Shooting

[iatrogenic]

I said I was guessing. You, basically, validated my numbers. Thanks.

The Douchey part is where you seemed victorious in pointing out that my guessing was wrong and that I was going to be spinning it into some some liberal argument. I was just pointing out that comparing OK and Texas is apples and mangos. And, before you get too high/mighty, I saw my first two story trailer between San Antonio and Austin at a trailer sales place. Were it in Paris, Sherman, etc. you could sell me on "they keep them in stock for the Okies".

The property tax argument you make is weak because you have no facts. Flesh it out with the cost of government services supporting the taxable property-use your numbers Bubba- and then we can examine the facts. All you have done is barfed up something meaningless so far.

How much did you pay for the trailer? You finally go that "dee-luxxe apartment in the sky" George Jefferson sang about. Don't forget to read the elevations on the overpasses on your way back home.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I can't believe y'all still try to argue with him.

 

[ShAArk92]

1. It shouldn't be less difficult to buy an AR-15 than a handgun. It was not in Florida.
2. Every firearm sale should be subject to background checks and the seller should be responsible (read: liable) for both documenting that the sale was appropriate and maintaining the records.
3. Address the low hanging fruit - bump stocks and high capacity magazines.
4. Should regular civilians be able to purchase military grade weapons like the AR-15? I'm ambivalent.

You're right. They should be equally accessible to an adult citizen of These United States.

2) smokescreen. We have background checks and unless it can be PROVEN the seller was aware of the buyers intent to commit a crime with said firearm, holding the seller to a higher standard of liability is ridiculous and prejudicial.

3) Bump stocks wouldn't have been a home-made thing if we hadn't decided automatic were to be banned. What's "high capacity?"

4) The AR isn't a "military grade" ... it just has the APPEARANCE of one. It's functionality is no different than any other semi auto rifle. So ... again, prejudicial.

Are those reasonable things?

No. They are pie in the sky ... at best. Probably the aforementioned smokescreen engineered for steps toward.

There are already more infringement upon the 2A than any other acknowledged personal right/restriction upon the Fed. And that's somehow not enough.

(haven't read the board yet) ... the YouTube shooting ... sure got quiet when the shooter's identity wasn't the "proper" one, eh?

 

[ShAArk92]

The truth is, America probably needs to amend the second amendment as the vast majority (i mean 90%+) does not want its original meaning.

guess that depends upon the meaning of "is" right?

... and then there's the entire truth about Franklin's response after the Constitutional Convention ... "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

That 90+% disagree with the right to keep and bear arms ... unrestricted ... doesn't make 'em right, just conditioned.

 

[ShAArk92]

I'm not big on owning an AR-15. I'm not in that world so the arguments are over my head in terms of need.

I really think it's more the absolute distrust that exists between conservatives and liberals. Statesmanship and bi-partisan agreements seem to be from a bygone era except when someone flies a plane into one of our buildings. It's a battle for control and to give even an inch is only seen as enabling a new and more advantageous staging ground for further advancement on the hidden agenda of extremism.

It's not about need.

It's about restricting the central government. Period. That's the purpose of the first 10 ... but here's the kicker, as Alexander Hamilton said in one of the Federalist Papers ... enumerating natural rights devalues those rights.

But ... the legal beagles won that argument, so we have 'em ... and there's this increasing perception the Government owns the adjudication of those natural rights. Which is WRONG.

Hello Free Society.

 

[Mr. Deez]

There are already more infringement upon the 2A than any other acknowledged personal right/restriction upon the Fed. And that's somehow not enough.

Your overall point is true, but I don't think this is literally true. We infringe on the 4th Amendment a lot, and some of them have not been applied to the states at all, so even if the federal government doesn't infringe on them, state governments routinely do. And of course, this isn't a personal right, but the 10th Amendment is extremely hallow. It's crapped on all the time.

But ... the legal beagles won that argument, so we have 'em ... and there's this increasing perception the Government owns the adjudication of those natural rights. Which is WRONG.

The legal beagles were right, because they wanted to guard against there being a time when there wasn't a general consensus on what is and is not a natural right. I think thet Second Amendment is an excellent example of how right they were. If the right to bear arms wasn't written down, it damn sure wouldn't exist today. Huge portions of the country as well as federal judges hate it. Do you think they would show it any respect at all if there wasn't an actual constitutional provision calling for it? No chance in hell.

The argument against enumerating them was that they'd be viewed as an exhaustive list and the other rights wouldn't be respected. The 9th Amendment takes care of that.

 

[bystander]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/9b80e7de-2b07-3f32-8d36-10b050ed5c45/massachusetts-ban-on-assault.html

"A judge in Massachusetts on Friday ruled against a lawsuit that questioned the state’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, declaring that the weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment.

