, or porn, or lottery... But a rifle?... No problem!

Repealing the 2nd Amendment isn't popular if it was we would have done it already.

 

I don't think so. What they never envisioned was a significant portion of a city's population preying upon one another, and the larger community accepting the dangerous conditions. Thankfully the 2nd A guarantees lawful citizens the right to defend themselves, because many municiple governments refuse to do what's needed to eliminate the violent crime.

 

Provide us with the stats on the perpetrators that account for those deaths, and where the vast majority occur. Outline the "common traits" of the murderers and the shitholes they plague. (D)'s criminal caliphates, one aptly referred to as Chiraq aren't indicitive of our western democracy.

 

That won't work either. Countries and even U.S. cities that ban all guns still have gun related crime. The problem is and always has been the shooter. I recommend working on the culture.

 

Please allow me to clarify my sentiments regarding the HBO video you posted.

I simply do not believe that the paid, 13 year old actor bought the .22 rifle from any VA vendor at a VA gun show without an adult participating in or enabling the exchange.

One of my oldest friends is a frequent vendor at VA gun shows around the state and has been for decades. He & I know many of the regular licensed dealers and private vendors and, especially in today's political climate, no one would sell a rifle of any type to a 13 year old boy without the presence of an adult or adults.

Briefly put, I believe that the HBO produced video is a deliberately staged hoax and not the first time HBO has been exposed for perpetuating a fraudulent scenario:

- "HBO ripped over child labor ‘hoax’ report as libel trial begins"
https://nypost.com/2015/04/14/hbo-ripped-over-child-labor-hoax-report-as-libel-trial-begins/


- "Indian Boys Claim HBO Staged Soccer Ball Sewing In Child Labor Report"
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mikehayes/indian-boys-claim-hbo-staged-soccer-ball-sewing-in

EXCERPT "Video interviews with two young Indian brothers claiming that HBO producers fed them lines for a staged documentary on child labor were shown in federal court this week. The cable network is facing a landmark defamation lawsuit from sports equipment company Mitre."CONTINUED


By now, I have watched the HBO video you posted at least 6 times and the producers announced early in the video that the 13 year old boy was hired to help "...make a point...".
In other words, they had a preset agenda and were going to make that point no matter what sort of deceptions were required.

Finally, I am not claiming that irresponsible individuals do not sell firearms or other personal property to other unqualified individuals. I simply do not believe that an unaccompanied minor can walk into a VA gun show and buy a firearm without the aid of an adult or adults.

 

LOL.. good to know. So, since you don't ever actually engage in serious debate... oh, yes, we noticed. But regardless, there were way too many easy to find links that could have been yours for the reading should you have wanted to do so. Please, try not to then use the tactic that somehow you "refuted" "impugned" or otherwise found "untrustworthy" those citations later in the conversation, as you are prone to do. yup we notice that too...

As for what is acceptable in "serious debate", any judge (debate) worth their salt would simply ignore your tactic as having been unprepared.

 

Yes, that is one of the three examples I mentioned. Check the date. People, Puckle in particular, were working on inventing arms for repeat firing in 1718, and possibly even earlier. The other two examples are of rifles that were functional and in use prior to the Constitutional Convention. The Girandoni was used by the Austrian Army from about 1780 to 1815. Clearly, though virtually all guns in common use at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment were single shot muzzle loaders, there was no question that firearms would not continue to be so limited.

The Second Amendment is based on the principle that an individual has the right to defend himself, his life and his property. In order for a person to be able to defend themselves they must have the means to do so, which means the defender must have means of defense that is adequate to, or superior to, defend against the weapons of an aggressor. That means whatever weapons are in common use today, 500 years ago or 500 years from today, must be available to the individual to defend his rights of life and property.

 

You are the only one here who didn't understand that that applies only to licensed distributors. So don't bother.... I can fix errors in facts. But not errors in nature.

 

He's not a dealer!

 

I don't understand why the right thinks that that is even a serious argument. It's basically saying that if we can't stop all shootings we shouldn't stop any shooting.

