Hunter Who Killed Woman Walking Her Dogs Charged With Manslaughter

Bullshit.

That argument only works in Republican areas. In liberal ones like Buffalo, he should have claimed he was attempting to commit suicide because he was depressed about being transgender and when he went to put pistol down, it went off accidentally.

George Soros must have ponied up for another round of funding for trolls. They are pervasive this week. And I bet they don’t even own a gun.

Until we all find out the unarmed black man cracked the officers skull and tried to grab his gun… Waahh wahhh. And then dumbasses can still burn their own city down. Yep that’ll teach the cops to defend themselves.

Wah Wah Wah. The reality is that cops are less likely to shoot blacks than whites. Your racist narrative is trumped by actual research.

Really? NYPD Ofc Peter Laing was convicted of manslaughter and in his case it was due to a richochet.

Yeah… because a convicted felon illegal didn’t just walk on more or less all charges not a week ago despite confessing to shooting an innocent woman. Apparently, it’s not a crime to shoot people in CA so long as you’re not white and your victim is.

The only racist lies being told here are coming from you and every other gun-grabbing malcontent that trolls these pages.

+1 all the way up.

Textbook manslaughter and deservedly so for the deer hunter.

San Francisco messed up their case by trying for too much at all levels of prosecution from interrogation to courtroom. Without knowing anything about the Jury I’m hesitant to scapegoat 12 people who are almost always primed to believe a prosecutor first.

Well of course that’s the way it works. Unless your a paid troll then you can kiss your masters boots and beg for forgiveness. Sad people.

Race had nothing to do with it.

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/

This article will help clarify the Steinle verdict.

The Steinle killer was released specifically BECAUSE the police and the prosecutor went after the illegal alien too forcefully as Trump wanted. They made too many mistakes because of that.

And you belong to the tribe that has the blood of every unarmed man or woman that has been murdered with no way to defend themselves. Every genocide. Every street attack in a ‘gun free zone’. That’s the blood you and your kind are soaked in.

See, I can paint with a broad brush, also. And there’s more truth to my generalization than there is to yours.

Only among “Good Guys with a Gun” is someone clamoring for a safer society flogged with mythical guilt over not ensuring every person is armed with a gun. Do you not find it interesting that almost to exclusion, the killings in “Gun Free Zones” are conducted by people thought to be “Good Guys”?

It is because neither you, nor anyone else, can determine who will one day become the next mass murderer that we of the “anti-gun” movement disbelieve that more guns makes anyone safer. Guns do not make anyone safer. Simply put, guns are not “force fields”, talisman objects, imbued with mysterious powers to prevent someone from being attacked. If guns were as powerful a defense as you want to believe, there would be virtually no “gun crime” against anyone within reach of a firearm.

A gun may make someone, in quite limited circumstance, capable of responding forcefully to a forceful attack, but the gun doe not make the potential victim any safer atall.

“You presume every person not holding a criminal record is a “Good Guy”.

False. Your presumption about what we presume is inaccurate.

Constitutional Rights do not only apply to those who are ‘good people’. Assholes, for example, are entitled to their First Amendment rights just like the rest of us. So you can rest easy, and keep on posting.

First Amendment.
Could you give an estimate of how many people have been rendered dead on the spot due entirely and solely to misuse of words?

Perhaps the Fourth Amendment has been misused such that a person was directly rendered “room temperature” through misapplication of the provision?

Maybe the Seventeenth Amendment?

OK, just name one other constitutional right or protection that resulted immediately and directly in death due to misuse of such a right.

So you of the ‘anti-gun movement’ believe, basically, that all people are evil. Everybody is a potential mass murderer.

No innocence until proven guilty. All people, in your world, are guilty and can not prove themselves innocent.

True fascism coming from the country that once stood alone against the fascists. England truly has become a 3rd world country.

“So you of the ‘anti-gun movement’ believe, basically, that all people are evil. Everybody is a potential mass murderer.”

Thank you for calmly walking in.

Perhaps this analogy:
I, a complete stranger, dressed quite casually (grunge, is it?), needing a shave, with large sunglasses, a watch cap, and seemingly looking quite normal, approach your three year old daughter as she plays with your pet terrier. Out of your earshot, I bend down, look your daughter in the face, and quietly say, “What a nice little dog you have to play with. I’m glad he makes you happy.” That said, I slowly stand up and linger there, looking down lingeringly, then move off a sort distance, and observe your daughter and her dog. Given that circumstance, would you automatically presume I am a harmless, friendly fellow who just finds children and dogs joyful to contemplate? Would you think that maybe there is potential danger lurking about your daughter? Would you praise her for being kind to a stranger when she tells you about the “nice man who said he was glad my dog made me happy”?

You see, you know nothing about me, other than what you observe, and swirling around your head are thoughts of child molesters. However, from my appearance, you cannot know that I am an undercover detective mingling with people while watching for potential child molesters. Now reverse the situation.

I am dressed in clean leather shoes, chinos, a sport coat, carrying a briefcase, sipping on a Starbucks concoction, all the while watching carefully for unattended children who might walk away with a nice looking man who is friendly. Since I look quite “normal” am fitting in perfectly with the others in the crowd, you pay me no attention. However, once you look away to talk to your wife, I move to quickly scoop up your daughter and, laughing and snuggling, carry her away. You had no idea that the “normal” looking, nearly invisible young man with a briefcase would suddenly, without warning, with no provocation, snatch up your daughter and depart.

By the same measure, you cannot determine that the oh so “normal” looking guy has a twenty two round GLOCK under his coat, and he suddenly displays it, firing indiscriminately into the crowd. Just as you cannot determine who is a potential child molester, neither can you determine who is the potential mass shooter. The child molester can tragically dispense with your daughter, but not two, three or a dozen children at once. The “Good Guy with a Gun” how is bent on mass murder can kill your child and a dozen like her before you can even present your firearm.

So no, we don’t think of all people as evil, we recognize that at any moment a seemingly “normal” person can become a mass murderer.

Yeah… a few dozen per year versus a few million thanks to your genocidal commie buddies.

I suppose “commie” rates right up there with “troll” as a conversation ender. Once one has been called a “commie” the only course remaining is to soak oneself in lighter fluid and flip a match onto the result. Oh my. being called a “commie” makes me want to wet my pants in fear and trembling. Is calling someone a “troll” or “commie” what is taught in your schools these days as elegant debate?

“Could you give an estimate of how many people have been rendered dead [due to] misuse of words?”

Setting aside the arbitrary and self-serving qualifiers you heaped on (immediately, solely, on the spot, etc) as immaterial to the larger question of cause and effect, we can attribute hundreds of millions of human deaths to the use of words in various political manifestos and speeches.

“Setting aside the arbitrary and self-serving qualifiers…”

No, you may not. Those qualifiers are quite germane. Of the “rights”, or amendments, of the constitution, only one can result in the immediate death of an innocent person due to misuse of that right. Even inciting a group to revolution does not result in immediate death due to gunfire. The negligent discharge of words does not result in an ounce of lead flying at over 1000fps into the body of an innocent woman walking her dogs at dusk.

Thank you, sux, for reconfirming what I just said. A bit long winded, perhaps. It just boils down to what I said already.

You view all folks as guilty. And they can’t prove their innocence.

Thanks to the attitude you and others on your side display we now have Trump in office happily appointing federal judges of a conservative nature.

I don’t know if you’re aware of how arrogant and condescending you sound. But I hope you don’t change. You and your buddies made Trump possible and will give him a second term.

Thank you.

Every person possessing a gun has a higher potential for causing negligent death through mishandling of a gun. A person not possessed of a gun presents a dramatically reduced potential to cause negligent death through mishandling of a gun. My not carrying about a handgun increases your risk of unnecessary death through shooting not a whit. The opposite cannot be claimed.

