LOL

States with the loosest gun laws have the highest gun fatalities per capita.
Shocker.



Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

I'm not against any of that, but the Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege.

It would be similar to saying you need training and licensing to vote in America. A lot of Republicans would like to see that, but it's a constitutional right.

I agree. But in most states persons with criminal records have their voting rights taken away.
How are you supposed to know who's a criminal and shouldn't own a gun without background checks?
This right wing argument is nonsense.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Time to make an amendment to the amendment IMO.

I know, I know, not likely to happen in our lifetimes, if ever. But there are plenty of steps they could take even with the second amendment in place as-is.

You need a handgun to protect yourself.
A shotgun to protect your home.
A hunting rifle for obvious reasons.
Everything else you can have as your right and because it's become a part of the American lifestyle. But secured in a gun club or shooting range . Assault rifles don't belong on the streets.


Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

You can't, that is why there are background checks when you buy from a FFL. You fill out a government form and your ID and lack of criminal record is verified before you are able to purchase the gun.

If you're going to call something right wing nonsense, you should be properly informed because there definitely needs to be improvements, but you're claiming there are not background checks when that is false. This kid filled out a form 4473 and the FFL called it in and he had no criminal record or other flags.

If you want to argue that there should be a mental health check/exam or whatever and all private sales must be done though a FFL, then fine, but trying to assert that there are no background checks makes you look either uninformed or dishonest, which neither look helps you out any.



I'm not opposed to that, as I think there needs to be changes, but everyone has different opinions on what is and isn't necessary. Look at the post above this post. Doesn't own a firearm, but he knows exactly which arms a person needs in every situation.

It's tough to be so informed like the genius you are

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

It's pretty easy, actually, and I'm far from a genius. It's far easier to understand federal and state gun law ownership and explain them to others than the UIGEA was, for example.

As a correlation, you're coming off as the incorrigible live poker player that told everyone that playing online poker was illegal and that was that. No need to be that guy.

It's bad law written three hundred years ago.

The right to bear arms to maintain a militia does not imply the right to own whatever kind of arms.

The constitution is not a sacred text. It can and should be modified. It declares an absurd right and omits others (eg privacy).

Parents tried to storm the school while hero cops waited outside

https://news.sky.com/story/texas-sch...nt-in-12621554

Exactly. These are burdens more than privileges

It's only down to a bit of historical luck that the rights dont include the likes of the right to lapidate adulterers/homosexuals and the right to burn heratics at the stake.

A very old bit of paper interpreted by 'wise men' is not the way to go for any sort of modern democrcay.

Not sure about burning "heratics"[sic] at the stake, but the other two aren't necessarily problematic.*

*For the state to enforce, not individual citizens.

So-called Theonomists favor enforcing Old Testament laws today.

Are you American? If so, which parts of the US Constitution should be used as toilet paper and which affords you the liberties you enjoy as an American?

The last time the Constitution was modified was in 1992. You know what allowed for that to happen? The US Constitution.

Well said. There are a lot more amendments that have been added than that were in the original.

He logic of Alitos draft opinion extends to argue that in fact it does establish the power of states to mandate such things.

No I'm a russkie commie. At least that's what they called me in school.

Your text above is typical religious thinking. All modern constitutions include provisions for their own amendment, many of them better constructed than in the US constitution. It's old and speaks of three fifths of a person. It should be rewritten from scratch. In the meantime the idea that the constitution says so is a good justification for allowing unlicensed ownership of firearms of all sorts is the height of blinders ideological thinking.

So because you disagree with one tiny part of the constitution, you think the whole thing should be shitcanned. Interesting. Good luck with that. The thought of rewriting the constitution from scratch in the modern day world of left/right insane politics is terrifying. Sounds like something Trump would have been in favor of doing during his tenure as president.

Also, we have states which govern their own laws. For example, in NY you first need to apply for a firearm license which takes 4-6 months to get approved before you can purchase your gun, all sales must be done through a FFL (requires a background check), a maximum of 10 rounds in a magazine, and "assault" rifles are illegal in the city.

Conversely, in other states you can walk into a gun shop and buy rifles so long as you pass the background check (takes about 10-15 minutes), and you're then free to walk around with it openly, so it's really not the constitution that you have a problem with.

Actually, that seems to indicate that the constitution is what those who want less guns have a problem with. The bar is set so low nationally, that states can allow pretty much whatever the **** they want.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...ction-n1295694

No right in the Constitution has been deemed to be absolute. Try voting from prison. There is no chance that you are a Second Amendment absolutist. Virtually no one is.

Fair point.

As pointed out, the 2A was written in very different times when weaponry was very different. The amendment, in and of itself, isn't what is preventing federal legislation to make every state similar to the regulations in NYC. It is, however, going to ensure, for better or worse, that guns in some form are here to stay.

I had to look up the word "lapidate." You think that it wouldn't necessarily be "problematic" for a state to kill people by stoning for homosexuality or adultery? If so, I don't even know what to say.

Sure. I was just merely pointing out to him why you need a driver license to drive a car, for example, but are not federally required to obtain a license to own a gun. I think licenses and training should be a requirement, though.

Ironic as the right to vote would be a good one.