Sensible Gun Safety

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://apple.news/ArYrCrm2SQDO-UrKmmf-SRA

Ah, the Surgeon General weighs in. I was waiting for his "I don't feel like staying in my lane" warning to be posted here. Where to begin?

A 2022 study by John Hopkins School of Medicine found medical malpractice deaths in the United States to be as high as 250k/year (9.5% of all deaths). Other studies put that number at closer to 400k. Legal prescription drugs cause ~150k deaths per year. These horrific numbers dwarf "gun violence" numbers (even including the suicide padded numbers). Perhaps the Surgeon General should issue a warning for his own house, the US Medical Industrial Complex, and get that dumpster fire doused. In related news,

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 40 homicides were committed. Of these, approximately were 27 committed via the criminal use of a firearm. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 14,000 murders, with approximately 10,000 murders utilizing firearms. Individual weapon totals (approximate): 6,500 by handgun. 1,500 by knives/bladed instruments. 600 by body (hands, fists, feet). 400 by hammer/blunt instruments. 364 by all rifles. 200 by shotgun. The FBI data lists the balance as “not known”.

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 1,500 reported cases of Aggravated Assault were filed. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 550,000 filed cases, with FBI estimating the actual figure is much higher, as approximately 40% of cases go unreported.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 1,700 home invasions with victim (owner/renter/guest) present inside home. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 627,000.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 1,100 women were r*ped or sexually assaulted. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 400,000.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 110 men and boys were r*ped or sexually assaulted. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 40,000.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 20,000 calls were placed to domestic violence hotlines. Close to 7,000,000 annually.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 1,000 children went missing. And approximately 300 children ages 4-15 became sexually trafficked. ANNUAL FIGURES: 365,000 missing & 109,000 sexually trafficked.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 37* people were killed in drunk driving criminal violence incidents (aka “vehicular crashes”). Of these deaths caused by the criminal actions of the drunk drivers, approximately 14 were innocent vehicular homicide victims: pedestrians, motorists, passengers. ANNUAL FIGURES: 13,505* drunk driving deaths. 5,130 innocent victims. *Interesting aside: CDC defines children killed in drunk driving crimes as being aged 0-14 years old. Oddly, the same CDC expands the definition of children for the purposes of their “children killed by guns” statistic to include 15-19 year olds. Anyone else find that…odd? But I digress. In related news, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) didn’t blame a single “Assault Vehicle” for the criminal behavior of the driver who killed innocents.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 190 died of illegal Fentanyl overdoses (out of the 273 total overdose deaths today) supplied by criminal drug activity. ANNUAL FIGURES: 100,000 overdose deaths, 85% from illegal drugs, and 70% of that total from illegal Fentanyl. Estimates are that 90% of illegal Fentanyl in USA is manufactured in China, and crosses into USA via Southern border.

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 385 died of alcohol poisoning and alcohol related factors. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately140,000 deaths due to alcohol poisoning and alcohol related factors.

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 1,250 died of smoking related causes. Of these deaths, approximately 112 (including at least one infant 18 months or younger) were non-smoker victims of second hand smoke, including . ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 41,000 deaths due to second hand smoke, including 400 infants. One in five deaths in the US each year are caused by smoking. Note: Commercial tobacco products have been curated to contain chemicals which aid in the delivery of Nicotine, one of the most addictive substances on earth. These deadly to humans chemicals include Benzene, Toluene, Butane, Cadmium, Ammonia, and Hydrogen Cyanide. If a new company founded today released a new consumer product line (cigarettes, cigars, chew) that were constructed with the materials of the average cigarette/tobacco product on the market today, there would be a public outcry. The Surgeon General would be leading the charge. In the meantime, this dangerous public health scourge which costs taxpayers a quarter of a trillion dollars in health care costs and generates 12 billion dollars per year in Federal tax revenue has a few warnings on packaging. Mission accomplished!

TODAY IN THE USA: Obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and poor nutrition continued to ravage 40% of the nation’s population. Health costs and economic costs? Incalculable.