Assault weapons are considered to be military firearms, U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling, therefore disqualifying them from being included in a citizen’s right to “bear arms.”

Policy makers, rather than the courts, were better suited to decide on the regulation for the weapons, he said.

"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said in his ruling. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy."

Bystander say's: So if I'm reading this correctly this judge is saying the state of Massachusetts is banning these weapons because of their own reasoning (weapons of war) but the ruling is not an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment on the federal level. I think this because he is saying other states are free to interpret the 2nd Amendment at will and that his ruling is simply a state's rights issue and that they have that right to interpret the Constitution as they see fit.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Bystander say's: So if I'm reading this correctly this judge is saying the state of Massachusetts is banning these weapons because of their own reasoning (weapons of war) but the ruling is not an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment on the federal level. I think this because he is saying other states are free to interpret the 2nd Amendment at will and that his ruling is simply a state's rights issue and that they have that right to interpret the Constitution as they see fit.

It is an interpretation of the Second Amendment. The judge is saying that the Second Amendment doesn't protect one's right to own an assault rifle. Accordingly states have the right to ban them or not ban them.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Huge portions of the population as well as federal judges hate it.

FIFY.

 

[bystander]

It is an interpretation of the Second Amendment. The judge is saying that the Second Amendment doesn't protect one's right to own an assault rifle. Accordingly states have the right to ban them or not ban them.

I think you're right but I was trying to interpret what he was trying to say.

 

[Mr. Deez]

FIFY.

True. It's not a large portion of the geographic US. It's a large portion of people in urban areas.

 

[iatrogenic]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/9b80e7de-2b07-3f32-8d36-10b050ed5c45/massachusetts-ban-on-assault.html

"A judge in Massachusetts on Friday ruled against a lawsuit that questioned the state’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, declaring that the weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment.

Assault weapons are considered to be military firearms, U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling, therefore disqualifying them from being included in a citizen’s right to “bear arms.”

Policy makers, rather than the courts, were better suited to decide on the regulation for the weapons, he said.

"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said in his ruling. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy."

Bystander say's: So if I'm reading this correctly this judge is saying the state of Massachusetts is banning these weapons because of their own reasoning (weapons of war) but the ruling is not an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment on the federal level. I think this because he is saying other states are free to interpret the 2nd Amendment at will and that his ruling is simply a state's rights issue and that they have that right to interpret the Constitution as they see fit.

Quoting Scalia from the Heller decision, as he tears down Stevens' use of the 1939 Miller case as a basis for his dissent:

That the Second Amendment “protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.” Post, at 2. (Stevens' argument)

Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of Justice Stevens’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. (Scalia's retort)

and

It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.

Young hopes that this does not go to the SCOTUS because his decision will be overturned.
Contrary to what Young wrote, Scalia would not be proud. Disgusted maybe, but not proud.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Young hopes that this does not go to the SCOTUS because his decision will be overturned

I wouldn't assume that. This is the kind of case in which Justice Ayatollah Anthony Kennedy (a great reference from Htown77) would probably love to pull a baby-splitting or just decline to hear the case. He's not a committed Second Amendment believer, and I could see him reaffirming the general right to bear arms (as indicated in the Heller and McDonald cases) but holding that a ban on assault rifles is a "reasonable" regulation of the right.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Do we have a federal definition of what an "assault rifle" is?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Do we have a federal definition of what an "assault rifle" is?

I think this was it.

"(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept ad detachablemagazine and has at least 2 of--
``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
``(iii) a bayonet mount;
``(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to
accommodate a flash suppressor; and
``(v) a grenade launcher;
``(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
``(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol
outside of the pistol grip;
``(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel
extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
``(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or
completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter
to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being
burned;
``(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the
pistol is unloaded; and
``(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
``(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
``(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds;
and
``(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.''"

 

[OUBubba]

The property tax argument you make is weak because you have no facts. Flesh it out with the cost of government services supporting the taxable property-use your numbers Bubba- and then we can examine the facts. All you have done is barfed up something meaningless so far.

How much did you pay for the trailer? You finally go that "dee-luxxe apartment in the sky" George Jefferson sang about. Don't forget to read the elevations on the overpasses on your way back home.

Do the letters FO mean anything to you?

http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state

.74% in Oklahoma
1.81% in Texas

 

[iatrogenic]

Do the letters FO mean anything to you?

http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state

.74% in Oklahoma
1.81% in Texas

And, through the magic of an OU education, we now have a clear understanding of the complicated, detailed operational results and point in time strengths/weaknesses of the two States. Thanks for the enlightenment, hillbilly.

