Sensible Gun Safety

[cradleandshoot]

See added question, above...

..

Waaaaaay ahead of you jaundice boy.... See my answer above...at least I have one virtue that you and your FLP chums don't share... When I make a mistake I have no trouble admitting it.

My bad.. your never wrong are you? At least in your pea size brain your not...

[dislaxxic]

See added question, above...

..

Waaaaaay ahead of you jaundice boy.... See my answer above...

No, no, no...THIS question:

Question for ya, C&S: you're a bit of an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, right? Did the framers original intent revolve around the type of "arms" (bare or not) that were available in the late 18th century? Did they think that WHATEVER civilization came up with in terms to TYPES of arms would be just AOK going forward...with respect to what they thought about, in the 1780's, as "Constitutional Rights"??

..

[cradleandshoot]

See added question, above...

..

Waaaaaay ahead of you jaundice boy.... See my answer above...

No, no, no...THIS question:

Question for ya, C&S: you're a bit of an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, right? Did the framers original intent revolve around the type of "arms" (bare or not) that were available in the late 18th century? Did they think that WHATEVER civilization came up with in terms to TYPES of arms would be just AOK going forward...with respect to what they thought about, in the 1780's, as "Constitutional Rights"??

..

That is a fair question, you must be up to date on your medications. I would believe the founding fathers would want the American citizen to have access to the technology of the day. In the 1700s that rifle was a muzzleloader. In 2022 that technology includes semi automatic weapons. Since the founding fathers never directly addressed the issue I guess common sense would come into play. I know common sense is a concept that confuses liberals like you dis. Step back, take a deep breath and think about it for a few moments. You might have a common sense induced prophetic revelation.. that would probably be a first for you.. savor the moment my friend if it ever happens.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us ... index.html

CNN is just spinning

[Typical Lax Dad]

See added question, above...

..

Waaaaaay ahead of you jaundice boy.... See my answer above...

No, no, no...THIS question:

Question for ya, C&S: you're a bit of an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, right? Did the framers original intent revolve around the type of "arms" (bare or not) that were available in the late 18th century? Did they think that WHATEVER civilization came up with in terms to TYPES of arms would be just AOK going forward...with respect to what they thought about, in the 1780's, as "Constitutional Rights"??

..

That is a fair question, you must be up to date on your medications. I would believe the founding fathers would want the American citizen to have access to the technology of the day. In the 1700s that rifle was a muzzleloader. In 2022 that technology includes semi automatic weapons. Since the founding fathers never directly addressed the issue I guess common sense would come into play. I know common sense is a concept that confuses liberals like you dis. Step back, take a deep breath and think about it for a few moments. You might have a common sense induced prophetic revelation.. that would probably be a first for you.. savor the moment my friend if it ever happens.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons ... eview.html

https://21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com/20 ... ar-future/

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us ... index.html

CNN is just spinning

We have a 2nd amendment given to this nation by our founding fathers. I'm certain that came about for a good reason. Who knows, maybe they were bored that day and came up with it as filler until they figured out the 3rd amendment?? Maybe the 2nd was nothing more than a belated April Fools prank?

[cradleandshoot]

See added question, above...

..

Waaaaaay ahead of you jaundice boy.... See my answer above...

No, no, no...THIS question:

Question for ya, C&S: you're a bit of an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, right? Did the framers original intent revolve around the type of "arms" (bare or not) that were available in the late 18th century? Did they think that WHATEVER civilization came up with in terms to TYPES of arms would be just AOK going forward...with respect to what they thought about, in the 1780's, as "Constitutional Rights"??

..

That is a fair question, you must be up to date on your medications. I would believe the founding fathers would want the American citizen to have access to the technology of the day. In the 1700s that rifle was a muzzleloader. In 2022 that technology includes semi automatic weapons. Since the founding fathers never directly addressed the issue I guess common sense would come into play. I know common sense is a concept that confuses liberals like you dis. Step back, take a deep breath and think about it for a few moments. You might have a common sense induced prophetic revelation.. that would probably be a first for you.. savor the moment my friend if it ever happens.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons ... eview.html

https://21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com/20 ... ar-future/

Interesting link about the 5.56 rifles. There are so many variants by so many manufactures how does one SAFE ACT in one little ole state sort them out... If king Andy couldn't do it.. who can??

