Discussion:
Maher warns Dems not to make gun control a 2020 issue: 'Liberals should learn more about guns'
Add Reply
a425couple
2019-06-08 15:53:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
from
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/maher-warns-dems-not-to-make-gun-control-a-2020-issue-liberals-should-learn-more-about-guns

Maher warns Dems not to make gun control a 2020 issue: 'Liberals should
learn more about guns'
By Joseph A. Wulfsohn | Fox News
Fox News Flash top headlines for June 8Video


"Real Time" host Bill Maher cautioned Democrats not to make gun control
a prominent issue in the 2020 election, urging them not to "die on this
hill" if it means losing to President Trump.

During his panel discussion Friday night, Maher listed several issues on
which Democrats' stands poll better than Republicans,' such as the
environment, education and health care. But he noted that Republicans
hold a narrow lead over Democrats on gun policy.

Maher then mentioned President Trump's recent sit-down with British TV
personality Pierce Morgan, where the president mentioned that some
people own guns for recreational use.

GUN CONTROL RETURNS TO PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN TRAIL AS 2020 DEMS PUSH
SWEEPING PLANS

Bill Maher, host of "Real Time with Bill Maher." (HBO)
"I don't like guns. Have some, don't like them, have it for [an]
emergency, like an antibiotic," Maher told the panel, "but some people
do. Lots of people do and their view is, 'Yes there is a violence
problem with guns, but not me. And you're going after me.'"

Maher added he had doubts whether solutions proposed by Democrats "would
solve the gun problem," and that "to die on this hill and lose an
election" was a real possibility because "we've lost elections before on
this issue, which is not a winning issue for Democrats."

"What is the option though, not to make it a central part of the
campaign?," New York Times columnist Charles Blow asked.

"No," Maher responded. "First of all, liberals should learn more about
guns. I don't know much about guns because, again, I don't care, I don't
like them, but I hear this from gun people."

The HBO star then mentioned a CNN interview in which 2020 presidential
candidate Sen. Cory Booker, D-NJ, was pressed how his gun control plan
would have prevented the recent mass shooting in Virginia Beach.

"Cory Booker took a very long time to be able to answer that question,"
Maher said as he shook his head.

Blow dismissed Maher's criticism, saying the "framing of the question is
wrong" and pointed to the 30,000 deaths per year that involve guns that
needs preventing.

"You're seriously saying that he shouldn't be able to answer the
question as a politician, 'How will your plan specifically stop this
problem?'" Maher reacted. "If you did everything that the Democrats
wanted... I still think you would have this problem because it's much
more complicated than just the mass killers or the type of gun. You're
going to be disappointed if you think just doing what they want gun-wise
is gonna solve it."

Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif, pushed back, saying Democrats' gun control
efforts were intended to "reduce preventable gun deaths."

"I'm just saying I want to win this election and I want to fight it on
the issues we're going to win on," Maher added.

Joseph A. Wulfsohn is a media reporter for Fox News. Follow him on
Twitter @JosephWulfsohn.
Michael Ejercito
2019-06-08 17:34:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a425couple
Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif, pushed back, saying Democrats' gun control
efforts were intended to "reduce preventable gun deaths."
So was the 1994 Crime Bill.

I wonder why so many Democrats, including Joe Biden, are backpedaling
away from their support of the 1994 Crime Bill?


Michael


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-09 14:08:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 08:53:34 -0700, in talk.politics.guns a425couple
Post by a425couple
"Real Time" host Bill Maher cautioned Democrats not to make gun control
a prominent issue in the 2020 election, urging them not to "die on this
hill" if it means losing to President Trump.
I can't imagine why anyone would hang on Bill Maher's political
advice; however, I don't suppose it's any worse than none at all.
He's sometimes funny... I guess. He has a strong George Carlin
influence and I generally liked Carlin... on a case by case basis and
in moderate doses.

I'd hope that the democrats would try to steer to the center and take
a moderate approach. We would do best to de-emphasize the role of the
federal government and limit that role only to matters which span
state lines.

The federal government should insure that, if a gun changes hands,
there is a background check... period. There must be no exceptions,
no exclusions, and no loopholes. Buying or selling a gun and skipping
the background check would be a federal felony.

After that, it's all up to the states. The idea being that Wyoming's
gun laws might not work well in New Jersey and visa versa. If
Wyoming's voters want fully-automatic weapons to be sold legally in
their fair state, so be it. If a Wyoming resident decides to move to
New Jersey (or any other state), he or she would then have to comply
with the laws in his or her new home state. The role of the fed is to
block someone from simply driving across a state line into a state
with loose gun laws to acquire a gun.

Thus, the fed would simply check for any outstanding warrants and send
the process to the buyer's state. In theory, there wouldn't be
anything preventing a state from approving a sale to one of its
residents acquiring a gun out of state; although, they'd likely not
approve the sale because the fed wouldn't require that they do so and
the home state would lose sales tax revenue.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-06-09 14:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 09:08:32 -0500, The Fateful Lightning of His
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 08:53:34 -0700, in talk.politics.guns a425couple
Post by a425couple
"Real Time" host Bill Maher cautioned Democrats not to make gun control
a prominent issue in the 2020 election, urging them not to "die on this
hill" if it means losing to President Trump.
I can't imagine why anyone would hang on Bill Maher's political
advice; however, I don't suppose it's any worse than none at all.
He's sometimes funny... I guess. He has a strong George Carlin
influence and I generally liked Carlin... on a case by case basis and
in moderate doses.
I'd hope that the democrats would try to steer to the center and take
a moderate approach.
Not surprisingly, Jones misses the point of Maher's comment
altogether.

Another indication of the lack of leftist intelligence.
Baxter
2019-06-09 14:54:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
After that, it's all up to the states. The idea being that Wyoming's
gun laws might not work well in New Jersey and visa versa. If
Wyoming's voters want fully-automatic weapons to be sold legally in
their fair state, so be it. If a Wyoming resident decides to move to
New Jersey (or any other state), he or she would then have to comply
with the laws in his or her new home state. The role of the fed is to
block someone from simply driving across a state line into a state
with loose gun laws to acquire a gun.
And just how are they going to do that? Build walls around each State?
State Border patrols? The US government can't even stop the flow of guns
across national borders, much less state borders. Your solution is a big
government police state.
max headroom
2019-06-09 16:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
After that, it's all up to the states. The idea being that Wyoming's
gun laws might not work well in New Jersey and visa versa. If
Wyoming's voters want fully-automatic weapons to be sold legally in
their fair state, so be it. If a Wyoming resident decides to move to
New Jersey (or any other state), he or she would then have to comply
with the laws in his or her new home state. The role of the fed is to
block someone from simply driving across a state line into a state
with loose gun laws to acquire a gun.
And just how are they going to do that? Build walls around each State?
State Border patrols? The US government can't even stop the flow of guns
across national borders, much less state borders. Your solution is a big
government police state.
Holy shit!!! Baxter wrote something intelligent!

Stop the presses!!!
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-06-09 17:43:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 09:26:42 -0700, "max headroom"
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
After that, it's all up to the states. The idea being that Wyoming's
gun laws might not work well in New Jersey and visa versa. If
Wyoming's voters want fully-automatic weapons to be sold legally in
their fair state, so be it. If a Wyoming resident decides to move to
New Jersey (or any other state), he or she would then have to comply
with the laws in his or her new home state. The role of the fed is to
block someone from simply driving across a state line into a state
with loose gun laws to acquire a gun.
And just how are they going to do that? Build walls around each State?
State Border patrols? The US government can't even stop the flow of guns
across national borders, much less state borders. Your solution is a big
government police state.
Holy shit!!! Baxter wrote something intelligent!
Stop the presses!!!
I can just see him pressing [DELETE] [DELETE] [DELETE] over and over
again when he realized what he wrote.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-09 19:03:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 14:54:37 +0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Baxter
Post by Baxter
And just how are they going to do that? Build walls around each State?
State Border patrols? The US government can't even stop the flow of guns
across national borders, much less state borders. Your solution is a big
government police state.
Well, that's pretty typical: if we don't have a *perfect* solution, we
should do nothing at all.

The US government has never paid any attention whatsoever to stopping
"the flow of guns across national borders"... would you buy cocaine in
the US and smuggle it into Colombia? Well, for the same reason,
nobody smuggles guns into the US.

To the extent that we can enforce the background checks, we would gain
two important tools for controlling gun violence:

1) States' laws may not be circumvented simply by driving across a
state line into a state that does not have a UBC law.

2) It would essentially end the secondary (aka: "gun show") market.
There could still be gun shows, of course; however, there would be no
incentive to pay a markup because the buyer would't be able to
sidestep the background check.

The gun lobby will predictably shriek like stuck pigs. We don't
really know how much interstate business there is; however, one of the
highest volume retail gun stores in the US
(https://www.cabelas.com/stores/Indiana/Hammond/024.jsp, 185,000
square feet of guns) is located four minutes outside the Chicago city
limit and Indiana has loose gun laws.

The secondary market is huge. Some estimates say that 60% of guns
sold in the US end up there.
max headroom
2019-06-09 22:31:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 14:54:37 +0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Baxter
Post by Baxter
And just how are they going to do that? Build walls around each State?
State Border patrols? The US government can't even stop the flow of guns
across national borders, much less state borders. Your solution is a big
government police state.
Well, that's pretty typical: if we don't have a *perfect* solution, we
should do nothing at all.
As opposed to, "Do SOMETHING! ANYTHING! We don't care how harebrained it is! Just do SOMETHING!"
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
The US government has never paid any attention whatsoever to stopping
"the flow of guns across national borders"...
Try bringing a gun across the Canadian or Mexican borders into the U.S.A. and get back to us.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
... would you buy cocaine in the US and smuggle it into Colombia? Well, for the same reason,
nobody smuggles guns into the US.
To the extent that we can enforce the background checks,...
Which is nil...
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
1) States' laws may not be circumvented simply by driving across a
state line into a state that does not have a UBC law.
UBC is unenforceable without universal gun registration. UGR is unenforceable.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2) It would essentially end the secondary (aka: "gun show") market.
There could still be gun shows, of course; however, there would be no
incentive to pay a markup because the buyer would't be able to
sidestep the background check.
People go to gun shows looking for bargains, not to pay above retail prices.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
The gun lobby will predictably shriek like stuck pigs. We don't
really know how much interstate business there is; however, one of the
highest volume retail gun stores in the US
(https://www.cabelas.com/stores/Indiana/Hammond/024.jsp, 185,000
square feet of guns) is located four minutes outside the Chicago city
limit and Indiana has loose gun laws.
Cabela's obeys all federal and state laws.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
The secondary market is huge. Some estimates say that 60% of guns
sold in the US end up there.
Whose estimates? Cites?
bigdog
2019-06-10 00:05:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by max headroom
UBC is unenforceable without universal gun registration. UGR is unenforceable.
And unacceptable.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 01:02:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:05:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by max headroom
UBC is unenforceable without universal gun registration. UGR is unenforceable.
And unacceptable.
< Shrug >

Background checks are going to happen. There is no way to do it
without registration, so get used to it.

It's coming.
max headroom
2019-06-10 01:50:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by bigdog
Post by max headroom
UBC is unenforceable without universal gun registration. UGR is unenforceable.
And unacceptable.
< Shrug >
Background checks are going to happen. There is no way to do it
without registration, so get used to it.
It's coming.
How are you going to register scores of millions of unregistered guns?
Just Wondering
2019-06-10 02:56:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by bigdog
Post by max headroom
UBC is unenforceable without universal gun registration. UGR is unenforceable.
And unacceptable.
< Shrug >
Background checks are going to happen. There is no way to do it
without registration, so get used to it. It's coming.
How are you going to register scores of millions of unregistered guns?
Guns? What guns? Where? I for one don't have any guns.