Well, you hold the title “ignorant guy with computer”. Thanks for playing.

“Those qualifiers are quite germane”

Hardly. They were your attempt to buttress what you knew was a weak argument and pre-empt the rather obvious counterpoints.

“They were your attempt to buttress what you knew was a weak argument…”

Hardly. The point of the exercise is to underscore the simple fact that there is no constitutional provision the, when misused, can result in the immediate death or grievous bodily harm. Everything you identified in an attempt to avoid the obvious requires far and away more time and resources that to kill a fellow citizen through a negligent discharge.

The frontier days are no more. The purpose of a militia is obsoleted by a huge standing army, an enormous military reserve component, and, what, one hundred thousand armed police? Your nation has survived over one hundred fifty years without any danger of the rise of a Stalinist government bent on mass murder of the citizenry. Look at all the nations in Europe who are peopled with populations that do not have the unfettered right to possess firearms. How many of those states do you see having criminal tyrants murdering people in the streets simply because the people do not carry firearms?

“The point of the exercise is to underscore the simple fact that there is no constitutional provision the, when misused, can result in the immediate death or grievous bodily harm.”

And the point of my response was that 1) immediacy is irrelevant and 2) the premise is clearly wrong.

“The purpose of a militia is obsoleted by a huge standing army, an enormous military reserve component, and, what, one hundred thousand armed police?”

Not only is it not made ‘obsolete’ by those things, it is made ever more important. I’ll let Tench Coxe explain it:

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

“Your nation has survived over one hundred fifty years without any danger of the rise of a Stalinist government bent on mass murder of the citizenry”

Precisely. We did so as an armed citizenry.

“Look at all the nations in Europe who are peopled with populations that do not have the unfettered right to possess firearms.

Yes, look at their history of being terrorized by brutal tyrants and regimes right into the mid 20th century. The US military has been baby-sitting Western Europe ever since.

You did a commendable job of making my argument for me. I suspect that was not intended.

@Frank — That’s what gun-grabbers like 2Asux do.

They simultaneously 1.) don’t even make any cogent, consistence, or coherent arguments in the first place, 2.) cannot make any sincere or legitimate attempt at even addressing the substance of any counter-arguments presented to them, and 3.) only end up making our arguments all the stronger because they have literally no idea what they’re even talking about whatsoever.

All while only being capable of pretending to know what they’re even arguing over, how to argue in favor of their allegedly deeply-held and personally-developed position, or even how to argue, period.

The nations of Europe today are not slaves to dictators or other absolute rulers. The governments of those nations are not working everyday to create the police state you believe is the only alternative to chaotic individual sovereignty. Pro gun people continually talk as if the only thing standing between the Gulag and freedom is the few armed militants. How then to explain all the free people in Europe who do not fear their government’s every move is one more step toward communism? How do you explain that those European peoples do not need guns everywhere to keep their governments from overnight becoming Stalin’s Russia? If ever there were a nation ripe for a fascist dictator, it is modern Italy. Where is the reincarnation of Mussolini? The Greeks haven’t been ruled by right wing Colonels for decades.

The nations of Europe prove that it is quite possible and plausible for governments to be socially conscious, yet live in harmony with their populations without a fantastical threat of armed insurrection intended to turn back all those horrible social programs.

@2Asux — The nations of Europe today are, in fact, slaves to an unaccountable central consortium known as the European Union. It has sought and is currently seeking to override the duly-passed laws of its member-states. Particularly of Poland, which has not taken in a single “refugee” (READ: predatory economic migrant from AfPak NOT actual refugees from Syria) and, curiously, has not suffered even one terrorist attack or mass public sexual assault episode as seen in Germany. Or even Czechoslovakia, whose gun control laws are arguably the most lax in all of Europe which the E.U. demands they tighten up for absolutely NO good reason whatsoever. The individual governments of those nations are also already working to create the police state we known is the only alternative to chaotic individual sovereignty. The U.K. is the most watched nation on the planet, by its own government, and that says something after the Snowden revelations about the NSA here in the U.S. In Finland, your children all but belong to the state from birth. In Sweden, the local police are all but begging the military to come in and dismantle their “no-go-zones” — established predominantly by Muslim immigrants — so explosively violent towards their law enforcement that they cannot even build any new police stations in these areas without construction workers being shot or grenaded. Had you actually paid attention to what is going on in Europe, you’d know that they’re such a shining example to follow, for just about anything. Anti-gun people continually talk as if the only thing standing between total anarchy and peace is a few (poorly-trained) government agents. How, then, to explain to people who categorically know better than you that this government’s every move is automatically circumspect and likely not in our best interests? How do you explain to a still relatively-free people in the U.S. that what happens in Europe is still somehow relevant and applicable to the U.S. when it’s actually not? Oh, and it’s actually modern Greece that’s ripe for a fascist dictator, given the all but total collapse of their economy through default on their insurmountable debts and what-not.

The nations of Europe actually prove that it’s not at all possible nor even plausible for governments to be socially conscious nor live in harmony with their populations, period.

You tore down your own position.

If the governments of Europe (NATO?) were so powerful, so-called “no go” zones would not exist. The government would suppress the people trying to establish and enforce such zones. The response would be swift, and devastating. If wide spread camera surveillance of England were so onerous, you would see round-ups of suspicious (whatever that would mean) persons, and police dispersing crowds of more than ten, or so. Europe today is not Nazi Germany, is not Stalin’s Russia. Europe today is prosperous, the people have the right of ownership of property, the people have access to the same modern (and even better) communications systems you enjoy in America. They have representative governments, not politburos. They have ownership of businesses, they have no central planning administrations, they do not suffer food shortages, and they are not required to shop in government-owned stores. The people do not fear the “knock at midnight”. Neither do they fear becoming destitute because of devastating injury or sickness

It is quite illuminating, entertaining, educational and sometimes aggravating to compare and debate ideas about rights, privileges and guns, but….do you truly believe that your government fears your guns? And those of fellow gun owners? The US government is constrained by laws, and votes, not by some notion of armed insurrection against an overreaching bureaucracy. Do you seriously believe that not for your guns, you would already be the resurrection of the Soviet Union? Even though that has not happened to your allies in Europe?

You tore down your own position.

I actually tore down your position. The “no-go” zones exist specifically because their governments allow them to, and doesn’t allow anyone to do anything at all about them — nor to even make the perpetrators of crimes committed there answerable to the law. Europe today is, unfortunately, slowly going the way of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia is not far behind. Europe today is starting to fall apart at the seams, the people have the mere privilege of ownership of property as its treated there. Just go ask the Swedes and Germans being kicked out of their homes to make room for “refugees” (READ: predatory economic AfPak migrants NOT actual war refugees). All across Europe, you can be arrested for saying things that wouldn’t make many people here bat an eye so, yes, some people do fear that “knock at midnight.” Their politicians are just as scummy as ours. They have far and away more central planning of economics than we do here. They also fear dying while waiting for treatment to be approved by some unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat on a government board — if it ever gets approved at all.

I know for a fact that the government — any government — rightly fears an armed populace. In an earlier post, you claimed that the government can do all sorts of things in a political hyperbole-laced diatribe and there’s little to nothing that can be done about it. Yet, here you are contradicting yourself by claiming that the government is somehow constrained by laws and votes when you clearly said there were no such compunctions on their part. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways, as much as you’d like to think you can.

You are making the case that governments are afraid of citizens who are denied rampant gun ownership.

