|
|
JFC
May 27, 2022 19:28:36 GMT -8
Post by Werebeaver on May 27, 2022 19:28:36 GMT -8
The ignorant fantasy that the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution guarantees to citizens some ABSOLUTE unregulated, unlimited "right" to possess whatever personal arsenal they wish to accumulate is just plain wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases that the regulation of personal firearms sales, possession and use is a legitimate function of government. The commercial/industrial self-interest of the NRA notwithstanding. Unregulated? Um, no. Glad we agree. |
|
|
|
JFC
May 27, 2022 19:32:17 GMT -8
Post by beaver1989 on May 27, 2022 19:32:17 GMT -8
Those of you using the “2nd amendment, constitutional rights” argument to deflect ANY blame away from your beloved guns, I guaran-damn-tee you those man-made rights DO NOT “TRUMP” the RIGHTS those precious, now dead babies and the innocent teachers had to LIFE! If you think they do, your “pro-life” bon-a fides are pure bull s%#t. The ignorant fantasy that the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution guarantees to citizens some ABSOLUTE unregulated, unlimited "right" to possess whatever personal arsenal they wish to accumulate is just plain wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases that the regulation of personal firearms sales, possession and use is a legitimate function of government. The commercial/industrial self-interest of the NRA notwithstanding. Those commercial interests will still exist with or without your NRA boogie man. They existed before the NRA ever existed and will exist when the NRA is a foote note in history. You're correct, there isn't a absolute unregulated 2nd Amendment. Never has been & never will be as long as there's a Constitution. Which is why the political party that advocates more gun regulation should present their laws/policies to fix gun violence. They seem to never do it, no manner how many branches of government they have under their control. Are they afraid of the electorate if the go to far? I don't know but they never seem to do anything, but blah....blah.....blah. Talk...talk... talk...then do nothing. |
|
|
|
JFC
May 27, 2022 19:50:24 GMT -8
Post by Werebeaver on May 27, 2022 19:50:24 GMT -8
The ignorant fantasy that the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution guarantees to citizens some ABSOLUTE unregulated, unlimited "right" to possess whatever personal arsenal they wish to accumulate is just plain wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases that the regulation of personal firearms sales, possession and use is a legitimate function of government. The commercial/industrial self-interest of the NRA notwithstanding. Those commercial interests will still exist with or without your NRA boogie man. They existed before the NRA ever existed and will exist when the NRA is a foote note in history. You're correct, there isn't a absolute unregulated 2nd Amendment. Never has been & never will be as long as there's a Constitution. Which is why the political party that advocates more gun regulation should present their laws/policies to fix gun violence. They seem to never do it, no manner how many branches of government they have under their control. Are they afraid of the electorate if the go to far? I don't know but they never seem to do anything, but blah....blah.....blah. Talk...talk... talk...then do nothing. Here’s a start www.bradyunited.org/legislation. |
|
|
|
JFC
May 27, 2022 19:58:57 GMT -8
Post by Henry Skrimshander on May 27, 2022 19:58:57 GMT -8
Which is why the political party that advocates more gun regulation should present their laws/policies to fix gun violence.
You do realize that there was a ban on the manufacture of assault rifles in the US?
The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as large capacity.
The 10-year ban was passed by the US Congress on August 25, 1994 and was signed into law by US President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded.
Some politicians have tried. Monied interests have made it impossible. Why the provisions of this bill were not made permanent is beyond me. As to why the bill was not renewed, the party in power in 1994 was no longer in power in 2004, when the ban expired.
|
|
|
|
JFC
May 27, 2022 20:02:20 GMT -8
Post by beaver1989 on May 27, 2022 20:02:20 GMT -8
Those of you using the “2nd amendment, constitutional rights” argument to deflect ANY blame away from your beloved guns, I guaran-damn-tee you those man-made rights DO NOT “TRUMP” the RIGHTS those precious, now dead babies and the innocent teachers had to LIFE! If you think they do, your “pro-life” bon-a fides are pure bull s%#t. Pass your legislation & quit making excuses. The 2nd Amendment is weak Amendment according to Constitutional Scholars of all stripes. The executive & legislative branches of government should be passing the laws you wish for. Why aren't they? |
|
|
|
JFC
May 27, 2022 20:17:47 GMT -8
Post by beaver1989 on May 27, 2022 20:17:47 GMT -8
Which is why the political party that advocates more gun regulation should present their laws/policies to fix gun violence.