Multiply that by millions and millions.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 11:34:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 18:50:25 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
How are you going to register scores of millions of unregistered guns?
*Me*? I don't have a gun.
Just Wondering
2019-06-10 02:54:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 6/9/2019 7:02 PM, The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:05:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by max headroom
UBC is unenforceable without universal gun registration. UGR is unenforceable.
And unacceptable.
Background checks are going to happen. There is no way to
do it without registration, so get used to it.
You believe a law saying a thing will happen is the same thing
as the thing happening. You are mistaken.
bigdog
2019-06-10 09:59:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:05:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by max headroom
UBC is unenforceable without universal gun registration. UGR is unenforceable.
And unacceptable.
< Shrug >
Background checks are going to happen. There is no way to do it
without registration, so get used to it.
It's coming.
You couldn't exploit the Sandy Hook massacre to get UBC passed so what do you
think is going to be the catalyst that will allow it to succeed. You aren't
getting UBC and you aren't getting registration so deal with it. If you did
somehow manage to get registration passed, it would result in the largest act
of civil disobedience in the history of the country. In addition, you cannot
compel criminals to register their guns because it would amount to self
incrimination. So ruled SCOTUS in 1968.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 11:59:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 02:59:55 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
You couldn't exploit the Sandy Hook massacre to get UBC passed so what do you
think is going to be the catalyst that will allow it to succeed. You aren't
getting UBC and you aren't getting registration so deal with it. If you did
somehow manage to get registration passed, it would result in the largest act
of civil disobedience in the history of the country. In addition, you cannot
compel criminals to register their guns because it would amount to self
incrimination. So ruled SCOTUS in 1968.
It works very well where it's implemented effectively. I would point
to Switzerland as the working model. They have the minimal national
laws they need and the rest of it is up to the states (or "cantons",
as they're known there.)

We the people are finally going to be forced to admit that our little
social experiment with guns has very obviously failed on every
possible level... were Sandy Hook, in and of itself, an isolated
incident in an otherwise working paradigm, it wouldn't predicate
change. But it's not working. If it's working, why do we have to arm
our teachers and conduct periodic "lock down drills" in our schools?
If it's working so well, why is our gun homicide rate orders of
magnitude greater than any comparable country? Our gun experiment has
not only neither deterred nor prevented violent crimes, but has
actually facilitated them.

It's long past time to scrap the experiment and try something
different. I would guess that the easiest way to register a gun would
be at the point of transfer... meaning that, if you have your
grandpa's 1911 .45, keep it in your house, and don't sell it, then
it's... shall I say: "grandfathered"? Were it stolen, recovered, and
returned, that would be a transfer. Were it probated, that would be a
transfer. In Switzerland you can't buy ammo for an unregistered gun;
some US states are moving in that direction; however, I think we
should get UBC first.
bigdog
2019-06-10 12:45:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 02:59:55 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
You couldn't exploit the Sandy Hook massacre to get UBC passed so what do you
think is going to be the catalyst that will allow it to succeed. You aren't
getting UBC and you aren't getting registration so deal with it. If you did
somehow manage to get registration passed, it would result in the largest act
of civil disobedience in the history of the country. In addition, you cannot
compel criminals to register their guns because it would amount to self
incrimination. So ruled SCOTUS in 1968.
It works very well where it's implemented effectively. I would point
to Switzerland as the working model. They have the minimal national
laws they need and the rest of it is up to the states (or "cantons",
as they're known there.)
We the people are finally going to be forced to admit that our little
social experiment with guns has very obviously failed on every
possible level...
You don't speak for the people, asswipe. The people speak for themselves at the
ballot box where gun control has proven to be a political loser. Even the
intelligent libs like Bill Maher recognize that which is why he doesn't want a Democrat candidate for president talking about gun control.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
were Sandy Hook, in and of itself, an isolated
incident in an otherwise working paradigm, it wouldn't predicate
change. But it's not working. If it's working, why do we have to arm
our teachers and conduct periodic "lock down drills" in our schools?
Because we have more than our share of homicidal/suicidal maniacs who have
decided rather than just do the decent thing and kill themselves they will take
as many people with them as possible.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
If it's working so well, why is our gun homicide rate orders of
magnitude greater than any comparable country?
There are no comparable countries. Every country is different and our homicide
rate is in the middle of the pack.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Our gun experiment has
not only neither deterred nor prevented violent crimes, but has
actually facilitated them.
RKBA is not an experiment. Having the means to defend yourself is a fundamental
right.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
It's long past time to scrap the experiment and try something
different. I would guess that the easiest way to register a gun would
be at the point of transfer...
Stick your suggestion up your ass. It ain't happening in the US.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
meaning that, if you have your
grandpa's 1911 .45, keep it in your house, and don't sell it, then
it's... shall I say: "grandfathered"? Were it stolen, recovered, and
returned, that would be a transfer. Were it probated, that would be a
transfer. In Switzerland you can't buy ammo for an unregistered gun;
some US states are moving in that direction; however, I think we
should get UBC first.
Nobody gives a fuck what you think.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 13:35:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 05:45:55 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
You don't speak for the people, asswipe. The people speak for themselves at the
ballot box where gun control has proven to be a political loser. Even the
intelligent libs like Bill Maher recognize that which is why he doesn't want
a Democrat candidate for president talking about gun control.
And you think that you *do* speak for the people? You have to
remember that "the people" are essentially a heard of cattle...
functionally, anyway. They're interested only in instant
gratification and don't think much about the future. "I want it; I
want it; I want it; so give it to me." Never mind that we're running
record deficits: "I want a tax cut; give it to me."

When the bottom falls out, we'll blame the president, of course;
however, it's really the fault of the people who can't look ahead to
the logical consequences of their gratification.

You see, one cow doesn't make a stampede; however, when a critical
number decide to bolter, they *all* suddenly do and the placid heard
of cattle is abruptly something quite different. I would suggest that
a critical mass of people who have realized that something is wrong is
forming... we're likely to rush off like a pack of lemmings.

UBC is not particularly intrusive and might work... pray it works and
get behind it because doing nothing is no longer an option.
bigdog
2019-06-10 13:53:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 05:45:55 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
You don't speak for the people, asswipe. The people speak for themselves at the
ballot box where gun control has proven to be a political loser. Even the
intelligent libs like Bill Maher recognize that which is why he doesn't want
a Democrat candidate for president talking about gun control.
And you think that you *do* speak for the people? You have to
remember that "the people" are essentially a heard of cattle...
functionally, anyway. They're interested only in instant
gratification and don't think much about the future. "I want it; I
want it; I want it; so give it to me." Never mind that we're running
record deficits: "I want a tax cut; give it to me."
When the bottom falls out, we'll blame the president, of course;
however, it's really the fault of the people who can't look ahead to
the logical consequences of their gratification.
You see, one cow doesn't make a stampede; however, when a critical
number decide to bolter, they *all* suddenly do and the placid heard
of cattle is abruptly something quite different.
So first you tout "the people", then you denigrate them. Typical of a libtard.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
I would suggest that
a critical mass of people who have realized that something is wrong is
forming... we're likely to rush off like a pack of lemmings.
I would suggest you leave these discussions to the intelligent people.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
UBC is not particularly intrusive and might work... pray it works and
get behind it because doing nothing is no longer an option.
Voodoo might work too but I wouldn't wager on either one.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 17:32:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 06:53:55 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
So first you tout "the people", then you denigrate them. Typical of a libtard.
No comment.
max headroom
2019-06-10 14:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
UBC is not particularly intrusive ...
Not by itself.
...and might work...
Not by itself, not without gun registration, and *that* is extremely intrusive.
... pray it works...
Had we been doing that for the past fifty years, we might not be in the position we're in now.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 17:33:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:08:33 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Not by itself.
Whatever
max headroom
2019-06-11 02:42:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:08:33 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Not by itself.
Whatever
Jones sobs quietly as he realizes his backdoor to gun registration isn't really "backdoor."
Snit
2019-06-11 02:54:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:08:33 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Not by itself.
Whatever
Jones sobs quietly as he realizes his backdoor to gun registration isn't really "backdoor."
So let us look at doing so and go with what the research says works best.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Just Wondering
2019-06-10 16:50:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
UBC is not particularly intrusive and might work... pray
it works and get behind it because doing nothing is no
longer an option.
Bullshit. UBC is highly intrusive. It amounts to having to kiss the
royal ring for permission to exercise a constitutionally protected
right. The USA still has people who value liberty, and gun owners as a
group are high on the list.

UBC is a pipe dream.
Q: How are you going to get criminals to comply with UBC laws?
A: Uh, I don't no, I never thought of that.

To hear some people talk about it, you would think we don't
already have a whole bunch of gun control laws. They're wrong.
We could do with a few less of such laws.

No one's saying do nothing. But to come up with a solution
you first must correctly identify the problem. UBC does not
even attempt to identify the problem, and does not even begin
to address any workable solution.
Michael Ejercito
2019-06-10 17:42:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
UBC is not particularly intrusive and might work... pray
it works and get behind it because doing nothing is no
longer an option.
Bullshit. UBC is highly intrusive. It amounts to having to kiss the royal
ring for permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right. The
USA still has people who value liberty, and gun owners as a group are high
on the list.
It also exceeds Congress's enumerated powers.
UBC is a pipe dream.
Q: How are you going to get criminals to comply with UBC laws?
A: Uh, I don't no, I never thought of that.
Indeed.

There is no problem with requiring commercial retailers to do background
checks. In fact, retailers welcome it.

Here is why.

almost all stastes have anti-discrimination provisions, and these of
course apply to firearm retailers just as they do to bakeries.

Suppose a black man wearing gang colors and having gang tattoos walks
into a store to buy a gun. Should the retailer sell? If the retailer is not
required to do a background check and denies the sale because the customer
looked like a gangbanger, then the retailer will be visited by a lawyer the
next day with a copy of a complaint for racial discrimination. With a
background check, the decision to sell will rest purely on the results of
the check, as well as if the customer has sufficient funds or credit to pay.

This rationale does not apply AT ALL to private sales.


Michael


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 18:30:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:42:38 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "Michael
Post by Michael Ejercito
Bullshit. UBC is highly intrusive. It amounts to having to kiss the royal
ring for permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right. The
USA still has people who value liberty, and gun owners as a group are high
on the list.
It also exceeds Congress's enumerated powers.
In five years... ten max... you won't have any guns.
bigdog
2019-06-10 19:28:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:42:38 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "Michael
Post by Michael Ejercito
Bullshit. UBC is highly intrusive. It amounts to having to kiss the royal
ring for permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right. The
USA still has people who value liberty, and gun owners as a group are high
on the list.
It also exceeds Congress's enumerated powers.
In five years... ten max... you won't have any guns.
Want to bet $1000. I'll give you 10-1 odds.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-11 02:26:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:28:45 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:42:38 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "Michael
Post by Michael Ejercito
Bullshit. UBC is highly intrusive. It amounts to having to kiss the royal
ring for permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right. The
USA still has people who value liberty, and gun owners as a group are high
on the list.
It also exceeds Congress's enumerated powers.
In five years... ten max... you won't have any guns.
Want to bet $1000. I'll give you 10-1 odds.
There is nothing any more stupid than a Usenet bet... 'cept maybe
challenging the O.P. to a fist fight.

We'd have to define *any* guns.

Issue is, alpha-dog, that, contrary to your claims, shootings usually
occur where anyone may legally carry a gun. Moreover, the person
doing the shooting usually has the gun legally... well, until he
starts blowing people away, I mean.

