Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process.
More info here
If you outlaw firearms, the only people who will have them are those willing to break the law. There will always be a black market for firearms.
If you outlaw firearms, the potential burglar knows there is a much smaller likelihood of homeowners being able to defend their home from invasion.
If you outlaw firearms, everyone is dependent on the resources available for law enforcement and at the mercy of how long it takes law enforcement to respond.
Direct quote from Hussein: Your entire community is so often targeted or blamed for the violent acts of the very few. As a result, many only hear about muslims and islam from the news after an act of terrorism, or in distorted media portrayals in tv or film, all of which gives this hugely distored impression. Since the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, you've seen too often, people conflating the horrifc acts of terrorism with the beliefs of an entire faith. Political retoric, politicizing, etc. against muslims and islam.......
Good going Hussein. You've basically just described the left's war on firearms, the 2nd Amendment, and the NRA, and this is exactly how they go about things.
A bill introduced last week at the Statehouse would require gun owners to report their weapons to home insurance companies.
The bill, H.709, is currently in the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development, and it’s only in “short form.” This means it’s relatively simple and vague.
“This bill proposes to require an insurer that writes homeowner’s insurance policies to require a policyholder to disclose to the company whether the homeowner or member of his or her household possesses a gun that is stored on the insured property.”
State Rep. Thomas Stevens, D-Waterbury, one of the bill’s two sponsors, views the proposed legislation as a way to let the private sector regulate guns.
If the bill were to include a requirement for liability insurance, Vermont won’t be the first state to have such a proposition. New York State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn, proposed last year to require $250,000 liability insurance for gun owners. At the federal level, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., introduced legislation last June to require gun owners to have liability insurance.
Florida’s 160 lawmakers could inconspicuously pack heat in the state House and Senate chambers and legislative meetings, under a provision tacked on to a controversial open-carry handguns proposal that’s expected to pass the Florida House on Wednesday.
The amendment by Rep. John Wood, R-Winter Haven, was one of almost two dozen proposed changes that representatives vetted — and a handful they approved — during three hours of debate that stretched past 9 p.m. Tuesday over two high-profile gun bills.
While I do think this is a useful solution, I have no doubt there are plenty of other people who would claim that I'm endorsing the destruction of the second amendment. They can say that all they want, but in the end the Constitution says "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." but it doesn't say anything about bullets. People can petition for better gun control all they want, but gun control isn't the problem. Guns are merely a tool while the real killer is the bullet, which is significantly cheaper and easier to buy.
What is the counter point from pro-gun control people to what Bernie Sanders says, in that Chicago's problems are far different then a rural communities problems, which means gun control should be a local issue?
In other words, what is the argument for national gun control, and not local gun control?
What is the counter point from pro-gun control people to what Bernie Sanders says, in that Chicago's problems are far different then a rural communities problems, which means gun control should be a local issue?
Gun control was a local issue until the American citizenry passed an Amendment that allowed for SCOTUS to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states.
No news article this time. Just contemplating. Why do I like guns?
I don't really know. I could go through a psychological laundry list of shit, throw some genetic theory in, spruce it up with some ethics, cherry-pick some early/traumatic life experiences, and that'd be fine speculation. If others know why they seem to take a particular shine to something then good for them and I'm either over or under-thinking the nature/process of affinity.
Could I do without 'em? Sure. A little history though. I've been a gun-owner since well before learning to drive. If you count airguns it goes way back.to...let's just say I don't ever remember not having a toy gun I liked. My first and only "real" gun for the first 30+ years of my life was the Ruger 10/22.
Loved it. And I had to have one of these awesome banana clips because more is better and just look at it. Duh.
And during those years I never "needed it". One time I was home alone and heard a noise. I grabbed it before investigating. Turns out something just fell off the wall or something because it was cheap. I don't recall exactly. I do remember the feeling of stupidity as I descended the stairs with out, such that it made me turn around. I also remember the feeling of stupidity when the culprit was gravity.
Mostly though I lived somewhere else other than my mom's house where it was stored. I didn't even think about guns for years until I decided I needed a hobby and for the first time it was within my price range (after accounting for record-buying needs). I remembered the one time I was able to shoot a handgun and how much fun it was. That's what I wanted to do for my hobby. I don't even like mechanics or getting dirty. I make an exception for guns. I don't wash my car, ever. I clean my guns after every use. It's my hobby. If you don't have one then I'm sorry. I hope that changes. If you don't understand how they vary then you haven't contemplated it enough. I'm guessing most anyone reading this though agrees with me. guns are both tools of survival and sport.
I question weather I use ethics (self-defense) as a rationalization for my own innate desire. In the end I decide that I'm both happy to do so and correct, ethically speaking. Defense (whether oneself, family, stranger, or community) is as inherent a right as speaking one's mind. We'll save the nuances of that argument for later. Suffice it to say, anyone wholeheartedly in favor of disarming everyone and relying on government protection isn't being realistic. If I was afraid of guns I'd like to think I'd stand up for these rights, same as other things that don't personally appeal to me. I can't prove it. I do remember a brief time where I was in favor of whatever restrictions proposed and a man scolded me. I don't remember his exact words, but they made an impact because he was right. And he associated it with...
Not sure what all that's worth but for any gun-grabbers out there looking for a bit of insight there you go. That's the mind of a non-hunting, non-packing, non-vigilante, gun-loving/collecting target-shooter who isn't willing to forego that. Especially because that's the trend in economically well-off, predominantly white countries around the world. Nor do I give a care how third-world shitholes do to oppress people. God bless America for having a populous capable of bearing arms in defense of all those previously mentioned, and I don't even believe in the mf'er.
What the hell, that fired me up for a political rant.