Note: Conflating suicide as “gun violence” is a disingenuous and purposely misleading policy based evidence making fib. America has lower suicide rates than heavily gun restricted nations including France, Switzerland, Hungary, Japan, Belgium, South Korea, Austria, Poland, India, Finland, among others. Should these nations and America count “rope violence” and “plastic bag violence” for hanging/suffocation/asphyxiation deaths? “Pill violence” and “Poison violence” suicides? “Gravity violence” suicides for bridge and building jumpers? “Knife and razor blade violence” suicides? Back in America, per the CDC, women use suffocation and pills/poison in 66% of suicides. For men, 43% of suicides are via suffocation and poison. Suicide is not a crime in America. When politicians and lobbying groups single out suicide by gun and lump it into the “Gun Violence” tally they are being patently disingenuous. Please note, anyone thinking I am being callous regarding the epidemic of suicide in this country, please save your breath. It is a sad and devastating public health crisis, and I doubt anyone here has not been affected directly or indirectly via family, friends, co-workers, classmates. Intervention, educational and physical mitigation strategies exist which focus on the potential gun utilization segment of those wishing to commit suicide, which is of course important as guns are very good at making a suicide attempt lethal. Access/storage strategies/equipment, and programs facilitating the temporarily turning in of guns at qualified locations for safe keeping are both encouraging and proven effective.

Too bad we don’t have our DA's, judges, and criminal courts focusing their energies upon intervention and punishment for the actual criminal perpetrators of violence, utilizing ANY means or instrument, and the public will become safer.

Hopefully the surgeon general can get back to processed sugars, high fructose corn syrup, and bad carbs. Those things are killing machines.

Just my .02

Those are problems too. Would you happen to know how those statistics compare to other first world nations?

No. I try to keep my focus on our country, as it is easy to get caught in the weeds on "compared to peer nations stuff". I only brought it up above relating to suicide as it seemed apt in terms of how rope violence, gravity violence etc. seem to be ignored.

Thanks

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

I would not put too much weight on this Madison quote. While the quote is accurate, Madison and the second amendment is far more complex. To understand you might want to look at Paul Finkelman. A serious historian's look at the writing of the constitution and bill of rights. The 2nd is all about State militias!! It is not about slavery and it is not about individual gun rights for hunters.

Been busy, and thus just able to circle back to your post. I can assure you my dig into 2A meaning goes just a touch deeper than Madison's quote. Does it make any sense that the founders "accidentally, oops, whoopsie" wrote the Second of all the amendments as a collective militia based only right, while every other amendment was about individual rights? If yes, then that's the ultimate founding era head scratcher.

We can all go round and round all day on this, and ping pong scholarly "definitive proofs" back and forth (such as the 2A was passed for slavery protection angle you cite), and thus join the politicians, scholars, lawyers, courts, and lobbyists doing back bends and playing word games to "prove" the true and absolute meaning that their funding sources desire – in order to add their proofs to the raging and ongoing fray. I respect everyone's right to draw their own conclusions based on their own digs.

The books in my library on the subject, the articles I've read, videos I've watched, and the judicial opinions I've read (and I am no legal whiz) since I became keenly interested in this topic quite a long time ago have led to my conviction and confidence regarding the 2A beliefs which I have drawn. The "all about State militias only" angle just doesn't work for me no matter how hard whomever tries to defend that interpretation. Anyone for whom 2A individual right interpretations don't work – fair enough, roger that, you do you, and how about a glass of merlot?

Gotta love Ruth Bader Ginsberg referring to the 2A in profoundly clear individualist terms in Muscarello v. United States (1998) – a case involving a Federal criminal statute. To wit, Justice Ginsberg's analysis of the meaning of “carries a firearm”: Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates, ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Participation in a structured military organization or militia is nowhere to be found. There are hundreds of similarly intriguing anecdotal crumbs - from before 1792 until present day - which one can add to their own 2A scholarship stew as one draws their own conclusions.