There is simply no right to a gun... anyplace on earth. There never
has been any such "right", either in spirit or in practice. There has
never been any society on the planet that has recognized any such
absurd idea... including the United States. The fact that you point
to a convoluted ten-word phrase buried in the constitution doesn't
make it a human right.
max headroom
2019-06-11 03:55:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by bigdog
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:42:38 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "Michael Ejercito"
Post by Michael Ejercito
Bullshit. UBC is highly intrusive. It amounts to having to kiss the royal
ring for permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right. The
USA still has people who value liberty, and gun owners as a group are high
on the list.
It also exceeds Congress's enumerated powers.
In five years... ten max... you won't have any guns.
Want to bet $1000. I'll give you 10-1 odds.
There is nothing any more stupid than a Usenet bet... 'cept maybe
challenging the O.P. to a fist fight.
We'd have to define *any* guns.
Issue is, alpha-dog, that, contrary to your claims, shootings usually
occur where anyone may legally carry a gun. Moreover, the person
doing the shooting usually has the gun legally... well, until he
starts blowing people away, I mean.
There is simply no right to a gun... anyplace on earth. There never
has been any such "right", either in spirit or in practice. There has
never been any society on the planet that has recognized any such
absurd idea... including the United States. The fact that you point
to a convoluted ten-word phrase buried in the constitution doesn't
make it a human right.
You should write an amicus curiae for SCOTUS, if it ever comes up again in your lifetime.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-11 12:21:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:55:20 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
You should write an amicus curiae for SCOTUS, if it ever comes up again in your lifetime.
Whatever. Rights aren't created by a law or a constitution... they
are only recognized and enumerated. Human rights exist across
political boundaries. The locus of the right is in the humanity of
the object, not the law that recognizes it... the same right applies
to all human beings. Since the law does not create a right, a right
is never licensed, permitted, or regulated and may not be removed or
revoked.

Rights exist because society needs them to.

-> Society only functions when people participate; therefore, the
right to speak openly is recognized as the right to political
activity.

-> To participate, a person must be informed: hence, freedom of the
press.

-> A person's theological freedom is protected.

-> a person may not be forced to confess to a crime.

These same right are found across civilized societies.

These mythical "gun rights" popped into existence in about 1791 (I
think) when mentioned in a convoluted and unintelligible sentence that
was appended to the constitution as a compromise with the slave
holders stating that the fed could not disband the state militias.

As we practice "gun rights", the person has to be a legal resident...
the idea it's a "right" just went out the window. This right may
easily be stripped; it's not a right. It exists *only* in the US.
IOW, it's a right that *you* claim... and the gun lobby supports it
because they're in that business.

I don't know why I even bother.
Just Wondering
2019-06-11 15:13:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 6/11/2019 6:21 AM, The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:55:20 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
You should write an amicus curiae for SCOTUS, if it ever comes up again in your lifetime.
Whatever. Rights aren't created by a law or a constitution... they
are only recognized and enumerated. Human rights exist across
political boundaries. The locus of the right is in the humanity of
the object, not the law that recognizes it... the same right applies
to all human beings. Since the law does not create a right, a right
is never licensed, permitted, or regulated and may not be removed or
revoked.
Rights exist because society needs them to.
-> Society only functions when people participate; therefore, the
right to speak openly is recognized as the right to political
activity.
-> To participate, a person must be informed: hence, freedom of the
press.
-> A person's theological freedom is protected.
-> a person may not be forced to confess to a crime.
These same right are found across civilized societies.
These mythical "gun rights" popped into existence in about 1791 (I
think) when mentioned in a convoluted and unintelligible sentence that
was appended to the constitution as a compromise with the slave
holders stating that the fed could not disband the state militias.
As we practice "gun rights", the person has to be a legal resident...
the idea it's a "right" just went out the window. This right may
easily be stripped; it's not a right. It exists *only* in the US.
IOW, it's a right that *you* claim... and the gun lobby supports it
because they're in that business.
I don't know why I even bother.
So don't already.
max headroom
2019-06-11 15:44:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by max headroom
You should write an amicus curiae for SCOTUS, if it ever comes up again in your lifetime.
Whatever. Rights aren't created by a law or a constitution... they
are only recognized and enumerated. Human rights exist across
political boundaries. The locus of the right is in the humanity of
the object, not the law that recognizes it... the same right applies
to all human beings. Since the law does not create a right, a right
is never licensed, permitted, or regulated and may not be removed or
revoked.
Governments are authorized to limit or revoke rights.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Rights exist because society needs them to.
No, they don't.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
-> Society only functions when people participate; therefore, the
right to speak openly is recognized as the right to political activity.
China.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
-> To participate, a person must be informed: hence, freedom of the press.
China.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
-> A person's theological freedom is protected.
China.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
-> a person may not be forced to confess to a crime.
China.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
These same right are found across civilized societies.
So China is not a civilized society?
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
These mythical "gun rights" popped into existence in about 1791 (I
think) ...
You think wrong. The Founders enjoyed those rights their whole lives.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-11 20:37:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 08:44:55 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Governments are authorized to limit or revoke rights.
You're trying to tread both sides of the fence. On one hand, you
suggest that a government cannot even so much as perform a criminal
background check before you may may buy an assault weapon. On the
other, you suggest that your government may (in its wisdom) "limit or
revoke rights". I assume by that you mean: it may "limit or revoke
the rights" of other people (besides you); however, even a simple
background check being required of *you* is outside the enumerated
right of congress.

Which way would you like to go here, dude? Why are *you* so special?
max headroom
2019-06-11 21:13:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by max headroom
Governments are authorized to limit or revoke rights.
You're trying to tread both sides of the fence. On one hand, you
suggest that a government cannot even so much as perform a criminal
background check before you may may buy an assault weapon....
When did I say that? I say UBC is ineffective without mass gun registration, and THAT will never
happen.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
... On the other, you suggest that your government may (in its wisdom) "limit or
revoke rights". I assume by that you mean: it may "limit or revoke
the rights" of other people (besides you);...
I recognise the government is authorized to limit my rights should I be convicted of violating
certain laws.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
... however, even a simple background check being required of *you* is outside the enumerated
right of congress.
I won't argue that. The Commerce Clause has been twisted to infringe on many rights.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Which way would you like to go here, dude? Why are *you* so special?
I can't help it; I was born this way.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-12 00:57:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:13:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
You're trying to tread both sides of the fence. On one hand, you
suggest that a government cannot even so much as perform a criminal
background check before you may may buy an assault weapon....
When did I say that? I say UBC is ineffective without mass gun registration, and THAT will never
happen.
Dunno... was it you who wrote: "It also exceeds Congress's enumerated
powers."?

If not, then please accept my apology... things will become confused.

< previous >
Post by max headroom
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by Michael Ejercito
Bullshit. UBC is highly intrusive. It amounts to having to kiss the royal
ring for permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right. The
USA still has people who value liberty, and gun owners as a group are high
on the list.
It also exceeds Congress's enumerated powers.
< /previous >

OK, let's say that wasn't you; you say it wasn't and I'm OK with that.

I agree, UBC *must* include registration; otherwise, it's just an
"honor system" thing. I don't think that anyone besides dyed in the
wool gun loons have a problem with registration. If *I* were tasked
with designing the system, I wouldn't even try to register existing
guns held statically.

-> If you buy or sell a gun, it gets registered.

-> Anytime a gun transfers, it gets registered.

-> You can't carry an unregistered gun outside of your home.

In three decades, they'll all be registered... 99% will, anyway. It
took us three decades to get to our current bloodbath; we won't get
out of it in any less.

Do you believe that registration exceeds the power of congress?
max headroom
2019-06-12 04:36:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:13:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
You're trying to tread both sides of the fence. On one hand, you
suggest that a government cannot even so much as perform a criminal
background check before you may may buy an assault weapon....
When did I say that? I say UBC is ineffective without mass gun registration, and THAT will never
happen.
Dunno... was it you who wrote: "It also exceeds Congress's enumerated
powers."?
If not, then please accept my apology... things will become confused.
< previous >
Post by max headroom
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by Michael Ejercito
Bullshit. UBC is highly intrusive. It amounts to having to kiss the royal
ring for permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right. The
USA still has people who value liberty, and gun owners as a group are high
on the list.
It also exceeds Congress's enumerated powers.
< /previous >
OK, let's say that wasn't you; you say it wasn't and I'm OK with that.
It's amusing that you can't figure out who said what... and that you think you can lead us to the
promised land.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
I agree, UBC *must* include registration; otherwise, it's just an
"honor system" thing. I don't think that anyone besides dyed in the
wool gun loons have a problem with registration. If *I* were tasked
with designing the system, I wouldn't even try to register existing
guns held statically.
-> If you buy or sell a gun, it gets registered.
Widely ignored. Enforced only by FFLs.

(Finally you will get your mythological markups over retail for 2nd hand guns.)
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
-> Anytime a gun transfers, it gets registered.
Widely ignored.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
-> You can't carry an unregistered gun outside of your home.
Back to SCOTUS.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
In three decades, they'll all be registered... 99% will, anyway. It
took us three decades to get to our current bloodbath; we won't get
out of it in any less.
Do you believe that registration exceeds the power of congress?
Obviously.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-12 15:08:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 21:36:50 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
It's amusing that you can't figure out who said what... and that you think you can lead us to the
promised land.
Widely ignored. Enforced only by FFLs.
(Finally you will get your mythological markups over retail for 2nd hand guns.) Widely ignored.
Back to SCOTUS. Obviously.
I do wish you would try to write in complete sentences.

Once I have read a message, I don't keep it around.

< me > Do you believe that registration exceeds the power of congress?

< you > Obviously.

I just take your word for what you said or didn't say. If I thought
you were dishonest, I just wouldn't talk to you. (Uuuh... is it
obvious that you *believe* it or do you think that it's obvious such
is outside congressional power... or both? Probably a silly
question.)

---

SCOTUS has become a political tool. It always has been to some
extent; however, now it's exclusively that. Let's say
(hypothetically) that the powers of darkness (me) were to pack the
court by... say... assassination or something equally unethical... and
that this court subsequently found that the second amendment were
unconstitutionally vague and, therefore, null. How would you respond
if someone were to cite that decision?

(I think I can pretty well guess the gist of your answer.) Assume I'm
right: why do you believe I will have a different answer for you at
this time?

---

What else? (No wonder you like 2A; that's how you write!)
Post by max headroom
Widely ignored.
What is "widely ignored"? Laws you don't like, I assume? I don't
like the IRS, but I damn sure don't ignore them... they tend to make
examples out of people who do that.

---

It would be difficult to enforce registering existing guns that are
held in homes... the going door to door is a big loser. OTOH, if all
sales went through a licensed dealer, then the data are simply
captured in the transaction. Yeah, there will be some
cash-on-the-street deals, but few because they couldn't advertise...
just make examples out of people who are caught. Nobody (much) sells
guns on the street in Switzerland.

After that, the federal government is out of the gun business. Now
it's all between you and your state. If your state allows fully
automatic assault rifles (or anything else), fine.

You see, UBC means you cannot simply drive across a state line and buy
off the record. Since the BC goes to the person's homestate, they
enforce their laws at the point of sale. You have a state of
residence; that's the set of laws that apply to the sale even if
you're buying in a different state... so long as it's legal in the
state you're in at POS.

If you currently have a gun and never transfer it, you don't have to
register it and it's not illegal to keep it. You'd be breaking the
law if you sold it without a BC (and so would the buyer).

