Sniper gun questions and the right to bear arms

[CuttingEdge]

We do not have a difference in beliefs. We have a difference in facts. I believe that lifeguards prevent drownings and you think its a persons responsibility to know how to swim if they live in a area that has a pool.

Again: passing judgement.

I believe BOTH. Having lifeguards and learning to swim would increase the chances of survivability of an undertow to a victim. Just as I believe police officers who serve and protect, as well as having armed teachers, would reduce school shootings.

Again, a google search will show that historically it has.

 

[CuttingEdge]

You are not Joe Biden. That's actually all the answer you need on that absolutely ludicrous front. Joe Biden can launch a drone to take you out on the way to work. Why can't I have one encase the Proud Boys come near my property?

You can: and that is the point. It may be illegal for you to mount a pistol onto a drone; but you can still physically do it.

Laws cannot protect you, they only dictate what the consequences are for behavior that is deemed illegal.

The shooter in Ulvalde broke several laws, and yet he still killed innocent school children. To him/her, the consequences did not matter.

If someone flies a drone at me with a handgun mounted on it, to them the consequences of it being illegal might not matter, but at least I can protect myself and my family. Biden has people looking out for him and his family carrying guns, and the 2nd amendment says I can as well. Taking that right away now, will only prove to be foolish.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Why a drone with a handgun which sounds unwieldy and not one with a built in bomb?

 

[butters]

mordbrand...post 467...needs to learn how to use the quote function

he quotes 2 posts as mine, yet only the smaller one belongs to me. what is it with these fuck ups that they believe in god n gunz and fear vaccines n masks?

 

[LittleDixie]

"Arguments are the same"? Remind me exactly how many children perished by gunfire the day Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus?

Not sure if you understand what "the arguments are the same" means.

If you have a right, you don't have to ask permission. No one gets to take that right away from you. That is the argument.

 

[ll74]

And the argument is missing the main piece - no right is absolute. Your rights can be taken from you if you attempt to take them away from someone else.

 

[mordbrand]

mordbrand...post 467...needs to learn how to use the quote function

he quotes 2 posts as mine, yet only the smaller one belongs to me. what is it with these fuck ups that they believe in god n gunz and fear vaccines n masks?

Perhaps you should address the comments instead of being a snide sob and pointing out a posting error.

Additionally, you don't know a fucking thing about me, but like the average dickhead poster you make broad assumptions just to be a prick. I'm agnostic. I believe in the right to bear arms unless you follow the proper procedure to amend the constitution. I'm fully vaccinated and am just waiting for my white blood cells to recover from chemo so can get the latest booster. I had COVID before a vaccine was available and I wore/still wear masks as necessary.

I think you'll find an equivalent amount of anti vaccine proponents were liberals to the extreme, even more so prior to COVID. Vaccine deniers are in no way limited to the people you disagree with politically, trying to generalize them as all one or the other is pointless and flawed reasoning.

 

[mordbrand]

And the argument is missing the main piece - no right is absolute. Your rights can be taken from you if you attempt to take them away from someone else.

If the proper procedure is followed to change or remove the constitutional right is followed, I fully agree.

The problem is that most of the current knee jerk anti gun proponents don't want to follow the procedures, they want to override the Bill of Rights via legislation because it's far easier to get a bunch of people in Congress to make laws about things they know next to nothing about.

Our elected officials on both sides of the aisle are mostly functionally ignorant on guns. The last ban proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt, as they just used a bunch of terms they didn't comprehend to ban the "scary" rifles. People in the know had access to obtain equivalent or better weapons with almost no problem.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

And the argument is missing the main piece - no right is absolute.

EXCEPT THE ONES PROGRESSIVES LIKE!!!!

LOL.....unreal.

And no they technically aren't but legally some effectively are.

Your rights can be taken from you if you attempt to take them away from someone else.

That's a big IF you gun grabbers, speech censoring, states rights and private property hating socialist seem to ignore regularly and think your beloved GAWD the government can just come and violate people you don't like, all you guy wish them to.

And you're wrong.

 

[ll74]

EXCEPT THE ONES PROGRESSIVES LIKE!!!!

No right is absolute - zero qualifications there

That's a big IF

If a kid walks into Walmart to buy a gun with the intent to take away someone else's right.

Good point...thanks.

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

No right is absolute - zero qualifications there

Not even abortion?? Beating up whitey when your social justice fee fees demand it??

You fucking racist!!! God damn Trumpian Nazi you are!!!

LOL

If a kid walks into Walmart to buy a gun with the intent to take away someone else's right.

Prove his intent.....

And I'll fully support preventing him from buying whatever.

I even support the idea of red flag laws and so long as they are honestly enforced don't see any issue with it.... honest enforcement is the issue though.

