• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

It's shouldn't be "desire", it should be required that every time a gun changes ownership there should be a background check and new registration.
 
elkman92 said:
Is this about safety? It cannot be?
Click to expand...

There you go changing the subject again when you are proven to be wrong and absurd.

You'd have much more credibility if you could simply say, " I was wrong to have said ""The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act does not protect any manufacturer outside of current law, despite your posts as such"

But like every other time you are proven wrong you change the subject.
 
Even using that- "well trained" or "well functioning" definitely means the leaders of the militia can set up equipment requirements they believe is best for those functions.
 
just like all enumerated rights the Second can be limited by properly tailored laws. This was recognized in dicta by Scalia in the Heller case. I don't think the justification for such laws need be anchored in the "well regulated militia" language.
 
Junebug said:
In addition to 923's point, "well-regulated" does not mean what I think you are suggesting (ie, that guns are subject to "regulation.") At the time of the founding, it meant "well trained" and/or "well functioning."
Click to expand...

What did arms mean at the time of founding?
 
Junebug said:
Scalia himself said in Heller that the Second Amendment only extends to guns that are akin to those used by colonial militiamen. It's not clear exactly where the line is, but it is clear (according to Heller) that this doesn't include "machine guns" (Scalia's word.) This limitation has nothing to do with the "well regulated" language.
Click to expand...

Scalia also gun legislation is legal.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
lol:

Gabby Giffords' husband buys assault weapon
Click to expand...

Why don't you tell the important part of the story rather being misleading.

" Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords and an outspoken advocate for new gun control measures, purchased an AR-15 assault rifle in Tucson recently as a demonstration of what he says are unobtrusive background checks."
 
BeachBumDeac said:
14 year old shoots both parents in the head after being grounded from video games

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/...nts-in-head-after-grounding-from-video-games/
Click to expand...

BBD:

As horrendous as this incident is, I'm not sure how this is an indictment against guns and gun ownership. The weapon here was a .22 caliber pistol, not an assault rifle or even a large caliber handgun. The article indicates that the kid pried open a safe and removed the gun. Accordingly, the weapon was being stored in a responsible manner (although it can certainly be argued that a stronger gun safe was needed).

Instead, this story seems to bring home a common thread of unaddressed, or underaddressed, mental illness. Certain folks might also argue the influence of "violent video games" on the killer. (I'm not sure how I feel about that issue.)

Edited to add: Upon further reflection, a common thread between this incident and the Sandy Hook tragedy is the presence of firearms (regardless of the type and method of storage) in a household in which a mentally unstable person is present.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why it's so awful to have a gun liability law. If a gun you own is used in a crime and you haven't reported it stolen, then you should be liable for damages.

If someone uses your car and has an accident, you have to pay.

All the Constitution says is you have the "to keep and bear arms". It doesn't say you have the right to be held harmless for actions with that gun.
 
RJKarl said:
I don't see why it's so awful to have a gun liability law. If a gun you own is used in a crime and you haven't reported it stolen, then you should be liable for damages.

If someone uses your car and has an accident, you have to pay.

All the Constitution says is you have the "to keep and bear arms". It doesn't say you have the right to be held harmless for actions with that gun.
Click to expand...


Personally, I think people should be required to carry insurance for gun ownership the same way we have to carry insurance for owning and driving a car.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Personally, I think people should be required to carry insurance for gun ownership the same way we have to carry insurance for owning and driving a car.
Click to expand...

sorry that makes way too much sense.
 
elkman92 said:
You just posted the opinion of others just like it is fact...

"As leaders of Congress"

" unprecedented immunity for the gun industry"

"major news outlets should investigate why the gun industry remains shielded by law from the consequences of its irresponsible business practices in a way that other industries are no"


These are statements you just posted as if they are fact, and all they are is opinion. Feel free to post the Protection of Lawful Commecrce Act word by word when you get a chance...

I love the fact that you call me an extremist. Eagle Scout with two palms, WFU grad, US army vet.
Click to expand...

Wahissa 118?
 
RJKarl said:
You 100% wrong about this, but you will never admit regardless of how many independent sources I show you. I've shown three so far.

What you are alleging is ludicrous. If it was the way you state it, there would have been no reason for the law or the NRA and gun manufacturers spending millions of dollars to ensure the law's passage.
Click to expand...


Are you just daft? Feel free to look up how the National Association of Manufacturers felt about the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act, and why they supported it. That is fact...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top