Simple... in theory. (I suspect you'd start blowing stuff up?)
bigdog
2019-06-12 15:42:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
SCOTUS has become a political tool. It always has been to some
extent; however, now it's exclusively that.
Translation. Conservatives have been a majority on the Supreme Courts since the
Reagan administration and they are blocking the liberals from running roughshod
over the Constitution.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-12 17:38:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 08:42:35 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
SCOTUS has become a political tool. It always has been to some
extent; however, now it's exclusively that.
Translation. Conservatives have been a majority on the Supreme Courts since the
Reagan administration and they are blocking the liberals from running roughshod
over the Constitution.
Please don't "translate"... I say what I mean and don't need a moron
to "translate" it.

The Garland nomination was stolen. We don't have a problem with
anything we do to reset the balance. If the dems retake control, it's
likely to take a rifle shot to do that. Hey! This is America... that
happens every day here.

We don't care any more about the constitution than you do.
Michael Ejercito
2019-06-11 16:39:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:55:20 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
You should write an amicus curiae for SCOTUS, if it ever comes up again in your lifetime.
Whatever. Rights aren't created by a law or a constitution... they
are only recognized and enumerated. Human rights exist across
political boundaries. The locus of the right is in the humanity of
the object, not the law that recognizes it... the same right applies
to all human beings. Since the law does not create a right, a right
is never licensed, permitted, or regulated and may not be removed or
revoked.
Rights exist because society needs them to.
-> Society only functions when people participate; therefore, the
right to speak openly is recognized as the right to political
activity.
-> To participate, a person must be informed: hence, freedom of the
press.
Like it did in the USSR?
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
-> A person's theological freedom is protected.
Ancient Israel authorized executing those who worshipped the sun, the
moon, or the stars.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
-> a person may not be forced to confess to a crime.
These same right are found across civilized societies.
These mythical "gun rights" popped into existence in about 1791 (I
think) when mentioned in a convoluted and unintelligible sentence that
was appended to the constitution as a compromise with the slave
holders stating that the fed could not disband the state militias.
It had nothing to do with slavery.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
As we practice "gun rights", the person has to be a legal resident...
the idea it's a "right" just went out the window. This right may
easily be stripped; it's not a right. It exists *only* in the US.
IOW, it's a right that *you* claim... and the gun lobby supports it
because they're in that business.
It is a fundamental right and your denials will not change it.


Michael


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-11 20:38:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 09:39:40 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "Michael
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
-> To participate, a person must be informed: hence, freedom of the
press.
Like it did in the USSR?
Yeah, just like that.
bigdog
2019-06-11 19:16:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:55:20 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
You should write an amicus curiae for SCOTUS, if it ever comes up again in your lifetime.
Whatever. Rights aren't created by a law or a constitution... they
are only recognized and enumerated. Human rights exist across
political boundaries. The locus of the right is in the humanity of
the object, not the law that recognizes it... the same right applies
to all human beings. Since the law does not create a right, a right
is never licensed, permitted, or regulated and may not be removed or
revoked.
Rights exist because society needs them to.
-> Society only functions when people participate; therefore, the
right to speak openly is recognized as the right to political
activity.
-> To participate, a person must be informed: hence, freedom of the
press.
-> A person's theological freedom is protected.
-> a person may not be forced to confess to a crime.
These same right are found across civilized societies.
These mythical "gun rights" popped into existence in about 1791 (I
think) when mentioned in a convoluted and unintelligible sentence that
was appended to the constitution as a compromise with the slave
holders stating that the fed could not disband the state militias.
As we practice "gun rights", the person has to be a legal resident...
the idea it's a "right" just went out the window. This right may
easily be stripped; it's not a right. It exists *only* in the US.
IOW, it's a right that *you* claim... and the gun lobby supports it
because they're in that business.
I don't know why I even bother.
Jonesy is never funnier than when he tried to sound like an intellectual. It
never works.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-11 20:41:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:16:08 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:55:20 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
You should write an amicus curiae for SCOTUS, if it ever comes up again in your lifetime.
Whatever. Rights aren't created by a law or a constitution... they
are only recognized and enumerated. Human rights exist across
political boundaries. The locus of the right is in the humanity of
the object, not the law that recognizes it... the same right applies
to all human beings. Since the law does not create a right, a right
is never licensed, permitted, or regulated and may not be removed or
revoked.
Rights exist because society needs them to.
-> Society only functions when people participate; therefore, the
right to speak openly is recognized as the right to political
activity.
-> To participate, a person must be informed: hence, freedom of the
press.
-> A person's theological freedom is protected.
-> a person may not be forced to confess to a crime.
These same right are found across civilized societies.
These mythical "gun rights" popped into existence in about 1791 (I
think) when mentioned in a convoluted and unintelligible sentence that
was appended to the constitution as a compromise with the slave
holders stating that the fed could not disband the state militias.
As we practice "gun rights", the person has to be a legal resident...
the idea it's a "right" just went out the window. This right may
easily be stripped; it's not a right. It exists *only* in the US.
IOW, it's a right that *you* claim... and the gun lobby supports it
because they're in that business.
I don't know why I even bother.
Jonesy is never funnier than when he tried to sound like an intellectual. It
never works.
Well, let me put it this way: I write in complete sentences.

If there's anything else, you're welcome to bring it up.

(Who the fuck is "Jonesy", please?)
bigdog
2019-06-11 18:52:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:28:45 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:42:38 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "Michael
Post by Michael Ejercito
Bullshit. UBC is highly intrusive. It amounts to having to kiss the royal
ring for permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right. The
USA still has people who value liberty, and gun owners as a group are high
on the list.
It also exceeds Congress's enumerated powers.
In five years... ten max... you won't have any guns.
Want to bet $1000. I'll give you 10-1 odds.
There is nothing any more stupid than a Usenet bet... 'cept maybe
challenging the O.P. to a fist fight.
Well then it should be right up your alley.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
We'd have to define *any* guns.
Issue is, alpha-dog, that, contrary to your claims, shootings usually
occur where anyone may legally carry a gun.
Columbine. No. VaTech. No. Aurora. No. Sandy Hook. No. Virginia Beach. No.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Moreover, the person
doing the shooting usually has the gun legally... well, until he
starts blowing people away, I mean.
They bought their guns after passing background checks so your UBC would have
done nothing to deter them. The exception was Columbine where the shooters had
a straw purchaser buy the guns for them illegally so your UBC wouldn't have
deterred then either.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
There is simply no right to a gun...
There most certainly is. In the US our government recognizes the right and our
Constitution protects the right.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
anyplace on earth. There never
has been any such "right", either in spirit or in practice.
You never stop lying, do you.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
There has
never been any society on the planet that has recognized any such
absurd idea... including the United States.
SCOTUS says you are lying.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
The fact that you point
to a convoluted ten-word phrase buried in the constitution doesn't
make it a human right.
You're right. It was already a right before that amendment was ratified. The
wording of the amendment recognized that the right already existed and the
government was barred from infringing upon that right.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-11 20:42:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dunno. I can't follow your stream of consciousness. Are you a fan of
James Joyce?
Just Wondering
2019-06-10 16:39:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by bigdog
You couldn't exploit the Sandy Hook massacre to get UBC passed so what do you
think is going to be the catalyst that will allow it to succeed. You aren't
getting UBC and you aren't getting registration so deal with it. If you did
somehow manage to get registration passed, it would result in the largest act
of civil disobedience in the history of the country. In addition, you cannot
compel criminals to register their guns because it would amount to self
incrimination. So ruled SCOTUS in 1968.
It works very well where it's implemented effectively. I would point
to Switzerland as the working model. They have the minimal national
laws they need and the rest of it is up to the states (or "cantons",
as they're known there.)
We the people are finally going to be forced to admit that our little
social experiment with guns has very obviously failed on every
possible level...
You don't speak for the people, asswipe. The people speak for themselves at the
ballot box where gun control has proven to be a political loser. Even the
intelligent libs like Bill Maher recognize that which is why he doesn't
want a Democrat candidate for president talking about gun control.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
were Sandy Hook, in and of itself, an isolated
incident in an otherwise working paradigm, it wouldn't predicate
change. But it's not working. If it's working, why do we have to arm
our teachers and conduct periodic "lock down drills" in our schools?
Because we have more than our share of homicidal/suicidal maniacs who
have decided rather than just do the decent thing and kill themselves
they will take as many people with them as possible.
Except that we don't "have" to arm teachers or conduct lock down
drills. We CHOOSE whether to do those things, and most of the time
we actually still choose not to.
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
If it's working so well, why is our gun homicide rate orders of
magnitude greater than any comparable country?
There are no comparable countries. Every country is different and
our homicide rate is in the middle of the pack.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Our gun experiment has not only neither deterred nor prevented
violent crimes, but has actually facilitated them.
RKBA is not an experiment. Having the means to defend yourself is
a fundamental right.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
It's long past time to scrap the experiment and try something
different. I would guess that the easiest way to register a
gun would be at the point of transfer...
Stick your suggestion up your ass. It ain't happening in the US.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
meaning that, if you have your
grandpa's 1911 .45, keep it in your house, and don't sell it, then
it's... shall I say: "grandfathered"? Were it stolen, recovered, and
returned, that would be a transfer. Were it probated, that would be a
transfer. In Switzerland you can't buy ammo for an unregistered gun;
some US states are moving in that direction; however, I think we
should get UBC first.
Nobody gives a f--- what you think.
Ditto to the above. I was about to post something similar,
but saw that you beat me to it.
Michael Ejercito
2019-06-10 17:30:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:05:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by max headroom
UBC is unenforceable without universal gun registration. UGR is unenforceable.
And unacceptable.
< Shrug >
Background checks are going to happen. There is no way to do it
without registration, so get used to it.
It's coming.
background checks are beyond the power of Congress to enact.

here are the numerated powers of the Constitution.

The Congress shall have power

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Congress only has these powers. Requiring background checks on all sales do not arise from any enumerated power, so Congress can not enact such a law. Such a law would be unconstitutional.


Michael
Just Wondering
2019-06-10 17:51:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:05:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by max headroom
UBC is unenforceable without universal gun registration. UGR is unenforceable.
And unacceptable.
< Shrug >
Background checks are going to happen. There is no way to do it
without registration, so get used to it.
It's coming.
background checks are beyond the power of Congress to enact.
here are the numerated powers of the Constitution.
The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Congress only has these powers. Requiring background checks on all sales do not arise from any enumerated power, so Congress can not enact such a law. Such a law would be unconstitutional.
1. FDR pushes expansive legislation to implement his "New Deal".
2. SCOTUS correctly keeps holding the laws as unconstitutional.
3. FDR threatens to pack the court with new judges until he gets
what he wants, Constitution be damned.
4. SCOTUS undertakes an unprecedented, expansion of the Commerce
Clause (Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among
the several states) so as to make FDR's unconstitutional laws
"constitutional".
5. Result: Congress now pokes its nose into a myriad areas that
the Constitution did not grant it power to act.

So you can thank FDR for the current SNAFU of Congressional doing
stuff like regulating guns even when it's not really interstate
commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAFU
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 18:28:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:30:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Michael Ejercito
background checks are beyond the power of Congress to enact.
I'm aware of that; however, do it anyway... call it: "necessary and
proper..." Yeah, a few gun loons will stage an insurrection... maybe
blow up a federal building or two.

Remember Timmy McVeigh? His friends all turned state's evidence and
they stuck a needle in him. I always wondered why he didn't ride the
fireball to glory... heck, they caught him in less than an hour.

