Thanks, GOP & NRA! 231 Mass Shooting in 2024 (UPDATED 06/20/24)
- Thread starter DCGeneral
- Start date
Oh. A link to "pro-life leaders."Here you go.
Pro-life leaders rip 'inherently tainted' research purporting to debunk abortion 'regret'
Pro-life leaders are denouncing research that purports to debunk the idea women regret their abortions -- reinvigorating debate about the basis for restricting the procedure.www.foxnews.com
Yeah, right. That'll be believable.
So, even if he did provide a link, you'd still call bullshit.
I can understand why he doesn't bother.
You always argue/post in good faith, so discussing this with you is worthwhile. I'm not sure if having a loaded weapon in your vehicle without a permit was allowed in any state prior to Heller, because Heller was a 1 vote decision and even Scalia noted that he did not feel gun ownership was "limitless".
It's amazing (not in a good way,IMHO) how Legislatures have ran wild after Heller, to the extent that people seemingly assume permitless open carry was the traditional standard, when in fact gun ownership was regulated and restricted for decades...
Here is some of Scalia's ruling...
"Yet Scalia’s construction of history also led him to note some exceptions, for example, regarding concealed weapons. “(T)he majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues,” he wrote.
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” he added."
Now I may have misinterpreted his statement about prohibitions on concealed carry being "lawful" to mean universal, and based on your question I can see he didn't really address jurisdictions that did NOT have such prohibitions. So I basically assumed he was saying concealed carry was banned universally and he had no problem with that.But I was just using Heller as a reference point, and I'm still inclined to believe that prior to the onslaught of open carry measures passed since Heller, most states considered having a loaded weapon in your vehicle unlawful...
The problem is that when I try to google loaded guns in motor vehicles the results are more current rather than historical. But based on the posting history of the people I addressed I'd say they are prone to favor open carry, and when the DA refused to prosecute the previous case against the shooter, the DA was actually acting in accordance with how those same posters view the issue.
It's the convenience of the argument that I find cynical. I personally think the guy had mental issues, but if you allow anyone to carry a weapon without having to get a permit, I'm not sure how you can even screen in that area? Of course I'm not in favor of permitless carry and I think people should have to be tested in some capacity to own a firearm.
But my point was more the deceptive nature of people whining about the shooter breaking a law (that they personally disagree with) in order to claim that gun laws don't work. Of course none of the people I was discussing argue in good faith, and for most of them an ambiguous emoji is the extent of any type of response rather than any attempt at serious discussion. It's the equivalent of a child putting their hands over their ears saying nah nah nah...
Brother I could run this country so much better. I’d have the chrisleys working together at Starbucks. 12 hour shifts. Two problems solved
"Alternative sentencing" you suggested might help but it has to be supervised -- weekly reporting, drug tests, etc.
Criminals are being released with no supervision at all. That's does no good. It can be somewhat gentle, but there must be compulsion to obey.
You mean tether their public assistance benefits and money they get now to school attendance?
Fantastic idea!
That’s what I am. An idea man. Social programs. Judicial reform. Smash hit shows
The reason I doubt that it’s true is because I knew law abiding gun owners in Texas, Indiana and Kansas that had loaded handguns in their gloveboxes.
"Why should law abiding citizens give up a right because of criminals that gun grabbers refuse to throw the book at?"
So exactly what "right" are you describing? If it's a right to purchase a gun and open carry it in your vehicle, then it's a right for everyone who is law abiding. So under that logic, the man who LATER became a killer was at the time of having a gun in his vehicle excercising a right. Or are you considering him a "criminal" for reasons beyond what you're willing to admit?
I don't happen to believe that is a right, but apparently you do. So you can't be inconsistent in how rights are applied. The man's crime was to have a loaded weapon in his vehicle but if that's a right it has to be applied universally. That was my point, irrespective of what you tried to claim I was arguing- if you believe it is a right, then you can't be upset because a DA decided not to punish him for excercising his "right"...
Mudering people is a crime. According to your definition of rights, the guy became a murderer AND criminal when he took his legally owned firearm and turned it into a weapon used in a crime. Not before...
Prior to you posting this, I made exactly one post in this thread. Feel free to quote my post where I said anything that you claim I "want" in your strawman...
they are not. Just came out of Circle K, saw 20 flavors of Snickers. No Glocks.
If it's a STUDY, then I would absolutely take it into account. Something with hard numbers that could back up his account of "majority past 10+ year" bullshit.
He hasn't don't that though, so I don't know why you're chiming in.
Then what do you want?
Lay it out there. I put 2 instances out there where ownership should be a no go. Other than those two…it’s a tough putt.
Huh? The fact you claim to know "law abiding gun owners" had "loaded handguns in their glove boxes" cannot possibly be proof that they were doing it legally.
That would be like saying, "I know several lawabiding speeders, therefore speeding must be legal."
