But it’s the job of the SCOTUS to figure out if it was or wasn’t unconstitutiona...they decided it wasn’t...case closed
I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
- Status
To be fair, the SC has ruled incorrectly, and reversed decisions in the past.
But for the immediate future, yes, the case is closed.
Sort of a tangent, but this reminded me of some comments from earlier in the thread.
The AR has been around for 70 years, kids used to drive to school with rifles/shotguns in their cars.
Guns were more accessible then, yet it seems the shootings were less. I dont know if the numbers beat that out, or if more news means we are just reminded of it more now.
Because that determination is made by politicians and people with very specific agendas....
I'm sorry. In my haste, I wrote "And the SCOTUS did not find that it was unconstitutional." I meant to write "constitutional" there. It was found to be unconstitutional, which is why Roberts changed it. Where does the Constitution give him that right?
Yes but the SCOTUS works like everything else.
Here is a decision they made that I liked so therefore their word is the final ruling ever.
Here is a decision they made that I didn’t like to they make wrong decisions all the time and have to go back on them.
Access for the wrong people is a significant part of the problem, not access for law abiding gun owners. There’s a big difference there.
There were also Mental Insitutions in existence. Closing those up and dumping them on the street is a big contributor
Oh, I know. "Johnny Solo" already posted in this thread that I should be banned from the site and turned in to authorities! See below.... Such open minded folks here....
These are warning signs we tend to ignore. Someone should report you. Mods should ban you. And I’m not joking. Wake up America.
Condescension never goes over well, like a fart in church.
But you've already made up your mind what a gun-owner is, and I dare say you have very little experience with guns and average gun-owners.
I haven’t read all of the 23 pages of posts in this thread, and I don’t care to. I can say that most of the guns I own are for hunting purposes. I do have a handgun and I’m cwp certified. I don’t carry my pistol, and I only bought it after my home was broken into. The victims of the Boulder shooting and their families are in my prayers.
Yes it is; it’s also a big part of our problems with the homeless population (which is where a number of those who were in those institutions ultimately ended up). We STILL have a big problem with how we address mental illness in our society; it’s still stigmatized, and while help is available, people who need it often are discouraged from seeking it out, especially early on, when it might do the most good. By the time many of these people get treatment (if they ever do), they’ve already hurt themselves or someone else, or they’re so far gone it’s difficult to treat them effectively. It may have not been ideal (I remember touring some of the wards at the old State Hospital with my Abnormal Psych. class); these patients were essentially warehoused, mostly written off by even their families, often over-medicated to make it easier for staff to manage, but at least they were protected, where on the street, they’re simply easy prey for the criminal element.
As if that isn’t bad enough, thanks to pandemic lockdowns and schools being closed, we're seeing a rise in teen and even pre-teen kids taking their own lives. Social media, originally a place to connect, has now too often become a platform for bullying, and not just for adolescents but yes, for little kids as well. Our kids are growing up more connected and yet more disconnected than ever, that’s already a problem and it’s going to get worse. Between the cell phone, the internet, and the 24 hour news cycle, all of us, and young people especially, are bombarded with more information and disinformation the they can take in, look at critically, and process. Having a whole world of information at our fingertips is definitely a mixed blessing, at best.
Sometimes, people just snap. With this shooter there had been warning signs; he definitely had anger issues for sometime...but no one really did much of anything about it, even after he bought the gun.It’s the same with many suicides; the warning signs were there, but everyone around them either missed those, or dismissed what they did see as “probably nothing”. What’s our responsibility? Where’s the line? When and how hard do we push a friend or family member to seek help, when something doesn’t seem right? What if we’re wrong? More questions, not enough answers; never enough answers...
Yes. Calling people names, misrepresenting facts, making up asinine positions and attributing them to others.
That doesnt make people want to debate you. That just generates pretty responses. But you knew that already.
Our responsibility is to report what we see and know. Looks like this cat was known by the FBI. What is their responsibility?
I left out a lot of things... Car, bike, football, pads, goal post sex toys, matches, spray cans, lamps, hammers, screw drivers, Tv sets, chairs, pin, pens, dogs, cats, finger, cell phones...