That's what I'd do if I were gonna blow up a federal building... (I'm
not going to blow up a federal building)... but, if I *did*, I'd be
sitting on the charge, telling God to close his eyes, and giving Him a
big surprise!
bigdog
2019-06-10 19:30:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:30:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Michael Ejercito
background checks are beyond the power of Congress to enact.
I'm aware of that; however, do it anyway... call it: "necessary and
proper..." Yeah, a few gun loons will stage an insurrection... maybe
blow up a federal building or two.
Remember Timmy McVeigh? His friends all turned state's evidence and
they stuck a needle in him. I always wondered why he didn't ride the
fireball to glory... heck, they caught him in less than an hour.
That's what I'd do if I were gonna blow up a federal building... (I'm
not going to blow up a federal building)... but, if I *did*, I'd be
sitting on the charge, telling God to close his eyes, and giving Him a
big surprise!
You're so dumb you'd probably blow yourself up before you reached the federal
building.
Michael Ejercito
2019-06-11 00:52:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 2:28:31 PM UTC-4, The Fateful Lightning of His
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:30:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Michael Ejercito
background checks are beyond the power of Congress to enact.
I'm aware of that; however, do it anyway... call it: "necessary and
proper..." Yeah, a few gun loons will stage an insurrection... maybe
blow up a federal building or two.
So this cultist supports Congress exceeding its constitutional
authority.

I wonder if this cultist also supports abrogating, the 4th, 5th, 14th,
and ESPECIALLY the 13th Amendments as well.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Remember Timmy McVeigh? His friends all turned state's evidence and
they stuck a needle in him. I always wondered why he didn't ride the
fireball to glory... heck, they caught him in less than an hour.
That's what I'd do if I were gonna blow up a federal building... (I'm
not going to blow up a federal building)... but, if I *did*, I'd be
sitting on the charge, telling God to close his eyes, and giving Him a
big surprise!
You're so dumb you'd probably blow yourself up before you reached the federal
building.
You got that right!


Michael


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-11 02:27:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:30:22 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:30:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Michael Ejercito
background checks are beyond the power of Congress to enact.
I'm aware of that; however, do it anyway... call it: "necessary and
proper..." Yeah, a few gun loons will stage an insurrection... maybe
blow up a federal building or two.
Remember Timmy McVeigh? His friends all turned state's evidence and
they stuck a needle in him. I always wondered why he didn't ride the
fireball to glory... heck, they caught him in less than an hour.
That's what I'd do if I were gonna blow up a federal building... (I'm
not going to blow up a federal building)... but, if I *did*, I'd be
sitting on the charge, telling God to close his eyes, and giving Him a
big surprise!
You're so dumb you'd probably blow yourself up before you reached the federal
building.
Well, if I did, I'd pick co-conspiritors I could trust.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 01:00:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 15:31:35 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
As opposed to, "Do SOMETHING! ANYTHING! We don't care how harebrained it is! Just do SOMETHING!"
As opposed to "Do nothing"?

Yeah.
max headroom
2019-06-10 01:47:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by max headroom
As opposed to, "Do SOMETHING! ANYTHING! We don't care how harebrained it is! Just do SOMETHING!"
As opposed to "Do nothing"?
Yeah.
I guess that's the difference between liberal and conservative, huh?
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 12:02:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 18:47:54 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
I guess that's the difference between liberal and conservative, huh?
Well, the first step in solving a problem is to agree that we have a
problem. I believe that, as a society, we're about there. I think
the tide has shifter to: "*Something* has to change."

Exactly what that is is open to discussion. IMHO, UBC is minimal.
bigdog
2019-06-10 12:47:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 18:47:54 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
I guess that's the difference between liberal and conservative, huh?
Well, the first step in solving a problem is to agree that we have a
problem. I believe that, as a society, we're about there. I think
the tide has shifter to: "*Something* has to change."
Exactly what that is is open to discussion. IMHO, UBC is minimal.
Eliminating gun free zones would be a good first step.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 13:51:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 05:47:02 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Eliminating gun free zones would be a good first step.
I have heard it said that "A good definition of insanity is 'doing the
same thing over and over expecting a different outcome this time.'" I
don't recall where I heard that or even if it's so; however, what
you're suggesting is a good example of continuing to do what has
obviously failed on every possible level and hoping for a different
outcome.

Besides, where would I find one of these "gun free zones" that you're
so keen on eliminating, anyway? I would guess that the boarding area
of an airport would qualify... have you ever heard of a mass shooting
in the boarding area of an airport? OK, then... where else? I don't
think there are any left and I'd like you not to carry firearms onto
an airplane, please. (Call me old fashioned, I guess.)
max headroom
2019-06-10 14:24:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 05:47:02 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Eliminating gun free zones would be a good first step.
I have heard it said that "A good definition of insanity is 'doing the
same thing over and over expecting a different outcome this time.'" I
don't recall where I heard that or even if it's so; however, what
you're suggesting is a good example of continuing to do what has
obviously failed on every possible level and hoping for a different
outcome.
Exactly. Proliferating gun-free zones isn't creating islands of safety in a mad world.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Besides, where would I find one of these "gun free zones" that you're
so keen on eliminating, anyway?...
Just about any federal building in the country, your local post office is one. Your state laws
create more.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
... I would guess that the boarding area
of an airport would qualify... have you ever heard of a mass shooting
in the boarding area of an airport?...
Now Jones has caught "mass shooting" fever.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
... OK, then... where else? I don't think there are any left ...
Try your local courthouse, for one.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
...and I'd like you not to carry firearms onto an airplane, please. (Call me old fashioned, I
guess.)
Before the spate of hijackings, no one cared if you were packing heat on a flight.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 17:41:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:24:13 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Exactly. Proliferating gun-free zones isn't creating islands of safety in a mad world.
I'm not following you; I do not know what "gun-free zones" you're
talking about. I don't believe there are any... well, besides
airports.

Did we agree that the boarding gate area of an airport is gun free?
Did we agree that we have never had a mass shooting therein?

Now, where else did you have in mind? ... and why?
max headroom
2019-06-11 02:42:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:24:13 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Exactly. Proliferating gun-free zones isn't creating islands of safety in a mad world.
I'm not following you; I do not know what "gun-free zones" you're
talking about. I don't believe there are any... well, besides
airports.
Did we agree that the boarding gate area of an airport is gun free?
Did we agree that we have never had a mass shooting therein?
Now, where else did you have in mind? ... and why?
You been called for jury duty lately?
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-11 12:28:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 19:42:18 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
You been called for jury duty lately?
OK, you can't carry a gun into a courtroom. Tough tit!

So, if you could carry your gun into courthouses, how, exactly, would
that prevent or deter mass shootings?
max headroom
2019-06-11 15:41:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by max headroom
You been called for jury duty lately?
OK, you can't carry a gun into a courtroom. Tough tit!
So, if you could carry your gun into courthouses, how, exactly, would
that prevent or deter mass shootings?
You said you couldn't think of any truly "gun-free zones" other than airport boarding areas. You've
been educated.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-11 21:12:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 08:41:40 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by max headroom
You been called for jury duty lately?
OK, you can't carry a gun into a courtroom. Tough tit!
So, if you could carry your gun into courthouses, how, exactly, would
that prevent or deter mass shootings?
You said you couldn't think of any truly "gun-free zones" other than airport boarding areas. You've
been educated.
I said: "OK, you can't carry a gun into a courtroom."

Q: How many shootings have occurred inside of the secured perimeter of
a courthouse?

A: Zero.

Q: Of the many shootings that occurred just outside of the secured
perimeter of a courthouse, how many occurred in an area in which
civilian carry was permitted?

A: All of them.

Q: Of the many shootings that occurred just outside of the secured
perimeter of a courthouse, how many were stopped by armed civilians?

A: Zero.

May I rest my case?

But, OK... you can't carry a gun into a courtroom... or onto an
airplane... or into a post office. However, we have all of our mass
shootings where people carry guns because you gotta have a gun to
shoot a bunch of people.
max headroom
2019-06-12 04:13:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by max headroom
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 19:42:18 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom"
Post by max headroom
You been called for jury duty lately?
OK, you can't carry a gun into a courtroom. Tough tit!
So, if you could carry your gun into courthouses, how, exactly, would
that prevent or deter mass shootings?
You said you couldn't think of any truly "gun-free zones" other than airport boarding areas.
You've been educated.
I said: "OK, you can't carry a gun into a courtroom."
Q: How many shootings have occurred inside of the secured perimeter of
a courthouse?
A: Zero.
Wrong. Brian Gene Nichols, for one., in Atlanta. And don't forget the Soledad Brothers in Marin
County.
bigdog
2019-06-10 15:11:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 05:47:02 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Eliminating gun free zones would be a good first step.
I have heard it said that "A good definition of insanity is 'doing the
same thing over and over expecting a different outcome this time.'" I
don't recall where I heard that or even if it's so; however, what
you're suggesting is a good example of continuing to do what has
obviously failed on every possible level and hoping for a different
outcome.
No, we haven't eliminated gun free zones. The places where so many of these
massacres take place are where they have NO GUNS signs. Of course those places
cease to be gun free zones as soon as a madman decides to attack one. He has
the advantage of knowing there will be no one there who can offer armed
resistance. He has a free reign until the cops arrive, 10 minutes and 20 dead
bodies later.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Besides, where would I find one of these "gun free zones" that you're
so keen on eliminating, anyway?
Schools, shopping centers, theaters, my bowling alley. Any place that posts a
NO GUNS sign.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
I would guess that the boarding area
of an airport would qualify... have you ever heard of a mass shooting
in the boarding area of an airport? OK, then... where else? I don't
think there are any left and I'd like you not to carry firearms onto
an airplane, please. (Call me old fashioned, I guess.)
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 18:01:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 08:11:41 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
The places where so many of these
massacres take place are where they have NO GUNS signs.
Name one, please. Name just *one* place with a "no guns" sign wherein
a mass shooting took place.

There are almost no signed premises left; insurance "best practices"
guidelines have discouraged signing for years because a business does
*not* want to call attention to guns. That said, virtually *all*
businesses have "no guns" by policy... again, per their insurance
carrier's dictates. (I don't know where you work, but, unless you're
a teacher, I know you can't carry a gun.)

But that's private property. Are you suggesting that we dictate what
property owners may and may not do within the bounds of their
property? Are you not still able to specify appropriate behavior for
your house guests?
bigdog
2019-06-10 18:55:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 08:11:41 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
The places where so many of these
massacres take place are where they have NO GUNS signs.
Name one, please. Name just *one* place with a "no guns" sign wherein
a mass shooting took place.
Just one. Aurora, CO movie theater. How many more would you like?
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
There are almost no signed premises left;
I can't remember the last time I entered a school building that didn't have
one. I know my bowling alley has them. The Easton shopping center on the north
east side of Columbus, OH has one in its main mall. Haven't been to all the
buildings but I would guess they have them too since it is (or was) under one
management.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
insurance "best practices"
guidelines have discouraged signing for years because a business does
*not* want to call attention to guns.
Cite. Oh that's right. You pulled that out of your ass. Never mind.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
That said, virtually *all* businesses have "no guns" by policy...
If they don't post the sign, it's not a policy. They can prohibit their
employees from bringing weapons to work by putting such a restriction in the
employee manual but if the want to prohibit their customers, they must post a
sign.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
again, per their insurance
carrier's dictates. (I don't know where you work, but, unless you're
a teacher, I know you can't carry a gun.)
I'm retired. I carry a gun almost everywhere I go. The one exception is my
bowling alley which does post a NO GUN sign. I make an exception for them
because I bowl with a group of retirees and we bowl when they first open up in
the morning and often we are the only ones there. The exception is Thursdays
when there is a women's league that shares the place with us. I keep my eye on
them but so far none of them has seemed too menacing.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
But that's private property. Are you suggesting that we dictate what
property owners may and may not do within the bounds of their
property? Are you not still able to specify appropriate behavior for
your house guests?
No, I think every property owner should have the right to establish the policies
on their property and I as a customer have a right to decide if I want to do
business at places where I am not welcome with my gun. So far the only
exception I have made is for my bowling alley.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-11 02:58:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Name one, please. Name just *one* place with a "no guns" sign wherein
a mass shooting took place.
Just one. Aurora, CO movie theater. How many more would you like?
They had a business *policy* prohibiting guns on premises exactly like
every other business has; however, there was no sign. It is highly
unusual to find such a sign anyplace for several reasons:

1) The front door of a business is that *last* place you want such a
sign because it's prime advertising space.

