Which is more important, the first or the second amendment? Which is really under attack?

[esmith]

I hunted and ran a trap line. A semi is a convenience, not a necessity. Outlawing them would have zero effect on hunters. Well, on the ones who can aim the first shot anyway.

Yes but it would have a severe consequences on those that shoot competitively. Shooting in competition is one of the largest growing sports in the U.S. You see, there are those of us that look at a firearm as a fine piece of machinery and enjoy the relaxation of shooting them. Either target shooting or competitive shooting is an excellent means of forgetting about the every day stress of life. From some of your post it might behoove you to take up the sport

Ran a trap line and hunted? Wait till the SPCA, Humane Society, PETA, Fur-Bearers Association, and other anti-trapping/hunting groups find out about you. You gonna be in a huge pile of doo-doo.

 

[esmith]

I think you meant to say "best" there.
I'll take that Australian plan any day in this country. . . But it's going to be baby steps.

No I meant worse. However you are entitled to your opinion and as you know opinions are like a**holes....everyone has one.

It's funny. . . you're rattling off points here as if those are negatives. . . The average Anerican sees them as positives. Only a minority of people sees this as a problem.

Would you care to produce some data on that? Or are you just trolling?

Find a new hobby. Try stamp collecting.

Sorry unlike some people who live in basements I like to get out and enjoy the outdoors.

 

[Acim]

It honestly strikes me as we already have adequate measures of gun control in America and that it routinely is under enforced. Make a push for enforcement (i.e. stop and frisk, so that gang members are taken to task for carrying, in likelihood they'll use a weapon for criminal purposes) is met with great pushback, and deemed institutionally racist.

Also seems to me that LW would be okay with idea of criminals having guns, via underground market. That this is basically fine as long as currently responsible gun owners well aware of their constitutional rights don't have them, because they are 'gun nuts' (all of them, without exception).

I used to be a more zealous on gun control. I still favor it, but think we probably have it covered sufficiently and that lack of enforcement of current laws is probably at the heart of problem we have now.

All gun owners I personally know have conveyed to me that if they discharged their weapon with a person as the target and an officer shows up on the scene, they fully expect to be treated as a danger until in police custody (therefore would willingly submit to the law) and expect they will never see that piece again, regardless of investigation. Whereas we routinely see non-submission of armed or allegedly armed individuals who justify running away from (allegedly racists) cops as reasonable.

I'm currently thinking, don't know and would like @esmith opinion on this, that if stop and frisk were in place, that responsible gun owners would have little to no issue with being stopped and frisked while carrying. If that is correct, then it is bizarre that non-gun owners would see some problem with that. I think the problem is that gun-control types or anti-gun types would think such a policy would not be implemented fairly, and perception is that only poor black people would ever be stopped and frisked. But the reality is that we'd probably never hear of others who were stopped and frisked.

And going back to 1A, there are 5 in 1 rights on that amendment. Such that if one of those was under massive assault, the other rights probably wouldn't be, but if somehow we were at a point where some group, faction of society were arguing for doing away with 1A, I imagine that a whole lot of people concerned with a desire to abolish the other 4 would chime in. I frankly have never seen anyone in the U.S. even hint at eliminating 1A, while I have routinely seen people hint at undoing the single right in 2A, myself being one of those people (years ago). For sure, I see gun control people like myself express a desire to keep chipping away at it, to greatly limit access and possession, and call that a great thing. I'm less and less in that camp because the zealotry to me is either unreasonable (disregards responsible gun owners) or dangerous (seemingly okay with scenario where illegal market does arm those with criminal intent and responsible people must go unarmed). Bizarre to me that we think cops ought to be armed, but citizens not. More bizarre because we've gotten to point where trust in LEO is very low, and that is who zealots are saying ought to be the only people armed in society.

As I've said before (in this thread, elsewhere), if LW wishes to make serious dent on 2A, they'd be advocating for disarming government people. Until that occurs, there's truly a disingenuous argument occurring.

 

[esmith]

It honestly strikes me as we already have adequate measures of gun control in America and that it routinely is under enforced. Make a push for enforcement (i.e. stop and frisk, so that gang members are taken to task for carrying, in likelihood they'll use a weapon for criminal purposes) is met with great pushback, and deemed institutionally racist.

I think I would change the wording of "stop and frisk" to "stop, interview, and frisk on grounds of suspicion"

I used to be a more zealous on gun control. I still favor it, but think we probably have it covered sufficiently and that lack of enforcement of current laws is probably at the heart of problem we have now.

