Is the blood of the dead just the price we pay for freedom now?

[westaussie]

As a matter of interest does the 2A include any age restrictions?

[westaussie]

What is the drinking age in the USA?

At what age can you drive a car in the USA?

At what age can you get married without parental permission?

What is the minimum age to become President or a member of the House of Reps or Senate?

At what age do you become an adult as per your post? Also, whatever that age is are you advocating that if you are under that age you cannot be charged as an adult?

[westaussie]

As a matter of interest when the person who gets the highest number of votes in a Presidential election is not elected President, it is not correct to say that the will of the people is upheld.

[westaussie]

No humans are killed in any video games. Who exactly is advocating a position that would preclude the right to own a gun? Which country has banned all guns?

[zonulet]

@party-free

Is there a threshold of dead bodies that must pile up before we, as a nation, are willing to put all options on the table in trying to find solutions to problems, or will the principle of “…from my cold, dead fingers” apply until the last American is left standing?

I’m speaking about any right in general, not just guns.

What item were you referring to when you said

"the principle of “…from my cold, dead fingers” ?

[Oldandtired]

Red flag laws allow someone to make a claim that you are a threat.
This person fills out a form explaining why you are a threat.
The court holds a fast hearing without the you being present to defend yourself and a judge with just this form signs an order which allows the police to come to your home search it and confiscate the your guns.
And they do all this when you have not commited any crime.
Than you have to go through mental evaluations and court to get your rights back.
Which all takes money and when your found to not be a threat the person who made the false claim is not charged with a crime or made to pay your costs.
And all this can take up to a year or more.
And at the end of the process you than have to try to get your guns back and most of time they are never returned.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.

[gwhit]

That about as likely as Pelosi not bowing to her Donors. Until we get rid of money in politics nothing that we a citizens want will ever get passed. Problem is that idiots on both sides think only the other side is corrupt.

[RTchoke]

@Oldandtired

Red flag laws allow someone to make a claim that you are a threat.
This person fills out a form explaining why you are a threat.
The court holds a fast hearing without the you being present to defend yourself and a judge with just this form signs an order which allows the police to come to your home search it and confiscate the your guns.
And they do all this when you have not commited any crime.
Than you have to go through mental evaluations and court to get your rights back.
Which all takes money and when your found to not be a threat the person who made the false claim is not charged with a crime or made to pay your costs.
And all this can take up to a year or more.
And at the end of the process you than have to try to get your guns back and most of time they are never returned.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.

[zonulet]

@Oldandtired

I read the red flag laws. More feel good crap that aren’t going to prevent one thing.
Congress is never carful about anything and any gun control law is infringing on law abiding citizens rights.
Like I said lets confiscate your cell phone and block your access to the internet because someone said your are acting violent. Shouldn’t be a problem for you right? If your innocent you will get those things back.
And I’m sure your going to cry for all those poor people who have their rights removed from them just because of someone with a grudge.
I’m sure your going to refund them all the money they had to spend to get their constitutional rights back.
And before you pass any more useless won’t change a thing laws enforce the laws already on the books.

The murder law is a perfect law to enforce.
I believe it will be the law enforced against the guy that stabbed 6 people during a rampage at 7/11 today in So Calif. Four have died. The weapon, a knife, is not taking any heat.

The left hated stop and frisk but love red flag.
Go figure.

[Oldandtired]

Tell you what I have been there and done that.
My husband had an argument with a neighbor several years ago.
She called the cops and after all was said and done they said my husband had not committed crime against her.
Then the lady not only filed a protection order against my husband but she also filed a protection order against me and I was out on the job that day.
We had to hire a lawyer and I had to take time away from a job to go to court. After all was said and done the judge ruled that my case was thrown out and my husband was not any threat to her.
This all took money and time to defend ourselves against a lady with a grudge. And she was not out more than the 20 bucks it cost her to file the order.
So yes I can believe that there are people who are out there that really don’t care that they are filing a false order. Because all they want to do is cause you hardship
So no I don’t have much respect for the judicial system that would allow her to file an order when the police didn’t even believe her when they were called out.
The same thing can and will happen with these red flag laws.

[W_and_C]

@Steel-W0LF

@W_and_C

@Steel-W0LF

@W_and_C

@tnt

@TheRedComet

So what are your thoughtful gun regulations?

-Universal background checks for all gun and ammo purchases.

• National firearm licensing, which requires training and re-certification of training
• Bi-annual check ins with license holders by local police
• Red flag restrictions

I think that’s about it. Basically the Swiss Model, though I might be missing a regulation or two…

I’d consider raising minimum age as well

I’m fine with raising the age so long as the new age is the age of adulthood for all other things as well.

No more arbitrary age settings for all the different rights. Either you are an adult or you’re not.