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us ... index.html

CNN is just spinning

We have a 2nd amendment given to this nation by our founding fathers. I'm certain that came about for a good reason. Who knows, maybe they were bored that day and came up with it as filler until they figured out the 3rd amendment?? Maybe the 2nd was nothing more than a belated April Fools prank?

Who on this board, other than you and maybe Peter (fine company to be in, eh) keeps repeating that the 2nd Amendment should be eliminated? Who you like this weekend?

[Seacoaster(1)]

The husband of one of the teachers murdered in Uvalde has died of a heart attack, leaving four children behind.

Land of the free, home of the brave. And blathering right wing toadies.

[jhu72]

Anti-depressant drugs, covid isolation, violent video games, social media, breakdown of family structure

... is there a point??

All the things I listed were factors in the Uvaldea &/or Buffalo shootings.

It's not just access to semi-automatic weapons. The TX tower shooter killed 11 & wounded 31 with a bolt action rifle.

Mass shootings have increased with the advent of violent video games & social media.

The ten year ban on semi-automatic weapons did not work. Don't chase simplistic solutions.

... you have no proof of this. You are guessing that they might have had an impact. Some of them I would agree might be a contributing factor. At the end of the day however, it requires the means to carry through on the act, which means guns and body armor. The Austin Tower shooting is not really relevant. Special circumstances. Not just anyone could have carried that mass killing out. Todays mass shootings, anyone can carry them out. None of the items you list are necessary or sufficient, a gun with high fire rate and capacity coupled with any old human is necessary and sufficient.

[JoeMauer89]

MD you make some interesting points. I can only say that until the folks on your side find a way to circumvent the 2nd amendment your peeing in the wind. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE D has no ambiguity.

OMG! Dumbest...err...Cradle...HAS IT FIGURED OUT! Yeah! Just BARE those arms and we'll be one safe, massacre-free nation! Boy, it's good having you here, Cradle...you and Joe really add a TUN to the discussion!!



Question for ya, C&S: you're a bit of an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, right? Did the framers original intent revolve around the type of "arms" (bare or not) that were available in the late 18th century? Did they think that WHATEVER civilization came up with in terms to TYPES of arms would be just AOK going forward...with respect to what they thought about, in the 1780's, as "Constitutional Rights"??

Asking for a friend...

..

You have friends on this site?

Joe

[Seacoaster(1)]

MD you make some interesting points. I can only say that until the folks on your side find a way to circumvent the 2nd amendment your peeing in the wind. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE D has no ambiguity.

OMG! Dumbest...err...Cradle...HAS IT FIGURED OUT! Yeah! Just BARE those arms and we'll be one safe, massacre-free nation! Boy, it's good having you here, Cradle...you and Joe really add a TUN to the discussion!!



Question for ya, C&S: you're a bit of an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, right? Did the framers original intent revolve around the type of "arms" (bare or not) that were available in the late 18th century? Did they think that WHATEVER civilization came up with in terms to TYPES of arms would be just AOK going forward...with respect to what they thought about, in the 1780's, as "Constitutional Rights"??

Asking for a friend...

..

You have friends on this site?

Joe

He does!!

[JoeMauer89]

MD you make some interesting points. I can only say that until the folks on your side find a way to circumvent the 2nd amendment your peeing in the wind. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE D has no ambiguity.

OMG! Dumbest...err...Cradle...HAS IT FIGURED OUT! Yeah! Just BARE those arms and we'll be one safe, massacre-free nation! Boy, it's good having you here, Cradle...you and Joe really add a TUN to the discussion!!