Agree

All gun owners I personally know have conveyed to me that if they discharged their weapon with a person as the target and an officer shows up on the scene, they fully expect to be treated as a danger until in police custody (therefore would willingly submit to the law) and expect they will never see that piece again, regardless of investigation. Whereas we routinely see non-submission of armed or allegedly armed individuals who justify running away from (allegedly racists) cops as reasonable.

Any person with a firearm is conceived as a threat to law enforcement until proven different. I suspect (since I have not been personally involved in "shooting") that the steps I would take (as stated by my local law enforcement and lawyer) is as follows:
Insure you are no longer in jeopardy. Holster your weapon. Check to see if you are injured.
Call 911 and say that there has been a shooting. give location and your name and description.
Obey first responder -surrender weapon if so requested (most likely will unless you are LEO and even then probably so)
If you are arrested and given your rights do not answer any questions without a lawyer present.
If no charges are brought against you and it was determined to be a shooting in self-defense you will get your weapon back

I'm currently thinking, don't know and would like @esmith opinion on this, that if stop and frisk were in place, that responsible gun owners would have little to no issue with being stopped and frisked while carrying. If that is correct, then it is bizarre that non-gun owners would see some problem with that. I think the problem is that gun-control types or anti-gun types would think such a policy would not be implemented fairly, and perception is that only poor black people would ever be stopped and frisked. But the reality is that we'd probably never hear of others who were stopped and frisked.

Note if you are stopped and carrying a weapon legally the first words out of your mouth must be. I am carrying a weapon. LEO do not like surprises.
If LEO stops someone they must have reasonable cause to search your person. Gray area on "reasonable cause"

And going back to 1A, there are 5 in 1 rights on that amendment. Such that if one of those was under massive assault, the other rights probably wouldn't be, but if somehow we were at a point where some group, faction of society were arguing for doing away with 1A, I imagine that a whole lot of people concerned with a desire to abolish the other 4 would chime in. I frankly have never seen anyone in the U.S. even hint at eliminating 1A, while I have routinely seen people hint at undoing the single right in 2A, myself being one of those people (years ago). For sure, I see gun control people like myself express a desire to keep chipping away at it, to greatly limit access and possession, and call that a great thing. I'm less and less in that camp because the zealotry to me is either unreasonable (disregards responsible gun owners) or dangerous (seemingly okay with scenario where illegal market does arm those with criminal intent and responsible people must go unarmed). Bizarre to me that we think cops ought to be armed, but citizens not. More bizarre because we've gotten to point where trust in LEO is very low, and that is who zealots are saying ought to be the only people armed in society.

Times change, public opinion changes, SCOUS changes. It is possible that individual city, county, states may enact new laws that challenge the current concept of the 2nd Amendment but can be upheld by the courts. However, I do not see any possibility in the near future that national laws will be changed. However, if one wants a certain type of firearm I wouldn't wait to long to acquire one.

 

[Wirey]

Point 1. you must have a clean criminal background for five year.
Who may not own a firearm:
Fugitives from justice
Illegal aliens
Unlawful users of certain drugs
Those committed to a mental institution
Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year
Those convicted of crimes of domestic violence

What would you like to add to the list as a criminal background?

Point 2. pass a mental competency test
Maybe sounds good, but who is going to give the test and what is the criteria of being mentally competent? Do the persons administering the test or those writing the test have to pass a competency test to determine if they are unbiased.

Point 3 Couldn't possess a semi-automatic or automatic weapon except for pistols?
You do know that possession of automatic weapons are only legal with a "special" license?
What is the differentiation, in your mind, between a semi-automatic pistol and semi-automatic rifles or shotguns. Oh by the way the below is a Steyr Tactical Machine Pistol. You ok with that. Seems you need a little better understanding of firearms.

View attachment 14849

Point 4. selling a weapon to someone in those circumstances without checking would result in a hefty fine
I assume you mean all of your above points. Well there are laws on the books that cover many of your points. However, we have not come to a conclusion about the "wording" of your points.

You can argue nuance all you want. Have you ever heard of the word 'semantics'? The fact that you won't answer directly tells me everything I need to know about you.

BTW, I lived in a gunsmith shop and an completely aware of the terminology related to guns. I also guarantee that in my time as a trapper I fired more meaningful rounds than you ever will. Having a small wiener and thinking a gun makes up for it doesn't make you an expert. Now, if you can grow up and not try to hide behind vague terminology for 15 seconds, let me ask you, what harm would a gun control law do to the average American citizen? If you couldn't have a gun, what difference would it make in your life?

 

[Wirey]

Yes but it would have a severe consequences on those that shoot competitively.

Good competitive shooters use bolt actions. I did that, too. Three years as champ with peep sights.

 

[esmith]

You can argue nuance all you want. Have you ever heard of the word 'semantics'? The fact that you won't answer directly tells me everything I need to know about you.