Not really. Access is access. Obviously, weapons being available means everyone has the ability to get them. You're avoiding the truth to fit a narrative. Again. I'm not against anything, and I believe in our right to possess any weapons we want. But we have to acknowledge that having weapons accessible means the wrong people will be able to get them, and we need to find the best ways to prevent that because we have the best access to weapons in the world. We can't stop all criminals from getting point and click weapons of death, but we need to find better solutions for it. Mandatory safety training, longer waiting periods, stiffer penalties for gun related charges, and more thorough background checks conducted for EVERY transfer of a weapon are the minimum that need to be enacted in order for us to keep the freedom to have the weapons we want, because everyone believes they're not part of the problem. Everyone believes that their weapons won't ever fall into the wrong hands. However, not all illegal weapons are stolen from legal users. We also need to crack down on black market weapons trafficked from other countries and resold on the streets, and we need to find a reliable way to plug some of those leaks. But access is the key, and no amount of fear mongering about "taking our guns" or "infringing our rights" will change that.
Last edited:
I'm not going to argue your point, and I agree we should be able to have anything we want. Also, I agree that some people do not need weapons, but I'm not the guy to decide who that is (and I don't think anyone is).
Questions though: What does a "more thorough background check" mean? We do an FBI NICS check which tells us a persons criminal record. Felons are not allowed to buy guns.
We can't predict the future if a person has no past of violence.
You can't just go around saying "Johnny scares me, I don't think he needs a gun". That's ripe for abuse.
What's a logical wait period? I'm not against waiting a couple weeks. But it needs to be timely. I don't think 2 months is reasonable for example.
Private sales are private sales. The only way to track those is through some sort of registry, and that opens up an entirely new set of issues- whether its public information or not.
How do you limit people's rights without labeling, classifying, profiling, and predicting?
Agreed mostly. These things are generally above our heads. Background check needs to include similar security checks like I went through for my security clearance. Medical, credit, mental health history as well as references from disparate personal sources. A clean, current psych eval (completed fewer than 30 days before the date of initial purchase). 2 to 3 weeks is more than enough. I'd be ok with 10 days, honestly, but something has to be done. I'm also ok with a registry at the county level, where the county creates and maintains the record. That meets the regulation requirement without relying upon the federal government, or being directly answerable to the Fed. And at that level, private sales have to be documented for safety. Cars are registered at the state level. An unregistered car is a crime. Weapons should be no different in that regard (unregistered is a crime, obviously, I have stated the registration is at county level), simply from a safety stand point.
Last edited:
What a wonderfully pitiful attempt at an ad hominem attack with nothing of merit to discuss. If you wish to argue or debate my points go ahead. Bring sound logic. I'll answer.
Like I pointed out...more people are beaten to death than shot to death with ANY kind of rifle, including AR15’s.
More people are shot just in Chicago with pistols than any kind of rifle in the entire country.
Yet only the rare mass shooting using an AR seems to deserve the attention of politicians and activists, who are desperate to eliminate the 2nd amendment at any cost.
Why is that? Do lives of poor people in Chicago not count? Or does the shootings of poor people not carry the political weight power hungry politicians want?
Did the Syrian Colorado shooter buy his gun legally? Did he pass a FBI check? Maybe the FBI check needs to be updated? Because many shooters pass background checks, and many shooters are already known to the FBI.
Very convenient.
Like I said before, there are many millions of people who own many millions of AR type rifles, as well as other types of shotguns, rifles, and pistols. They aren’t running around shooting people.
Yet some still have a visceral fear reaction to seeing an AR, even with a guy posting here who owns a rifle that shoots the same caliber, can carry the same size magazine, and has the same rate of fire.
There were people on the left and in the media (not all, but many) thrilled because the white guy shot up some massage parlors, ostensibly because they added to his sex addiction.
There were people on the left and in the media (not all, but many) who were thrilled because they thought the Colorado shooter was white. They were dismayed to find out he was a Syrian Muslim.
People need to wake the hell up. You may not care about 2A rights because you don’t want to own a firearm, and that’s fine. I respect that.
But don’t be actively campaigning to take others rights away, especially when you’re like the particular poster who has no idea what type of gun he has compared to an AR.
How is an unregistered car a crime if it's never driven on a public road?
BTW, what rights relative to cars does the constitution afford?