Like what - booze and cigarettes ? car rental ?

Booze and smokes…yes.
Car rental is a private contract. They can set whatever age they wish.
Voting…yes.
Joining the military…yes.

Ya, so have one set age for adulthood as far as the federal government is concerned.

Although, I kinda wonder - if car rental is a private contract, is it ok for other private companies to discriminate based on arbitrary age ? And then, is the sale of alcohol/tobacco/marijuana also not a transaction between two private parties and therefore up to the vendor ? Same with hiring - can a company flat out refuse to hire someone because they’re over 50, f.e. ? Or does the government bare some responsibility to protect us from age discrimination in private transactions ?

[westaussie]

It does seem to be a bizarre argument opposing mandatory background checks for all gun sales by arguing that people who purchase a gun at a gun show without a background check could buy same somewhere else without a background check.

[RTchoke]

It’s the difference between a sale being made by a vendor and a sale being made by an individual. The individual does not have to be at a gun show to make a face to face transaction.

[mobulis]

@Oldandtired

Red flag laws allow someone to make a claim that you are a threat.
This person fills out a form explaining why you are a threat.
The court holds a fast hearing without the you being present to defend yourself and a judge with just this form signs an order which allows the police to come to your home search it and confiscate the your guns.
And they do all this when you have not commited any crime.
Than you have to go through mental evaluations and court to get your rights back.
Which all takes money and when your found to not be a threat the person who made the false claim is not charged with a crime or made to pay your costs.
And all this can take up to a year or more.
And at the end of the process you than have to try to get your guns back and most of time they are never returned.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.

So due process is being followed.

[westaussie]

As a matter of reference in my home state of WA the drinking age was changed to 18 around 1970.

[westaussie]

No I don’t.

[zantax]

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@H_Arendt

@party-free

That’s because they believe the right to bear a firearm is a “natural right” ascribed in some unable to be named set of freedoms they are guaranteed no matter what based on the words of some brainy progressive philosopher educated elite snob. Or that God gave them the right. Or something.

And look-I saw all of this as a firearm owner (I own a “spooky scary AR” and a couple of hand guns), and as someone who has NEVER called for a new gun regulation. All I’ve ever said is “let’s put every option on the table.” And let’s get special interest $$ out of politics once and for all.

I am not a gun owner but I do not favor the confiscation of guns. I don’t even support banning assault rifles because the data show that such bans don’t reduce gun violence. But I do believe in common sense regulations while being more than a little frustrated that the “shall not be infringed” side have taken a position of never making an compromises. That’s why I quoted Scalia – an elite and educated man but certainly no one’s idea of a progressive. In Heller, were he rewrote the 2A (judicial activism much!) he still insisted on limits to 2A.

Never making compromises? Any idea how many gun laws are on the books already?

Not nearly as many as loosening of guns laws in that last ten years. Look at the fact that nothing got passed after the Sandy Hook massacre and tell me again about how the “shall not be abridged” crowd is open to compromise.

Well no, we aren’t open to compromises that punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. But if you want to increase the penalties on the guilty, we’re all in, unlike Democrats who let convicted gun felons out of jail early.

So you agree that there will be no compromises from the “shall not infringe” side that have the potential of reducing gun violence. Remember, your side has not allowed background checks to be expanded to include checking whether people are on the terrorism watch list!!!

Reason: some people who are not terrorists might be on the list and they might be inconvenienced while they clear their names. And so there is no check to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists.

Is everyone clear on what you are in favor of?

Again, no we will not compromise in allowing you to remove people’s rights without due process. Are we clear on what you are in favor of now? If the government has evidence someone is a terrorist, arrest them and bring them to trial and then remove their rights when they have been found guilty.

The government maintains a terrorism watch list that is used to determine who may enter the United States. This includes people where there is no “beyond a reasonable doubt” proof they are a terrorist but enough of a case for terrorist sympathies that the person should not enter the United States. The Trump Administration went beyond this and banned all Moslems from several countries from entering the United States.

Are you such a strong proponent of open borders that you oppose this. What I am describing is saying that if someone on that list were to enter the US, they should face some barriers to acquiring a gun.

I can only conclude that you favor gun rights for known terrorists.

Why am I not surprised?

Non-citizens have no right to enter the country. If they tried to ban a citizen from entry using that list the courts would rightly not stand for it.

[westaussie]

Did you really mean to say that “Non-citizens have no right to enter the country”? I wonder what would be the impact on the USA economy if that was put in place.

[SimplyTrying]

@gwhit

That about as likely as Pelosi not bowing to her Donors. Until we get rid of money in politics nothing that we a citizens want will ever get passed. Problem is that idiots on both sides think only the other side is corrupt.

Yes, it is both sides. I can’t deny that.

[party-free]

Already been over that.