The above Ruth nugget is from the video below which I've shared with a whole bunch of friends and family. It's been available on and off the internet, and gets reposted here and there when it disappears. Yes, it's more than 40 minutes long. No, you don't have to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kXPvkH ... BhupZTCmUn

Anyways, I'm firmly an individual right 2A person, with the militia 100% intended as prefatory, not operative or restrictive. I came to this not just because of a Mason quote, or this video, or Ruth the rockstar. Ymmv, enjoy your own rabbit hole research on the subject, and I shall of course respect whatever beliefs you formulate as the result of your journey!

I reiterate my suggestion that anyone interested in understanding American gun culture in 2024 might enjoy the quick and breezy read of David Yamane's "Gun Curious". Jeff Bezos will have it to your door in 48 hours or less if you're so inclined.

[LaxFan2311]

We’d still be a British Colony if it wasn’t for the brave patriots who took up arms to defeat tyranny. As a reminder, the majority of gun violence is committed by mentally ill Democrats. NRA members don’t cause gun violence

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED !!!!

[jhu72]

I would not put too much weight on this Madison quote. While the quote is accurate, Madison and the second amendment is far more complex. To understand you might want to look at Paul Finkelman. A serious historian's look at the writing of the constitution and bill of rights. The 2nd is all about State militias!! It is not about slavery and it is not about individual gun rights for hunters.

Been busy, and thus just able to circle back to your post. I can assure you my dig into 2A meaning goes just a touch deeper than Madison's quote. Does it make any sense that the founders "accidentally, oops, whoopsie" wrote the Second of all the amendments as a collective militia based only right, while every other amendment was about individual rights? If yes, then that's the ultimate founding era head scratcher.

We can all go round and round all day on this, and ping pong scholarly "definitive proofs" back and forth (such as the 2A was passed for slavery protection angle you cite), and thus join the politicians, scholars, lawyers, courts, and lobbyists doing back bends and playing word games to "prove" the true and absolute meaning that their funding sources desire – in order to add their proofs to the raging and ongoing fray. I respect everyone's right to draw their own conclusions based on their own digs.

The books in my library on the subject, the articles I've read, videos I've watched, and the judicial opinions I've read (and I am no legal whiz) since I became keenly interested in this topic quite a long time ago have led to my conviction and confidence regarding the 2A beliefs which I have drawn. The "all about State militias only" angle just doesn't work for me no matter how hard whomever tries to defend that interpretation. Anyone for whom 2A individual right interpretations don't work – fair enough, roger that, you do you, and how about a glass of merlot?

Gotta love Ruth Bader Ginsberg referring to the 2A in profoundly clear individualist terms in Muscarello v. United States (1998) – a case involving a Federal criminal statute. To wit, Justice Ginsberg's analysis of the meaning of “carries a firearm”: Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates, ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Participation in a structured military organization or militia is nowhere to be found. There are hundreds of similarly intriguing anecdotal crumbs - from before 1792 until present day - which one can add to their own 2A scholarship stew as one draws their own conclusions.

The above Ruth nugget is from the video below which I've shared with a whole bunch of friends and family. It's been available on and off the internet, and gets reposted here and there when it disappears. Yes, it's more than 40 minutes long. No, you don't have to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kXPvkH ... BhupZTCmUn

Anyways, I'm firmly an individual right 2A person, with the militia 100% intended as prefatory, not operative or restrictive. I came to this not just because of a Mason quote, or this video, or Ruth the rockstar. Ymmv, enjoy your own rabbit hole research on the subject, and I shall of course respect whatever beliefs you formulate as the result of your journey!

I reiterate my suggestion that anyone interested in understanding American gun culture in 2024 might enjoy the quick and breezy read of David Yamane's "Gun Curious". Jeff Bezos will have it to your door in 48 hours or less if you're so inclined.

... if intended as an individual right, Madison would not have included the clause regarding "well regulated militias". Finkelman has it right! Sorry to disappoint.

[LaxFan2311]

I would not put too much weight on this Madison quote. While the quote is accurate, Madison and the second amendment is far more complex. To understand you might want to look at Paul Finkelman. A serious historian's look at the writing of the constitution and bill of rights. The 2nd is all about State militias!! It is not about slavery and it is not about individual gun rights for hunters.