You do realize that there was a ban on the manufacture of assault rifles in the US? The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as large capacity. The 10-year ban was passed by the US Congress on August 25, 1994 and was signed into law by US President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded. Some politicians have tried. Monied interests have made it impossible. Why the provisions of this bill were not made permanent is beyond me. As to why the bill was not renewed, the party in power in 1994 was no longer in power in 2004, when the ban expired. The money power excuse, another boogie man concept.(Its been around awhile, I'm a member of newspapers.com so I read very old AngloSphere newspapers, where new boogie men and conspiracy theories are always arising) I'm sure there weren't any mas shootings between 1994-2004(Sarcasm) The party that lost in 1994 hasn't been out of power for 28 years, they've had control of Congress since then. However, they haven't implemented what you want. Some 2nd Amendment absolutist posting on YouTube(with a following of 100) has zero political power, but that's the boogie man instead of holding your Representatives responsible. |
|
|
|
Post by nuclearbeaver on May 27, 2022 20:17:48 GMT -8
The ignorant fantasy that the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution guarantees to citizens some ABSOLUTE unregulated, unlimited "right" to possess whatever personal arsenal they wish to accumulate is just plain wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases that the regulation of personal firearms sales, possession and use is a legitimate function of government. The commercial/industrial self-interest of the NRA notwithstanding. Those commercial interests will still exist with or without your NRA boogie man. They existed before the NRA ever existed and will exist when the NRA is a foote note in history. You're correct, there isn't a absolute unregulated 2nd Amendment. Never has been & never will be as long as there's a Constitution. Which is why the political party that advocates more gun regulation should present their laws/policies to fix gun violence. They seem to never do it, no manner how many branches of government they have under their control. Are they afraid of the electorate if the go to far? I don't know but they never seem to do anything, but blah....blah.....blah. Talk...talk... talk...then do nothing. They do pretty often actually (assuming you mean dems). They all die in Senate. Here a decent list since 2014 (sandy hook). www.bu.edu/articles/2022/the-long-failed-history-of-gun-control-legislation/Kinda hard not to look at the list and think some of those could have helped. |
|
|
|
JFC
May 27, 2022 20:23:42 GMT -8
Post by Werebeaver on May 27, 2022 20:23:42 GMT -8
Which is why the political party that advocates more gun regulation should present their laws/policies to fix gun violence.
You do realize that there was a ban on the manufacture of assault rifles in the US? The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as large capacity. The 10-year ban was passed by the US Congress on August 25, 1994 and was signed into law by US President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded. Some politicians have tried. Monied interests have made it impossible. Why the provisions of this bill were not made permanent is beyond me. As to why the bill was not renewed, the party in power in 1994 was no longer in power in 2004, when the ban expired. The money power excuse, another boogie man concept.(Its been around awhile, I'm a member of newspapers.com so I read very old AngloSphere newspapers, where new boogie men and conspiracy theories are always arising) I'm sure there weren't any mas shootings between 1994-2004(Sarcasm) The party that lost in 1994 hasn't been out of power for 28 years, they've had control of Congress since then. However, they haven't implemented what you want. Some 2nd Amendment absolutist posting on YouTube(with a following of 100) has zero political power, but that's the boogie man instead of holding your Representatives responsible. Be careful what you wish for. |
|
|
|
JFC
May 27, 2022 22:28:40 GMT -8
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 27, 2022 22:28:40 GMT -8
Which is why the political party that advocates more gun regulation should present their laws/policies to fix gun violence.
