135 replies to this topic

[Fox Fire]

A couple lawsuits have already been filed on the grounds it is Unconstitutional. Honestly I have no clue which way the courts will side on it. I can bet that the ATF has already said, go ahead and deny a sale to whoever you want for whatever reason you want. That the individual FFL is given immense discretion and can have whatever policies they want. But it could be possible this gets over turned in a Federal Court. If it goes to the Supreme Court the 21 age limit might very well stay. We have to remember that Justice Roberts is a bit of a wild card and could side with the liberal Judges on this one.

They would actually be the third state to do so, I believe. The fact that it's 21 to "purchase" a gun and not "own" one is a major reason why it will probably hold and everyone will just allow the government keep slowly chipping away. If this isn't infringement, IDK what is. As the sister of a vet who was sent to war before 21, I find it utterly insulting. If this does hold, we're starting to face a pretty slippery slope. 

 

 

 

And saw that Florida just raised the age limit to purchase firearms....
 
And Trump supports this. This is unacceptable. We cannot allow this unconstitutional idiocy to keep spreading. To the guillotine with these criminal politicians!

That is why I said this:

Now this just screams inconsistancy, what was even the reasoning to make handguns 21?

That and Trump has always been a wildcard, heck he swayed so much on this one topic already he puts palmtree's to shame...

 

And I already explained. Handguns account for the vast majority of firearms murders and at the same time, handguns will be of little use for the primary reason of the 2nd. 

Access to long guns > Access to handguns

[Lysistrata]

We all have to remember the politics. It would not be the first time a law has been passed because it's the popular thing to do, and signed into law by a Governor who is running for Senator... when they all know it will be struck down as unconstitutional.

 

State law may have the power to limit an age on a Constitutional right... I don't know, but this is not the same as an age limit on something like alcohol. There is not a Constitutional Amendment protecting the right of alcohol. Maybe they can "regulate" it.

 

These guys may be doing what is popular at the time, but I don't believe they can pick and choose what to prohibit between 18 and 21... not when it comes to the Constitution. It would be like saying an 18 year old does not have the right to free speech... but when they hit 21 they can talk all they want about whatever they want. It doesn't make sense to me, and I doubt the Supreme Court can justify it either. I still believe they are playing for the voters, and when the court strikes it down they can say it's not their fault.

 

Also, this is for buying guns... not owning a gun, or possession of a gun.

[ccabal86]

He is right though, Buzzfeed, HuffPo and Salon really are complete clickbait trash. At least Buzzfeed is having financial troubles last I heard, so here’s hoping it goes down the toilet soon.

 
 
Buzzfeed,
 
 
Surprisingly. no. Buzzfeed gets a ton of its funding from clickbaity silliness, but it's one of the few places that do actual for real investigative journalism.  After The Wall Street Journal and a few other papers took the weed whacker to their investigative teams, buzzfeed turned around and hired a bunch of them. 
 
So they've put out
 
really
 
really
 
really
 
high quality work. They swung a pulitzer citation last year and only lost out because it was for international reporting and the NYT kicked the shit out of everything last year. They ouytihy have multiple  Pulitzer prize winners on staff. 
 
The clickbaity derp and lifestyle stuff is buzzfeed's solution to the funding problem facing journalism. Even if you don't like it, it is a hell of a lot better than some of the other "solutions" we've seen. And whatever else can be said about buzzfeed, it's been pretty good at keeping a bright line between the clickbait fluff and the real work, rather than trying to disguise the fluff as real work .
 
Personally I'll take 100 articles about "You won't believe how cute these smol bunnies are!" or whatever if it funds real journalism.  Sure as hell beats anything  Bill Maher has done, let alone of the trash rags like the sun/the independent/NY post etc.

Clickbait or no, they're been having troubles for years now:

Article from 2016:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/buzzfeed-slashes-revenue-forecast-is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-millennial-media-bubble

And 2017:
http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/buzzfeed-2017-revenue-miss-1202616961/

As for the articles themselves, I guess one in a blue moon, they get it at least semi-right. Would be realy sad if they couldn't even manage that. Unfortunately, for every "quality" piece you can find a ton of poorly researched, biased racebait, genderbait or other articles that oozed regressive leftist ideology.

So yeah. Let's hope those finacial problems keep escalating, then maybe the few good journalists can jump ship and seek employment at more reputable mediums.

[onbekende]

 

And I already explained. Handguns account for the vast majority of firearms murders and at the same time, handguns will be of little use for the primary reason of the 2nd. 

Access to long guns > Access to handguns

 

 

And again, I totally understand the reasoning. I am just bemused at the apparent inconsistancy as the 2nd only mentions "arms". Besides the "primary reason" would nudge me into thinking handguns are more appropiate as less hassle/training is required to get meaningfull results (I am not saying handguns are more usefull in a fully trained scenario).