You are either a dreamer or delusional to belive the things you suggest will have any impact.
The Boulder shooter broke many laws and there is no reason to belive he would not have broken one more concerning illegal guns to accomplish his mission.
I think most people have no issues with denying guns to those who have had background checks and been found to be competent to own a gun. But don’t ban all for a very small percentage of bad guys.
Medical check? Does that mean disabled or sick people can't pass muster?
Credit check? Does that mean discrimination against low socio-economic status?
Mental health? What's the line for healthy? Mild depression? Moderate? Who gets to decide?
A local registry sure is better than a national registry. That's a slippery slope uphill. That's a step and half away from a national registry. Again, would it be public information?
If I bought a gun from you, who's county that register in? At some point there will have to be a cross-reference.
Exactly. This guy had 3 names and all of them indicated he was of muslim background. I’m not being stereotypical , I’m only curious as to why it was deemed necessary that he was approved to buy such a weapon. I caught hell when I tried to replace hunting rifles and shotguns that were stolen from my home.
I have debated your, and others like you, points all day. You all have demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of the Constitution and the reasons it was written as it was.
Early on i suggested that any and all who wish to see a change in the law regarding private ownership of guns make your point via the ammendment process.
Backdooring the things you all propose like background checks for private transfer and registration under today's laws are clearly unconstitutional.
Man up, get a group of like minded people, and try to make the change legally. If it works we all will have to abide by any change made.
In the meantime the 2A is all that is required.
Last edited:
Yes, let’s not quibble details.
I graduated HS in 1979. The vast majority of guy’s cars and trucks in the parking lot had a range of firearms in the trunk or in a gun rack. That went for every HS I know of.
We all had access to guns. We didn’t shoot each other.
Now, if you want to discuss some types of mental illness and adverse effects from video games, social media, and broken families, there are options for discussion.
But gun ownership over the past 20 years or so has virtually exploded, without a corresponding leap in gun deaths.
Yes, we should acknowledge that all crimes, including violent crimes have been on the decline for essentially 30 consecutive years.
The back door approach means one of two things. What they want to do is unconstitutional, or there are ulterior motives they are trying to hide.
So, the answer is it's just going to continue to happen and there's nothing we can do about it that anyone is willing to do (after all Europe and Australia have demonstrated that fewer guns available mean fewer intentional deaths overall).
You actually missed the point horribly on me. First, I know exactly why the constitutional amendment was written the way it was, at least as much as anyone does and have been arguing that side of the issue most of the thread (ie good reasons why restricting types of weapons to the military only is ridiculous). The ability to protect against enemies of the people, no matter their origin. It also states that the militia will be well regulated. We don't have a well regulated militia (Except the National Guard, but as they are ultimately answerable to the federal government, they don't count). I'm perfectly ok revoking the rights of individuals to own weapons in favor of arming militias at the county level, which is exactly what the 2nd Amendment states. Those would be the arms of the people, kept and born by the people.
Failing that, however, we need to find better ways to keep weapons from the hands of the mentally unstable, and the criminally intent. Obviously, if we allow everyone to purchase weapons, we can't accurately stop everyone who would do harm, but there are measures to be taken. Just because a measure won't stop something absolutely doesn't mean it doesn't mitigate it at all. Your assumption that because it wouldn't stop one person (maybe it would have, there are many factors that will go into it) that we shouldn't do anything, because it might inconvenience someone with no ill intent. That is a completely ridiculous premise. "If we slow down the spread of a disease, we can limit the damage" "But one person would still die, better to do nothing." Obviously, hyperbole, but it is essentially what you've suggested.
You haven't debated me on anything in this thread. You've also failed to present anything compelling against anything I've said.
The data is in complete disagreement to your claim. Over the past 30 years gun ownership has increased, meanwhile in the same time period, violent crimes have decreased. There is no spread of violence. It's going down and gun ownership is going up. Gun ownership and violent crime is actually inversely correlated. Your claim is built on a false premise.
You sure about that, Chief?
[/QUOTE]
Ok, so gun deaths are increasing (at a slower rate than gun acquisition) and violent crime is still decreasing. I wonder if there is a correlation of gun ownership and lives saved by gun.
- Status