2) A business always writes it into policy and makes sure employees
know it. There are copies of the sign just in case someone wants to
"open carry".

3) A sign calls attention to guns. Not even post offices are signed
for that reason. (Try asking about guns and see what they say.)

Had you or James Eagan Holmes or anyone else walked into the theater
on that Dark Knight (pun intended), you (or they) would have been
perfectly legal because you didn't know about the policy. (You know
now because I just told you.) I can't think of a single theater that
is signed... or any other business including Costco. That doesn't
mean they allow guns... it just means they don't have a sign.

Go find a sign and post a picture. Maybe you can find one, but it
won't be easy.
max headroom
2019-06-11 05:20:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Name one, please. Name just *one* place with a "no guns" sign wherein
a mass shooting took place.
Just one. Aurora, CO movie theater. How many more would you like?
They had a business *policy* prohibiting guns on premises exactly like
every other business has; however, there was no sign. It is highly
1) The front door of a business is that *last* place you want such a
sign because it's prime advertising space.
2) A business always writes it into policy and makes sure employees
know it. There are copies of the sign just in case someone wants to
"open carry".
3) A sign calls attention to guns. Not even post offices are signed
for that reason. (Try asking about guns and see what they say.)
Had you or James Eagan Holmes or anyone else walked into the theater
on that Dark Knight (pun intended), you (or they) would have been
perfectly legal because you didn't know about the policy. (You know
now because I just told you.) I can't think of a single theater that
is signed... or any other business including Costco. That doesn't
mean they allow guns... it just means they don't have a sign.
Go find a sign and post a picture. Maybe you can find one, but it
won't be easy.
If I knew where to post the picture, I could-- Costco in Prescott, AZ.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-11 12:46:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 22:20:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
If I knew where to post the picture, I could-- Costco in Prescott, AZ.
It's possible, I suppose. I'll just take your word for it. (You
don't need to post a picture.) Costco was one of the first signed
businesses and also the last... if it's still up and you say it is.
Risk managers don't like the signs, not because they want people
carrying guns (they *really* don't), but because the signs call
attention to guns and do no particular good. I thought Costco had
removed them... maybe it's up to local management.

But, Costco is private property. They can also tell you to remove a
MAGA hat or a "Beto" T-shirt. If it offends you, shop elsewhere;
however, anyplace you shop will still have a "no guns" business and
personnel policy. Any business policy will always have what are
called the "big three": NO(guns, drugs, sexual harassment)! If you
don't have those in writing, many insurance carriers won't write an
insurance policy.
bigdog
2019-06-11 19:13:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Name one, please. Name just *one* place with a "no guns" sign wherein
a mass shooting took place.
Just one. Aurora, CO movie theater. How many more would you like?
They had a business *policy* prohibiting guns on premises exactly like
every other business has; however, there was no sign. It is highly
Were you trying to see how many lies you could squeeze into a short paragraph.
I think you outdid yourself.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
1) The front door of a business is that *last* place you want such a
sign because it's prime advertising space.
It is where a sign is REQUIRED if a business does not want CCW licensees from
bringing their weapons onto the premises. Without such a sign, it is legal for
the carrier to enter the building with his gun.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2) A business always writes it into policy and makes sure employees
know it. There are copies of the sign just in case someone wants to
"open carry".
There is a difference between how a business can bar employees and customers
from carrying guns onto the premises. With employees, you only need to put it
in the employee manual. With customers, if you don't want them to bring their
weapons on sight, you MUST post a sign. A business cannot play I've Got a Secret
and have a policy against customers carrying weapons and not post a sign to that
effect. You seem to be getting stupider by the day. You should get checked for
early onset dementia. Actually, it might not be early.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
3) A sign calls attention to guns. Not even post offices are signed
for that reason. (Try asking about guns and see what they say.)
The Post Office doesn't need to post a sign because federal law prohibits
concealed carry in a federal building.

"Under federal law, guns cannot be taken into federal facilities except for 'hunting or other lawful purposes.'".
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Had you or James Eagan Holmes or anyone else walked into the theater
on that Dark Knight (pun intended), you (or they) would have been
perfectly legal because you didn't know about the policy. (You know
now because I just told you.) I can't think of a single theater that
is signed... or any other business including Costco. That doesn't
mean they allow guns... it just means they don't have a sign.
That might be the dumbest thing you have ever written in this newsgroup and that
is saying something. The Aurora theater did have a no gun sign.

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2013/01/op-ed_the_truth_about_gun-free_zones.html

In absence of such a sign, it would have been legal for a CCW holder to carry a
gun onto the premises. Customers are not expected to be clairvoyant. If a private business doesn't want CCW holders from bringing their weapons on to the
premises, they are REQUIRED to post the NO GUNS signs prominently on any
entrance to the building.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Go find a sign and post a picture. Maybe you can find one, but it
won't be easy.
It won't be easy because most businesses in my area do not have a NO GUNS
policy. The bowling alley where a bowl twice a week in the cold weather months
does have such a sign but that is an hour away. I do know of a pet shop in Mt.
Vernon, OH that does have such a sign. At least they did two years ago which is
when I last went there. Once again, if a business does not post a sign, CCW
holders have a legal right to carry their weapons onto the premises. That is
the law in Ohio and from what I have read, that is the law just about everywhere.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-11 21:27:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:13:43 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
It is where a sign is REQUIRED if a business does not want CCW licensees from
bringing their weapons onto the premises. Without such a sign, it is legal for
the carrier to enter the building with his gun.
You don't read very well, do you? Your first sentence is dicey; it
should read: a sign is required if you intend to make it meet the
legal definition of trespass to carry a gun; I don't GAF what you
*want*.

"Without such a sign, it is legal for the carrier to enter the
building with his gun."

Uuuuh, yeah... isn't that what I just said? Isn't that the whole
point of this discussion?

On July 20, 2012, the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado had
no such sign. You or anyone else could have legally carried a gun
into the theater. It was against the theater's business policy;
however, had you walked across the street to McDonald's, you'd have
found a similar policy. The person walking into the theater didn't
know about the policy.

BTW, the shooter was also perfectly legal until he pulled the trigger.
That's the issue... you meet the enemy and he is you.
max headroom
2019-06-12 03:57:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On July 20, 2012, the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado had
no such sign....
It did.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
... You or anyone else could have legally carried a gun
into the theater. It was against the theater's business policy;
however, had you walked across the street to McDonald's, you'd have
found a similar policy. The person walking into the theater didn't
know about the policy.
BTW, the shooter was also perfectly legal until he pulled the trigger.
That's the issue... you meet the enemy and he is you.
No, he wasn't. He snuck in a back door, decked out in his pseudo-SWAT regalia. Did you really think
he walked right up to the box office and bought a ticket dressed up like that?
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-12 22:59:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 20:57:40 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
No, he wasn't. He snuck in a back door, decked out in his pseudo-SWAT regalia. Did you really think
he walked right up to the box office and bought a ticket dressed up like that?
Oh, of course not. The theater had a *policy* of no guns, of course;
they *all* do. Obviously, he couldn't have walked in carrying several
assault rifles.

Try this: strap on your gun and try walking into any business. You
won't get far before they suggest that you need to remove the gun.

OTOH, anyone could have legally carried a concealed gun into the
theater. Statistically, there were... uuuuh... dunno how many guns.
Of course, none of them did any good, did they? Yeah, I know... they
never do.
bigdog
2019-06-12 11:42:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:13:43 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
It is where a sign is REQUIRED if a business does not want CCW licensees from
bringing their weapons onto the premises. Without such a sign, it is legal for
the carrier to enter the building with his gun.
You don't read very well, do you? Your first sentence is dicey; it
should read: a sign is required if you intend to make it meet the
legal definition of trespass to carry a gun; I don't GAF what you
*want*.
Do you ever get tired of moving that goal post around? Is there a reason you
snipped the stupid claim you made that I responded to?
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
"Without such a sign, it is legal for the carrier to enter the
building with his gun."
Uuuuh, yeah... isn't that what I just said? Isn't that the whole
point of this discussion?
You made the idiotic claim that a business can institute a no guns policy
without posting it on their door. They can prohibit their employees without such
a sign but not their customers.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On July 20, 2012, the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado had
no such sign.
Jonesy lies again.

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2013/01/op-ed_the_truth_about_gun-free_zones.html
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
You or anyone else could have legally carried a gun
into the theater.
And again.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
It was against the theater's business policy;
however, had you walked across the street to McDonald's, you'd have
found a similar policy. The person walking into the theater didn't
know about the policy.
The Aurora theater had a sign posted. I seriously doubt MacDonald's does. They
want to sell Big Macs to everybody, including concealed carry permit holders.
Where the fuck did you get the idea MacDonald's has a no gun policy. Oh, that's
right. You made it up.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
BTW, the shooter was also perfectly legal until he pulled the trigger.
That's the issue... you meet the enemy and he is you.
No, he wasn't. He violated the law as soon as he entered an establishment that
had posted a NO GUNS sign. That sign didn't stop him. A CCW holder might have if
one had been allowed to be present.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-12 22:38:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 04:42:31 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
You don't read very well, do you? Your first sentence is dicey; it
should read: a sign is required if you intend to make it meet the
legal definition of trespass to carry a gun; I don't GAF what you
*want*.
Do you ever get tired of moving that goal post around? Is there a reason you
snipped the stupid claim you made that I responded to?
Well, the reason I snip is because I came to the end of your first
injection and quit reading. When you paste your writing all over
mine, I will snip after the first... that's just the way I am. You
don't have to like it; however, I won't read any further.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-06-13 01:13:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:38:31 -0500, The Fateful Lightning of His
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 04:42:31 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
You don't read very well, do you? Your first sentence is dicey; it
should read: a sign is required if you intend to make it meet the
legal definition of trespass to carry a gun; I don't GAF what you
*want*.
Do you ever get tired of moving that goal post around? Is there a reason you
snipped the stupid claim you made that I responded to?
Well, the reason I snip is because I came to the end of your first
injection and quit reading.
TRANSLATION: Jones doesn't want to deal with facts, just made-up
JonesFacts®
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-06-13 00:11:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 04:42:31 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:13:43 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
It is where a sign is REQUIRED if a business does not want CCW licensees from
bringing their weapons onto the premises. Without such a sign, it is legal for
the carrier to enter the building with his gun.
You don't read very well, do you? Your first sentence is dicey; it
should read: a sign is required if you intend to make it meet the
legal definition of trespass to carry a gun; I don't GAF what you
*want*.
Do you ever get tired of moving that goal post around? Is there a reason you
snipped the stupid claim you made that I responded to?
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
"Without such a sign, it is legal for the carrier to enter the
building with his gun."
Uuuuh, yeah... isn't that what I just said? Isn't that the whole
point of this discussion?
You made the idiotic claim that a business can institute a no guns policy
without posting it on their door. They can prohibit their employees without such
a sign but not their customers.
Maybe he's talking about the Sooper Sekrit Jones-Style Gun policy, or
is he still pretending he's not Jones?

[chuckle]
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-06-13 00:10:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:27:04 -0500, The Fateful Lightning of His
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
BTW, the shooter was also perfectly legal until he pulled the trigger.
Wrong again, dumb ass.