 

Let me state it the other way around, why would the reasoning behind 21y restriction on handguns not apply to other guns?

 

 

 

These guys may be doing what is popular at the time, but I don't believe they can pick and choose what to prohibit between 18 and 21... not when it comes to the Constitution. It would be like saying an 18 year old does not have the right to free speech... but when they hit 21 they can talk all they want about whatever they want. It doesn't make sense to me, and I doubt the Supreme Court can justify it either. I still believe they are playing for the voters, and when the court strikes it down they can say it's not their fault.

 

Which comes down to the next question, is the Constitution robust enough to support a 18 over 21 decision.

[DeathMerchant]

There is an old saying in firearm training courses. You use your handgun to fight your way back to your rifle. I would much rather carry a a rifle or shotgun slung around my back, as that would accurately allow for the ability to engage targets beyond 25 yards, plus have better penetration/stopping power. But not only is open carry illegal in my state, there is a certain desire to blend in with your surroundings by carrying concealed. So generally I would put long arm over handgun in terms of importance, but handguns do have their own set of useful purposes.

[Fox Fire]

 

 

And I already explained. Handguns account for the vast majority of firearms murders and at the same time, handguns will be of little use for the primary reason of the 2nd. 

Access to long guns > Access to handguns

 

 

And again, I totally understand the reasoning. I am just bemused at the apparent inconsistancy as the 2nd only mentions "arms". Besides the "primary reason" would nudge me into thinking handguns are more appropiate as less hassle/training is required to get meaningfull results (I am not saying handguns are more usefull in a fully trained scenario).

 

Let me state it the other way around, why would the reasoning behind 21y restriction on handguns not apply to other guns?

 

 

 

These guys may be doing what is popular at the time, but I don't believe they can pick and choose what to prohibit between 18 and 21... not when it comes to the Constitution. It would be like saying an 18 year old does not have the right to free speech... but when they hit 21 they can talk all they want about whatever they want. It doesn't make sense to me, and I doubt the Supreme Court can justify it either. I still believe they are playing for the voters, and when the court strikes it down they can say it's not their fault.

 

Which comes down to the next question, is the Constitution robust enough to support a 18 over 21 decision.

 

Actually handguns are just as difficult to use as long guns. They are meant for short range, so aside from shooting someone at point blank range, which would be just as easy as doing so with a rifle, they still require just as much practice. The major difference between a handgun and long gun is that handguns are easy to conceal, thus assassination/murder is generally much easier with a handgun. You just have to get close enough. Which is why it's the preferred murder weapon in the US.

You would actually get much better results out of a long gun, especially in an actual combat situation. They just aren't as easy to hide. 

As for the constitution, it does say "will not be infringed". This is certainly infringing. On the other hand it says "to keep and bear", not "to purchase". Which is why it will likely hold. 

 

In any case, just want to express my outrage one more time:

 

 

Why does Florida have to be so damn stupid? I mean, Florida man is a literal meme now. Pls stop being do dumb Florida. 

[ccabal86]

Remember this topic, how RH defended the police officer's inaction as being totally acceptable given the circumstances? It seems the Prosecutors, following extended investigation don't agree:

 

https://www.apnews.com/91dc083ded414c3e86cca8ed9855d7f9

 

I hope they're going to convict this guy

[DeathMerchant]

The US Supreme Court has already ruled twice that Police Officers are not bound by law to save you, if massive risk to their own safety and others around you exists. Although there is a theory floating around that because the State has deemed child education mandatory, the School's Resource Officers are legally bound to protect the enrolled students. Not sure how this case will play out if it was Civil. But these are Criminal charges, so the likelyhood of this going anywhere are slim. Because if a jury sides against the Officer, then any future LEO could be arrested for failure to 'save' someone.

My feelings is the coward should have been terminated and his pension/retirement package revoked, with Civil lawsuits filed against him. But being convicted on Criminal charges is something I don't agree with. It opens Pandora's Box to all sort of problems.

[Lysistrata]

I agree with DM, as much as I hate what he did. They hired the wrong guy for the job. Their case would rest completely on what he did, and not what he didn't do. If he prevented anyone else from helping those kids, he's toast... but it's hard to say that he goes to prison for life for being a coward. If this guy had any honor at all, he would have already done something about this. Very sad.

[onbekende]

While I agree that trialing this guy over this is a thin line, I am more alamered in that some seem to think they need to "enact justice" on him in relation to the shooting itself.

 

You don't blame a fireman's inaction as the cause for he fire now do you?