Fess up now, you're a transaction lawyer, aren't you?
Well they may have been "law abiding" esp in Texas and Kansas. But according to this 2011 article about IN's New gun law, it was not legal to have a loaded unregistered weapon in your vehicle at the 2008 time line I referenced...
"Indiana's new handgun law goes into effect next week. It allows people to carry a handgun without a license under the following conditions:
- if they are on their own property
- it it's unloaded in their vehicle
- if a handgun is carried to a shooting range for an instructional course or during legal hunting
- or if the handgun is unloaded and securely wrapped."
Police voice concerns over Indiana's new gun law
Starting July 1st, a new gun law will allow people to carry guns inside their vehicles without a license.
www.wthr.com
You should have gone to the back and specifically asked for a Glock.
Showing some cash in your hand would have increased the odds you could buy one. Those credit card fees are just too prohibitive for certain transactions.
I say let's save prison only for those people who we fear are a danger to society, but let's also make other forms of punishment much more punitive, so that even non-prison forms of punishment can act as a deterrent. For example, maybe the Chrisleys shouldn't be in prison, but they should be on food stamps. Ill-gotten fortune? Forfeit everything.
I bet they were legal. One was my uncle who had a license for it. The others were military. You think Texas had laws against it? Doubt it.
I’m not a lawyer. Don’t insult me.
The one in Indiana was my uncle and he had a permit/license.Well they may have been "law abiding" esp in Texas and Kansas. But according to this 2011 article about IN's New gun law, it was not legal to have a loaded unregistered weapon in your vehicle at the 2008 time line I referenced...
"Indiana's new handgun law goes into effect next week. It allows people to carry a handgun without a license under the following conditions:
- if they are on their own property
- it it's unloaded in their vehicle
- if a handgun is carried to a shooting range for an instructional course or during legal hunting
- or if the handgun is unloaded and securely wrapped."
Police voice concerns over Indiana's new gun law
Starting July 1st, a new gun law will allow people to carry guns inside their vehicles without a license.
My understanding is that most states which offer(ed) concealed carry licenses allow(ed) you to conceal your weapon on your person or in your vehicle, so if they had a permit, they were probably legal.I bet they were legal. One was my uncle who had a license for it. The others were military. You think Texas had laws against it? Doubt it.
I’m not a lawyer. Don’t insult me.
the 2nd amendment gives me the right to own a gun, without explaining my reasoning to you or any other citizen or US Government employee. Personal protection or not, my motivations are not yours or anyone's business and I legally do not have to explain my reasons to anyone. I've filled out the ATF Form 4473s more than once. I know what I'm talking about.
The DoI offers LIfe, Liberty, pursuit of happiness as the basis of the founding of the new country. If I believe protecting my life and liberty within my own home requires me to exercise my 2nd amendment right, then I can legally choose to do so.
I have no issues with extensive background checks. I believe no one should be able to own a gun unless they are a min age, especially handguns and long rifles. I advise anyone interested in becoming a gun owner to take local safety/training courses. I urge them to keep them locked in a safe where only adults have access.
I also think you're a fool if you believe more restrictive laws will do any good on the streets of south Chicago, Baltimore, etc. The laws already aren't being followed there. More laws are just throwing good money at bad money. And the amount of young minorities males being killed on the streets of our major cities is much greater than the mass shootings. But that's part of the true problem, the real problem. Not a gun problem. A societal problem. A lack of respect for life-problem.
Still no one dares to comment on my multiple posts on Hollywood/entertainment/gaming industry and the glorification of gun violence. Why is that? Is that because they are the same team as everyone else on the left? No need to answer, the question is rhetorical.
But sure, keep trying to take my gun from my house. Because that's the real problem.
And by the way, per my math another approx 400 Americans died yesterday due to fentanyl poisoning, smuggled illegally across our southern border, manufactured in China. China is killing more Americans than our guns ever will. Because that is China's goal. And they are on record. But most Americans live each day oblivious to it. And to me, that...is the biggest problem.
I agree with you regarding video games etc. I’m sure it has an impact on some
For some reason the post I quoted from you did not display. My point with you is that you've completely created a strawman, in relation to what I actually posted in this thread.
"He wants gun laws for rural folks…and he wants them to be prosecuted to the full extent of said law. Don’t you know that the problems in urban America are caused by all the gun owners in rural America."
I never said any of that stuff. My initial post in this thread which you responded to was that it was beyond cynical for people who believe it is a right to own and carry a firearm in your vehicle with no licensing required, to be upset because a DA did not prosecute the MI shooter for excercising that right 4 or 5 yrs ago...
And I never included you in my original post anyway. I just went with the people who were apparently upset because the DA did not penalize the future shooter in 2016 or whenever, at a time he was merely excercising what they personally consider a Right. Not a privilege bestowed by law, but a RIGHT.