He didn't just walk in off the street, bored, and decide to kill
people with guns he just happened to have on him.

Conspiracy to commit murder isn't "perfectly legal."
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-06-11 19:19:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 21:58:16 -0500, The Fateful Lightning of His
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Name one, please. Name just *one* place with a "no guns" sign wherein
a mass shooting took place.
Just one. Aurora, CO movie theater. How many more would you like?
They had a business *policy* prohibiting guns on premises exactly like
every other business has; however, there was no sign. It is highly
1) The front door of a business is that *last* place you want such a
sign because it's prime advertising space.
This is the dumbest thing you've written all week. LOL
e***@home.com
2019-06-12 05:09:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Name one, please. Name just *one* place with a "no guns" sign wherein
a mass shooting took place.
Just one. Aurora, CO movie theater. How many more would you like?
They had a business *policy* prohibiting guns on premises exactly like
every other business has; however, there was no sign. It is highly
https://www.texas3006.com/view.php

Looks like roughly 15,000 total entries of business/public signage posted to the site by registered users of the site. Roughly half are combined 30.06 (banning concealed carry) and 30.07 (banning open carry), thus banning all weapons. Another thousand or so are the 51% sign and other miscellaneous total bans, and the remainder are posting of the 30.07 only (banning open carry, allowing concealed carry). Texas only, and not a complete database...it's only what users have posted.

So clearly it's not unusual to find such a sign.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
1) The front door of a business is that *last* place you want such a
sign because it's prime advertising space.
2) A business always writes it into policy and makes sure employees
know it. There are copies of the sign just in case someone wants to
"open carry".
3) A sign calls attention to guns. Not even post offices are signed
for that reason. (Try asking about guns and see what they say.)
Had you or James Eagan Holmes or anyone else walked into the theater
on that Dark Knight (pun intended), you (or they) would have been
perfectly legal because you didn't know about the policy. (You know
now because I just told you.) I can't think of a single theater that
is signed... or any other business including Costco. That doesn't
mean they allow guns... it just means they don't have a sign.
Go find a sign and post a picture. Maybe you can find one, but it
won't be easy.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-12 22:34:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 22:09:42 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
Post by e***@home.com
https://www.texas3006.com/view.php
Looks like roughly 15,000 total entries of business/public signage posted to the site by registered users of the site. Roughly half are combined 30.06 (banning concealed carry) and 30.07 (banning open carry), thus banning all weapons. Another thousand or so are the 51% sign and other miscellaneous total bans, and the remainder are posting of the 30.07 only (banning open carry, allowing concealed carry). Texas only, and not a complete database...it's only what users have posted.
So clearly it's not unusual to find such a sign.
It is highly unusual to find such a sign unless the owner is just
making a political statement.

1) Such a sign contains almost 200 words, all with letters in a 1"
font. The sign would take up over four square feet to print and has
to be posted at eye level on the front foor and all other entrances.

2) The risk management people almost all suggest that these signs are
risk risers in that they call attention to guns. They all say that a
business should write "no guns" into their personnel policy and *not*
display a sign.

Before 2018, most businesses were signed; today, it is highly unusual
to see a sign. Well, doctors' offices will be signed many times
because they want people to know about it before it comes to the old
"take off your clothes" bit and the person has to get dressed again to
take the gun back to their car.

1) I cannot think of a single "gun free zone" and 2) mass shootings
have never happened there.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-06-13 01:13:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:34:30 -0500, The Fateful Lightning of His
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 22:09:42 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
Post by e***@home.com
https://www.texas3006.com/view.php
Looks like roughly 15,000 total entries of business/public signage posted to the site by registered users of the site. Roughly half are combined 30.06 (banning concealed carry) and 30.07 (banning open carry), thus banning all weapons. Another thousand or so are the 51% sign and other miscellaneous total bans, and the remainder are posting of the 30.07 only (banning open carry, allowing concealed carry). Texas only, and not a complete database...it's only what users have posted.
So clearly it's not unusual to find such a sign.
It is highly unusual to find such a sign unless the owner is just
making a political statement.
And you know this because.....?

It makes you feel comfortable?
SortingItOut
2019-06-13 05:55:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 22:09:42 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
Post by e***@home.com
https://www.texas3006.com/view.php
Looks like roughly 15,000 total entries of business/public signage posted to the site by registered users of the site. Roughly half are combined 30.06 (banning concealed carry) and 30.07 (banning open carry), thus banning all weapons. Another thousand or so are the 51% sign and other miscellaneous total bans, and the remainder are posting of the 30.07 only (banning open carry, allowing concealed carry). Texas only, and not a complete database...it's only what users have posted.
So clearly it's not unusual to find such a sign.
It is highly unusual to find such a sign unless the owner is just
making a political statement.
So you're saying that the roughly 7500 entries cited above are just making political statements? Preventing guns on their premises and creating a gun-free zone for their customers is not actually the goal?
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
1) Such a sign contains almost 200 words, all with letters in a 1"
font. The sign would take up over four square feet to print and has
to be posted at eye level on the front foor and all other entrances.
2) The risk management people almost all suggest that these signs are
risk risers in that they call attention to guns.
And yet 7500 establishments voluntarily post these signs to prevent all firearms on their premises, in Texas alone.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
They all say that a
business should write "no guns" into their personnel policy and *not*
display a sign.
That does absolutely nothing to prevent customers/patrons from legally carrying on their premises (at least in TX). That only affects employees.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Before 2018, most businesses were signed; today, it is highly unusual
to see a sign.
So your statements about risk management and loss of advertising space and calling attention to guns meant nothing prior to 2018? What do you think made all these business owners see the world so differently starting in 2018?
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Well, doctors' offices will be signed many times
because they want people to know about it before it comes to the old
"take off your clothes" bit and the person has to get dressed again to
take the gun back to their car.
1) I cannot think of a single "gun free zone"
Even when they've been shown to you? Along with any establishment getting 51% or more of its sales from alcohol, most schools and universities (unless SRO or security is present, but they're obviously spread very thin even when present...no one else can carry without express permission)
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
and 2) mass shootings
have never happened there.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-13 12:24:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 22:55:14 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
Post by SortingItOut
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
It is highly unusual to find such a sign unless the owner is just
making a political statement.
So you're saying that the roughly 7500 entries cited above are just making political statements? Preventing guns on their premises and creating a gun-free zone for their customers is not actually the goal?
I don't know anything about "the roughly 7500 entries cited above" and
have no comment about someone's blog. I do not know of any businesses
(including gun shops) who really want customers' guns carried on
premises; were the law changed to require "informed consent" (entry
denied, unless explicitly posted otherwise), there would be
effectively zero such signs.

You don't see the prohibitive signs very often because the risk
managers (i.e.: insurance carriers) have come to the conclusion that
calling attention to guns in any way, shape, or form is counter
productive. That said, they do not ever allow employees to be armed
unless the employee is a state licensed, bonded security officer;
further, the business policy must prohibit all other guns... those are
the current "best practices", anyway.

Pardon my language, but a risk manager doesn't give a good fuck about
guns one way or the other. He or she mitigates risk and they're
watching the decisions and settlements that come down carefully.
Several people brought lawsuits against the Cinemark Theater Corp.
after the Aurora, CO shooting and the theater company never paid a
penny. TTBOMK, nobody has ever received a cash settlement because of
a mass shooting (not sure on the "ever" part; "ever" is a long time
and we have lots of shootings).

What got the risk managers' attention was that, on April 5, 2013,
Trayvon Martin's family won a seven-figure wrongful death claim
against the Retreat at Twin Lakes Homeowners Association. I mean, a
couple of million would have been chicken feed if you had to settle
the Aurora thing... the issue wasn't how much; the problem was that
they got any at all. Zimmerman wasn't their employee; Zimmerman
wasn't convicted of a crime. Zimmerman was a licensed security
officer (but not working as one at the time, so not bonded); he had a
civilian gun permit. Basically, the association was successfully sued
for what a volunteer "security coordinator" (whatever that is) did on
his own time with his own gun... heck, they never told Zimmerman to
carry a gun; they just never told him *not* to because they didn't
have it in the business policy.

Think what the settlement would have been had Zimmerman shot a bunch
of White people!
Michael Ejercito
2019-06-10 17:18:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 18:47:54 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
I guess that's the difference between liberal and conservative, huh?
Well, the first step in solving a problem is to agree that we have a
problem.
In 1994, we DID have a problem. The country had a recent all-time HIGH in
criminal homicide rates. Children were being gunned down to take their
shoes, or for wearing the wrong color clothes, or even just taken the wrong
turn or getting off the wrong public transit stop. There were so many cries
to "do something". We got the 1994 Crime Bill.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text/enr

I note that criminal homicide rates dropped sharply after President
Clinton signed the Crime Bill, though I would not go so far as to write that
the Crime Bill CAUSED this.

Now, many Democrats, including candidates for the 2020 nomination, are
turning AGAINST the crime bill, a bill signed by Clinton to deal with the
epidemic of gun violence. You only need to read the article to find out why.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/politics/cory-booker-1994-crime-bill-awful-mistake-biden-2020/index.html



Michael


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-10 18:11:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:18:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "Michael
Post by Michael Ejercito
In 1994, we DID have a problem. The country had a recent all-time HIGH in
criminal homicide rates. Children were being gunned down to take their
shoes, or for wearing the wrong color clothes, or even just taken the wrong
turn or getting off the wrong public transit stop. There were so many cries
to "do something". We got the 1994 Crime Bill.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text/enr
I note that criminal homicide rates dropped sharply after President
Clinton signed the Crime Bill, though I would not go so far as to write that
the Crime Bill CAUSED this.
Now, many Democrats, including candidates for the 2020 nomination, are
turning AGAINST the crime bill, a bill signed by Clinton to deal with the
epidemic of gun violence. You only need to read the article to find out why.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/politics/cory-booker-1994-crime-bill-awful-mistake-biden-2020/index.html
Michael
In 1994, crime was high all over the world. We could have run out and
yodeled and it would have dropped. In 1994, the US contributed about
29% of the world's gun deaths; today, we're at about 33% - 34% of the
world's gun deaths with 4.4% of the population (and the percent of
population has dropped slightly... less than 0.01%).

Bottom line: you're looking at raw numbers. If the tide is coming in,
your deck may be rising relative to a fixed point on shore while your
boat is slowly sinking. We're losing ground.
Michael Ejercito
2019-06-11 00:55:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:18:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "Michael
Post by Michael Ejercito
In 1994, we DID have a problem. The country had a recent all-time HIGH in
criminal homicide rates. Children were being gunned down to take their
shoes, or for wearing the wrong color clothes, or even just taken the wrong
turn or getting off the wrong public transit stop. There were so many cries
to "do something". We got the 1994 Crime Bill.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text/enr
I note that criminal homicide rates dropped sharply after President
Clinton signed the Crime Bill, though I would not go so far as to write that
the Crime Bill CAUSED this.
Now, many Democrats, including candidates for the 2020 nomination, are
turning AGAINST the crime bill, a bill signed by Clinton to deal with the
epidemic of gun violence. You only need to read the article to find out why.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/politics/cory-booker-1994-crime-bill-awful-mistake-biden->>2020/index.html
Michael
In 1994, crime was high all over the world. We could have run out and
yodeled and it would have dropped.
So yodeling is the solution to the epidemic of gun violence?

I guess thoughts and prayers are not enough. We had to yodel as well.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
In 1994, the US contributed about
29% of the world's gun deaths; today, we're at about 33% - 34% of the
world's gun deaths with 4.4% of the population (and the percent of
population has dropped slightly... less than 0.01%).
Bottom line: you're looking at raw numbers. If the tide is coming in,
your deck may be rising relative to a fixed point on shore while your
boat is slowly sinking. We're losing ground.
I was not citing raw numbers, but the criminal homicide rate, which is
the number of criminal homicides divided by the population.


