Supreme Court dismisses second amendment case.

Because having an illegal weapon is irrelevant if it's not used.

Will someone not care of course, but most will as Norway has shown. People don't go into crime as an alternative life style they go into crime because society is not working for them, if it comes down to following the law or getting food on the table they will break the law to help their family. Give them a stable job that can support them and their family they will leave crime. This also means prisons needs to be remodeled for anyone who is not in for life, it should look more like a college dorm like norway so that they keep their humanity.

No the position of myself is to stop the government from having any say over weed, but for everything else (including alcohol and tobacco) to send adicts or users to rehab instead of prison. So they are still regulated just not criminal so that people will get help.

It shows when people are addicted to a substance (they drank on average 3 times more than people today) and you ban that substance people will do anything to get it. It is the only time when the whole nation had 0 respect for the constitution. I wish it worked, a world without alcohol would be a great world but sadly it does not work.

Not in the United States, other than the vigilante groups after the civil war crime was never organised as a money making business. Drug criminalisation started criminal enterprises and decriminalising them will end it.

 

Then there is no sense of the possession of an unregistered firearm being illegal, or even punishable.

The united states is not the nation of Norway. Therefore it is not a valid claim.

Essentially the argument on the part of yourself, boils down to the notion that the people should be bribed into not committing crimes, and offered monetary gain that cannot be obtained through illegal channels.

Addiction is not a disease, nor should it be treated as one.

And if the same approach were attempted with firearms, the public would support the criminal element to get what it wanted, just as it has done and will continue to demonstrate a willingness to do. The public cares more about its vices and comforts than law and order.

By definition, any group of criminally-minded individuals working together would constitute organized crime.

 

The measure is preventative because we need to make it a crime to try and make people register their firearms onto a database that allows the government easy access to the location of the guns. If all firearms are registered then the Government has the upperhand and can better keep people safe.

So human psychology is not different based off the nation one is from, we know the best way to lower crime rates is to make sure those incarcerated keep their humanity so they still want to better themselves and even go back into society as a productive member. If you treat people like animals by locking them up in a cage and then they will act like animals.

If you call setting them up for success "bribery" then yes. It's the whole point, showing people their lives can be better if they are law abiding than as a criminal. Seriously how do conservatives think you will ever lower crime rates if you just tell people you got yourself into this mess get yourself out, oh and people can deny you a job for being in jail, or and you can not get government assistance, oh and you can be denied housing for being in prison, good luck.

Addiction is literally a disease, the brain is altered into needing the drug to stay normal, basically every other industrial nation in the world understands this. Again conservatives show on this issue they have no intent on lowering crime they only want to punish.

People are both A, not physically addicted to firearms, and B can't easily create one, Alcohol and other drugs are easy to make and have a base that is addicted to it. Completely different as dozens of countries have shown with gun control working.

A group of criminals working together is a gang, organized crime is basically an illegal business that makes huge profits and has a whole system that governs itself.

 

Explain precisely how such would actually work. Detail the exact mechanics of how government maintaining a list of individuals who do not commit crimes, serves to keep anyone safe from those who do commit crimes.

Explain the benefit to be had in maintaining a list of individuals on the basis that they are exercising their constitutional rights, is of greater legitimacy than maintaining a list of every known criminal individual currently in the country.

Factually incorrect. The best way to lower crime rates is to completely remove the criminal element whenever possible. Those who demonstrate that they either cannot or will not abide by the rules of society, should either be confined to the appropriate facilities for the duration of their natural lives, or executed outright, so they no longer present a risk of harm to anyone.

Why is it so difficult for individuals to simply refrain from engaging in criminal activity? Why is not going to prison, regarded as not being incentive enough?

Demonstrate the evidence of such. Show what all other industrial nations in the world do as far as addiction to illicit narcotic substances goes.

Not counting something as a crime, does not mean crime rates are actually being lowered. It is nothing more than dishonesty in record keeping.

Why do firearm-related restrictions not work universally in all countries equally? Why does it "work" only in some countries but not in others?

Meaningless and irrelevant as trying to move the goalpost.

 

Simple you allow everyone to register without penalty of law, they register their social media and phone number and email so they can be tracked with AI and if anything suspicious is said they can be check in on or arrested.