If we stop any shootings, it works!

 

The standard should be whether it would have stopped one of the shootings which already occurred. The so called reasonable gun control actions rarely do, if at all.

 

Why?

I don't care about beliefs. If you want to make a point, you make it. Expecting that a bunch of links to wingnunf fake news media sites will make it for you, is not going to work.

And you have not explained why. If the law doesn't make this kid "unqualified", what does?

Why would people who go out to sell their guns at gun shops take on the responsibility that the people in Congress who are paid to make those decisions won't take on?

 

After I fulfilled my military obligation, served 13 months in Vietnam and made the rank of Sergeant and I was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps in 1971 and I was only 20 years old not old enough to buy a beer, purchase a handgun, drive a semi commercial truck and not old enough to vote.

I could never figure out why I had to wait until I was 21 to purchase the same type of pistol I was issued in the Marine Corps.

I could never figure out why they allowed people who were only 21 to vote. Wouldn't it have made more sense having to be 24 or 26 years of age ?

If I wanted to legally drink beer, all I had to do is cross over the state line into Arizona.

 

Did you not read it? there's a lot more to that code than just the two paragraphs I pasted. You have to not be lazy.

 

We should either be adults with all rights and privileges, or not.

 

That's a stupid "standard".

The goal is to reduce the number of those that haven't occurred and the number of victims of those that can't be stopped. With that in mind, if you want to try to speculate if they guy in Dayton could have fired 41 shots and killed 9 people in 30 seconds without an assault weapon... fine. "Stop" is a dumb reference because... who knows. Maybe he would have come with a revolver and killed two or three ... if he was "lucky". But it would require more practice and ability. Or maybe he could have managed get on in the "black market" But it would be harder.... Maybe hard enough that the guy would give up and not do it... or maybe hard enough that he gets caught in the attempt.

 

It is the only standard that makes sense. Many proposals are made which would not have stopped a single shooting, but they jump all over it because it sounds good. Surely with the so called thousands of mass shootings to date, there is some kind of pattern. If there isn't, you might as well call it hopeless, because we are wasting time looking for the new one which has not been tried yet.

 

As a matter of fact, I did read it. And that's how I confirmed in the first place that you were full of B.S. when you said it made no difference if he was a licensed dealer or not.

Now... retract, or be quiet. Because you are just repeatedly denying a quote that you yourself posted. And that is nothing short of dishonesty

 

To "stop" shootings, we ban all guns. Since we can't do that yet, my focus is on saving lives.

 

Then why pick something which would have not stopped a single mass shooting death?

 

No idea what you're talking about

 

My recommendation was that we select prevention based on what has happened before, not just something that sounds good which is picked out of the air. Which is basically what you were saying when you said "That's a stupid "standard". after I said "The standard should be whether it would have stopped one of the shootings which already occurred."

 

Each era has had its problems. During the '30's we had bank robbers, killers, and the rise of the Mafia caused by prohibition. In the 40's we had WWII, the worst war in man's history, and the rise of the communist threat. During the '50's, '60's, '70's, and '80's we had the Cold War, and I can still remember the fear of the atomic bomb. In the late '60's early '70's we had Vietnam and volatile protests. Through it all we have had racial strife. In the 2000's we had an extremely unpopular war and increased involvement in the volatile Middle East. Thousand of Americans were killed and wounded. We also had the Great Recession.

Then we elected a black President and mass shootings increased exponentially followed by a President who inspires violence with his inflammatory rhetoric. The same President whose followers are members of a cult. They don't know why they support Trump. They just do.

It doesn't seem like it, but we will get through this. We always do.

I think. .

 

Please tell me, who in the hell wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment?

If you do answer, and I doubt you will, please be specific and provide a link to support your answer.

 

"Prevention on what has worked" sounds good. Your "standard" (i.e. "whether it would have stopped one of the shootings which already occurred.") is nonsense.

In general, any "standard" other than "do whatever we can to save lives" is nonsense..