[DeathMerchant]

While I agree that trialing this guy over this is a thin line, I am more alamered in that some seem to think they need to "enact justice" on him in relation to the shooting itself.

You don't blame a fireman's inaction as the cause for he fire now do you?

Interesting you bring that up. About 5 years ago, a local fire occurred and their was a man trapped inside. Due to the fire's serverity, Mutual Aid was requested for a neighboring Fire Department to assist. The local Department shows up, says there is no way that guy is still alive, and the flames are too dangerous to enter the building. The other Department shows up and says, oh well we are going in anyway, and manages to drag the guy out of the blase eith no injuries to their own firefighters. It was later determined that the man had been dead prior to either department showing up, but the local Department caught some heavy flak for not going in at all to attempt a rescue.

[ccabal86]

I get where you guys are coming from, but as I see it, there should still be a case where some level of negligence from civil servants should be a criminal offense. Naturally, cases where non-action is at least somewhat justifiable from a professional perspective. But what if you call, say, the fire department to a burning orphanage and they respond "sorry, it's Monday. We just can't deal with this right now." A hyperbole for sure, but should that not be a criminal offense either?

[onbekende]

Well there is a difference between completly ignoring your job or actually following guidelines and proper instructions. To complete the hyberbole you could claim that as a cardriver I shouldn't respect a red light when I see nobody on the other sides. Boundaries should be set and followed, the job description goes beyond being a mere meatschield...

 

 

Basically I can understand the flak from the general public, I am less agreeable to actual prosecution by the law.

[Hung Wang]

Wow, these shootings are insane.

 

It's only august 4th and 35 people have died by mass shooting so far this month, with 46 wounded. Not to mention these shooters can even have body armor on.

 

By the way, no joke, you can buy body armor on "clearance". I wasn't even aware of that.

 

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ohio-shooting/index.html

 

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/el-paso-tx-shooting-live-updates/index.html

[Dontavian]

I live just outside of Dayton.  Thankfully, no one I know was at the venue.  The frequency and senselessness of this violence is quite unnerving.

[Hung Wang]

Had no idea anyone here was near either tragedy and am glad to know you and yours are safe.

 

Unnerving is exactly how I feel living in Florida. There's probably over 10 gun shops within 20 miles on one stretch of road near me, not including pawn shops, or the occasional gun show.

 

At my previous job, two guys went and bought guns on their lunch break just because they could - like what the fuck.

[DeathMerchant]

All the copy cats are out. 2 of the 3 recent shootings (Poway Synagogue, El Paso Walmart) were inspired by the New Zealand Mosque shooter. Time will tell if Dayton shooter was motivated to commit another hate crime.

 

Found out the Walmart in El Paso has 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted, legally barring anyone from conceal and open carry of a firearm. One big Gun Free Zone thats sole purpose exists to disarm law abiding citizens.

 

I used to be baffled at all of this, and then it all started to make sense. 100 years ago, the country was just as awash with firearms as today. Anyone could buy a fully automatic Thompson, have it shipped straight to your front door, all without a background check. Yet with the exception of Prohibition Era gangsters. there wasn’t the rash of sick killings like this. What has changed? The Left started pushing morality out of the courts, then the schools, and then the public square. Now with at least three generations of indoctrination that there is no Creator, humans are nothing more than worthless stardust, and therefore no accountability, what else would be the inevitable result? Half the country is now devoid of respect for human life (abortion at the beginning, euthanasia at the end, violence in the middle) and purpose (there is no God or reason for living).

 

As much as I enjoy the technological achievements of today, I often think that the time my grandparents lived in was a much kinder era. Society was more genuine, respectful, trustworthy, stronger work ethics and morals. By no means was it a perfect time, but civility was very common and practiced.

[onbekende]

If an unverifiable entity in the sky is needed for your society to be moral...

 

It isn't cause they came from supernatural things, morals didn't just come into existance 2000 (or 6500) years ago, it was cause the bigger stick being both overpowered AND hidden makes for a good story to keep the kids straigth.

 

Or you could blame violent video games, yeah those did it, THEM!

[ccabal86]

What really changed, is that now we have social media, that propagates stupidity and hate, and gives a platform and audience to every whackjob out there. That's the problem.

[DeathMerchant]

If an unverifiable entity in the sky is needed for your society to be moral...
 
It isn't cause they came from supernatural things, morals didn't just come into existance 2000 (or 6500) years ago, it was cause the bigger stick being both overpowered AND hidden makes for a good story to keep the kids straigth.

To each there own. I have reached the conclusion this world and it's inhabitants possess far too many intracacies for it all to be the work of random happenings and chance. The math just doesn't add up that life somehow evolved from nothing and into what we are today. And that is all I'm going to say on the matter.