It may be that they are selective in who has rights and who doesn't- I don't know. But I do find it cynical that they try to have it both ways. So I called them out because the argument is predictive...
But I never said any of what you creatively ascribed to me...
Since you didn’t propose anything…I’m going to assume you are good with the status quo?
"Still no one dares to comment on my multiple posts on Hollywood/entertainment/gaming industry and the glorification of gun violence. Why is that? Is that because they are the same team as everyone else on the left? No need to answer, the question is rhetorical."
I think overall you try and make a genuine argument. The posts I've made regrading this incident and the previous "crime" by the shooter are directed to people, who unlike you, Do NOT believe in background checks/permits or regulations in general. Yet they want to proclaim that everyone has the right to own a gun, and then turn around and complain that a DA did not prosecute the shooter 4 or 5 yrs ago for basically excercising what they consider a "right".
But the problem with trying to blame US society, Hollywood etc... is that US kids do not grow up with an exclusive exposure to all of the elements you want to blame. US Movies/tv shows, computer games and all media in general are just as accessable practically everywhere in the world as they are in the US.
Drugs are worse in many other countries, the US is more religious than many other countries, sex is as pervasive in Europe as in any US state, single parent families, abortions... All of the boogeymen that the Right always tries to promote to avoid confronting the issue of guns- it's just as bad everywhere else as the US...Having lived in Germany for 6+ yrs, I assure you European countries are much more permissive than the US as a whole...
The difference is guns, or rather the easy access to guns. A potential school shooter in the US has easy access, but it's much harder for a kid in France, or England or Scandanavia to acquire the weapon he'd need to duplicate Columbine or Parkland.
That's why a single shooting in Canada or Australia draws such media attention- it's a RARE occurrence. The same societal pressures, alination bullying exist. But without easy access to a mass killing weapon somebody in Norway deciding to shoot up a school or grocery store is an international headline grabbing one off horror, rather than a routine tragedy like in the US...
I'm fine with the thread premise/title. Not sure there is anyway to change the staqtus quo when the NRA has all those $$ Millions, and politicians on their team...
Eliminate the NRA and Republicans….that’s sounds about right.
It’s easy to complain when you say there is a problem but don’t propose any solutions. You can never be wrong.
Retro, the new Mexican place in Jasper is pretty good…
"And by the way, per my math another approx 400 Americans died yesterday due to fentanyl poisoning, smuggled illegally across our southern border, manufactured in China. China is killing more Americans than our guns ever will. Because that is China's goal. And they are on record. But most Americans live each day oblivious to it. And to me, that...is the biggest problem."
Fentanyl, even in China is a synthetic, illicit drug manufactured by outlaws who are violating Chinese law, not agents of the Government. And in what will come as shock to many on this board, the Fentanyl problem in the US did not originate with the Biden Administration.
In fact it started to increase in 2019 and we reached a record number of fatal overdoses in 2020, before Biden was elected. And since Covid limited immigration/travel in 2020, you have to assume that a great deal of the Fentanyl that contributed to record overdose deaths in 2020, actually entered the US in 2019 before travel was curtailed.
It's also not primarily an immigration (legal or illegal) issue, since a CATO study determined that the majority of Fentanyl entering the US came from US citizens crossing into the US at airports, terminals and other points of entry. Of course MTG doesn't believe the (Libertarian) CATO institute,she'd rather try to make it a political issue...
And this record haul in Aug in Australia (shipment from Canada) sort of debunks the immigrant myth as well...
Australia Seizes Record Haul of Illicit Opioid Fentanyl
Federal investigators condemn trafficking 'parasites' after largest-ever shipment of the deadly illicit drug found in machinery at a port in Melbourne
www.voanews.com
One of the negative aspects of Pelosi's trip to Taiwan which angered the Chinese was that it resulted in China backing away from joint efforts with the US to curb the flow of Fentanyl producing material from China. From a Jan VOA article...
"While Beijing is no longer a major source of the synthetic opioid flowing to the United States, U.S. officials said Washington continues to see Chinese-origin precursor chemicals being used in illicit fentanyl production and other illicit synthetic drugs."
US Seeks Reengagement with China to Stop Illicit Fentanyl as Blinken Heads to Beijing
US admits engagement with China on combating illicit fentanyl 'has been limited in recent months'
www.voanews.com
The article further describes the (at that time) upcoming Blinken trip as an attempt to re-engage the Chinese in the joint efforts to stem the flow of those chemicals. Unfortunately the trip was postponed due to the balloon incident, so that issue has yet to be resolved.
The NRA does the bidding of its members. If you got rid of it, there would just be another NRA taking its place.
The NRA does the bidding of the gun lobby, which provides most of its funding.
Just opened last week. It’s in the old Country Club building basement by the Parklands.
In the words of Col Frank Slade…”Sugar is shit!”
Similar threads