I don't fuckin' trust the police ....they are the bootheel and how many school shootings have they stood outside of and just let happen now?? Fuck the police.

 

[ll74]

Not even abortion??

Not even abortion

Prove his intent.....

Background checks and wait time should account for that along with red flag laws

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

Why a drone with a handgun which sounds unwieldy and not one with a built in bomb?

I'm going to go with "explosives freak normies out" for 500.....

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

Not even abortion

Oh man... we have a woman hating fascist here!!!!

Wants to make Handmaids Tale a reality!!!

Background checks and wait time should account for that along with red flag laws

Background checks and wait times have a record of doing fuck -all except maybe force better planning on the shooters part.

Maybe red flag laws would help but it didn't stop the psycho in Buffalo...... and he went around flaunting hist animal abuse and making threats to shoot the place up. Nobody did shit.

Red flag laws are only as good as your law enforcement services...... DEFUND THE POLICE!!! LOL

 

[ll74]

Oh man... we have a woman hating fascist here!!!!

Wants to make Handmaids Tale a reality!!!

I guess you finding yourself funny helps with self esteem

Background checks and wait times have a record of doing fuck -all except maybe force better planning on the shooters part.

Maybe red flag laws would help but it didn't stop the psycho in Buffalo...... and he went around flaunting hist animal abuse and making threats to shoot the place up. Nobody did shit.

Red flag laws are only as good as your law enforcement services...... DEFUND THE POLICE!!! LOL

Yes, I am aware you disagree with my suggestions..we may have discussed it prior.

 

[butters]

Perhaps you should address the comments instead of being a snide sob and pointing out a posting error.

Additionally, you don't know a fucking thing about me, but like the average dickhead poster you make broad assumptions just to be a prick. I'm agnostic. I believe in the right to bear arms unless you follow the proper procedure to amend the constitution. I'm fully vaccinated and am just waiting for my white blood cells to recover from chemo so can get the latest booster. I had COVID before a vaccine was available and I wore/still wear masks as necessary.

I think you'll find an equivalent amount of anti vaccine proponents were liberals to the extreme, even more so prior to COVID. Vaccine deniers are in no way limited to the people you disagree with politically, trying to generalize them as all one or the other is pointless and flawed reasoning.

you're right, i owe you an apology for generalising. sorry. i get very frustrated over posting verified, factual, well-sourced information rebutting ridiculous shit (mostly) maga fruits post only for them to say 'oh no, fake news' et al.

but the reason i pointed out your quoting error is that you made it look like i espoused a ton of nonsense i absolutely never would.

i'm off to watch the committee hearing.

 

[mordbrand]

you're right, i owe you an apology for generalising. sorry. i get very frustrated over posting verified, factual, well-sourced information rebutting ridiculous shit (mostly) maga fruits post only for them to say 'oh no, fake news' et al.

but the reason i pointed out your quoting error is that you made it look like i espoused a ton of nonsense i absolutely never would.

i'm off to watch the committee hearing.

In the same spirit, I apologize for misunderstanding your rebuttal as a personal attack.

 

[rockcasbah]

americans have been spoonfed this from birth. it's not actually true.

When are you leaving?

 

[mordbrand]

Not even abortion

Background checks and wait time should account for that along with red flag laws

You do realize that there already are nationwide background checks on all guns sold by stores legally?

 

[ll74]

You do realize that there already are nationwide background checks on all guns sold by stores legally?

Interesting. Yet somehow there's same day murder.

Yes, I knew that. And obviously that background check isn't intensive enough.

 

[mordbrand]

Interesting. Yet somehow there's same day murder.

Yes, I knew that. And obviously that background check isn't intensive enough.

It is very thorough, which you would know if you have ever purchased a gun. Waiting laws are not nationwide and I personally don't have an issue with them being implemented.

If you look at most mass shootings, you will find the guns are rarely purchased legally with a valid background check. Just saying.

 

[ll74]

It is very thorough, which you would know if you have ever purchased a gun. Waiting laws are not nationwide and I personally don't have an issue with them being implemented.

If you look at most mass shootings, you will find the guns are rarely purchased legally with a valid background check. Just saying.

Got it. I'm sure the lengthy wait time of about an hour is a deep dive.

My pizza took longer and it's inspected by the manager.

If you look at the most recent mass shooting...you'll find that the guns were purchased legally, just saying

 

[dmonty]

Semantics: all your theory is useless when you do a simple google search regarding teachers who stopped mass shootings. Idaho. Texas. Georgia...just to name a few. You say arming teachers cannot work, and yet history shows that it has.

The police in Ulvalde were scared and now are coming up with reasons to defend their cowardness. Every day the police all across the country execute search warrants where they fear criminals with high powered rifles are present, and yet they still go in to make the arrest. The police are there to serve and protect, and they did neither in Ulvalde.

