America's Gun Violence

rgambs

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Government is the biggest abuser of everything.

Getting a jump start on the weekend?

I would list examples but I would wear out the phone screen before I could finish.

Are you able to come with any examples where gov't may have done something right?
Perhaps the interstate system, or the space race?
Anything?

1776

Yearning for the days of the 3/5th compromise, before the white race was living under war by liberals?

unsung

https://youtu.be/hnBWa_xJz6A

dudeman

Hopefully, one day, people will realize that "Gun Free Zones" encourage attacks rather than prevent them.

mace1229

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.

The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.

You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.

Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?

I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.

I do not believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned, in fact, I own one.
I also do not believe that only those in well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms, I do believe it is the right of the people.
What I don't believe in is enthusiasts and deranged "patriots" disregarding and refuting the first half of the amendment in a dishonest attempt to label any regulation as infringement.

I had completely misinterpreted your arguments. Was surprised to hear you own a gun because I've always thought you were saying the constitution does not grant us the right to own guns.

rgambs

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.

The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.

You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.

Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?

I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.

I do not believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned, in fact, I own one.
I also do not believe that only those in well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms, I do believe it is the right of the people.
What I don't believe in is enthusiasts and deranged "patriots" disregarding and refuting the first half of the amendment in a dishonest attempt to label any regulation as infringement.

I had completely misinterpreted your arguments. Was surprised to hear you own a gun because I've always thought you were saying the constitution does not grant us the right to own guns.

Just that it doesn't grant absolute rights, I do believe in controls for the betterment of society.
I wouldn't have a problem with citizens having a maximum number of firearms of particular types, I don't have a problem with controling aspects like magazine size, etc

I do believe in people owning appropriate firearms for hunting and self-defence, and the advantage that gives our country in apocalyptic scenarios.

mace1229

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.

The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.

You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.

Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?

I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.

I do not believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned, in fact, I own one.
I also do not believe that only those in well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms, I do believe it is the right of the people.
What I don't believe in is enthusiasts and deranged "patriots" disregarding and refuting the first half of the amendment in a dishonest attempt to label any regulation as infringement.

I had completely misinterpreted your arguments. Was surprised to hear you own a gun because I've always thought you were saying the constitution does not grant us the right to own guns.

Just that it doesn't grant absolute rights, I do believe in controls for the betterment of society.
I wouldn't have a problem with citizens having a maximum number of firearms of particular types, I don't have a problem with controling aspects like magazine size, etc

I do believe in people owning appropriate firearms for hunting and self-defence, and the advantage that gives our country in apocalyptic scenarios.

I pretty much agree with most of that. Who knew....we agreed all along.

rgambs

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.

The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.

You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.

Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?

I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.

I do not believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned, in fact, I own one.
I also do not believe that only those in well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms, I do believe it is the right of the people.
What I don't believe in is enthusiasts and deranged "patriots" disregarding and refuting the first half of the amendment in a dishonest attempt to label any regulation as infringement.

I had completely misinterpreted your arguments. Was surprised to hear you own a gun because I've always thought you were saying the constitution does not grant us the right to own guns.

Just that it doesn't grant absolute rights, I do believe in controls for the betterment of society.
I wouldn't have a problem with citizens having a maximum number of firearms of particular types, I don't have a problem with controling aspects like magazine size, etc

I do believe in people owning appropriate firearms for hunting and self-defence, and the advantage that gives our country in apocalyptic scenarios.

I pretty much agree with most of that. Who knew....we agreed all along.

Once we got into the details I bet you would find me too restrictive.

unsung

dudeman said:

Hopefully, one day, people will realize that "Gun Free Zones" encourage attacks rather than prevent them.

Fish in a barrel.

mace1229

unsung said:

dudeman said:

Hopefully, one day, people will realize that "Gun Free Zones" encourage attacks rather than prevent them.

Fish in a barrel.

I just took a conceal carry class. I don't plan to carry all the time, but would like to if I am hiking/camping, driving cross state.
I haven't checked if this is true, but the instructor told us after the Aurora Movie theater shooting (near Denver) the law changed a few times from what was known as "sign is law." Meaning if someone has an establishment and they post a sign requesting no firearms be brought in, then it is "law" for that establishment making it illegal to conceal and carry even if you have a permit.
The theater had such signs, which are actually fairly common. Legislature debated the possibility that someone could have been armed, but was afraid to stop the threat, or that others could have been armed but chose to leave their gun at home knowing they would be breaking the law.
We were told it changed a few times back and forth, and is currently not law, meaning if you have a permit to carry, even if the establishment says no guns allowed, you can still conceal and carry.
Like I said, I didn't do research on the matter, that is what the instructor told us. But I thought it was interesting.

unsung

I carry everywhere, I don't care about signs.

But it also depends on the State, most make it a misdemeanor if you don't leave when asked and they will charge you with trespassing. Now when I see a sign I usually spend my money elsewhere, but sometimes I need to get somewhere else, like a mall, and I carry anyway.