I'm an odd patriot. I'm first to criticize my country and say when I disagree with government force. I don't conflate the government with my country, so maybe that's where I go astray. My heritage includes the distrust of government. I think that's still logically sound to a large degree. Where'm I going with this? Right now I'm inclined to think people who place a high value on disarmament should consider leaving the USA. I'd call it a cross between ethics and pragmatism.
I know that ruffles feathers and I'd say the same thing to people who don't like free speech, as well as many other individual protections that reverberate through the halls of state and federal courts. There's plenty of places that compromise on these issues "for the benefit of society". Why not join them rather than fight against so much tradition? Sometimes it's just easier to leave. It's not like sticking around and freeing the slave or allowing women equal protections under the law. There's no moral crusade here. Just the imposition of personal preference. Or better yet, stick around and embrace it.
tl;dr: Fuck off.
Ps. Good move though because it's rambling and likely disjointed.
Gun control was a local issue until the American citizenry passed an Amendment that allowed for SCOTUS to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states.
And that somehow stops increased background checks, and many other forms of restrictions in what way?
I understand that you can't outright ban guns, but I believe DC has a heavy handgun restriction, and California has assault rifle bans, and many other gun laws.
And that somehow stops increased background checks, and many other forms of restrictions in what way?
I understand that you can't outright ban guns, but I believe DC has a heavy handgun restriction, and California has assault rifle bans, and many other gun laws.
Laws aren't always irrefutably legal. It's a matter of traditional opinion and enforcement. Truth is banning guns/firearms is such a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment that one would have to be a moron or a liar to say that somehow not infringing on arms in general allows for taking away such a vital/common subsection of them. But don't take my word for it alone.
Cherry picking from SCOTUS rulings we have the 1934 Miller case where part of the judgment in favor of the restriction was that nobody demonstrated that militia's (aka combat units) used them. The implication is that what's in use by fighting units is what's protected.
Later they ruled that a common used class of firearm couldn't be prohibited and that the 2nd Amendment (like all the other Constitutional protections) extended to the states as well. Many states have similar language in their own Constitutions anyway. But now we're all bound by some degree of uniformity. SCOTUS won't accept cases where they have to follow consistent logic because it would mean upsetting the entire apple-cart in terms of prohibiting anything that can be called an arm, at least for citizens with no criminal history. That's where political agendas also enter in. They can just not take a case because it's messy.
So the correct answer is either repealing the 2nd or Amending once again to allow for state control of "arms" in the hands of the citizenry.
I'm not one that believes our judges are any more pure or incorruptible, than our politicians.
I believe there were men on that court that refused to hear cases on the Ludlow massacre in 1914, and the following years.
I understand that we are a nation of laws, but the phrase through the consent of the governed comes to mind, and the importance of the public's interpretation of the 2nd.
I understand that we are a nation of laws, but the phrase through the consent of the governed comes to mind, and the importance of the public's interpretation of the 2nd.
I read your post, that this was a response to, to mean that SCOTUS's interpretation of the 2nd in 34, held superior authority, and my response was meant to convey my belief that the people's interpretation held high authority on this issue.
Well I read your post, that this was a response to, to mean that SCOTUS's interpretation of the 2nd in 34, held superior authority, and my response was meant to convey my belief that the people's interpretation held high authority on this issue.
I was making the point that with judicial precedent being so important you have to look at what the court (regardless of its members) ruled in the past. They ruled that military arms were protected by implication of using them as an applicability standard for a sawed-off shotgun. On what basis should the court just now take the opposite opinion when nothing has changed Constitutionally other than the level of butthurt over private firearms ownership? Incorporation to the states is a change. With the incorporation of the others that's a good example of doing a faithful job rather than pandering to a minority that lacks the votes to legally make their desired change. Kudos to SCOTUS on that one.
I was making the point that with judicial precedent being so important you have to look at what the court (regardless of its members) ruled in the past. They ruled that military arms were protected by implication of using them as an applicability standard for a sawed-off shotgun. On what basis should the court just now take the opposite opinion when nothing has changed Constitutionally other than the level of butthurt over private firearms ownership? Incorporation to the states is a change. With the incorporation of the others that's a good example of doing a faithful job rather than pandering to a minority that lacks the votes to legally make their desired change. Kudos to SCOTUS on that one.
The list was designed to track certain items deemed especially dangerous (or whatever) under the guise (I gather) of keeping them out of the hands of criminals. In 1986 is when the registry for Machine Guns was closed so that the average person could only purchase them if they were registered with the government prior to a specific date in May of that year. There was a spike in crime so of course public sentiment was behind it Political bargaining, and I believe a controversial last second addition, is why legal full-auto guns are worth thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. Other NFA stuff is heavily restricted but obtainable.
I legally own two full-auto firearms. They're old. Crazy how not being able to utilize new technology isn't an infringement in the view of some.
A federal appeals court on Thursday cast doubt on the legality of Maryland’s 2013 ban on semiautomatic high-capacity assault weapons that passed after the mass shootings at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.
The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit sends the gun-control law back to a lower court for review, but allows the existing ban to remain in place.
Chief Judge William B. Traxler Jr., writing for the majority, found that the Maryland law “significantly burdens the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home” and should have been analyzed using a more stringent legal standard.
Well then, what exactly does the Amendment protect?
Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D), who helped pass the law as a state senator, said Thursday that the court majority got it wrong.
“I think it’s just common sense that the Second Amendment does not give people a right to own military-style assault weapons,” he said.
In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Robert B. King wrote: “Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s [law] are exceptionally lethal weapons of war” and as such, he said, not necessarily protected by the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court has so far declined to take up the question of whether cities and states can prohibit these types of weapons after its landmark 2008 decision that declared an individual right to keep a firearm in the home.
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