The conditions you survey are indicative of benign, not dictatorial government. The type government you think lurks around every corner, if in place, would simply crush an out of control segment of the population, such as those creating “no-go zones”. A dictatorial government could not tolerate repudiation of government control.

What you blokes see as governments afraid of an armed populace are merely governments, representing their people (all the governments in NATO are representative). Governments seeking to mitigate the unnecessary chaos of people deciding to use guns for settling private accounts, or committing crimes. Firearms can deal death at greater range, and faster than all the other weapons you believe are just as effective at death (but you also believe they are quite ineffective, such that you must have a gun to protect yourself). Governments looking to promote the general welfare, provide the most security for the most people, at the expense of the fewest.

To put a cap on it, none of the governments of Europe have secret police rounding up political adversaries by the thousands, have no gulags, and no death camps.

There is a respectable and comfortable mid-ground between wild west individualism, and a prosperous, yet benign state. You, and so many others, seem to believe that the government you claim is so incompetent is quite capable of incarcerating thousands of rebellious gun owners, thousands of non-armed citizens, and running efficient concentration camps.

With a reported one firearm per individual in the US, one should expect serious crime to be all but non-existent. That citizens themselves negate the need for a police force of any kind. Yet, the US still posts unenviable high rates of felonious crime. More guns in rural areas do not affect the crime incidents in urban localities (where heinous crime is on the rise, again – according to President Trump). Based on President Trumps statements last year, more guns in urban districts are not making a meaningful improvement in crime rates there.
(https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/)
(https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/)

I am actually making the case that governments are afraid of citizens who are armed. That’s because they actually are, and they should be.

The conditions I survey are actually indicative of a government increasingly hostile to civil liberties, to the point of not recognizing them at all under an ever-broadening list of circumstances. The type of government I actually happen to know for a fact is already in place has already failed to crush the Taliban, the SNA, and the Vietminh.

What we happen to know for a fact is a government afraid of an armed populace has increasingly lost the trust, confidence, and patience of its citizenry. Governments actually seeking only to expend their own power and justify their own existence, completely at the expense of the body politic it fleeces for diminishing returns. Tools are irrelevant to evil people: they will find a way to kill just as many, if not even more, with other methods. Governments looking to promote their own welfare, provide ineffectual security against threats that they created, and at the expense of the most people it can take from.

To actually put a cap on it, all of the governments in Europe are taking steps in the direction of gulags, first by silencing political adversaries with arrests under so-called “hate speech” laws purposely so vague that they criminalize things that wouldn’t make anyone here bat an eye.

There is little or no respect of individualism because there in no benign state. I, and so many others, actually happen to know for a fact that we haven’t claimed the government could imprison thousands of rebel souls — we always make the opposite claim, and use it as yet another reason why gun-grabbers like you have a screw loose with your unenforceable tripe. But, just go ask the Japanese-Americans imprisoned during WW2, whether or not our government could run efficient concentration camps. Hell, the Nazis were even inspired in their implementation of their concentration camps by our government’s treatment of the Native Americans.

With upwards of one gun per citizen in the U.S., your lot honestly expects serious crime to be off the charts. That blood would running like a river down Main Street in every township, parish, village, and city. Yet, the U.S. still posts precipitously lower rates of violent crime — as low as if not even lower than most of the rest of the Western world, in fact. More guns in any area do not affect crime rates at all, what with their being an inverse correlation between gun ownership and crime rates. At any rate, what Drumpf actually said about crime rates is that they’re going up in big cities. About this, he is correct. (Surprising, I know.) It’s a big enough spike to even drive the national trend up for the first time in a quarter-of-a-century.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html
http://time.com/4651122/homicides-increase-cities-2016/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/americas-uneven-crime-spike/541023/
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-1

Feel free to take a peek at any city you like and be sure to compare data between years.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-6/table-6.xls/view

What else does it have to do in it’s parents basement with no friends? It angrily masturbates anyway it can. Trolling is just one of those ways. It knows that there are people that shouldn’t have weapons because it is one.

Ah yes, we have again reached the majestic heights of critical thought among gun owners. Faced with opposition to their myths, they default immediately to what is apparently considered Kryptonite to opposition thinking; calling someone a Troll. Yes, well that will do it. As declaring someone a Troll is apparently the sum of all your enlightened commentary, you can go back to reading your comic books, and leave serious discussion to adults.

You’re not doing much thinking kiddo. Thinking is reserved for rational people, not genocidal commie scum like you.

Serge. He’s not a commie. He’s a fascist. He doesn’t think he is. But he is. Most complete case of denial I’ve ever seen.

I see very little practical difference between national socialism and international socialism.

@pwrserge — Maybe that’s because there isn’t any. They’re just two competing groups of authoritarian thugs who want to be in charge.

I want the 7-shot GP100…. or the SP101 in .327….. or both.

Goddammit, Gov… why did you have to show me that? I’m already broke as it is…

Ooooh… an eight-shot Redhawk in .357…. now THAT could turn my head away from the Security Six I still dream of…
No. No… NO!!! GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!
🤠

Great! now my list of guns I want just went up five more!

A day job? And in the past you’ve claimed to be of independent means, retired early, and have nothing but time to devote to bringing full time fascism or communism or whatever it is you bernie supporters believe in to America.

Oh, excuse me. Had no idea readers here could not imagine that one of wealth would also be employed (either paid or unpaid). It is true I do not depend on working to obtain filthy lucre as the sole means to purchase me pints and chips, but having a formal position to occupy one’s time is not some sort of repudiation of fortune as a resource.

Cool story, bro. Pull the other one, it has bells.

As you like.

Oh I can assure you, many of us here can agree not every US citizen should be allowed to have a gun. I won’t say you would top that list but I bet you’re pretty far up there.

“Oh I can assure you, many of us here can agree not every US citizen should be allowed to have a gun. ”

Beginning with that agreement, can we begin to agree on who those are who should be denied access to guns?
1. Those involuntarily incarcerated for mental incompetence (once “adjudicated”, never to own guns)
2. Those involuntarily incarcerated (convicted) for committing crimes of any magnitude (as in those acts which violate ordinances at the level above issuing a summons (ticket))
3. Politicians of any stripe
4. Those who refuse formal safety and shooting proficiency training

“3. Politicians of any stripe”
Why? To make them feel even more than they already do that they need to hide away in the state or national capitol and not meet with their constitutuents? To further discourage anyone with a sense of integrity from running for office?

“4. Those who refuse formal safety and shooting proficiency training”
Presumably based on the historic success of competency tests for voting?

@ Serpent_Vision — Politicians don’t need guns, period. Their constituents do. It’s just another way for them to hold their so-called “representatives” accountable for their actions. Not to mention that there are sincere and legitimate doubts as to any “integrity” in anyone running for public office in the first place. Hence the Second Amendment.

The only reason why ANY politician or bureaucrat would ever move to restrict access to arms by the body politic is because they intend to do things for which they should rightly be shot.

Politicians have more than proven themselves untrustworthy, by any measure.

As to formal training, which CPA would you select? The one who simply passes one examination decades ago, or one who voluntarily increments education and competency by belonging to and demonstrating successfully completing recurring professional education?

Are you posing that one cannot fix “stupid”, and the rest of society must endure the ever-present danger of death by negligent use of a firearm? That’s it? That’s the only acceptable scenario because everyone in America has the God-given right to kill fellow citizens through stupidity?

Overall, you propose that no law would stop negligent shootings. Which laws, specifically, prevent any crime atall? None, would be the correct answer. Whatever is the point of a society having criminal laws?

@2Asux — We are actually continuing to dictate to you the reality that your gun-grabbing schemes are useless and will not do one damn thing you say they will. The only acceptable scenario would actually be for you to stop trying to convince anyone that the furtherance of policies that are not only long-defunct as totally ineffective but deliberately misapplied against disfavored minorities by the government you apparently love so much.

