2nd Amendment Issues

[Eleven]

10 minutes ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

You missed my point. I saw it as a joke.

I got your point.  It wasn't tough.  No one else thought it was a joke, or even remotely humorous (it wasn't.).  I think you missed my point.  And everyone else's.  Spreading that type of false info is bad, no matter the side.

Edited June 7, 2019 by Eleven

[SABRES 0311]

8 hours ago, Eleven said:

Yeah, that really didn't seem like a joke, to me, or, apparently, to anyone else here.

Happy to have a drink with you in July if you'd like.

 

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

It wasn't a joke.  He was trying to pass off BS as real life. I think we all know that now.  It's a well-known far-right tactic, kind of like "they're gonna take my guns!" (see above).

If he wants to pass it off as a joke, fine for the time being. But no one saw it that way.

There you go again. It most certainly was a joke. And by the way I'm not some far right nut running around saying they are going to take our guns. My point has always been no restriction will completely stop these things from happening. Therefore I would guess people will continue to call for restrictions but at what point would the line be drawn? Furthermore, when the other poster I was predominately going back and forth with made their point of view very clear you equate it to an evolved mindset. Now I will admit that I may be taking it the wrong way but it sounded as though you were indirectly saying any other thinking is archaic.   

In another post I mentioned I thought it was interesting May's announcement of her departure came very close to the time Trump announced decalss of FISA docs. You then equate it to illuminati conspiracy theories even though I only mentioned it was interesting but did not say one was the result of the other.

Prior to that I got pissed about AOC's scare tactics about the world ending in 12 years and called her a name which I admit was unbecoming of both proper etiquette and my profession. I get you have some obligation for this site and from time to time a reminder needs to be sent out. What I don't need is a scolding followed with an "Are we clear" like I'm your kid. 

I am not looking to change anyone's mind on any issue. To be honest posters here have made me think about some things in a different light and I get some topics can get heated where a taking a step back is the right thing to do.  You on the other hand seem to have a particular issue with me.  I'm not looking to have a drink with you but I am more than willing to give you an opportunity to deal with whatever personal issue you have like a man rather than online.  That's cool if you don't agree with my POV but don't sit there and come at someone like that and not expect to get called out. 

 

[Eleven]

56 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

 

There you go again. It most certainly was a joke. And by the way I'm not some far right nut running around saying they are going to take our guns. My point has always been no restriction will completely stop these things from happening. Therefore I would guess people will continue to call for restrictions but at what point would the line be drawn? Furthermore, when the other poster I was predominately going back and forth with made their point of view very clear you equate it to an evolved mindset. Now I will admit that I may be taking it the wrong way but it sounded as though you were indirectly saying any other thinking is archaic.   

In another post I mentioned I thought it was interesting May's announcement of her departure came very close to the time Trump announced decalss of FISA docs. You then equate it to illuminati conspiracy theories even though I only mentioned it was interesting but did not say one was the result of the other.

Prior to that I got pissed about AOC's scare tactics about the world ending in 12 years and called her a name which I admit was unbecoming of both proper etiquette and my profession. I get you have some obligation for this site and from time to time a reminder needs to be sent out. What I don't need is a scolding followed with an "Are we clear" like I'm your kid. 

I am not looking to change anyone's mind on any issue. To be honest posters here have made me think about some things in a different light and I get some topics can get heated where a taking a step back is the right thing to do.  You on the other hand seem to have a particular issue with me.  I'm not looking to have a drink with you but I am more than willing to give you an opportunity to deal with whatever personal issue you have like a man rather than online.  That's cool if you don't agree with my POV but don't sit there and come at someone like that and not expect to get called out. 

 

Fair enough on the Illuminati thing, that's on me, but no one thought your post yesterday was a joke.

[SABRES 0311]

Just now, Eleven said:

Fair enough on the Illuminati thing, that's on me, but no one thought your post yesterday was a joke.

Well I’m clarifying it was. You want answers on mass shootings look at mental health. You want to mitigate them from happening I don’t have a solid answer on how to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. That cat is never going back in the bag and I think it’s going to get worse. 

But there are those who fear these incidents are being used to slowly erode 2A. Right or wrong that’s where we are at.