Question for ya, C&S: you're a bit of an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, right? Did the framers original intent revolve around the type of "arms" (bare or not) that were available in the late 18th century? Did they think that WHATEVER civilization came up with in terms to TYPES of arms would be just AOK going forward...with respect to what they thought about, in the 1780's, as "Constitutional Rights"??

Asking for a friend...

..

You have friends on this site?

Joe

He does!!

Good to know. So in other words, he has a similar narrow-minded political ideology that for some reason you and the regular suspects feel they must defend. You have my respect, I've always made that clear. You also have other interests outside of the political threads. I can't remember the last time Dis contributed regarding lacrosse. If he likes politics so much, there are much more reputable political websites in which he can join and post with other like-minded individuals that share his intense political anger and resentment.

Joe

[Seacoaster(1)]

MD you make some interesting points. I can only say that until the folks on your side find a way to circumvent the 2nd amendment your peeing in the wind. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE D has no ambiguity.

OMG! Dumbest...err...Cradle...HAS IT FIGURED OUT! Yeah! Just BARE those arms and we'll be one safe, massacre-free nation! Boy, it's good having you here, Cradle...you and Joe really add a TUN to the discussion!!



Question for ya, C&S: you're a bit of an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, right? Did the framers original intent revolve around the type of "arms" (bare or not) that were available in the late 18th century? Did they think that WHATEVER civilization came up with in terms to TYPES of arms would be just AOK going forward...with respect to what they thought about, in the 1780's, as "Constitutional Rights"??

Asking for a friend...

..

You have friends on this site?

Joe

He does!!

Good to know. So in other words, he has a similar narrow-minded political ideology that for some reason you and the regular suspects feel they must defend. You have my respect, I've always made that clear. You also have other interests outside of the political threads. I can't remember the last time Dis contributed regarding lacrosse. If he likes politics so much, there are much more reputable political websites in which he can join and post with other like-minded individuals that share his intense political anger and resentment.

Joe

Diss is a longtime lacrosse official, if my memory serves me (which, sometimes, it doesn't), and is an ardent believer in the Country we all share. He disagrees, I think, that Congress needs to stand idly by while children are murdered on a weekly basis by violent, assault rifle carrying young men. He's hardly "narrow-minded;" on the contrary, he believes that church and state ought to be separate; that politics is a profession that might help people and empower the disenfranchised; that women's bodies are, in the first place, their own and not the regulatory fodder of white men who desperately cling to power through census undercounting and gerrymandering and voter suppression legislation.

Contributing to the lacrosse threads is not a requirement for this little club, any more than it is a prerequisite for posting on the politics threads. He asked a good question, above: did the Framers anticipate that the Second Amendment would mean that everyone is entitled -- as a constitutional matter -- to own and wield the state of the art technology in guncraft? The late Scalia said that the answer to that question is "No."

[Peter Brown]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us ... index.html

CNN is just spinning

We have a 2nd amendment given to this nation by our founding fathers. I'm certain that came about for a good reason. Who knows, maybe they were bored that day and came up with it as filler until they figured out the 3rd amendment?? Maybe the 2nd was nothing more than a belated April Fools prank?

Who on this board, other than you and maybe Peter (fine company to be in, eh) keeps repeating that the 2nd Amendment should be eliminated? Who you like this weekend?

On this board, I don’t know.

Percent of national Democrats? About 33% today, 1 in 3. I suspect it’s actually more than half.


https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/ ... ent-repeal

https://newrepublic.com/article/166628/ ... dment-guns

[Peter Brown]

MD you make some interesting points. I can only say that until the folks on your side find a way to circumvent the 2nd amendment your peeing in the wind. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE D has no ambiguity.

OMG! Dumbest...err...Cradle...HAS IT FIGURED OUT! Yeah! Just BARE those arms and we'll be one safe, massacre-free nation! Boy, it's good having you here, Cradle...you and Joe really add a TUN to the discussion!!