Overall, we actually state matter-of-factly that laws merely punish behavior after it has already occurred. Your proposals — yes, all of them — are aimed at prevention, not punishment. You have openly admitted that prevention is not possible. Whatever is the point to you even being here anymore, let alone commenting?

“You have openly admitted that prevention is not possible.”

I’ve only agreed that 100% prevention is impossible. Attempts to approach that pinnacle are not void on their face. Seat belt laws are relatively standard across the nation, but those laws have both prevention and punishment if mind. The preventative effect may possibly be viewed in light of the near stability of automobile deaths, even as the number of licensed drivers rises each year. However, seat belt laws are an infringement of your right to travel freely between communities and states, using your choice of transportation modes (akin to having the right to use whatever weapon of self-defense you choose).

Ineffective attempts to reach that pinnacle are void on their face, however. Seat belt laws are not analogous to gun control laws, either. Seat belts are demonstrably effective in saving lives — gun control laws are not. Also, seat belt laws are not an infringement on anything as there is no inherent right to drive on public roads. You also don’t necessarily need to use public roads to travel anywhere, either.

“Ineffective attempts to reach that pinnacle are void on their face…”

Not if the method remains untried.

” Also, seat belt laws are not an infringement on anything as there is no inherent right to drive on public roads. ”

You do not consider seat belt laws an infringement on your right to freely travel within the nation, using the means of your choice? I have heard complaints that restricting a “right” such that the exercise of it is rendered effectively moot is an unconstitutional infringement. In a related manner, consider taxes on guns and ammunition. Courts have ruled that common and uniform sales taxes on such are quite constitutional. What is unconstitutional is establishing a separate tax applied specifically and exclusively for gun and ammunition purchases, in such a manner (cost) as to effectively prevent purchases. Establishing laws that prevent one from travel upon commonly provided (through taxes) roadways simply because of a refusal to use a seat belt seems very similar. And let us not overlook the “utility” argument. While it may be quite true that the utility/benefit of seat belt usage can be identified, even quantified, why should “utility” be a factor regarding seat belts, when “utility” (need?) is not to be considered a factor regarding gun ownership?

The right to freely travel about is not second class to the right to own guns. So much different from the seventeen hundreds, it is all but impossible today to freely travel anywhere without using public roadways. Very little contiguous land is lacking an owner, meaning one cannot freely cross property without permission, or committing trespass. Being required to negotiate passage across unlimited tracts of owned land is in essence infringing upon your ability to freely travel (especially as you may be denied passage on private property). This forced negotiation effectively removes your right to travel freely.

While as one who understands and supports the idea that a driver’s license marks a privilege to drive, I am taking the stand that by forcing people to delay travel due to an unknowable number of obstacles (whilst negotiating permissions from private landowners) mandated use of a seat belt is an undue restriction on the inalienable right of freely traveling about the nation. The right to travel is not a privilege, nor less protected than the right of gun ownership. If you are free to choose the weapon of self defense (own a gun), you are rightly free to choose your means of travel, unfettered by seat belt laws (no matter how useful seat belts may be).

Except that those methods have been tried. They’ve been tried and they’ve failed.

” Also, seat belt laws are not an infringement on anything as there is no inherent right to drive on public roads. ”

As I’ve already said, you don’t have a protected right to use public roads, so any rules or regulations set thereupon are not an infringement. What part of this are you having trouble understanding? Do you need me to run it all through Google Translate (and probably butcher it along the way) into a language that can actually comprehend? Anyway, your analogies don’t hold water because they’re inapplicable, and they’re inapplicable because they deal with things totally different and handled entirely differently. In conclusion, no, seat belt laws are not an infringement on anything and there is no right to travel on public roads, period, and you cannot make any argument that actually makes any sense whatsoever to the contrary. That’s why the analogy does not, cannot, and will not stand no matter how many times or in which manner you make it.

Even still, courts can get things wrong, too. Excise taxes on guns and ammunition are not only useless but the funds don’t even go to where they’re supposed to, either. And gun control advocates do want to and have been clambering to make these taxes so onerous as to make it impossible for all but the wealthy elite that sign their checks. Security for me but not for thee seems to be the motto for your lot, not that you give a damn.

You may have more recent information, but when was there an attempt at establishing a professional standards board, organized and operated by NGOs, to certify safety and competency in possessing and using firearms?

Every user fee is a tax. A properly established and maintained “user fee” for voting should be no different. There is no enumerated, natural, civil right to cast your vote using public voting systems that are paid for via general taxes. If you have no right use public roadways, you have no “right” to use publicly provided voting systems. You may have a “derived” constitutional right to vote, but no “right” to vote in the manner least inconvenient to you. “User fees” may be uncomfortable, and may serve to stratify who can afford what (as does general pricing theory), but there is no moral imperative that people should use facilities and accommodations for free. The public may create and build attractions at taxpayer expense, but there is nothing to prevent government from charging the public for upkeep and expansion.

If you honestly think there’s no Constitutional right to vote, go look back at the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that came out of it. That’s also why you don’t get to conflate voting with public roads, either. Two completely different things, used completely differently, for completely different purposes, which is why they’re legislated and litigated completely differently. You entirely lack the ability to analogize anything properly with this discussion.

“Are you posing that one cannot fix “stupid”, and the rest of society must endure the ever-present danger of death by negligent use of a firearm? That’s it? That’s the only acceptable scenario because everyone in America has the God-given right to kill fellow citizens through stupidity?”
Ignoring the political hyperbole in the wording, that pretty much is the only realistic scenario, whether or not one deems it “acceptable”. People’s ability to kill fellow citizens through stupidity is not dependent on access to firearms. Only solution is a system that attempts to pre-emptively identify those felt to be dangerous and lock them up for the safety of society, in which case one is trading acceptance of some number of people killed who could have been saved for acceptance of some number of people unnecessarily confined.

“…in which case one is trading acceptance of some number of people killed who could have been saved for acceptance of some number of people unnecessarily confined.”

An interesting comment. As I have learned, it was once rather common to care for the severely mentally impaired by placing them in institutional settings, away from the rest of society, due to the danger they posed to themselves and others. Retched conditions, no hope of release, but their ability to cause damage and disruption to the rest of society was quite limited. Then, along the way, it was decided that even the dangerous ones had “rights” and had to be allowed to live “normal” lives among the population. It has been posed that prior to ending adjudicated incarceration, there were virtually no mass murders, but that every mass murderer since the 1990s suffered severe mental impairment.

“It has been posed that prior to ending adjudicated incarceration, there were virtually no mass murders. . . .” – It may well have been posed, but I doubt the position has been substantiated with data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

Using the list you referenced:

Of lines listed, there were four mass murders (involving guns) between 1942 and 1984 (42yrs).
Of the remaining, there were nine between 1986 and 2017 (31yrs). Seems to be a near doubling in 3/4s the time. The movement to turn out most of the institutionalized happened before 1985. An admittedly tragic outcome of what was an attempt at compassion. More needs to be done in making reasonable and wise decisions about who poses a risk of acquiring a gun. Can we agree that many, many innocents would be alive today if improvements to screening and monitoring mental health patients were installed?

Revisiting the Aurora Colorado theatre shooting. Are you proposing that the murderer was handled properly prior to the shooting? That not only was nothing done to prevent the shooting, nothing should have been done because it would represent “pre-crime” punishment? Why should we consider providing robust mental healthcare to the disturbed to somehow be “punishment”? Were not the victims of the shooting punished severely for attending a movie?

Why only look at gun murders? If one is worried about the dangers of stupid people, one should be concerned with all killers, not just those who use guns.