 

[North Buffalo]

On 6/5/2019 at 6:54 PM, Weave said:

 

Voter access has national implications.  You bet I want a universal standard for who gets to vote.  And the firearm laws in South Carolina affect the violent crime in Michigan, so I think there needs to be a standard there as well. 

If we can regulate health care, and keep a farmer from growing wheat to feed his own livestock both under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, then certainly we can create a common set of rules for something that has as much actual interstate effect as firearms.

If firearm violence was predominately an issue involving firearms sourced within the state affected I'd feel differently.  But it's a pretty well established fact that huge numbers of firearms are being moved across state lines for the purpose of illegal distribution.

A point of fact, the federal government doesn't regulate private healthcare, the States do, they only regulate medicaid and medicare reimbursements and any hospital or doctor accepting those payments must live up to those standards.  Private health insurance often mimics the feds, but is not regulated by the feds because each health insurance company's division is incorporated in each state they serves and the interstate commerce clause prohibits regulation by the feds.  Unless you create a national private health insurance program, like national banks its not gonna happen.  

As far as firearms go, I see the problem Sabres 0311 states, though I disagree on ability of the feds to regulate ammo.  Still unless there is a change in the definition of what constitutes are firearm or better yet what is not considered a firearm or the 2nd amendment is modified, the only thing I do think the feds can do is produce a national registry and deny legal access to anyone that does not meet those standards of mental incapacity or felon.  It won't stop firearms from getting into crazy's hands, but it would limit it... the only other questions is can gun manufacturers be required to meet certain design and sales standards probably...just as cars are regulated.  As far as private sales I see this as a state v fed rights issue and considering the interstate commerce clause, I am not sure the feds often have a leg to stand on in this fight unless of course those sales are across state lines.

[North Buffalo]

5 hours ago, Eleven said:

It wasn't a joke.  He was trying to pass off BS as real life. I think we all know that now.  It's a well-known far-right tactic, kind of like "they're gonna take my guns!" (see above).

If he wants to pass it off as a joke, fine for the time being. But no one saw it that way.

It was one of those sarcastic right wing jokes that they right think is funny, but really it is meant to spread a false narrative... both sides do it and neither is very funny.

[SABRES 0311]

2 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

A point of fact, the federal government doesn't regulate private healthcare, the States do, they only regulate medicaid and medicare reimbursements and any hospital or doctor accepting those payments must live up to those standards.  Private health insurance often mimics the feds, but is not regulated by the feds because each health insurance company's division is incorporated in each state they serves and the interstate commerce clause prohibits regulation by the feds.  Unless you create a national private health insurance program, like national banks its not gonna happen.  

As far as firearms go, I see the problem Sabres 0311 states, though I disagree on ability of the feds to regulate ammo.  Still unless there is a change in the definition of what constitutes are firearm or better yet what is not considered a firearm or the 2nd amendment is modified, the only thing I do think the feds can do is produce a national registry and deny legal access to anyone that does not meet those standards of mental incapacity or felon.  It won't stop firearms from getting into crazy's hands, but it would limit it... the only other questions is can gun manufacturers be required to meet certain design and sales standards probably...just as cars are regulated.  As far as private sales I see this as a state v fed rights issue and considering the interstate commerce clause, I am not sure the feds often have a leg to stand on in this fight unless of course those sales are across state lines.

Would required training on the firearm be considered an issue? I’m talking a one day basics in safety, handling and employment. Open to suggestions on the funding.

[North Buffalo]

30 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Would required training on the firearm be considered an issue? I’m talking a one day basics in safety, handling and employment. Open to suggestions on the funding.

Like a drivers test, but then again that is regulated by the states, though each state gives reciprocity to each other.  So again, could the feds regulate it? If they assert that a well regulated militia means that they can issue a national permit and license then again a basic safety class or test could be required, though I am sure states will assert their right to issue said licenses and safety requirements and the feds are interfering, so I am not sure.   Though I highly recommend one for licensing and in fact took and NRA safety class in 9th grade because I was out in the country during the summer time and around lots of guns and shot them as a teenager.

[SABRES 0311]

2 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

Like a drivers test, but then again that is regulated by the states, though each state gives reciprocity to each other.  So again, could the feds regulate it? If they assert that a well regulated militia means that they can issue a national permit and license then again a basic safety class or test could be required, though I am sure states will assert their right to issue said licenses and safety requirements and the feds are interfering, so I am not sure.   Though I highly recommend one for licensing and in fact took and NRA safety class in 9th grade because I was out in the country during the summer time and around lots of guns and shot them as a teenager.