 

[Phil Elliott]

You wanna do something about school shootings that might actually get results?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...law-enforcement-accountable-column/497285002/

 

[Mr. Deez]

And, through the magic of an OU education, we now have a clear understanding of the complicated, detailed operational results and point in time strengths/weaknesses of the two States. Thanks for the enlightenment, hillbilly.

Your sarcasm at Barry is some of the best stuff here. If I recall correctly, you've also referred to him as "Gomer." lol

 

[UTChE96]

Its funny that the media and the Left continue referring to the AR15 as a military grade weapon. As far as I can tell, no military in the world issues the AR15. Plenty that use fully automatic assault rifles but not the semi-auto AR15. Ironically, many handguns that civilians purchase are issued by the US and other militaries.

 

[UTChE96]

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept ad detachablemagazine and has at least 2 of--
``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
``(iii) a bayonet mount;
``(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to
accommodate a flash suppressor; and
``(v) a grenade launcher;

Thanks for posting this. These classifications are so arbitrary and actually comical. How is a pistol grip and a grenade launcher even remotely in the same realm of discussion? So a semi-automatic rifle with a grenade launcher would not be considered an assault weapon as long as I don't add a telescoping stock, suppressor, pistol grip, or a freaking bayonet. LMAO!

 

[Mr. Deez]

Thanks for posting this. These classifications are so arbitrary and actually comical. How is a pistol grip and a grenade launcher even remotely in the same realm of discussion? So a semi-automatic rifle with a grenade launcher would not be considered an assault weapon as long as I don't add a telescoping stock, suppressor, pistol grip, or a freaking bayonet. LMAO!

And that's a part of the problem that's seldom discussed. Even if you put aside the ideological and constitutional problems with banning assault weapons, the nuts and bolts of writing the legislation is very hard to do without the law being either grossly overbroad or so narrow that it's easy to get around. I think most reasonably sharp gun control advocates understand this, but what they'd do is write the law as broadly as politically possible. As it fails and guns slip through the cracks of the law, they'd amend the law to simply make it broader and broader until virtually every gun is banned.

Some also aren't interested so much in full blown bans as much as they're interested in extremely onerous licensing and permit requirements. For example, most guns aren't fully banned in Europe. It's not even per se illegal to carry a gun in Europe. However, the hurdles you have to go through in order to get one and especially to carry one as well as the justifications you have to show (which can't be self-defense) deter all but the most committed gun consumers.

 

[OUBubba]

And, through the magic of an OU education, we now have a clear understanding of the complicated, detailed operational results and point in time strengths/weaknesses of the two States. Thanks for the enlightenment, hillbilly.

Is that how one says "yeah, you were right" in Texan? That's about $2,600 additional on a $250,000 home. And, that's comparing apples to apples. Some could argue that property might have more value in Texas - like 25% more actually. So not it's apples and pears.

 

[Joe Fan]

Could make same argument about guns

 

[bystander]

Keep it simple. You are not allowed to sell anyone's information gleaned from any website without written permission signed by a notary. At a minimum that should make it illegal to allow access to a FB user's friends list.

 

[Joe Fan]

Keep it simple. You are not allowed to sell anyone's information gleaned from any website without written permission signed by a notary. At a minimum that should make it illegal to allow access to a FB user's friends list.

FB would go out of business on those terms

 

[bystander]

FB would go out of business on those terms

The interesting thing to me is that network TV is free. Yet they sell ads. The only difference is we don't have the option to stupidly agree to apps that clearly tell us they will access all our information or to post things that would get us fired at work.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The interesting thing to me is that network TV is free. Yet they sell ads. The only difference is we don't have the option to stupidly agree to apps that clearly tell us they will access all our information or to post things that would get us fired at work.

Network TV works differently. I'm willing to bet that far more people watch TV commercials than watch Facebook ads.

 

[ShAArk92]

The legal beagles were right, because they wanted to guard against there being a time when there wasn't a general consensus on what is and is not a natural right.

I think the problem with that argument is very much like the difference in the flying rules for the Air Force before, say, 1989 and subsequent.

Before '89, the rule book was more about a list of restrictions ... and if there were no restriction, you could do it.

Now ... the rule book is more about a list of permissive If it doesn't say you can do it, you can't.

That part about "hold these truths to be self evident" ... not so much, eh? Now we look to government for our provision as well as our propriety ... when NEITHER is the proper perspective.

 

[bystander]

I think the truth that is self-evident is that in this day and age it should be against the law to sell information about your customers to anyone. Period. Too bad. Life has now changed.