Been busy, and thus just able to circle back to your post. I can assure you my dig into 2A meaning goes just a touch deeper than Madison's quote. Does it make any sense that the founders "accidentally, oops, whoopsie" wrote the Second of all the amendments as a collective militia based only right, while every other amendment was about individual rights? If yes, then that's the ultimate founding era head scratcher.

We can all go round and round all day on this, and ping pong scholarly "definitive proofs" back and forth (such as the 2A was passed for slavery protection angle you cite), and thus join the politicians, scholars, lawyers, courts, and lobbyists doing back bends and playing word games to "prove" the true and absolute meaning that their funding sources desire – in order to add their proofs to the raging and ongoing fray. I respect everyone's right to draw their own conclusions based on their own digs.

The books in my library on the subject, the articles I've read, videos I've watched, and the judicial opinions I've read (and I am no legal whiz) since I became keenly interested in this topic quite a long time ago have led to my conviction and confidence regarding the 2A beliefs which I have drawn. The "all about State militias only" angle just doesn't work for me no matter how hard whomever tries to defend that interpretation. Anyone for whom 2A individual right interpretations don't work – fair enough, roger that, you do you, and how about a glass of merlot?

Gotta love Ruth Bader Ginsberg referring to the 2A in profoundly clear individualist terms in Muscarello v. United States (1998) – a case involving a Federal criminal statute. To wit, Justice Ginsberg's analysis of the meaning of “carries a firearm”: Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates, ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Participation in a structured military organization or militia is nowhere to be found. There are hundreds of similarly intriguing anecdotal crumbs - from before 1792 until present day - which one can add to their own 2A scholarship stew as one draws their own conclusions.

The above Ruth nugget is from the video below which I've shared with a whole bunch of friends and family. It's been available on and off the internet, and gets reposted here and there when it disappears. Yes, it's more than 40 minutes long. No, you don't have to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kXPvkH ... BhupZTCmUn

Anyways, I'm firmly an individual right 2A person, with the militia 100% intended as prefatory, not operative or restrictive. I came to this not just because of a Mason quote, or this video, or Ruth the rockstar. Ymmv, enjoy your own rabbit hole research on the subject, and I shall of course respect whatever beliefs you formulate as the result of your journey!

I reiterate my suggestion that anyone interested in understanding American gun culture in 2024 might enjoy the quick and breezy read of David Yamane's "Gun Curious". Jeff Bezos will have it to your door in 48 hours or less if you're so inclined.

... if intended as an individual right, Madison would not have included the clause regarding "well regulated militias". Finkelman has it right! Sorry to disappoint.

Wrong. Even the Supreme Court has upheld that citizens have the right to private ownership of firearms. Democrats are the mass shooters

[njbill]

Heller was wrongly decided and will be overruled in the coming decades. Unfortunately, it will take that long to undo the grievous damage the Roberts Court has done to the country.

Justice Stevens’ dissent explains in great detail the legal basis for why the Second Amendment does not apply to individual gun ownership. The simple explanation is that the Founders did not think they needed to have a provision in the Constitution guaranteeing an individual’s right to own guns because they never thought the government would enact legislation impacting gun ownership.

Also, look at the laws in the West where people were required to turn their guns in to the local sheriff while they were in town. When they left town, they got their guns back. That’s temporary gun confiscation. Nobody objected to those laws. Nobody claimed they were unconstitutional.

The simple fact is that nobody thought the Second Amendment applied to individual gun ownership until Heller came along 230 years after the country was founded.

[jhu72]

Heller was wrongly decided and will be overruled in the coming decades. Unfortunately, it will take that long to undo the grievous damage the Roberts Court has done to the country.

Justice Stevens’ dissent explains in great detail the legal basis for why the Second Amendment does not apply to individual gun ownership. The simple explanation is that the Founders did not think they needed to have a provision in the Constitution guaranteeing an individual’s right to own guns because they never thought the government would enact legislation impacting gun ownership.

Also, look at the laws in the West where people were required to turn their guns in to the local sheriff while they were in town. When they left town, they got their guns back. That’s temporary gun confiscation. Nobody objected to those laws. Nobody claimed they were unconstitutional.