The training piece I would think would help reduce mishaps. Then again it’s one of those if you don’t use it you lose it skills.

[North Buffalo]

4 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

The training piece I would think would help reduce mishaps. Then again it’s one of those if you don’t use it you lose it skills.

Depends on the gun I suppose... the .22 bolt actions I shot when younger and recently took a few shots with haven't changed much, came back pretty quick. Betting automatic hand guns and higher capacity weapons might be a little more involved, especially insuring the breach is clear and to be able to take apart and clean.  But basic gun safety isn't going to change. Like figuring out a clutch when you haven't driven one in awhile.  But if you never have driven with a clutch you might want a lesson.

Edited June 7, 2019 by North Buffalo

[LTS]

On 6/5/2019 at 10:03 PM, Eleven said:

Ok, so, because we do not and cannot have border checks at state lines, what would you propose?

This is a fair question.

On 6/5/2019 at 10:08 PM, SABRES 0311 said:

A lot of SJWs blocking traffic at state lines. ANTIFA can force people to consent to searches by using all the buzzwords like bigot, racist, fascist, and homophobe. 

I dunno how you stop illegal transfers. Do I look like LE to you? How do you think it should be done?

This is not the best way to respond to a fair question.  Don't get angry at someone for asking what could be done.  Admit that you don't know and request a response.  It might lead to further conversation.

On 6/6/2019 at 2:34 AM, drnkirishone said:

I want to believe that the way i read the post is not the way it was intended. But like Scully I think I will remain skeptical.

This is healthy skepticism.

On 6/6/2019 at 8:48 AM, SwampD said:

I thought eleven was merely asking a question on what you thought. It’s kinda the point of this place. I didn’t realize you were making a joke either.

 

I did not realize it was a joke either.

On 6/6/2019 at 9:17 AM, Weave said:

This is what happens when hyperbole is used in a conversation involving tightly held beliefs.

This is 10000% true.

18 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

I offer my deepest condolences to @Eleven on the death of his sense of humor.

This is completely uncalled for and does nothing more than to further fan the flames of an issue that should not be an issue.

13 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

You missed my point. I saw it as a joke.

You did.  Others did not.  Just because you did does not make the others wrong and just because they didn't does not make you wrong.

 

Sorry, for the delay.  I have been out of town and busy as hell with work.  By and large I think things around here have gone pretty well but Weave is 100% accurate (I know, I just said 10000%).  

We seem to be back on track which is good.  We're not here to insult each other or poke and prod to see if we can get a rise out of someone.  If you want to do that take your energy to the ROR thread, or if you need to do it over political issues, go to CNN.com or something.

[Weave]

12 hours ago, North Buffalo said:

A point of fact, the federal government doesn't regulate private healthcare, the States do, they only regulate medicaid and medicare reimbursements and any hospital or doctor accepting those payments must live up to those standards.  Private health insurance often mimics the feds, but is not regulated by the feds because each health insurance company's division is incorporated in each state they serves and the interstate commerce clause prohibits regulation by the feds.  Unless you create a national private health insurance program, like national banks its not gonna happen.  

As far as firearms go, I see the problem Sabres 0311 states, though I disagree on ability of the feds to regulate ammo.  Still unless there is a change in the definition of what constitutes are firearm or better yet what is not considered a firearm or the 2nd amendment is modified, the only thing I do think the feds can do is produce a national registry and deny legal access to anyone that does not meet those standards of mental incapacity or felon.  It won't stop firearms from getting into crazy's hands, but it would limit it... the only other questions is can gun manufacturers be required to meet certain design and sales standards probably...just as cars are regulated.  As far as private sales I see this as a state v fed rights issue and considering the interstate commerce clause, I am not sure the feds often have a leg to stand on in this fight unless of course those sales are across state lines.

NB, govt doesn’t regulate healthcare at the federal level, but they did use the Interstate Commerce Clause to mandate everyone had it.  And that was my point.

[North Buffalo]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

NB, govt doesn’t regulate healthcare at the federal level, but they did use the Interstate Commerce Clause to mandate everyone had it.  And that was my point.

ah and true they used an exemption by providing a government regulated subsidized clearing house nationally... yes