Question for ya, C&S: you're a bit of an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, right? Did the framers original intent revolve around the type of "arms" (bare or not) that were available in the late 18th century? Did they think that WHATEVER civilization came up with in terms to TYPES of arms would be just AOK going forward...with respect to what they thought about, in the 1780's, as "Constitutional Rights"??

Asking for a friend...

..

You have friends on this site?

Joe

He does!!

Good to know. So in other words, he has a similar narrow-minded political ideology that for some reason you and the regular suspects feel they must defend. You have my respect, I've always made that clear. You also have other interests outside of the political threads. I can't remember the last time Dis contributed regarding lacrosse. If he likes politics so much, there are much more reputable political websites in which he can join and post with other like-minded individuals that share his intense political anger and resentment.

Joe

Diss is a longtime lacrosse official, if my memory serves me (which, sometimes, it doesn't), and is an ardent believer in the Country we all share. He disagrees, I think, that Congress needs to stand idly by while children are murdered on a weekly basis by violent, assault rifle carrying young men. He's hardly "narrow-minded;" on the contrary, he believes that church and state ought to be separate; that politics is a profession that might help people and empower the disenfranchised; that women's bodies are, in the first place, their own and not the regulatory fodder of white men who desperately cling to power through census undercounting and gerrymandering and voter suppression legislation.

Contributing to the lacrosse threads is not a requirement for this little club, any more than it is a prerequisite for posting on the politics threads. He asked a good question, above: did the Framers anticipate that the Second Amendment would mean that everyone is entitled -- as a constitutional matter -- to own and wield the state of the art technology in guncraft? The late Scalia said that the answer to that question is "No."

Can’t own a gun (or vote) til you’re 21.

No auto’s or semi-auto’s til 30.

If applying for auto or semi auto, interview with local police.

Every 5-year mental health evaluation for any auto or semi auto owner 30-45

Standardized red flag law

[JoeMauer89]

MD you make some interesting points. I can only say that until the folks on your side find a way to circumvent the 2nd amendment your peeing in the wind. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE D has no ambiguity.

OMG! Dumbest...err...Cradle...HAS IT FIGURED OUT! Yeah! Just BARE those arms and we'll be one safe, massacre-free nation! Boy, it's good having you here, Cradle...you and Joe really add a TUN to the discussion!!



Question for ya, C&S: you're a bit of an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, right? Did the framers original intent revolve around the type of "arms" (bare or not) that were available in the late 18th century? Did they think that WHATEVER civilization came up with in terms to TYPES of arms would be just AOK going forward...with respect to what they thought about, in the 1780's, as "Constitutional Rights"??

Asking for a friend...

..

You have friends on this site?

Joe

He does!!

Good to know. So in other words, he has a similar narrow-minded political ideology that for some reason you and the regular suspects feel they must defend. You have my respect, I've always made that clear. You also have other interests outside of the political threads. I can't remember the last time Dis contributed regarding lacrosse. If he likes politics so much, there are much more reputable political websites in which he can join and post with other like-minded individuals that share his intense political anger and resentment.

Joe

Diss is a longtime lacrosse official, if my memory serves me (which, sometimes, it doesn't), and is an ardent believer in the Country we all share. He disagrees, I think, that Congress needs to stand idly by while children are murdered on a weekly basis by violent, assault rifle carrying young men. He's hardly "narrow-minded;" on the contrary, he believes that church and state ought to be separate; that politics is a profession that might help people and empower the disenfranchised; that women's bodies are, in the first place, their own and not the regulatory fodder of white men who desperately cling to power through census undercounting and gerrymandering and voter suppression legislation.

Contributing to the lacrosse threads is not a requirement for this little club, any more than it is a prerequisite for posting on the politics threads. He asked a good question, above: did the Framers anticipate that the Second Amendment would mean that everyone is entitled -- as a constitutional matter -- to own and wield the state of the art technology in guncraft? The late Scalia said that the answer to that question is "No."

I don't think anybody in our entire government can be considered "standing idly by" when it comes to this issue. Take off the rose-colored glasses and see the problem for what it really is. It's a humanitarian crisis that is not inherently political in nature. Enjoy the games this weekend.