Discussion has gotten a little OT; question is what amount of incarcerating people suspected of being capable of killing someone through their irresponsible behavior is necessary to achieve your imagined world where people can be free of fear of such killings? Is that amount of institutionalizing people realistic?

The unstated premise and your argument are at odds. Your implied definitions are also conflicting.

You are using the term ‘good guy’ without defining it, then implying that this negligent death is in some way analogous to an active shooter situation where the term ‘good guy’ was coined.

In this case, you’ve got two implied and conflicting uses if the term and you have failed to connect a case of apparent manslaughter with 1st degree multiple murder.

You need an argument that is both sound and valid and I think that clearly defining your terms and making logical connections between your categories would move you in that direction.

“You are using the term ‘good guy’ without defining it,…”

I defined the term as someone in possession of a firearm who is presumed to not be a “prohibited person”.

The pro-2A supporters appear to accept that “the people” can have guns whenever they want if they are not “prohibited” (and there is some conflict on this blog over that). This means a non-prohibited person walking down the street, carrying a firearm, is one capable of coming to the rescue of another person being attacked by an assailant, or persons under attack by an “active shooter”, thus qualifying as a “Good Guy with a Gun”.

It is quite possible for a prohibited person to be armed, encounter an attack upon others, and stop the assailant/active shooter through use of the gun possessed by the prohibited person. At first, that person will be heralded with the appellation “Good Guy with a Gun”. Similarly, a person who has not yet been determined a person as regards gun ownership, is such a potential “Good Guy with a Gun”, right up to the moment he decides he has had enough, and opens fire on the crowd.

You think law enforcement is highly trained.

XD

“You think law enforcement is highly trained.”

Not at all, as they prove routinely. The point is that the public views police as trained professionals, and if those professionals are indeed not well trained, are negligent, how does one suppose the random person on the street in possession of a firearm is any better able to control and secure their weapons? Surely you are not proposing that every gun owner is better trained and more capable than police? You demand that any proposed restrictions on gun ownership be 100% successful in concept and application. I therefore demand that any proposed belief that average citizens are better able to handle their firearms must be 100% provable.

No, 2Asux, you missed it. You appear to labor under the prejudice that a conscientious private individual’s best can never be as good as a careless public official’s worst. That simply isn’t valid. Methinks you have transferred the concept of divine right of kings over to government. Americans knew better than that 240 years ago although I will acknowledge that a dismaying number of us have forgotten.

If your solicitor opened a law practice in the United States, he would quickly learn that the harm done by a car thief is the responsibility of the thief, not the owner of the vehicle he stole. While it’s in a private individual’s best personal interest to avoid becoming the victim of a crime, it’s not his public duty.

“You appear to labor under the prejudice that a conscientious private individual’s best can never be as good as a careless public official’s worst.”

Not so. I am stating that it is folly to presume that all private gun owners are better than law enforcement. Even folly to presume that most private gun owners are better. NOTE: If your police are so incompetent, it is not the fault of people who oppose guns everywhere.

“If your solicitor opened a law practice in the United States, he would quickly learn that the harm done by a car thief is the responsibility of the thief, not the owner of the vehicle he stole. ”

My solicitor knows the difference between criminal and civil law. If your stolen car were used to kill or injure others, he would have a jolly time draining you through the civil courts system, looking for a sympathetic jury to find you at least partially responsible. You should know civil juries are not bound by criminal laws, and only the greater likelihood that you are a contributor is necessary to win.

No, you missed it. One of your precious flat-foots, part of the sole class that you personally “feel” are these mythical “Only Ones” trustworthy enough to handle guns in the first place, lost control of their gun. Why should you pretend that Agent Smith is any more capable than the average citizen at securing a gun from theft? The actual truth of the matter is if the illegal alien scumbag was deported and was kept out of the country in the first place, it would not have been stolen from the car. The same illegal alien scumbag that was deliberately sheltered in a country that he definitively did not belong in in the first place, in direct contravention to federal law, after crossing a border purposefully left under-defended — and all by neo-Marxist malcontents like you. We can assure you that your solicitor would actually have merry hell played on them to prove that the owner of the auto were somehow negligent in the first place. But, please note, you actually did call for criminal consequences for the LEO who had their gun stolen, just the same as you would call for the same against a non-LEO who had their gun stolen. You’re a gun-grabber. THAT’S what you do, instead of laying the blame where it actually belongs in this case: solely and exclusively at the feet of the perpetrator of the crime and literally no one else alive, period. And, no, it was actually the theft on the part of the illegal alien scumbag that led to the gun being available to him. Without the illegal alien scumbag, Ms. Steinle would actually be alive. Not the other way around.

“A highly trained professional law agent…”

Have you seen the video of the DEA agent shooting himself in the classroom while talking about how highly trained he is?

Not only are all LEOs not necessarily “highly trained” or “professional” (sorry to say) but firearms training is very low down on the list of things they are trained on. The reason is simple: they rarely actually use their guns compared to other activities. No cop is Jason Bourne. You’ll find some Andy Taylor’s, luckily, but also some Farvas. Most are in between.

Are you positing that the average gun owner is always more competent, more capable of controlling and securing a firearm than police? If the “professionals” are of such poor quality, why should anyone, anywhere accept the premise that non-professionals are less a threat to public safety?

See folks. Sam I Am and 2asux are the same guy. Been saying it for a while.

This site is infested with trolls.

@2Asux — On the whole, yes. Yes, we are. In as far as rates of firearm theft or “loss” and even criminality are concerned, Joe and Jane Q. Public are more careful and law-abiding than even the police. (Especially when it comes to domestic violence but that’s a whole ‘nother issue.) The so-called “professionals” are so such poor quality primarily because of the structure they are forced to operate under. That’s why, generally speaking, anyone from anywhere can and often does accept the premise that the government, and its agents, are less trustworthy — and by orders of magnitude, at that.

With your attitude towards attempts at diminishing the right to keep and bear arms (and yes that IS the only thing gun control will ever accomplish), which all available evidence — empirical or otherwise — explicitly states will not even begin to reduce (much less eliminate) deaths from negligent discharges, it is a wonder Americans take opinions like yours seriously at all.

“…it is a wonder Americans take opinions like yours seriously at all.”

Certainly you would not be surprised to learn that nearly half the country thinks there are sensible gun control measures that can be taken. Have you seen opinion polls demonstrating that the large majority of the public want fewer gun regulations?

Certainly you would be surprised that much more than half the country doesn’t even put gun control anywhere near the top of their list of priorities in the first place. I don’t put stock in opinion polls that are more-often-than-not specifically engineered to generate a desired result, and will have a sample pool that is not anywhere even remotely akin to a “representative” sample of Americans, either — which is pretty well all of them.

Add that to the fact that according to those precious so-called “public opinion” polls gun-grabbers love to cling to so much, so-called “public opinion” predictably shifts away from gun control in the aftermath of a tragedy, anyway, once the emotional furor dies down and people can actually come back to their senses. Gun-grabbers can’t even reliably strike whilst the iron is hot anymore, and they lost that ability long before they actually realized it, too. Sure, they’ll score a few purely hollow (READ: meaningless) “victories” in deep blue cesspools where they already have a veritable stranglehold, but they’re having and increasingly more difficult time reaching into any new territory. As well they should.

Fortunately, gun nation is quite unaware that those “deep blue cesspools” you talk of are growing in population (read “voters”) much faster than the red states. Mostly unnoticed, it is the younger generation of the red states who are moving to blue states, abandoning the “middle America”, “heartland”, agrarian enclaves, adding to the influx of new citizens in those maligned “deep blue cesspools”. Voting with their copper, as it were.

