Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. If you become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

Well, people would be driving to the drop off place to turn in their guns and I'm sure there would be a lot of car accident deaths with those people on the road.

But other than that, I'm sure it would be clear sailing.

 

 

Step 1: Tell them to turn in their guns.
Step 2: When they arrive to turn in their guns, confiscate their cars, too.
Step 3: No more deaths!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

 Take a look at California’s  gun laws. What other gun laws would you suggest that we have that California doesn’t already?  either laws we don’t have that would prevent incidents like this from happening?

I don't know. Metal detectors outside every school, church, bar, restaurant, and other public place? That would suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

I agree, what this shooting shows is that even California, which has some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country, cannot stop this from happening.  

Unpopular opinion: This is the reason I carry a firearm. If I’m going to be a victim I’d like to have a fighting chance. It’s better than nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

I agree, what this shooting shows is that even California, which has some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country, cannot stop this from happening.  

This is the sad reality.

Its basically a case of the genie being out of the bottle. 

I try and never get into the politics side here. But i saw a few california politicians make statements yesterday about federal gun laws, blah blah blah after this. 

It bothered me because i totally get it in these AR shootings. This guy bought a handgun. Legally. Over the counter. They are legal...in every state. Federal gun laws dont apply here.

Just bothered me because it stank of "i can use this to get in the news, regardless of relevance." Aka 'look at me'  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the dude abides said:

The thing that’ll stop a bad guy with a gun is a good white guy with a gun.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna935311

Looks like the NRA is silent on this one... I wonder why.

 

Was looking to see if this would pop up in the hangout thread.

This one is bad for sure. Sad as hell.

Only thing ill throw out there, with literally no info being available yet. Was the security guy in uniform? Or more dressed like a bouncer?

Reason i ask. From the story, police were responding to an active shooter. If you roll up and see someone in plain clothes, gun to someones back with other people shot...

Im not saying that to downplay the cops screwing this up. But more to paint a picture. Lets say security guard was the bad guy....and they got there, saw him, waited a sec, then he shoots the guy in the back...

They screwed up, sure. But the race card is popping in this one, and it shouldnt be. (But again, that's just from the info thats been made available)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2018 at 4:27 PM, Jason said:

Apparently Kutcher believes that gun laws are unconstitutional and won’t comply with the laws set in place

EBC54121-D831-4832-985F-CEAF9CDC8A71.jpeg

 

What I get out of this is that Ashton is a gun owner who hopes to never use his gun ... but is keeping his options open.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

What I get out of this is that Ashton is a gun owner who hopes to never use his gun ... but is keeping his options open.

 

 

And he receives them from a friend in a parking lot of a bar. ALL firearm transactions in California must go through a licensed FFL.  He has an illegal firearm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2018 at 11:06 AM, Taylor said:

Not sure if I count as part of "the left," but I think "well-regulated" needs to be better defined. It's possible to be sensible without throwing out the second amendment.

I think "militia" also needs to be better defined. 

 

In 1790, the "militia" was the actual army. Since there was no national standing army, the states were relied upon to provide the necessary fighting force via state militias. Those were abolished with the creation of the National Guard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mark68 said:

I think "militia" also needs to be better defined. 

 

In 1790, the "militia" was the actual army. Since there was no national standing army, the states were relied upon to provide the necessary fighting force via state militias. Those were abolished with the creation of the National Guard. 

There's only two parts to that amendment

Part 1 is the justification clause "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state"

Part 2 is the rights clause. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

The Heller case already decided that a person's right to have a firearm is not connected to participation in a militia. It's fine if they want to wordsmith the justification but that still doesn't change the right. As far the "The People", those are average citizens, not entities of the government. The National Guard is an entity of the Government. They are not under the direction the "people". Those in military uniform are not civilians. If you're advocating for actual militias, fine. I think those guys are nuts. I posted a link to the Heller decision 

Definition of militia 

 

1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b: a body of citizens organized for military service

 

Definition of infringe 

 

transitive verb

1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't "assault weapon" kind of a misnomer?

Anyway, I understand the argument that, "Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot own?" At the same time, I cannot relate one bit to the desire to own a weapon that was created solely for the purpose of killing multiple people in a short time.

The government should legalize bombs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...