Joe

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us ... index.html

CNN is just spinning

We have a 2nd amendment given to this nation by our founding fathers. I'm certain that came about for a good reason. Who knows, maybe they were bored that day and came up with it as filler until they figured out the 3rd amendment?? Maybe the 2nd was nothing more than a belated April Fools prank?

Who on this board, other than you and maybe Peter (fine company to be in, eh) keeps repeating that the 2nd Amendment should be eliminated? Who you like this weekend?

When or where did I say the 2nd was under threat from anyone or anything? I'm saying to ban handguns and semi automatic weapons you first have to address the right to keep and bear arms. No one on this forum yet had explained how to address this little conundrum.

[cradleandshoot]

MD you make some interesting points. I can only say that until the folks on your side find a way to circumvent the 2nd amendment your peeing in the wind. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE D has no ambiguity.

OMG! Dumbest...err...Cradle...HAS IT FIGURED OUT! Yeah! Just BARE those arms and we'll be one safe, massacre-free nation! Boy, it's good having you here, Cradle...you and Joe really add a TUN to the discussion!!



Question for ya, C&S: you're a bit of an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, right? Did the framers original intent revolve around the type of "arms" (bare or not) that were available in the late 18th century? Did they think that WHATEVER civilization came up with in terms to TYPES of arms would be just AOK going forward...with respect to what they thought about, in the 1780's, as "Constitutional Rights"??

Asking for a friend...

..

You have friends on this site?

Joe

He does!!

Good to know. So in other words, he has a similar narrow-minded political ideology that for some reason you and the regular suspects feel they must defend. You have my respect, I've always made that clear. You also have other interests outside of the political threads. I can't remember the last time Dis contributed regarding lacrosse. If he likes politics so much, there are much more reputable political websites in which he can join and post with other like-minded individuals that share his intense political anger and resentment.

Joe

Diss is a longtime lacrosse official, if my memory serves me (which, sometimes, it doesn't), and is an ardent believer in the Country we all share. He disagrees, I think, that Congress needs to stand idly by while children are murdered on a weekly basis by violent, assault rifle carrying young men. He's hardly "narrow-minded;" on the contrary, he believes that church and state ought to be separate; that politics is a profession that might help people and empower the disenfranchised; that women's bodies are, in the first place, their own and not the regulatory fodder of white men who desperately cling to power through census undercounting and gerrymandering and voter suppression legislation.

Contributing to the lacrosse threads is not a requirement for this little club, any more than it is a prerequisite for posting on the politics threads. He asked a good question, above: did the Framers anticipate that the Second Amendment would mean that everyone is entitled -- as a constitutional matter -- to own and wield the state of the art technology in guncraft? The late Scalia said that the answer to that question is "No."

On a tangential issue how come the nightly slaughter in our cities do to illegal weapons is always brushed under the rug? It never garners the national headlines like a mass shooting. If the 2nd amendment needs to be fine tuned there is a remedy for that... Amend the constitution and let the people decide. That seems to be more logical than doing an end run around it.

[SCLaxAttack]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us ... index.html

CNN is just spinning

We have a 2nd amendment given to this nation by our founding fathers. I'm certain that came about for a good reason. Who knows, maybe they were bored that day and came up with it as filler until they figured out the 3rd amendment?? Maybe the 2nd was nothing more than a belated April Fools prank?

Who on this board, other than you and maybe Peter (fine company to be in, eh) keeps repeating that the 2nd Amendment should be eliminated? Who you like this weekend?

When or where did I say the 2nd was under threat from anyone or anything? I'm saying to ban handguns and semi automatic weapons you first have to address the right to keep and bear arms. No one on this forum yet had explained how to address this little conundrum.

Cradle - serious question: Where do you stand on the American public not being able to purchase RPGs, a weapon that can be fired by an individual and made possible by technology not available during the late 1700s? Isn't late an infringement on our 2A rights?