The simple fact is that nobody thought the Second Amendment applied to individual gun ownership until Heller came along 230 years after the country was founded.

Heller is sophistry!

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Popped a few thoughts and links in bold/italics below.

Heller was wrongly decided and will be overruled in the coming decades. Unfortunately, it will take that long to undo the grievous damage the Roberts Court has done to the country.

Handy compilation put together in 1999. You know, almost a decade before Heller "wrongly being decided": https://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm

Justice Stevens’ dissent explains in great detail the legal basis for why the Second Amendment does not apply to individual gun ownership.

See above link. And Justice Stevens goes to dean's office for not doing his homework of regarding the birth of the Bill of Rights. The actual texts, arguments, state documents, Federalist Papers, anti-Federalist stuff, etc, et.al, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, making it clear as the nose on one's face 2A is about an individual's inherently existing right to keep and bear arms, with the "but, but militia" stuff being profoundly prefatory as my previous post pointed out (as it fell on deaf ears).

The simple explanation is that the Founders did not think they needed to have a provision in the Constitution guaranteeing an individual’s right to own guns because they never thought the government would enact legislation impacting gun ownership.

??? Seriously baffling take. Respectfully. The 2A isn't the government giving permission to the people. It is about preventing the government from taking something the people have as an inherent right.

Also, look at the laws in the West where people were required to turn their guns in to the local sheriff while they were in town. When they left town, they got their guns back. That’s temporary gun confiscation. Nobody objected to those laws. Nobody claimed they were unconstitutional.

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/1236_3jh1526u.pdf

We're supposed to extrapolate a few town ordinances - in other words NOT laws passed by the legislative branch of the Federal government - as...meaning something broader? Again, baffled at what this point is supposed to prove?

The simple fact is that nobody thought the Second Amendment applied to individual gun ownership until Heller came along 230 years after the country was founded.

See first link above, and beyond that feel free to read the source documents, arguments, writings, transcripts of the states and founders as they attended to the pregnancy and birth of the Bill of Rights. And then work your way through the 230 years of jurisprudence BEFORE Heller. I've done so. Over a long period of time. And I guess I'll just have to fully, completely and profoundly disagree with that claim. If you have source material to suggest to me, please by all means do so. I would like to add it to my ongoing studies and understanding of the issue at hand. Thank you.

All of the data is readily available, and has been starting 250+ years ago and continuing to this very day. It's there, in black and white. Case law. Newspapers. Scholarly research. Two and a half centuries of same.

The collectivist 2A scholarly push, funded in earnest starting in the 80's by research entities in desperate need of policy based evidence making solutions to navigate over, under, or around the 2A bulwark, simply cannot and will not admit defeat. And in doing so helps promulgate and stagnate the real dialogues we all should be having which - if focused granularly on the challenging individual issues at hand - could begin to forge a path to real solutions. Stuff like criminal violence (all tools). Suicide (all methods). Mass shootings (Let's not forget, handguns used more than AR's: The FBI's own 2023 report has been out for a few weeks: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/202 ... 4.pdf/view). Family annihilations (all tools). And the erosion of education regarding gun safety, storage, and training.

Obviously, ymmv and your gray matter is yours. Fair enough. To each their own.

Happy 4th of July, America.

[njbill]

Obviously, you and I have diametrically opposite views of this issue. You’re not going to convince me. I’m not going to convince you. As of now, your view is the law of the land. My prediction is that will change in the future because it is so obviously wrong.

OK, yes, there were some people who felt as you do back then. But it was a decidedly minority view in the law.

I’ve read an awful lot about this issue over the years. Not going to take the time today to dig all that out. I would commend Justice Stevens’ dissent to you for your reading. He correctly addresses the issue.

I can assure you that when I was in law school in the 1970s there was no discussion that the 2A covered individual gun ownership rights.

Again, the common sense explanation is that the founders didn’t think it was necessary to include a provision in the constitution protecting individual gun ownership rights because, frankly, no one at the time ever thought the government would try to pass anti-gun legislation.