Fortunately, gun grabbers are actually quite unaware that those “deep blue cesspools” that we correctly describe are really shrinking in population (read “tax base” AND “voters”). Mostly unnoticed, it is the younger generations in the blue states that are actually moving to red states, abandoning “the coasts” and heading for greener pastures in “Middle America,” “The Heartland.” Voting with their feet and their pocketbooks, as it were.

Hold those thoughts. We have the proverbial eleven million new voters awaiting citizenship. The impact of those people on the body politic will be interesting to watch. At least for the socially sensitive and aware. Those voters will swing elections toward a more “liberal” philosophy.

Much has been made that those potential voters align with Republican values of family, religion and hard work. What goes unnoticed is these potential voters already know that in larger matters, a compassionate government is more aligned with their culture and experience. In return for government addressing their needs, they return loyalty to that government. Yes, it is true that many came here to improve their opportunities through better government programs that the nations they leave. Which is the point of it all. Government support of the family and individual is not evil. One day, we will have the votes to make that clear.

If you’re alluding to amnesty for the under-estimated 11 million illegal aliens residing here, you’re out of your mind if you think that will ever happen — even if your leftists (notice the conspicuous absence of the word “liberal” because there’s nothing much actually “liberal” about them at all) had complete control of Congress. Anyone who’s actually socially sensitive and aware knows this.

Government doesn’t even support the family, much less the individual, because it’s not compassionate and cannot be made to be compassionate. That’s what these potential voters actually know, and they also know that it doesn’t address their needs but will only make them dependent on it and make every effort to get out of that cycle of dependency a struggle. One day, that’s what the votes will actually make clear to you.

Guess I believe we know our immigrants better than your side. So many come from countries where government cannot control the gun crime. Nations where people other than the authorities use guns to gain power for themselves.

Eager to find out who is the most knowledgeable.

@2Asux — Guess that we do actually know both our immigrants and upcoming generations better than your side. So many come from countries where governments only disarm peaceable citizens and don’t even bother with the criminals. Nations where people other than the authorities are allowed to use guns to gain for themselves.

I already know who is the most knowledgeable. It isn’t you, so that kind of narrows it down.

Except that you actually don’t agree, and we know this by the mere fact that you still support gun control. A policy and scheme that is at its core, from 16th century colonial Virginia through today, one that is racist, sexist, and classist in every sense of those words. Your solution seems to be one that says things are going to be different this time, even though you know they’re not…get over it. Your proposals are actually nothing more than to punish peaceable citizens for merely trying to exercise their rights. Make it every bit as burdensome and costly as possible. As it is an individual right, one need not prove anything to anyone, at any time, in any place. What you’re actually proposing are nothing more than new poll taxes, period, and ones that have never been proven effective anywhere they’ve ever been tried, at that.

“Your proposals are actually nothing more than to punish peaceable citizens for merely trying to exercise their rights.”

Not quite. The three “proposals” I have put forth are to establish safety and competency standards (controlled, operated, and certified by a consortium of pro-gun organizations, much like other professional standards organizations), recurring certification on some schedule set by that same standards group, and minimum personal liability insurance. Never have I placed into discussion any fees, ammunition restrictions, prohibitions on types of guns. What has been proposed in that regard is really more of a notation of extreme measures that might be employed if the gun lobby and its supporters continue to refuse to accept any and all attempts to improve the safety of the community.

As to creating a “poll tax”, I have never quite understood why that is such a bad idea. It seems you can pay for the community system of recording voting by a tax on all persons (sales, property, business taxes), or levy a fee on anyone using the system (those who wish not to vote would bear no cost). Please don’t tell me about people unable to afford paying for the voting system. The US tax code allegedly provides for 45% of income earners to pay no income tax, so it would be disingenuous to claim that a “poll tax” would place an insurmountable burden on “the poor”. Surely the nation that sent Voyager 1 out of the solar system can devise a means to insulate “the poor” from paying for the vote recording systems in use.

Let us turn to your complaint that “gun control” is punishing people for exercising a “right”. “The people” are “punished” for every exercise of a “right”. Exercising the first amendment is “punished” by requiring “the people” to pay taxes on virtually every means of communal and distance communication. Evading taxed systems leaves one with almost no ability to exercise the right to free speech, other than face-to-face, or proclamations on a street corner (public square). Your right to remain silent under questioning by police authority is punished by allowing the district attorney to tell a jury that you were uncooperative from the beginning of the investigation (if one has nothing to hide, why refuse to answer questions). Indeed, to exercise almost all of your “rights” you must pay a fee, cartage, a tax, a surcharge. Even circling back to the “poll tax”, without one, you pay for the right to vote through your general taxing authorities that capture revenue to be used to fund city, state and federal governments.

There are no “absolute” rights that cannot in some manner be constrained, or taxed. Indeed, anyone who believes there should be preventions in place to block convicted felons and those mentally impaired, agrees that some “infringements” are “common sense”. It is all a matter of degree, and favorites.

Yes, quite. Those “proposals” you put forward actually amount to nothing more than new poll taxes to which is attached zero evidence — empirical or otherwise — that they are even remotely effective in forwarding the dubiously-claimed goal of “public safety.” You have, as a matter of fact, placed fees into the discussion merely with the inclusion of liability insurance and recurring certifications. Not to mention the other inconvenient fact that your “proposals” yet only open the door to things like ammunition restrictions and gun bans, too. So, no, what has actually been proposed in those regards are really just the end -goal of any and all gun control schemes to begin with, and the gun control lobby has in fact already been clambering for just those things for decades. What we actually refuse to accept are any and all attempts at further diminution of our rights with absolutely zero demonstrable benefit in return.

And if you really think poll taxes are not such a bad idea, why don’t you look through the history of the Antebellum South and its Jim Crow laws — from which much of the gun control lobbies are drawn, by the way — and see exactly why such schemes are blatantly unconstitutional and an affront to the very notion of a civilized society in the first place. Our voting system is paid for out of general revenue, as it should be, so levying any additional taxes is totally unnecessary to begin with. Not to mention our government’s nasty tendency to deliberately misapply it to anyone who isn’t white.

So, let us return to your complaint that “gun control” is somehow useful in anyway, way shape, or form. Reality check: it’s not. Not only is it totally ineffective in all its current and proposed forms, it has been and is still being used to punish people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. Worse, is that it’s racist, classist, and sexist at its very core and most adversely affects the poor and disenfranchised. This is widely-known, well-documented, historical fact. Exercising the First Amendment does not in any way require the use of any modern telecommunications to begin with, and no one has an inherent right to use the services of a private entity (i.e. telecoms), either. They may pursue those services at their leisure, but that’s not in any way the same thing as having a right to them. The DA also cannot, by any stretch of anyone’s imagination (even one as colorful as yours), ever have carte blanch to accuse you of being uncooperative if you invoke your right to remain silent. They would either be forced to recant that statement or be laughed right out of the courtroom. Indeed, to exercise most any of our rights, we actually don’t have to pay a fee, cartage, tax, or surcharge.

No one is even claiming an “absolute right,” either. Indeed, anyone who believes there should be measures in place to stop felons and insane people from being armed should actually look into whether their ideas are or would be effective to begin with, instead of wasting their time here and trying to sell that snake oil to those who categorically know better. It is a matter of degree, and yours is flat-out 0° K.

“Not to mention the other inconvenient fact that your “proposals” yet only open the door to things like ammunition restrictions and gun bans, too. ”

Bit of a “misfire” here. Those restrictions already exist, and have not been overturned. Those restrictions did not rely on a single proposal of mine. Indeed, as a result of the recent non-decision on the 4th Circuit Court upholding of weapons ban, it would be quite surprising to see court mandated reductions in those bans. More likely, other courts will follow suit, don’t you think? Those courts are, after all, the province of the dastardly “liberal judges” you despise so.