BTW, I lived in a gunsmith shop and an completely aware of the terminology related to guns. I also guarantee that in my time as a trapper I fired more meaningful rounds than you ever will. Having a small wiener and thinking a gun makes up for it doesn't make you an expert. Now, if you can grow up and not try to hide behind vague terminology for 15 seconds, let me ask you, what harm would a gun control law do to the average American citizen? If you couldn't have a gun, what difference would it make in your life?

If I didn't have a firearm I wouldn't be able to agitate people with your opinions. Oh, by the way if 20 years in the military doesn't count for meaningful rounds I guess you might be right.
Oh, by the way a bolt action rifle is not the only competitive sport...ever hear of .International trap, trap, skeet, USPSA, IDPA, 3 gun competition shooting, and various other shooting sports that require various firearms. Guess not since you seem to think only competitive shooters use bolt action rifles.

By the way do you have a penis complex?

 

[Scuba Pete]

but is there any indication where this image of her stems from?

Political tactics. If you can't rely on the issues to get elected, just make crap up about your opponent. It's the politics of FUDDD: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, Distortion and Defamation. The Republicans have done this more than anyone else for a long, long time.

 

[Lighthouse]

I often read with disgust various white wingers claim that Clinton wants to take their guns. They have absolutely no evidence by anything she's done or said, but they keep repeating the lies put out by the Gun lobbies designed to simply sell more guns and ammo. The politicos have jumped on the hate bandwagon and claim the same thing, again without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

However, now we have a presidential nominee attacking the first amendment with a vengeance. Donald Trump denied access to some press for seemingly petty reasons earlier this year but now he wants to sue the New York Times. Apparently they reported on women who have come forward since the last Presidential debate when he declared that he had never accosted women.

So, how does this impact you? If you are stridently against Clinton's mythical attack on the Second Amendment, how do you view Trump's not-so-mythical attack on the First? How do the rest of us approach this apparent hypocrisy? Is it OK for a candidate to try and control the message by litigation? Or should this completely disqualify them for office????

Very simple. Most are hypocrites. Both sides are hypocrites.
Not one side is and the other side is mythical and all cupcakes and rainbows.

 

[Lighthouse]

Political tactics. If you can't rely on the issues to get elected, just make crap up about your opponent. It's the politics of FUDDD: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, Distortion and Defamation. The Republicans have done this more than anyone else for a long, long time.

Another example I brought up to you before is mandatory vaccination without any religious or conscience exemption under phantom security reasons. The government and pharms have been using fear, guilt, bigotry, defamation, lack and false science, media in order to promote their agenda and strip people the own right to their own body and other freedoms. "The unvaccinated are dangerous, a threat to society." If you dare question your own freedom and choice, you are defamed to death through bigotry.
So while one side is claimed to do this for a long time, the other side is not mythical.

 

[Lighthouse]

I often read with disgust various white wingers claim that Clinton wants to take their guns. They have absolutely no evidence by anything she's done or said, but they keep repeating the lies put out by the Gun lobbies designed to simply sell more guns and ammo. The politicos have jumped on the hate bandwagon and claim the same thing, again without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

However, now we have a presidential nominee attacking the first amendment with a vengeance. Donald Trump denied access to some press for seemingly petty reasons earlier this year but now he wants to sue the New York Times. Apparently they reported on women who have come forward since the last Presidential debate when he declared that he had never accosted women.

So, how does this impact you? If you are stridently against Clinton's mythical attack on the Second Amendment, how do you view Trump's not-so-mythical attack on the First? How do the rest of us approach this apparent hypocrisy? Is it OK for a candidate to try and control the message by litigation? Or should this completely disqualify them for office????

There is also a line to free press and where the line is crossed in trying to ruin somebody in extreme measures.

I don't see Trump as for either party. He is his own mind. There are the Republicans, the Democrats, and then there is Donald Trump. I don't even think he knows what he is other than Donald Trump.

I think that any sound-minded American would view their liberties and freedom of choice of their own minds and bodies as opposed to the gradual increase of stealth control over ones mind and body. I also think that they'd prefer these liberties over the liberty of media. Those who have no concern for their freedom will just keep trusting the government with their own mind and body and follow the herd without thinking twice.

 

[Scuba Pete]

vaccination without any religious or conscience exemption under phantom security reasons.

Yeah, I'm actually OK that science wins out over ignorance and fear. Let's not hijack the thread with whacko conspiracy theories, please.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yeah, I'm actually OK that science wins out over ignorance and fear. Let's not hijack the thread with whacko conspiracy theories, please.

The hijack of another freedom and liberty was presented.
All dandy with religious equality and rights until Muslims and their children are forced into jabs with pork in them.