Thoughts and Prayers

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Especially in California and New York. Too lax with their laws

Edited May 15, 2022 by Jason

[Kotchman]

6 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Do guns kill 3000 people a day in America?

[mmc]

It still amazes me that after every mass shooting, people come to the conclusion that the guy who clearly didn't care about murdering people will all of a sudden shy away from committing a mass shooting if we make it illegal for them to get their gun

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, mmc said:

It still amazes me that after every mass shooting, people come to the conclusion that the guy who clearly didn't care about murdering people will all of a sudden shy away from committing a mass shooting if we make it illegal for them to get their gun

To the left, the 2nd amendment is a second class right that they wish we didn't have. You would think that everyone, Reps and Dems, could agree that all our constitutional rights are important. People can't even agree on that and pick and choose what rights they think we should have. This isn't unique to the 2A though. Look at the Patriot Act as an example. 

[Kotchman]

3 minutes ago, mmc said:

It still amazes me that after every mass shooting, people come to the conclusion that the guy who clearly didn't care about murdering people will all of a sudden shy away from committing a mass shooting if we make it illegal for them to get their gun

It’s mostly the same group of people who are pro abortion. They seem to believe being ripped limb from limb is a much more humane than being shot

[mmc]

 

[Kotchman]

2 minutes ago, mmc said:

 

I’m guessing a black man shot some more Asians so it’s obviously not a hate crime. 

[Jason]

Riverside home invasion: Man shot several times when confronting 3 suspects who broke into home on Moss Road - ABC7 Los Angeles

Riverside getting hit hard with the home invasions

Edited May 15, 2022 by Jason

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

To the left, the 2nd amendment is a second class right that they wish we didn't have. You would think that everyone, Reps and Dems, could agree that all our constitutional rights are important. People can't even agree on that and pick and choose what rights they think we should have. This isn't unique to the 2A though. Look at the Patriot Act as an example. 

More like the 2A was written in the 1770s by people who never could have conceived that citizens would have the ability own weapons designed for mass killing.

[Kotchman]

1 minute ago, Taylor said:

More like the 2A was written in the 1770s by people who never could have conceived that citizens would have the ability own weapons designed for mass killing.

Wrong. Citizens in those days wanted any and all weapons. They were actually encouraged to own cannons as pirates existed in those days. Pepperdine failed you miserably 

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, Taylor said:

More like the 2A was written in the 1770s by people who never could have conceived that citizens would have the ability own weapons designed for mass killing.

Nope, they were stupid people that thought weapon technology had peaked and would not advance past canons and muskets. It's not like history of the world has no examples of people mass killing other people. There is a reason it was #2 in the Bill of Rights. Thankfully most Americans do not think we should give away our constitutional rights so they will stick around for a bit longer.  

[Kotchman]

Taylor with his infinite wisdoms believes the founders didn’t envision a world with weapons of mass destruction. These visionary men wrote the governing foundation for the Greatest Nation in World History yet lacked the foresight that weaponry would advance over time.  

[Taylor]

Just now, Jason said:

Nope, they were stupid people that thought weapon technology had peaked and would not advance past canons and muskets. It's not like history of the world has no examples of people mass killing other people. There is a reason it was #2 in the Bill of Rights. Thankfully most Americans do not think we should give away our constitutional rights so they will stick around for a bit longer.  

You realize the order of the amendments have nothing to do with their importance, right? And that there were others in the original draft that were edited out?

Of course the Founders didn't believe that weapons technology had peaked, but it's ridiculous to argue they had any idea that guns would proliferate in the U.S. like they have. Just like the 1A has been tested and clarified throughout our country's history, the 2A needs to be interpreted and clarified through a present-day lens. Outright banning gun ownership would be unconstitutional. But laws defining and clarifying gun ownership are not unconstitutional.

[Kotchman]

Wrong

[gotbeer]

15 minutes ago, Taylor said:

More like the 2A was written in the 1770s by people who never could have conceived that citizens would have the ability own weapons designed for mass killing.

A Philly friend of Ben Franklin may have invented one of the first semi-automatic weapons

 

[Taylor]

3 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

A Philly friend of Ben Franklin may have invented one of the first semi-automatic weapons

 

I'm sure Kyle Rittenhouse's hero would have done just as much damage in Buffalo with a semi-auto musket.

[Jason]

1 minute ago, Taylor said:

You realize the order of the amendments have nothing to do with their importance, right? And that there were others in the original draft that were edited out?

Of course the Founders didn't believe that weapons technology had peaked, but it's ridiculous to argue they had any idea that guns would proliferate in the U.S. like they have. Just like the 1A has been tested and clarified throughout our country's history, the 2A needs to be interpreted and clarified through a present-day lens. Outright banning gun ownership would be unconstitutional. But laws defining and clarifying gun ownership are not unconstitutional.

There are thousands of laws on the books in regards to firearms so nobody is really arguing that there shouldn't be. The issue is that the laws they are creating will only impact people like ourselves. We don't even hold people accountable for committing crimes with guns like we should. California just passed a law that says you can only purchase one firearm a month. They also have the handgun roster. Explain to me how those are going to keep anyone safe from thugs and criminals that want to victimize you?   I also do not believe that they should be a state issue as they currently are 

[Kotchman]

Indoctrination runs deep

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

A Philly friend of Ben Franklin may have invented one of the first semi-automatic weapons

 

I knew of the Puckle Gun

[Kotchman]

2 minutes ago, Taylor said:

I'm sure Kyle Rittenhouse's hero would have done just as much damage in Buffalo with a semi-auto musket.

Is he that black Muslim?

[Taylor]

24 minutes ago, Jason said:

There are thousands of laws on the books in regards to firearms so nobody is really arguing that there shouldn't be. The issue is that the laws they are creating will only impact people like ourselves. We don't even hold people accountable for committing crimes with guns like we should. California just passed a law that says you can only purchase one firearm a month. They also have the handgun roster. Explain to me how those are going to keep anyone safe from thugs and criminals that want to victimize you?   I also do not believe that they should be a state issue as they currently are 

Whatever California does must be working because we have one of the lowest firearm mortality rates in the country.

[Kotchman]

6 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Whatever California does must be working because we have one of the lowest firearm mortality rates in the country.

Don’t discount racial demographics and hunting restrictions.  

[jsnpritchett]

47 minutes ago, Taylor said:

You realize the order of the amendments have nothing to do with their importance, right? And that there were others in the original draft that were edited out?

Of course the Founders didn't believe that weapons technology had peaked, but it's ridiculous to argue they had any idea that guns would proliferate in the U.S. like they have. Just like the 1A has been tested and clarified throughout our country's history, the 2A needs to be interpreted and clarified through a present-day lens. Outright banning gun ownership would be unconstitutional. But laws defining and clarifying gun ownership are not unconstitutional.

Pretty much agree with all of this. 

I grew up around guns, due to living in the South and having friends and family who were into hunting. I did a gun safety training course and also did a hunter's safety course in order to get my hunting license when I was 13. (Side note: my friend who took the hunter's safety course with now runs a ministry called .30/.30 Ministries...) It never occurred to me to buy an AR-15 or similar weapon, because there's zero need for one for either hunting or safety. 

Seems perfectly rational that there should be some limitations to the types of weapons that are legally available to the public.  Frankly, I find it truly bizarre that of all the amendments, the 2nd is the one that is so fervently argued for any time anytime suggests almost any type of restrictions or limitations.  

[mmc]

Well Asian on Asian shooting was certainly not what I expected

 

[mmc]