The Bill of Rights includes a list of rights the founders thought the people needed protection from the government at the time. Protecting militias was in their mind back then because they had just fought a revolution. Individual gun ownership was not a concern. England and the king had not tried to restrict gun ownership rights.

[njbill]

A few more thoughts.

I see I didn’t address your point about the Wild Wild West. My point is that if people had really thought back then that the second amendment protected individual gun ownership rights, they would’ve challenged those laws. I wasn’t making a federalism argument.

The Yale law journal article addresses the implementation of Heller and is immaterial to the point I am making.

Lastly, if the founders intended the second amendment to strictly apply to individual gun ownership rights, they wouldn’t have included the introductory clause referencing “militias.” Today’s National Guard is the successor to the state militias that existed back when the Bill of Rights was enacted. Back then, people brought their own guns to state militia duty. The protection of the second amendment was to protect the ownership of guns used in state militias. So, sure, members of the National Guard today have a right to bear arms when they are on National Guard duty. Nobody disputes that.

[SCLaxAttack]

A few more thoughts.

I see I didn’t address your point about the Wild Wild West. My point is that if people had really thought back then that the second amendment protected individual gun ownership rights, they would’ve challenged those laws. I wasn’t making a federalism argument.

The Yale law journal article addresses the implementation of Heller and is immaterial to the point I am making.

Lastly, if the founders intended the second amendment to strictly apply to individual gun ownership rights, they wouldn’t have included the introductory clause referencing “militias.” Today’s National Guard is the successor to the state militias that existed back when the Bill of Rights was enacted. Back then, people brought their own guns to state militia duty. The protection of the second amendment was to protect the ownership of guns used in state militias. So, sure, members of the National Guard today have a right to bear arms when they are on National Guard duty. Nobody disputes that.

Actually our military and National Guard are more like the western town example you provided earlier. With the exception of military police and during training most posts prohibit an individual to carry. Re: privately owned firearms, private firearms of people living on post must be registered at the post within 24 hours of coming on post. Re: carrying, from the .mil web site:

"Privately-owned firearms will be transported in vehicles only while traveling in a direct route to-and-from hunting areas, dog training areas, target ranges, or other locations authorized by the Fort Liberty Senior Commander. No stops are authorized.

The carrying of a loaded firearm in a vehicle is prohibited at all times on a Federal installation.

Privately-owned firearms carried in a vehicle will be secured in the trunk. For vehicles without a trunk, firearms will be encased in a container other than the glove compartment and carried in such a manner that they will not be readily available to the driver or passengers. Commercially-available trigger locks and other security devices are strongly recommended to deter and prevent loss and theft.

If requested by installation Access Control Point Security Officer and law enforcement personnel, individuals will present their registration documentation when the firearm is out of an approved storage location and being transported on the installation."

[admin]

Wrong. Even the Supreme Court has upheld that citizens have the right to private ownership of firearms. Democrats are the mass shooters

More trolling. Go back in the box. viewtopic.php?p=567570#p567570

[admin]

We’d still be a British Colony if it wasn’t for the brave patriots who took up arms to defeat tyranny. As a reminder, the majority of gun violence is committed by mentally ill Democrats. NRA members don’t cause gun violence SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED !!!!

Adding this to his already serving penalty time for trolling. viewtopic.php?p=567573#p567573

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Obviously, you and I have diametrically opposite views of this issue. You’re not going to convince me. I’m not going to convince you.

Let's just go with this. Agree to disagree.

I must say, you make some statements in your past few posts putting thoughts and words into the minds and mouths of folks which seem an awful lot like wishful thinking and personal projections to me:

"The Founders did not think..." / "Nobody objected to those laws..." / "Nobody thought the Second Amendment applied to individual gun ownership until Heller..." / "It was a decidedly minority view" / "No one at the time (founding era) ever thought the government would try to..." / "Individual gun ownership was not a concern..." / "The commonsense explanation is that the founders didn't think...".

