If you're in the market for a firearm, I recommend Family Firearms. They sell a wide variety of stock for very small margins. I only shop from them and it's really easy to get the gun shipped over to your local FFL.Thanks i have been lookin for one of those. Now to do some light shopping.
Why would I forget the key legal document of the U.S. Government and the foundation upon which the rest of the union rests? I see what you’re doing - you’re arguing backwards. In your mind, access to abortion is good, therefore Roe v. Wade should’ve been preserved as the legal precedent. My argument is that it’s the job of the SCOTUS to decide whether things are or are not featured in the Constitution, and that’s it. Abortion is ostensibly not covered by the Constitution, therefore Roe v. Wade was an erroneous decision that had to be overturned, any other outcome would make the court usurp the function of the legislature. If you think it should be constitutionally protected, there’s an existing mechanism for adding new rights to the Constitution - pass an amendment. As it stands today, it is not a constitutionally protected right, so there is *no* alternative to passing it on to the states *unless* federal law governing the issue is passed. I’m not “dodging” the question, the question is a weird hypothetical that doesn’t function in the U.S. legal system. Ask what you mean instead of laying elaborate traps, that won’t work.You are both running away from the question, which is quite simple: would if be better if states could legislate on slavery individually? Forget the current federal law or constitution.
Wow, you really believed you came up with a good point
"Seung-Hui Cho, an undergraduate student at the university and a U.S. resident who was from South Korea, killed 32 people and wounded 17 others with two semi-automatic pistols."It's a lot easier to kill more school kids before being stopped with one than the other.
Guy got skills."Seung-Hui Cho, an undergraduate student at the university and a U.S. resident who was from South Korea, killed 32 people and wounded 17 others with two semi-automatic pistols."
Virginia Tech Shooting - Wikipedia
Seems dude had no problem murdering a lot of people with two semi automatic pistols.
He shouldn't have had the guns. He was obviously mentally unstable. That's not the gun's fault. Be it a pistol or an AK-47 (which, according to This information, was in combination with several other weapons, involved in only two shootings (that this source has documented at the least) in around seven years, both of which resulted in far less casualties, and according to this info rifle style weapons tend to be the LEAST used gun in mass shootings in favor of standard handguns) Guns don't do anything unless manipulated by a person (or animal if they somehow manage to figure out the trigger mechanism)
To blame guns for the actions of the mentally ill with unfortunate and unwarranted access to the guns is, quite frankly, asinine. Most gun collectors/owners don't shoot random people because they are unhinged.
Quite frankly, I could care less if gun control was more strict or what kind of guns I'm allowed to have. I'm not super interested in the things. I like to shoot them at targets at the range or a target taped to a tree sometimes, but I'm not gonna die if I cant have whatever gun I want or have one at all. I'm just pointing out that blaming certain kinds of guns/guns period for the actions of those that have them is, yet another strawman argument.
We agree on that, actually. The disagreement comes from throwing the baby out with the bath water. You see that some (very few) people abuse access to firearms to commit atrocities, so your first thought is to restrict access for *everybody*. You want to punish the many for the sins of the few, and I have a problem with that. For the record, the most commonly used weapon in mass shootings, by far, is the handgun - rifles are a distant second. You cannot own a handgun in the UK, period, but you can own “an assault rifle”, including semi automatic ones, provided they’re of appropriate calibre and you have a permit (the restriction for semi automatic rifles is .22LR), and the UK is pretty damn restrictive about this stuff. You’re barking up the wrong tree, buddy.Yeah it's the people who are to blame for their actions, but their actions wouldn't be possible if they weren't holding the guns.
Really, that's all you can say?Guy got skills.
You are both running away from the question, which is quite simple: would if be better if states could legislate on slavery individually? Forget the current federal law or constitution.
Personally I’m glad that the decision was overturned - it was unconstitutional from day one. Now individual states should move to enshrine it in law, either in the state’s constitution like Florida or via other legislation. Naturally some states will choose to ban the practice, but that can’t be helped. The people will vote accordingly during election season if it’s an important issue for them.