Actually the "Protect and Serve" is just a good PR Campaign, that the movies & TV have convinced Americans exists. It doesn't the police have absolutely no legal duty to protect you or anyone else (one exception - if you are in their custody), they are only required to legally take a report, thats it. There are 1000's of court cases, restating this and at least 30 Supreme Court cases.

while its widely known among the 2nd Amendment advocates, and those that have been victims under the mistaken belief that the LEO's are there to protect you....its generally not well publicized that the Law Enforcement has absolute no duty to protect anyone or even to have to show up unless they feel its safe to do so.
LEA's and government, try to keep this out of the public eye and hire PR firms and get local news media to propagandize the lies that they exist "to protect and serve"

Add another US Court in 2016 that has ruled the Police "To Protect and Serve" is just an empty platitude. See Jaycee Dugard kidnapping, and court case against the US government.

A fact of law and of practical necessity individuals are solely responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Remember, even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they aren't), or even if they tried to protect us (which they often don't), most often there wouldn't be time enough for them to do it.

More legal info: Google: "The Public Duty Doctrine."

Police protection must be recognized for what it is, "report takers" after a crime happens. The police arrive on the scene after a crime has been committed so they can collect the facts, write an unbiased report, and file it with headquarters, while the lawyers determine fault in the courtroom using the before mentioned police report. (at best police response times are 5 minutes, but more often it's at least 45 minutes if ever)
LEA's & LEO's have absolutely no duty to protect you or your family; there actual job is to just take a report and file it.
The police have no legal duty to respond too and/or prevent crime and/or protect anyone. There have BEEN OVER 30 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won!!
There is only one exception that the Police have an actual duty to protect you it's called “special relationship” with the police clause - just in case you were wondering what would constitute a “special relationship,”
here's an example...

Let’s say that an assailant attacked a NY'er with a knife and he was eventually disarmed and restrained by the victim and the police eventually handcuffed the attacker, and witnesses then decided to beat the attacker. Police would then have a duty to defend him, (yes the knife-wielding attacker), because the officers had taken the attacker into custody and is now their charge.
If the police officers stood idly by as the attacker was now attacked, officers could be found negligent, because a “special relationship” existed between the police and the murderer as soon as he was detained.. (Google: Gelman, Lozito, NYPD)
See also (Google the following cases):
[1] Warren v. District of Columbia
[2] DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
[3] Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department
[4] Thurman v. City of Torrington,
[5] McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas
[6] Castle Rock v. Gonzales,
[7] Freeman v. Ferguson
[8] Keane v. City of Chicago
[9] Morgan v. District of Columbia
[10] Calogrides v. City of Mobile
[11] Morris v. Musser
[12] Davidson v. City of Westminster
[13] Chapman v. City of Philadelphia
[14] Weutrich v. Delia
[15] Sapp v. City of Tallahassee
[16] Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville
[17] Silver v. City of Minneapolis
[18] Bowers v. DeVito
[19] Zinermon v. Burch
[20] South v. Maryland
[21] Hartzler v. City of San Jose
[22] Bell v Thompson
[23] Ford v. Town of Grafton
[24] Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice
[25] Susman v Los Angeles
Then there is NY's special laws - That NY law dictates unconstitutionally that carrying any weapon for self-defense is illegal.
[26] Riss v. City of New York
[27] Lozito v NYPD, CIty of New York
Just another reason to ignore unconstitutional anti-gun laws, never register and never license it and always carry!!

 

[mordbrand]

Got it. I'm sure the lengthy wait time of about an hour is a deep dive.

My pizza took longer and it's inspected by the manager.

If you look at the most recent mass shooting...you'll find that the guns were purchased legally, just saying

You keep trying to redirect the background check to a waiting period. They are two utterly separate things. All the background check is for is to determine if you can legally own a firearm. It does it's job very well, it is not a delay feature nor is it a test for motives.

I understand that being obtuse over these differences allows you to continue to push your specific narrative, but maybe just try to use logic.

Additionally, I never said all in regards to legal vs illegal guns in mass shootings. I said the bulk of the weapons used. Again you are oversimplifying things to prop up your arguments. This is the common tactic of people who want to ban guns, not just make them harder to get.

 

[ll74]

You keep trying to redirect the background check to a waiting period.

A good background check requires a period of waiting (to do the check). I would enjoy a healthy dose of both. Either way....no one should have the ability to drive from the gun store to the scene of their shooting on the same day. If you disagree, feel free to lobby your representative in that manner.

To be honest, I don't see the point of a "debate". I will lobby for gun control in the manner I see fit. I will attempt to look for methods that allow people to have guns unless they are stupid fucks. You can lobby in the manner you see fit. Win win.