Regarding Heller: Stevens' butchering extrapolations of the Miller ruling, and the flawed Amicus Briefs he relied upon, doesn't instill much confidence in his dissent. I'll take the founding era documents and respected scholar's historical analysis over his take any day, with no disrespect meant to that very decent bowtie wearing human.

And I promise, next time I'm in Tombstone I'll check my six shooter with the Sheriff. And rustle up a bunch of cowboys and cowgirls to petition the Supreme Court to tell the Sheriff he can't make unconstitutional laws. After all, it's 1880 and we don't have anything better to do with our time, such as hacking a meager existence out of the harsh wilderness. You sure are putting a lot of stock in your Wild West analogy of a few towns and their local ordinances as proof gun confiscation was approved by the citizenry. Moot, anyways, as that pesky Second Amendment sits in the way.

In recent news, violence with criminally owned firearms continues. Here's a lovely crime resulting in the murder of an innocent visitor to American from New Zealand at an upscale shopping center in strictest of strict gun law but soft on criminals California: catch and release recidivist perpetrator. Two protege perpetrators - you know, the 18 & 19 year olds included in the "Guns are the leading cause of death of children" fib filled soufflé which Bloomberg Brigade Lobbying Industrial Complex member organizations (Moms Against, Giffords, JHU, Everytown, Newton, etc.) breathlessly recirculate in their emotion fueled echo chambers. https://x.com/TheKevinDalton/status/1808641060127846878

Just one more law disarming law-abiding citizens added to the 20,000+ already in place - and criminals will stop criminal-ing. What is truly baffling is these organizations would get many responsible citizens who own firearms on their side if they stopped with their relentless fixation on the tool. A bipartisan "call to arms" which fixated on root causes and solutions should be priority one. The research and precedents do exist, yet they sit gathering dust as they are not politically expedient. Shame on our leaders on both sides of the aisle. They win when we squabble, blame, deflect, and point solutions in the wrong direction.

Your posts around here are reasoned and less than zero on the toxicity scale for this place, and I do hope my participation reflects similar demeanor. You be you, and I'll be me. Stay safe.

[jhu72]

Ain't the free market great.

[cradleandshoot]

So the Mayor of Chicago is blaming all of the gun violence in his city on the Republicans. If the mayor wants to see who is responsible all he has to do is look in the mirror. Democrats have run Chicago exclusively for over 90 years. The good mayor even went as far as declaring the Republicans should be "brought up on charges" The best form of defense is always attack. Why not blame your ineptitude on the other party? Republicans are even responsible for the free flow of illegal weapons into the windy city. Republicans are responsible for many things, the unmitigated violence in Chicago isn't one of them.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.threads.net/@beingliberal/p ... enQrkB3VsA

[jhu72]

https://www.threads.net/@beingliberal/p ... enQrkB3VsA

... "put it next to the one that dispenses thoughts and prayers" cracked me up.

[ggait]

Up to 8 shots in 2 seconds killing one, critically wounding two, and one inch from assissinating a former and possible future president. From 150 yards away from a kid with apparently no serious marksman ship training.

Hard to do that with a knife, baseball bat or handgun. Thank god the kid didn’t invest in a now completely legal bump stock. Could have been Las Vegas 2.0.

Love me some AR 15 action.

[LaxFan2311]

Up to 8 shots in 2 seconds killing one, critically wounding two, and one inch from assissinating a former and possible future president. From 150 yards away from a kid with apparently no serious marksman ship training.

Hard to do that with a knife, baseball bat or handgun. Thank god the kid didn’t invest in a now completely legal bump stock. Could have been Las Vegas 2.0.

Love me some AR 15 action.

Criminals don’t follow gun laws. This was an inside job. A good compromise would be to not let deranged leftists own firearms. Almost all mass shootings/assassinations and attempts in US history are/were committed by Democrats.

NRA members aren’t murderers or mass shooters.



The Democrats assassinated Abe Lincoln

The Democrats assassinated JFK

The Democrats assassinated MLK

The Democrats assassinated Malcolm X

The Democrats attempted to assassinate
Theodore Roosevelt

The Democrats attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan

The Democrats attempted to assassinate President Trump

The Democratic Party is a dangerous and deadly criminal organization