Because to be frank, if someone who is not armed posts hateful or violent things, then the government only needs to prevent them from getting weapons. If someone has a gun and makes the same posts they need to be arrested because they have the means to go out and kill.

Both of which are expensive, if someone is not a violent threat there is no reason to lock them up for longer than a few years. It saves everyone money, those that are violent should indeed be locked up for a long time.

Because people have families they need to feed, or life is no better than jail in their current situation. If society does not work for someone they have no reason not to become a criminal. Are all those "protesting" with guns law abiding citizens or criminals?

https://www.foundationswellness.net...ction-like-us-and-see-it-as-a-global-disease/
The US is almost double the amount of drug deaths because we don't treat it as an illness. 185 (63,000/340) so yeah.

It should not be a crime, we should not lock people up because of what they put in their body especially when the deadliest substances Tobacco and Alcohol are legal. Why should we pay to house people who could be tax payers for weed and other drugs?

They do, every stable country in the world with gun control works. The Cartel infested America's are the outliers.

I did not move the goalpost, Organized means organisation not group. You have a group of friends, not an organisation of friends.

 

Not at all. It evolved into what it is today.

 

The Founding Fathers left the constitution extremely vague.

Tbh I don't know how they envisioned the constitution would be upheld without judicial review but indeed they did not grant the courts that power.

 

Politicians interpreted it as they pleased when it wasn't vague enough.

 

Most countries have each section laid out with definitions and explanation of exactly what the constitution means which removed the ability to interpret wrongly, that's why they are so long, in the US we tend to just put the words down on paper and leave what they mean to the interpretation.

 

Overall it has served us well.

 

~ Does this man have a permit to carry ... ?

 

Not really

the first 80~ years was just congress trying to prevent the civil war
Then we had Labor wars until the 1930~
Jim crow through 60s
Economic collapse in the 70s
destruction of the middle class since the 80s

The constitution has done jackshit due to being so hard to amend

 

I don't share your negative opinion of my country. Sorry.

 

Will individuals also be required to register their faces, voices, fingerprints and DNA?

What is ultimately being advocated on the part of yourself is a system like that in the communist nation of China where every individual is subject to widespread, invasive surveillance and suspicion on the basis that they may do something wrong, or otherwise say something wrong that needs to be punished. In essence, being arrested for using the wrong word.

Even if such a system could be physically implemented in the united states, and withstand constitutional muster which it would not, it would still fail to accomplish anything. Such a system simply cannot account for three hundred and thirty million individuals communicating with one another. Something that is deemed "hateful" or "violent" will be deemed such from the perspective of others, even if an artificial intelligence program is written to try and filter through billions of social media posts by the day. Certain keywords can be looked for, but the matter of enforcement will still come down to the human element, and it will be humans making the judgement call of whether or not a potential post actually needs to be investigated. And if those tasked with the final decision are tired, overworked, understaffed, underfunded, or simply do not believes a post warrants investigation, nothing will ultimately be done.

Nicholas Cruz admitted on social media he intended to commit a school shooting and was reported to the FBI for such, but the FBI ultimately decided not to investigate. They did not even conduct an interview before determining, outright, Nicholas Cruz posed no risk. Even when he threatened his own family to a firearm and was reported to local law enforcement, they refused to do anything in response. Essentially law enforcement told his family to deal with the matter themselves.

So the bottom line, that being monetary investment, is of greater importance than saving lives?

Then there is no reason to target legal firearm owners, on the basis that they may potentially, one day, do something wrong.

So what is being stated on the part of yourself is that individuals should be free to disregard the law and the rule of society when such ultimately does not work in their situation, and they feel justified in committing illegal acts?

The united states also holds a significantly higher population than most other countries, meaning it simply has far more individuals to engage in the use of illicit narcotic substances. It is also the only country to be landlocked with the nation of Mexico, with a wide open border allowing for the unchecked smuggling of such substances to anyone who wants to have access to them.

Why should tax payers be arrested and imprisoned on the basis of owning firearms, or refusing to register them? The same logic works both ways with regard to any substance that can be politicized and weaponized for political gain against those deemed the enemy.

