Renzatic on 11/10/2017 at 22:30
If Rosa Parks exercised her right to sit at the front of the bus with an AR15, she probably wouldn't be so fondly remembered today.
Also, JK, tone down the memes, sir. Your funny picture to words ratio is way the hell out of whack.
jkcerda on 11/10/2017 at 22:40
memes are real my friend.
far too may liberals seemingly think that rights end where their feelings begin and I for one am glad they are wrong. there is too much feel good legislation out there already. you have no real way to implement plenty of the feelings displayed on this thread.
Renzatic on 11/10/2017 at 23:04
But too many memes makes you look like a robot.
The problem is you have a situation where everyone is overly emotional. Those who lean on the farther left end of the great gun equation are going to have to come to terms with the fact that there is going to be no gun ban in the United States any time in the foreseeable future. To do so would necessitate us kicking off a Constitutional Convention, requesting a change that would first require 2/3rds of the House and Senate to agree on something before sending it off to be agreed upon by 38 of our 50 states.
Considering the fact our current government can't even come together to agree on the color and consistency of shit at the moment, any real attempt to change the Constitution is doomed to failure before it even starts.
On the flipside of this argument, those on the right need to understand that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee absolute unfettered freedom. The 2nd Amendment is pretty specific in its wording. The government has no right to deny We The People the right to bear arms. Though, as in all things in law, a stated specificity is just that: specific. What the law says on paper is what it does. There are no unstated assumptions lying beyond.
So the 2nd guarantees you the right to bear arms, but says nothing about attempts to regulating them. Provided any attempt at such isn't overly restrictive to the point it violates the spirit of the law, regulations aren't necessarily unconstitutional.
So then we come to the question of what do we regulate? What do we allow? Obviously the all or nothing approach taken by both sides of the equation isn't going to work. But a happy compromise? Well, answering that question will be like threading a needle with your teeth while wearing a blindfold and jumping on one foot.
jkcerda on 11/10/2017 at 23:13
you mean like a chat bot? God I wish my English was that good.
states tend to go full retard one way or another, look at CA , retarded as hell. then look at states where you don't need background checks for private sales, that is also retarded as hell . I am fine with background checks for ALL sales, 10 day waits? sure but ONLY for the first gun purchase, magazine limits? HELL NO, amount of guns you can have ? NO, negligent discharge laws? no problem.
this was signed by Brown here in CA
(
http://www.independent.com/news/2014/sep/02/elliot-rodger-bills-pass-legislature/)
Quote:
Williams's bill — which he cosponsored with Assemblymember Nancy Skinner — would allow law enforcement, blood relatives, or roommates of someone suspected of posing a serious threat to themselves or others to seek a judge's order to remove any firearms from that person's possession
other than that I have NOT seen anything in this forum proposed that is feasible.
Renzatic on 11/10/2017 at 23:26
William's Bill might violate the 4th, considering that someone merely acting fishy might not constitute probable cause to confiscate their property.
...though if someone walks in to the local precinct with their dad's manifesto, outlining how he and his buddies intend on blowing up the government with their collection of guns. Yeah.
I'll be the first to admit that our gun laws are all over the place, and at least half of them are kneejerk reactions to various tragic events, or the political fallout from them. If we want to get anywhere on the issue, the first thing we're gonna have to do is scrap all the bullshit laws that do nothing but randomly criminalize people for equally random reasons.
jkcerda on 11/10/2017 at 23:52
Politicians will NOT scrap laws , they simply don't know how to , plenty here propose things that go too far and are seemingly under the impression that WE are going to come to the table and "compromise" to their delight. Because they simply don't understand what compromise means , I prefer gridlock for that very reason , I am left supporting the NRA for the simple fact we have to sue just to keep our rights , things that I LEGALLY bought turned illegal and making me a criminal means I have no reason to come to the table
Renzatic on 12/10/2017 at 00:06
That gives you EVERY reason to come to the table. You might complain about nothing being done, but as long as you refuse to discuss the issue, well then hey, you've just created yourself a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Leveraging the NRA isn't even a good negotiating tactic anymore, considering they've gone batshit fuckity since around the start of the Obama administration.
You want to get something done? You should get a bunch of relatively sane people together, and go to Washington about it. If they're pushing for federal gun standards, you have more leverage there than you do in California. Anything that's done there will automatically override the state, provided its passed.
But on that same note, you can't do what you're accusing them of doing by listing out your demands, then complaining they're not compromising if they don't agree with them 100%. Accept the fact you won't get everything you want, but you will get some. Make sure the flip side of the argument comes out about the same. A good compromise leaves everyone a little angry.
jkcerda on 12/10/2017 at 00:18
***** sits on booster chair***** on peaches. I'm at the table. What do you want and what do I get ?
Renzatic on 12/10/2017 at 00:29
Hell if I know. This ain't my fight. My whole stance on the issue is "whatevs, brah."