Michael


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-11 02:58:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:55:56 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "Michael
Post by Michael Ejercito
So yodeling is the solution to the epidemic of gun violence?
Yup
Just Wondering
2019-06-10 02:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by max headroom
As opposed to, "Do SOMETHING! ANYTHING! We don't care how harebrained it is! Just do SOMETHING!"
As opposed to "Do nothing"?
When the alternatives are "do nothing" or "run and holler, scream
and shout", the "do nothing" alternative is better.
Just Wondering
2019-06-09 18:19:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
The federal government should insure that, if a gun changes hands,
there is a background check... period. There must be no exceptions,
no exclusions, and no loopholes. Buying or selling a gun and skipping
the background check would be a federal felony.
Since that's not going to happen, move along to your next fantasy.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
After that, it's all up to the states. The idea being that Wyoming's
gun laws might not work well in New Jersey and visa versa.
So you actually like it when a person's constitutionally protected
fundamental rights vary from state to state.
a425couple
2019-06-12 18:34:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
The federal government should insure that, if a gun changes hands,
there is a background check... period.  There must be no exceptions,
no exclusions, and no loopholes.  Buying or selling a gun and skipping
the background check would be a federal felony.
Since that's not going to happen, move along to your next fantasy.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
After that, it's all up to the states.  The idea being that Wyoming's
gun laws might not work well in New Jersey and visa versa.
So you actually like it when a person's constitutionally protected
fundamental rights vary from state to state.
I do.
I like it that we can associate with the people that
we want to associate with.
I like that there is variety, and competition of ideas.
I like it that we can move to states that we might like
better than where we are right now. Some move to better
weather, some move to better government, or better freedoms.

I like it that the founders in my state made the right to
bear arms VERY clear.

Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms
in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired,
but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing
individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an
armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

As for Milky Jones, he can fight his own state if he wishes.

Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms
in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature
shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a
view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence
of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in
all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights,
cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms
in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms
in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations
as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.

But even in the unlikely event he wins at the federal level,
and at his own state level, I still have a line of defense.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-12 21:59:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:34:51 -0700, in talk.politics.guns a425couple
Post by a425couple
Post by Just Wondering
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
The federal government should insure that, if a gun changes hands,
there is a background check... period.  There must be no exceptions,
no exclusions, and no loopholes.  Buying or selling a gun and skipping
the background check would be a federal felony.
Since that's not going to happen, move along to your next fantasy.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
After that, it's all up to the states.  The idea being that Wyoming's
gun laws might not work well in New Jersey and visa versa.
So you actually like it when a person's constitutionally protected
fundamental rights vary from state to state.
I do.
I like it that we can associate with the people that
we want to associate with.
I like that there is variety, and competition of ideas.
I like it that we can move to states that we might like
better than where we are right now. Some move to better
weather, some move to better government, or better freedoms.
I like it that the founders in my state made the right to
bear arms VERY clear.
Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms
in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired,
but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing
individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an
armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).
As for Milky Jones, he can fight his own state if he wishes.
Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms
in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature
shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a
view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence
of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in
all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights,
cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms
in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms
in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations
as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.
But even in the unlikely event he wins at the federal level,
and at his own state level, I still have a line of defense.
Yeah, that's best handled at a lower level. Thus, if you like
California laws, live in California by all means... otherwise move.
The point being that a person shouldn't be able to get a whole new
palette of gun laws simply by driving across a state line. OTOH,
while a person doesn't have the right to like the gun laws where he
lives, he certainly has the right to move to where they better suit
him.

Now, the gun lobby won't like that a bit because, where they have been
used to buying federal legislators, they'll now have to go into each
state's legislative body and bribe many more law makers. But now a
state doesn't have to please the federal gummint; a state passes any
laws that please its good citizens. If the citizens don't like these
laws, they're a lot easier to change at the state level.

There is a school of untested legal thought that holds the BOR does
not apply to the states. (I guess it's untested; I'm not a lawyer.)
The BOR, as originally written, has eleven articles... the eleventh
asserted that the first ten applied to the states, also. In the
ratification process, the antifederalists stripped that one out...
thus, whatever the second amendment says, it only applies to the
federal government, not the states.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-06-13 01:14:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:59:33 -0500, The Fateful Lightning of His
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Yeah, that's best handled at a lower level. Thus, if you like
California laws, live in California by all means... otherwise move.
The point being that a person shouldn't be able to get a whole new
palette of gun laws simply by driving across a state line.
I agree that California shouldn't be able to enact laws stricter than
federal laws.
Just Wondering
2019-06-13 01:45:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 6/12/2019 3:59 PM, The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:34:51 -0700, in talk.politics.guns a425couple
Post by a425couple
Post by Just Wondering
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
The federal government should insure that, if a gun changes hands,
there is a background check... period.  There must be no exceptions,
no exclusions, and no loopholes.  Buying or selling a gun and skipping
the background check would be a federal felony.
Since that's not going to happen, move along to your next fantasy.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
After that, it's all up to the states.  The idea being that Wyoming's
gun laws might not work well in New Jersey and visa versa.
So you actually like it when a person's constitutionally protected
fundamental rights vary from state to state.
I do.
I like it that we can associate with the people that
we want to associate with.
I like that there is variety, and competition of ideas.
I like it that we can move to states that we might like
better than where we are right now. Some move to better
weather, some move to better government, or better freedoms.
I like it that the founders in my state made the right to
bear arms VERY clear.
Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms
in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired,
but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing
individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an
armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).
As for Milky Jones, he can fight his own state if he wishes.
Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms
in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature
shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a
view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence
of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in
all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights,
cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms
in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms
in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations
as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.
But even in the unlikely event he wins at the federal level,
and at his own state level, I still have a line of defense.
Yeah, that's best handled at a lower level. Thus, if you like
California laws, live in California by all means... otherwise move.
The point being that a person shouldn't be able to get a whole new
palette of gun laws simply by driving across a state line. OTOH,
while a person doesn't have the right to like the gun laws where he
lives, he certainly has the right to move to where they better suit
him.
The same crowd who believes that also loves Roe vs. Wade. Funny
how that argument would require overturning all cases protecting
abortion rights at the federal level.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
Now, the gun lobby won't like that a bit because, where they have been
used to buying federal legislators, they'll now have to go into each
state's legislative body and bribe many more law makers. But now a
state doesn't have to please the federal gummint; a state passes any
laws that please its good citizens. If the citizens don't like these
laws, they're a lot easier to change at the state level.
There is a school of untested legal thought that holds the BOR does
not apply to the states. (I guess it's untested; I'm not a lawyer.)
The BOR, as originally written, has eleven articles... the eleventh
asserted that the first ten applied to the states, also. In the
ratification process, the antifederalists stripped that one out...
thus, whatever the second amendment says, it only applies to the
federal government, not the states.
Perhaps, until 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Each time the issue as arisen as to a particular right, SCOTUS
has held that the 14th Amendment extended the BOR to apply to
the states. Given the expansive language of the 14th Amendment,
it would be difficult to argue otherwise.
SortingItOut
2019-06-13 04:14:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:34:51 -0700, in talk.politics.guns a425couple
Post by a425couple
Post by Just Wondering
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
The federal government should insure that, if a gun changes hands,
there is a background check... period.  There must be no exceptions,
no exclusions, and no loopholes.  Buying or selling a gun and skipping
the background check would be a federal felony.
Since that's not going to happen, move along to your next fantasy.
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
After that, it's all up to the states.  The idea being that Wyoming's
gun laws might not work well in New Jersey and visa versa.
So you actually like it when a person's constitutionally protected
fundamental rights vary from state to state.
I do.
I like it that we can associate with the people that
we want to associate with.
I like that there is variety, and competition of ideas.
I like it that we can move to states that we might like
better than where we are right now. Some move to better
weather, some move to better government, or better freedoms.
I like it that the founders in my state made the right to
bear arms VERY clear.
Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms
in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired,
but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing
individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an
armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).
As for Milky Jones, he can fight his own state if he wishes.
Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms
in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature
shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a
view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence
of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in
all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights,
cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms
in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms
in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations
as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.
But even in the unlikely event he wins at the federal level,
and at his own state level, I still have a line of defense.
Yeah, that's best handled at a lower level. Thus, if you like
California laws, live in California by all means... otherwise move.
The point being that a person shouldn't be able to get a whole new
palette of gun laws simply by driving across a state line. OTOH,
while a person doesn't have the right to like the gun laws where he
lives, he certainly has the right to move to where they better suit
him.
Now, the gun lobby won't like that a bit because, where they have been
used to buying federal legislators, they'll now have to go into each
state's legislative body and bribe many more law makers. But now a
state doesn't have to please the federal gummint; a state passes any
laws that please its good citizens. If the citizens don't like these
laws, they're a lot easier to change at the state level.
There is a school of untested legal thought that holds the BOR does
not apply to the states. (I guess it's untested; I'm not a lawyer.)
The BOR, as originally written, has eleven articles... the eleventh
asserted that the first ten applied to the states, also. In the
ratification process, the antifederalists stripped that one out...
thus, whatever the second amendment says, it only applies to the
federal government, not the states.
I'm not finding support for your statement about the 11th amendment. These two pages:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/when-congress-passed-the-original-12-amendments-in-the-bill-of-rights/
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/five-items-congress-deleted-from-madisons-original-bill-of-rights

...taken together, suggest that the original amendment in question was only attempting to apply a small portion of the bill of rights to the states:
“No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases,”

...and thus the 2nd amendment was not part of what would apply to the states. And the above statement was part of an original collection of 20 (not 11), and it didn't make it to the final 12 that was reduced to 10.

As others have pointed out, the 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the states. I'm not aware of any "school of untested legal thought" that thinks otherwise.
Just Wondering
2019-06-13 07:43:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by SortingItOut
Post by The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
There is a school of untested legal thought that holds the BOR does
not apply to the states. (I guess it's untested; I'm not a lawyer.)
The BOR, as originally written, has eleven articles... the eleventh
asserted that the first ten applied to the states, also. In the
ratification process, the antifederalists stripped that one out...
thus, whatever the second amendment says, it only applies to the
federal government, not the states.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/when-congress-passed-the-original-12-amendments-in-the-bill-of-rights/
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/five-items-congress-deleted-from-madisons-original-bill-of-rights
“No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases,”
...and thus the 2nd amendment was not part of what would apply to the states. And the above statement was part of an original collection of 20 (not 11), and it didn't make it to the final 12 that was reduced to 10.
As others have pointed out, the 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the states. I'm not aware of any "school of untested legal thought" that thinks otherwise.
Maybe it's Fateful's preschool.
The Fateful Lightning of His Terrible Swift Sword
2019-06-13 12:33:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:14:57 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
Post by SortingItOut
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/when-congress-passed-the-original-12-amendments-in-the-bill-of-rights/
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/five-items-congress-deleted-from-madisons-original-bill-of-rights
“No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases,”
...and thus the 2nd amendment was not part of what would apply to the states. And the above statement was part of an original collection of 20 (not 11), and it didn't make it to the final 12 that was reduced to 10.
Yeah, well, I said I wasn't sure. There was a clause initially that
specifically applied the entire document (BOR) to the states and the
states' rights people stripped it out. It would have needed to have
been an amendment in and of itself.

Since, as ratified, 2A was essentially a protection for "the right of
the people" of a state to maintain "a well regulated militia", it
isn't counter to intuition that a state would have the right not to do
so.

Loading...