Why would I forget the key legal document of the U.S. Government and the foundation upon which the rest of the union rests? I see what you’re doing - you’re arguing backwards. In your mind, access to abortion is good, therefore Roe v. Wade should’ve been preserved as the legal precedent. My argument is that it’s the job of the SCOTUS to decide whether things are or are not featured in the Constitution, and that’s it. Abortion is ostensibly not covered by the Constitution, therefore Roe v. Wade was an erroneous decision that had to be overturned, any other outcome would make the court usurp the function of the legislature. If you think it should be constitutionally protected, there’s an existing mechanism for adding new rights to the Constitution - pass an amendment. As it stands today, it is not a constitutionally protected right, so there is *no* alternative to passing it on to the states *unless* federal law governing the issue is passed. I’m not “dodging” the question, the question is a weird hypothetical that doesn’t function in the U.S. legal system. Ask what you mean instead of laying elaborate traps, that won’t work.
I don’t know about that. In the absence of a constitution I would enslave all of GBAtemp, with glee and relative ease. “Master” has a nice ring to it.I think your question presupposes that if states were allowed to legislate on slavery that this carries a risk of slavery becoming legal in some states, when in reality no state would every vote for slavery, so it's a moot point.
Depends what you mean by "restrict". Assess people individually for their application for a specific gun for a specific purpose, and you'll hopefully weed out more of the nut jobs. Testing on a par with what's needed to get a driving licence wouldn't stop "the right" people from getting their gun for a valid reason. These are screamingly obvious possibilities that I'm sure have been discussed to death and would solve some of the worst problems, appease some people and not piss off some other people that much, but hard-line "no restrictions under any circumstances" shitheads would rather change nothing and let the problem people keep causing the problems.We agree on that, actually. The disagreement comes from throwing the baby out with the bath water. You see that some (very few) people abuse access to firearms to commit atrocities, so your first thought is to restrict access for *everybody*. You want to punish the many for the sins of the few, and I have a problem with that.
It corrects the court’s error and provides impetus for proper legislation to be created regarding the issue. Congress has been napping this entire time, decades, relying on a SCOTUS decision that was always on shaky ground. It’s their fault, if anyone’s, that this situation is taking place.I'm merely following up on you saying you were glad as it gives the opportunity for states to enshirne into law.
Nothing prevented an amendment before, nothing prevented protected legislation before. Giving states the opportunity to legislate it first will accomplish nothing but make it illegal in some states.
Sure, that's all I can say. That's why it's the only thing I said, rather than, say, a flippant comment irrelevant to the points I've been making.Really, that's all you can say?
Then we have a fundamental disagreement regarding the function of firearms as a prerequisite for a free society. Liberty isn’t free, the right to bear arms is fundamental and cannot be infringed as it protects the populace from the whims of a tyrannical government as well as internal and external threats.For the record, my personal opinion would be full ban apart from exceptional circumstances, but the above would be an easy and obvious step in the right direction that would save countless lives and would take a certain kind of real shithead to object to.
Exactly, they had just under 50 years...It corrects the court’s error and provides impetus for proper legislation to be created regarding the issue. Congress has been napping this entire time, decades, relying on a SCOTUS decision that was always on shaky ground. It’s their fault, if anyone’s, that this situation is taking place.
Yeah, the delusion that America is a "free society", and even more so than all the other countries that don't have horrendous gun problems.Then there’s a fundamental disagreement regarding the function of firearms as a prerequisite for a free society. Liberty isn’t free, the right to bear arms is fundamental and cannot be infringed as it protects the populace from the whims of a tyrannical government as well as internal and external threats.
The U.S. has a gun solution, and a gang problem. The gross majority of so-called mass shootings are related to organised crime, not school massacres.Yeah, the delusion that America is a "free society", and even more so than all the other countries that don't have horrendous gun problems.
Atta boy, keep those delusions piling upThe U.S. has a gun solution, and a gang problem.