The blighted history of “poll taxes” is irrelevant to my suggestion that accommodations be made for those unable to afford the training and certifications. No one would be denied that opportunity to obtain the necessary instruction.

You cannot exercise your first amendment rights beyond your voice unless you use those privately owned communication systems you referenced. You cannot even send a letter without being required by government to pay a “poll tax” on every piece of mail. Courier services are no better, government imposes taxes on businesses. At any time, congress can declare that all those services are violating the federal law declaring that mail services are the province of the federal government. Faxes require telephone tariffs, including taxes. Internet service is taxed, cell phone service is taxes. Are these not services that are out of reach for “the poor, the disadvantaged, certain ethnic groups”? That which you fear, a tyrannical government, is already at hand, and can shut down your ability to communicate, transport, can suspend habeas corpus (as it has in the past). That government can make your currency void, demand you use government controlled/taxed communications systems to make purchased via credit card. Indeed, your government already mandates that certain monetary benefits be delivered via so-called debit cards. Cards which charge a fee for every transaction, a “poll tax” if you will. The “poll tax” argument cannot be sustained. When a citizen pays government for the ability to exercise the right to travel, the right to commerce, the right to speech, the right arms and ammunition (taxes are paid), it is silly to proclaim that it does not, cannot infringe upon exercise of your “rights”. Where are the gun-owning champions of removing sales taxes on guns and ammunition for “the poor”? Waiting.

No “misfires” here. Ammunition restrictions are all but absent at the federal level, save for AP for pistols, and only a few states even bother to mirror those, either. But, those restrictions are made easier to pass by proposals like yours. Indeed, the Circuit Court decisions are only applicable within their jurisdictions, and no other courts have followed suit but the 9th — the most overturned of them all, even though it’s packed with those precious “liberal judges” you lose so.

The blighted history of poll taxes has everything to do with any and all of your suggestions, because that’s all they amount to. And what makes you think a state-madnated course, which are already required for concealed carry (even in permitless states for the purposes of reciprocity or just to take it), won’t be turned into just another burden as the state is so wont to do?

Nothing changes the fact that you don’t ned to pay a fee or tax to exercise your first amendment rights, which is why it’s such terrible analogy, just like every other nonsensical and totally disconnected analogy you’ve made thus far. And you can go ahead and quit with the political hypoerbole now. Congress won’t at any point suddenly seize control of every mail courier, either, and its doubtful that’d even be within their power in the first place. And in certain areas, yes, dependable cell service and internet are out of reach. That which you welcome, a tyrannical government, is not yet at hand. You’ve never experienced or even seen first-hand what tyranny is or does, but there are those on this blog who have been to the third world. We know what it looks like, and gun control is only yet one step further in that direction — not away from it, as you so love to pretend. The government can’t toally shut down communications, either, as much as it (and you) likes to think it can. It can only temporarily suspend habeus corpus, and hasn’t anyway in over a century-and-a-half. The government can’t make our currency void, either, else it can’t pay its own bills (not that it does anyway but that’s another story). Nor does it even have the ability to force anyone to use any specific system to make purchases (BitCoin anyone?). Oh, and government nenefits can still be had by check, direct deposit, or debit card: debit cards are simply chosen most often because they’re more convenient. So, no, the poll tax argument still stands and cannot be deconstructed — especially since there is a documented history behind its racist parallels in gun control schemes. Also, you need not pay a tax to travel or to engage in commerce, either. You don’t have to use government infrastructure to do that, as much as you’d love to think you do. Unless you haven’t been attention, which you clearly haven’t, this blog has addressed the issue of levying taxes on guns and ammunition and the concensus is that it shouldn’t be this way, either. Not that you give a shit. You’d clearly be happy if everyone’s guns were forcibly confiscated, and probably all the better for you if they were altogether un-invented.

Anyway, for further reading:

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

Clayton E. Cramer, Master of Arts in History from Sonoma State University, whose works informed the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in United States v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999) and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), as well as McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Mags/dark-secret-of-jim-crow.html

David Kopel, Bachelor of Arts in History from Brown University, won the National Geographic Society Prize for best History thesis with a biography of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. He graduated magna com laude from the University of Michigan Law School. He was also a contributing editor of the Michigan Law Review.

Gun ownership, whether you like it or not, is unquestionably a civil rights issue. Gun control always was and still is today written for the express purpose of discriminating against anyone who isn’t white.

“Nothing changes the fact that you don’t ned to pay a fee or tax to exercise your first amendment rights,…”

Please identify the means of communication in your country (our country), other than face-to-face, that do not involve a tax being levied somewhere along the path. Granted, methods other than face-to-face communications are not mandated for use in communicating your thoughts and opinions, but how effective is your communication when reduced exclusively to one-on-one encounters? You cannot enjoy the full freedom of expression protected by 1A without using taxable systems. Of what value is standing in a forest, shouting to your self and a few companions?

“The government can’t make our currency void, either,…”

Oh, but it can, and has in the past. You must admit, you no longer can find a “Silver Certificate”, government controls the denominations available, government declares one form of currency “Legal Tender for all Debts Private and Public”, and can declare another to be so (government can also declare that a previous token of “Legal Tender” is not longer permitted (government once declared gold coins to be illegal to hold, except for “collectors”, or very small amounts). Government can destroy the currency by printing unlimited amounts (re Weimar Republic), if it chooses, thereby destroying whatever value your holdings were once worth.

But let us consider this method of severe gun control requiring no confiscation:
“Legislation henceforth declares that while a person has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for personal and community defense, no person may possess a firearm on any public roadway for purposes other than transporting firearms to/from an established gun range, when permanently relocating from one jurisdiction to another, to transport new purchases from point of sale solely to the purchaser’s place of residence (other than temporary quarters). The discharge of a firearm for any purpose, outside the home when used for personal defense, shall be a felony. The only exception shall be when the gun owner is required, as a member of the general militia, to report to appropriate authority for the purpose of general defence of the community.” As a condition to obtaining driving privileges in this state, any person operating, or riding in/on a vehicle agrees to having their vehicle and contents searched for firearms to ensure such are adequately stored for transport, and there have been no deviations between destinations while transporting firearms.” Having no right to public transportation networks, restricting guns from public roads and public places is quite constitutional. (I created this in a moment; imagine what a determined group of lawyers can manage). Confiscation is not required when safety can be increased through laws that create a proper balance between the right of an individual to own firearms, and the right of the community to see to it those gun owners do not pose unreasonable risks to innocent persons.

Oh yes, let us not overlook the fact that and “Assault Weapon Ban” that makes even semi-automatic pistols prohibited items remains valid and legal in the 4th Circuit. Government can, when it sets its mind to it, craft proper rules imposing “common sense gun controls”.

@2Asux — It doesn’t even matter if there aren’t any other methods other than face-to-face talking. You still have a completely free way of exercising your First Amendment rights. One could consider using alternative methods as merely enhancements, however great, to that ability. But, they are absolutely not required nor have you even begin to offer an explanation as to why they would be. You still either outright refuse or are completely unable to deconstruct that argument, given that you haven’t by now.

“The government can’t make our currency void, either,…”

Oh, but it actually can’t, and hasn’t in the past without another option already being available. You can still find silver certificates, too, and they actually fell out of use because of the fluctuations on the price of silver. That’s why the government had to stop issuing them: silver dollars were no longer worth just a dollar. And the governmen’t can’t simply inflate away its debts, either, else it agents will be lynched — just like in the Weimar Republic.