Why are firearm-related restrictions failing to work in the nation of Venezuela? Or the nation of Mexico? Or any nation that possesses significant firearm-related restrictions, while still playing host to a significant number of firearm-related violence and homicides?

The only difference is the number of individuals involved.

 

Using finger prints is the easiest way, whenever someone is visited for making threatening comments or breaking a law they get finger printed and then before buying a firearm they check the finger print

The solution to that is for states to remove immunity from lawsuits from individuals who refuse to uphold the law and act. When states start letting police and other law enforcement agencies get personally sued they will act much better. Currently they have NO incentive.

Also a system where people can report and be taken seriously needs to be implemented, If you are reported you lose your firearm for 6 months unless you provide context for why what you said was not a threat

You are not saving lives by putting nonviolent criminals in jail for life, what you are doing is encouraging more to fight to the death costing more lives. If I decide to act stupid and steal a car because it might be fun to do a joy ride, why would I surrender to the police if I face 20 years to life, what reason is there for me not to fight as long as I can and endanger others? That is what criminals in the US think every day.

It is called monitoring and the government should have the ability to act on a moments notice to stop a tragedy. Ultimately it needs to be on gun owners to make everyone else feel comfortable around them if someone is reported they need to face suspension or removal of their second amendment right. Simple rules need to be followed.

Keep your gun to yourself and or your family
Don't show off to others because "muh second amendment rights"

When society fails an individual society can not then ask that individual to be part of that society. Regardless of how anyone feels about it, the reality of the sitution is that when you give someone no other choice but crime they will do crime.

That was per capita, also Canada has the same issue with the US bring guns over its borders yet they manage to handle the situation mostly well.

Someone who is unwilling to register, unwilling to accept not having guns that can shoot hundreds of bullets per minute, unwilling to cap their bullets at 10 or 20, then why should we trust them, it comes down to being reasonable, Not having an AR or AK is not to much to ask. Those who use drugs are not generally hurting anyone else especially if they do it in moderation.

Because they have cartels thanks to the war on drugs and have an easy time getting illegal guns from the US.

No the difference is structure, management hierarchy

 

Fail.
The government is never supposed to have the "upper hand" over the citizenry, and having on record the owner of every legally owned gun will do nothing to keep anyone safe.

 

Meaning that valuable, finite resources for law enforcement will be tied up and wasted on the matter of investigating private individuals because it is believed they said the wrong thing on the internet without context. Meaning physical crimes that actually occured will not be able to be investigated in a timely manner, because the proposal on the part of yourself will take investigators away and task them with investigating hurtful comments.

States have absolutely no say over such matters. Law enforcement officers and judicial officials, such as prosecutors and attorney generals, are shielded by the legal principle of qualified immunity, which was constructed by the united state supreme court. They have absolute discretion in determining which crimes will be investigated, which will warrant arrests, and which will be prosecuted. If they refuse to prosecute firearm-related offenses, or any other type of crime, absolutely nothing can be done about such, as their word on the matter is final. No government official can legally order them to do otherwise, and they cannot be named as defendants in lawsuits for failing to enforce the law in a manner the public sees fit. The system simply does not work that way, nor can ever be made to work that way, as such is nothing more than the legitimizing of mob mentality.

What exactly is being proposed on the part of yourself? Naming a state attorney general in a lawsuit for failure to enforce certain restrictions, when said attorney general does not believe there is enough evidence to achieve a conviction in the case?

Such a system already exists in the united states.

Meaning the accused is automatically assumed as guilty, even if they did nothing wrong. All the while likely in a setting where there is nothing serving to discourage the making of false claims against someone.

Then why commit crimes in the first place? The above example cannot be justified on the basis that it is economically necessary for survival, as it was admitted the only reasoning for such was because it might be "fun" to steal the private property of someone else and use for the exclusive purpose of entertainment.

Actions have consequences. If one cannot understand that simple fact, and accept that their own decisions may result in their situation being worse because they did not think to refrain from an act of stupidity, that is ultimately their own fault. Those who are run over by said hypothetical joyrider will not receive a second chance, so why should the criminal who suffered from poor impulse control?

A physical impossibility.