You do realize that there was a ban on the manufacture of assault rifles in the US? The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as large capacity. The 10-year ban was passed by the US Congress on August 25, 1994 and was signed into law by US President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded. Some politicians have tried. Monied interests have made it impossible. Why the provisions of this bill were not made permanent is beyond me. As to why the bill was not renewed, the party in power in 1994 was no longer in power in 2004, when the ban expired. I believe that it was passed through reconciliation to get around a filibuster. The Byrd Rule requires that bills passed through reconciliation must sunset after 10 years, unless renewed. Also, gun control was not so partisan back in 1994. Nine Democrats voted nay and one did not vote. 10 Republicans voted yea, including both Oregon Republican Senators. The final result was 56-43. |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on May 27, 2022 23:43:39 GMT -8
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think the house has passed a bill. Biden says he will sign it. But you need 60 votes in the Senate to bypass the filibuster. There are not 10 willing R senators.
|
|
|
|
JFC
May 28, 2022 0:20:12 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by rgeorge on May 28, 2022 0:20:12 GMT -8
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think the house has passed a bill. Biden says he will sign it. But you need 60 votes in the Senate to bypass the filibuster. There are not 10 willing R senators. I zero about this particular bill. But, I'm betting like most there's riders attached that create animosity toward the bill as a whole. Some pieces of legislation have so many that's it's impossible to actually thoroughly review the complete bill in the time allowed before a vote. In other instances other legislative votes are leveraged to get a vote on another bill. I have no idea if either is the case this time, but wouldn't be surprised. Nothing is ever straight forward with these people. And, the "truth" is always slanted. |
|
|
|
JFC
May 28, 2022 0:31:36 GMT -8
rgeorge likes this
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 28, 2022 0:31:36 GMT -8
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think the house has passed a bill. Biden says he will sign it. But you need 60 votes in the Senate to bypass the filibuster. There are not 10 willing R senators. The two gun bills that I know of are H.R. 8 and 1446. Both passed the House in March 2021, but Democrats in the Senate did not move either forward. And Republicans are unable, because Chuck Schumer sets the agenda. We will see. The bills address other issues and are not really geared for stopping the next Texas shooting. Personally, I dislike how people focus on Federal responses. It was a Texas shooter, purchasing guns in Texas and killing children in Texas. There is an issue, and it is up to Texas to fix. What happened in Texas could not legally happen in Florida, for example. Still, trying to enact one-size-fits-all gun legislation is not the solution IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on May 28, 2022 2:44:56 GMT -8
You've made your point abundantly clear. You are not kidding. "Blood on all gun owners' hands." Why use over-the-top inflammatory statements in an obviously emotionally heated discussion? I would think and hope that intelligent, well educated people could work on fixing problems that society has together. I am amazed everyday to be proven wrong. Take it as you like. If you can’t find humor in things, then that’s your problem. I said it was in jest, and I meant that. Is saying that you have blood on your hands more distasteful or disgusting than “there’s nothing that can be done” or “prayers and thoughts for the victims”? which completely avoid the issue, but maybe allow you to feel to turn the page and go on with your life as if nothing ever happened. We are responsible. We, the people, have the power to stop this. We choose not to. We elect representatives who protect our gun rights. We allowed Clinton’s ban on semiautomatics to expire. We support gun manufacturers. We attend gun shows. We keep telling the big business that we want more! Faster, cooler guns! More! And they deliver. We do this. We all are responsible. It could change tomorrow if we wanted it to. But we don’t. A few kids—as long as they aren’t my kids—is what it costs. Oh well. He was crazy. No way to prevent it. Said every bigoted, homophobic, racist, anti Semitic, anti Islam, anti Asian, misogynistic comic everywhere. It just really isn’t a very good way to go about getting collaboration in solving problems. But you knew that. And don’t care. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on May 28, 2022 5:31:33 GMT -8
We’re done here. Back to your regularly scheduled programming…
|
|