But let us consider this method of severe gun control requiring no confiscation:

There are already statutes against the discharge of a firearm for other than a lawful purpose. Every able-bodied citizen aged 17 – 45 (64 if you’re a veteran) is already a member of the militia. Warrant-less searches without probably cause or exigent circumstances are patently unconstitutional, and are regularly thrown out in court — as they should be. And no, banning guns from being transported on public roadways is actually quite unconstitutional, too. You actually created a heap of bullshit, a blatantly masturbatory fantasy for gun-grabbers, and any group of lawyers would look at this and rightly laugh you right back out of the room whence you came. As well they should. Also, there is no “balance” to be struck here, at all. You either have rights or you don’t. If you don’t, they’re called privileges. It’s that simple. “Communities” don’t have rights, either, only individuals do.

And let us not overlook the fact that the 4th Circus ruling is only applicable within its jurisdiction, and the fact that it is in direct conflict with D.C. v. Heller as well as McDonald v. Chicago at the SCoTUS — for starters. Whether or not lower courts have ignored it is irrelevant: the fact remains that so-called “assault weapons bans” are not even close to legal even by the plainest reading of either ruling. So, no, like it or not the government at any level has absolutely no right whatsoever or room to craft “common sense gun controls” daft gun-grabbing laws you love so much.

‘Better to let a hundred guilty go free than prosecute one innocent.’ As much as you want to commit human rights and civil rights violations our system is set up to prevent it.

Are you not saying, “Better 100 innocents die through negligent gun handling, than be willing to help reduce the carnage, because….Second Amendment.”?

@2Asux — No, actually, we’re not despite how much you desperately want to paint all of us as callous and uncaring (and failing spectacularly at it). This is principally because none of the proposals offered by you or any other gun-grabber alive — as in, absolutely not any single solitary one or any possible combination thereof — would ever help reduce the carnage in the first place. All while only accomplishing the true end-goal of any gun control scheme enacted anywhere, ever: punishing innocent people merely for owning property they acquired legally and in good faith. Why? Because it’s far and away much, much easier to do this than actually get to the roots of the problem: namely suicidal depression and gang violence which comprise the overwhelming and vast majority of so-called “gun deaths.”

What I perceive here is the message, “Life’s a bitch; then you die.” This represents reasonable, responsible, caring gun owners? Of course, one wonders at the thought process of someone who proclaims that absolutely nothing can be done to reduce the deaths of innocent victims of negligent gun handling. “Nothing”, eh? Doesn’t one need to be possessed of omnipotence to make such a declaration of such absolute character?

No, sux/sam, that’s not what I’m saying. Our system is based on a presumption of innocence. We don’t do pre-crime here.

There are laws and a system already in place for when you injure someone accidentally or on purpose regardless of method of injury.

But you already know this. Your sole purpose is to ban guns. It has nothing to do with the injured innocent, except as an excuse. You’re, at best, dishonest and you stand as an example of why your side is losing.

“Your sole purpose is to ban guns”

Isn’t now; never was.

Finding ways to improve the safety of society is the entire goal. Confiscation would be the most extreme measure, and there are so many challenges that way. However, there are peaceful means to accomplish it. Any attempt at confiscation should be required to also address the problem of gangs and criminal neighborhoods in the inner cities.

You would be surprised at how receptive many over here would be to measures supported by the gun lobby to make nation wide efforts to improve the safe handling of firearms by owners. And to improve their competency with a gun. You vastly underestimate the power of fear of being murdered by a gun owner run a muck.

@2Asux — Actually, your sole purpose is to ban guns, because that’s all gun control can ever accomplish — and it’s even been the outspoken end-goal of gun-grabbers since the beginning, regardless. It is now, it always was, and it always will be.

So, being that gun control won’t improve the safety of society in the first place, that literally cannot be its goal. Confiscation is the end-game and end-state of gun control. The only peaceful means to accomplish what you claim to set out to do is actually not to bother without anymore gun control laws at all, and instead focus on treatment of suicidal depression and gang violence. Both of these comprise the overwhelming and vast majority of so-called “gun deaths” and neither is the least bit effected by gun control laws.

You would be surprised at how manufactured that alleged receptiveness is outside of small leftist circles. You vastly overestimate the power of fear of being murdered. And don’t bother with any “public opinion” polls whose questions are often geared to produce a desired result and have sample pools so small as to be statistically insignificant comparable to the body politic, either.

Also, what you should actually be perceiving is the message that, “We don’t like being punished for things we didn’t do and no part of, and by policies that do nothing for anyone.” THAT is what represents reasonable, responsible, caring people be they gun owners or not. Of course, one actually wonders what thought process of someone who proclaims that the same policies that didn’t work before should be passed anyway. Doesn’t one need to be possessed of insanity to make such a declaration of absolute certainty?

Until you have a proposal backed by facts, logic, and data, yes! “Leaving it at that” is better than “hey let’s just start kicking down doors and confiscating legally obtained property and because MAYBE that will help.” Data has shown that not only is there no causation between guns and violent crime, there isn’t even CORRELATION (in fact, it has been quite the opposite). Every time a bad thing happens people are more concerned with doing “something” than actually putting together a plan and strategy backed by facts and logic.

We are not soulless, heartless bastards as you’d like to believe. This was a TRAGEDY and if this were my daughter I would spend the rest of my life as a husk of a man. We (some of us) are not heartless, but we (some of us) do not allow ourselves to be ruled by our emotions as you do. You don’t want to ban guns because you have any evidence or data that shows that it will make anyone safer. You want to ban guns because they’re scary.

“Every time there’s a major event more guns are sold.”

Now, I’ve lost track here. Are all these record-breaking gun sales largely new owners, or merely the same people buying more? I have no idea, but it would be interesting to learn if conclusions about growth of 2A supporters (gun owners) can be drawn. Seem to remember other reports that 3% of Americans own approximately one-half of the guns, and that gun ownership was actually declining over the last few decades. Without forced registration of every legally owned gun, can anything be concluded?

Oh, lord. Now we’re at the ‘I’m rubber, you’re glue’ stage of the argument.

With you on our side, how can we lose.

@2Asux — Those alleged “reports” claiming that 3% of Americans own some 50% of the guns are purely unscientific junk and mental masturbation for bigoted gun-grabbers (but I repeat myself). There’s no way to precisely calculate just how many guns are in circulation to start with, let alone who owns them — as well it should be, too. It’s absolutely none of the government’s business, period, unless and until an individual commits a crime and is incarcerated for it. Oh, and you can forget about forced registration, too. Mass civil disobedience is already the other of the day, as well it should be also.

“There’s no way to precisely calculate just how many guns are in circulation to start with,…”

Then perhaps there are not 300 hundreds of millions of guns in private hands. Perhaps gun ownership is not so wide spread, so “common” as gun supporters want us to believe. Perhaps the estimates of the gun lobby are not more accurate or practical as those produced by non-gun supporters.

Perhaps, but the number of NICS checks gives a baseline number of guns bought since it was implemented, so we can see whose estimates are more consistent with that number.

@2Asux — At least the civil rights supporters have NICS checks to go by, which gives them a baseline since 1994. Still not entirely accurate, but, it’s something. The gun-grabbers, however, just pull whatever “feels good” to them out of thin air. Just like their (non)arguments on anything.

You’re half-right, IB. My failure was to read only the beginning of the post, and find myself “triggered.” Laugh. I should have written my post as an independent post at the bottom of the page. The subject obviously infuriates me. Thanks for calling me out. I deserved it.

Somehow I don’t see daily violent rape as an appropriate punishment for negligence.

No one said or even tried to say it was, either. But, if it happens to be a consequence of negligence, it’s out of our hands, for certain.