And those who are uncomfortable with the idea of firearms not in the possession of government authorities will always be uncomfortable, no matter what course of action is taken. Even if the firearm owner is not doing anything wrong, that discomfort will always be present by those who fear inanimate objects and have no sense of trust for anyone who is not a government employee. It is a circular logic system that is doomed to fail because it is set up to fail in the first place.

What is even being stated on the part of yourself this time?

Meaning that if individuals are failed by the system being proposed on the part of yourself, the system and society cannot object when the people choose to take up arms in their own defense, in defiance of whatever may be mandated to the contrary. Meaning that if the proposed system being supported on the part of yourself victimizes firearm owners on the basis that they are firearm owners, then they have every right to refuse to comply and cannot be punished for doing so.

Is it now being understood on the part of yourself, that the same logic being used to justify going easy on criminals, can easily be used to tear down what firearm-related restrictions are being presented on the part of yourself? Or is such a simple fact still being missed?

The united states is not exporting firearms to the nation of Canada. Not unless those who authorized to engage in the commercial sale of firearms are placing orders to licensed manufacturers within the united states in line with the legal system in place that allows for such international sales to occur.

Those who own firearms are not generally hurting anyone, especially if they use them in a legal manner.

While it is not being denied that firearms are being smuggled out of the united states and into the nation of Mexico, the problem is being misrepresented. The firearms coming from the united states amount to a statistically minute amount, approximately five percent of the total number of illegal firearms, and primarily going to private citizens looking to defend themselves from the violence of gangs and cartels.

The majority of weapons being used by the drug cartels are fully-automatic firearms, explosive devices, and heavy ordnance that is not legally available to anyone in the united states. Such is equipment utilized in the military and limited law enforcement applications. If such hardware is truly being acquired in the united states, it is either being stolen from the military of the nation of Mexico itself, or from military facilities under government control in the united states. Meaning the united states government is either outright incompetent and having its own equipment stolen, or it is corrupt and actually selling the hardware to anyone who is willing to pay with no concern for how such equipment is going to.

In essence, the fox is not only guarding the hen house, it also owns it.

So the claim goes.

 

Most places where mass shooting occur are almost completely peaceful the local sheriff's department does not have anything better to do. It's the safe counties where these random shootings happen.

Specifically holding police and sheriff departments accountable for refusing to act. If someone is reported and they refuse to act and that person kills someone then they face direct civil action from their own pockets.

It will be in context. Someone must show the post. Not words but a full facebook post for example and it will be up to the person being accused to explain for example why they might have posted "I'm gonna kill you"

Lets try a real life example in the UK a guy with two knifes started chasing police officers and swinging it, the two eventually (they had no gun or taser) got him to stand down probably because he was only facing 3 years, in the US the person probably faces 20 at a minimum. If that guy faces 20 to life he likely kills the police officers.

People will commit crimes it is how do you stop them from going to the next level? You say you will get 2 years if you steal a car off a lot, you will get 20 years if you carjack someone. Which one do you think the car thief will do?

Not if the government hacks all phones and installs an app that listens to everything someone says and then alerts suspicious information or plots.

Once you let the public know you are armed it's on you.

For gun owners to keep their gun concealed at all times when out in public and not to show it off.

Nope this is different, I specifically used examples of financial crimes (I lump drugs in with that) or stealing food, not violent crimes or violent protests.

The nation of the United States is not, but illegal sellers are. Canada would be justified in cutting off trade until the US gets a grip
and passes real gun control measures

What are your thoughts on the Armed "protesters" who were goaded into invading the state capital and pointing guns at legislators over a 3 word tweet?

 

It didn't happen. You're embellishing an embellishment.

 

Then what happened in Michigan?

 

Look at you, fully unable to support the claim you made.
Thanks for the admission.

 

You mean the criminals who don't obey the laws?

 

I did support my claim, they came onto the state capital carrying semi automatic rifles as they yelled at the police and at the state senate while pointing loaded rifles at them.

That is actually the definition of terrorism, politically motivated violence or threats of violence.

 

No. You didn't. You supplied no citation, and no quote from same, that supports what you claims.
You embellished an embellishment.

 

What criminals? NYC is the safest large (more than 1/2 Million) city in the US by a level of magnitude, likely due to gun control.