A sign will never protect you.

mace1229

I was surprised to hear a sign could make it illegal. If I have a government issued permit that I applied and paid for, took a class and passed a background check, why can a private business owner take that away? Doesn't make sense to me.

unsung

mace1229 said:

I was surprised to hear a sign could make it illegal. If I have a government issued permit that I applied and paid for, took a class and passed a background check, why can a private business owner take that away? Doesn't make sense to me.

Well, ultimately a private property owner should always trump whatever government says. Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way. Agree or disagree.

It is like baking a cake for the gay couple. Go find another bakery. Respect the property owner.


Concealed means concealed.

mace1229

unsung said:

mace1229 said:

I was surprised to hear a sign could make it illegal. If I have a government issued permit that I applied and paid for, took a class and passed a background check, why can a private business owner take that away? Doesn't make sense to me.

Well, ultimately a private property owner should always trump whatever government says. Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way. Agree or disagree.

It is like baking a cake for the gay couple. Go find another bakery. Respect the property owner.


Concealed means concealed.

It is different when you run a business for the public. I would agree if a baker can't decide who to bake cakes for, then a restaurant owner shouldn't be allowed to trump government either.

Go Beavers

unsung said:

dudeman said:

Hopefully, one day, people will realize that "Gun Free Zones" encourage attacks rather than prevent them.

Fish in a barrel.

Is there data to support the claim that gun free zones encourage attacks?

dudeman

The last time I knew, 92% of mass shootings occurred in gun free zones. I'm pretty sure there is a source linked earlier in this thread.

PJ_Soul

dudeman said:

The last time I knew, 92% of mass shootings occurred in gun free zones. I'm pretty sure there is a source linked earlier in this thread.

Well that's helpful, lol.
So what about nightclubs, which now seem to be a target? We want everyone packing heat in nightclubs now?

PP193448

So I would think, regardless of statistics, that gun free zones would attract more nut cases with intent to kill masses of people. That's like having it known that certain banks do not have security guards, and expecting those not to be targeted for more robberies...

ponytd

mace1229 said:

I was surprised to hear a sign could make it illegal. If I have a government issued permit that I applied and paid for, took a class and passed a background check, why can a private business owner take that away? Doesn't make sense to me.

Not sure what the laws are in your state, but it may not technically be illegal. In TN, it's only illegal to carry (even if you have a permit) in a few areas, i.e. court that is in session, schools, drinking at a bar. However, business owners can put up signs saying they do not want firearms on their premises. If a business owner puts up one of these signs, then they are liable for said permit holder if they are injured or killed by violence while on that property. If you do not put up a sign and openly allow any permit holder to carry a firearm on your property, you are immune from any harm that that person may endure from any form of violence that may happen to them while on your property (I think that law only applies to permit holders and not the general public, but not 100% sure)

mace1229

ponytd said:

mace1229 said:

I was surprised to hear a sign could make it illegal. If I have a government issued permit that I applied and paid for, took a class and passed a background check, why can a private business owner take that away? Doesn't make sense to me.

Not sure what the laws are in your state, but it may not technically be illegal. In TN, it's only illegal to carry (even if you have a permit) in a few areas, i.e. court that is in session, schools, drinking at a bar. However, business owners can put up signs saying they do not want firearms on their premises. If a business owner puts up one of these signs, then they are liable for said permit holder if they are injured or killed by violence while on that property. If you do not put up a sign and openly allow any permit holder to carry a firearm on your property, you are immune from any harm that that person may endure from any form of violence that may happen to them while on your property (I think that law only applies to permit holders and not the general public, but not 100% sure)

It was illegal until a few years ago. If a store owner put a sign requesting no guns, then it would be illegal to carry even with a permit. From what I heard the Aurora shooting helped change that.
I specifically asked the instructor that question, because I thought those signs only applied to open carry, and I was told no, any form of carry, including concealed, it was illegal and could be charged with a crime for doing so.

PJPOWER

mace1229 said:

ponytd said:

mace1229 said:

I was surprised to hear a sign could make it illegal. If I have a government issued permit that I applied and paid for, took a class and passed a background check, why can a private business owner take that away? Doesn't make sense to me.

Not sure what the laws are in your state, but it may not technically be illegal. In TN, it's only illegal to carry (even if you have a permit) in a few areas, i.e. court that is in session, schools, drinking at a bar. However, business owners can put up signs saying they do not want firearms on their premises. If a business owner puts up one of these signs, then they are liable for said permit holder if they are injured or killed by violence while on that property. If you do not put up a sign and openly allow any permit holder to carry a firearm on your property, you are immune from any harm that that person may endure from any form of violence that may happen to them while on your property (I think that law only applies to permit holders and not the general public, but not 100% sure)

It was illegal until a few years ago. If a store owner put a sign requesting no guns, then it would be illegal to carry even with a permit. From what I heard the Aurora shooting helped change that.
I specifically asked the instructor that question, because I thought those signs only applied to open carry, and I was told no, any form of carry, including concealed, it was illegal and could be charged with a crime for doing so.

In Texas, it has to be a very specific sign (30.06 or 30.07) meeting guidelines such as font size and being hung in an easily viewed entrance point. A "no guns allowed" sign does not meet the legal criteria for preventing someone from legally carrying a firearm, it is merely seen as a request or suggestion from a legal standpoint. That being said, if you refuse to leave a place of business when asked, other legal factors may come into play.