Looks like the leftist judges are on the wrong side of the 2nd amendment again.
Thu, Jun 23, 2022 11:42 AM
Fletch
Member
0
posts
3
reps
Joined
Nov 2020
Thu, Jun 23, 2022 11:54 AM
queencitybuckeye
Senior Member
8,068
posts
121
reps
Joined
Nov 2009
Thu, Jun 23, 2022 12:04 PM
posted by FletchLooks like the leftist judges are on the wrong side of the 2nd amendment again.
That the ruling may have negative consequences is an extremely weak argument for a "no" vote.
iclfan2
Reppin' the 330/216/843
9,465
posts
100
reps
Joined
Nov 2009
Thu, Jun 23, 2022 12:36 PM
posted by queencitybuckeyeThat the ruling may have negative consequences is an extremely weak argument for a "no" vote.
Not to mention the criminals murdering people aren’t applying for concealed carry permits. What a dumb argument.
Dr Winston O'Boogie
Senior Member
3,345
posts
36
reps
Joined
Oct 2010
Thu, Jun 23, 2022 2:04 PM
Shocking how the most recent "they're coming for your guns" looks to be another little boy who cried wolf. If we each had a nickel for every one of these alarms that have amounted to nothing, we could buy half a tank of gas.
iclfan2
Reppin' the 330/216/843
9,465
posts
100
reps
Joined
Nov 2009
Thu, Jun 23, 2022 7:25 PM
I mean, they’d take them if they could. They’ve admitted it. Thank goodness for Trump (lol who I don’t like but I’ll take it all day). Heller only winning by one in 08 is insane.
And no dummies, abortion isn’t a constitutional right, which is why it is different for states rights. Weird sleepy Joe doesn’t understand that.
gut
Senior Member
18,369
posts
117
reps
Joined
Nov 2009
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 12:18 AM
It's an interesting opinion that concealed carry is contributing to unnecessary escalation resulting in death.
That actually does make sense. But I'd like to see the data on people successfully defending themselves. I know that data is not very good, for a variety of reasons. But it seems the news is at least as full of a "good guy with a gun" trying to defend himself and getting killed. And, certainly, drunken fights escalating to someone pulling a gun is in the news plenty.
Just saying, the data sucks and it's impossible to determine if concealed carry is a net society positive or negative. IMO, unless you are very highly trained it's a net negative. And it's only a matter of time before the "good guy with a gun" kills innocents in a cross-fire or thru-and-thru.
I get all the arguments. What I'm not getting is the data that allows a proper evaluation of those arguments.
jmog
Senior Member
7,737
posts
52
reps
Joined
Nov 2009
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 5:30 AM
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieShocking how the most recent "they're coming for your guns" looks to be another little boy who cried wolf. If we each had a nickel for every one of these alarms that have amounted to nothing, we could buy half a tank of gas.
Did you not hear the President of the United States say recently that semiautomatic rifles and pistols are on the table for banning?
That’s like 95% of the guns.
Dr Winston O'Boogie
Senior Member
3,345
posts
36
reps
Joined
Oct 2010
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 7:16 AM
posted by jmogDid you not hear the President of the United States say recently that semiautomatic rifles and pistols are on the table for banning?
That’s like 95% of the guns.
We both know this will never happen. There have always been people with Biden’s view, and there always will be. They’re trying to push a boulder up a mountain. So every time there is a school massacre, we get to hear them propose outlawing some type of guns and we get to hear the other side warn us all that they’re finally coming for our guns. Bunch of nonsense.
geeblock
Member
1,123
posts
0
reps
Joined
May 2018
queencitybuckeye
Senior Member
8,068
posts
121
reps
Joined
Nov 2009
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 7:24 AM
The part I don't get is why it matters Even if a right yields a net negative to society, it's still a right.posted by gut
It's an interesting opinion that concealed carry is contributing to unnecessary escalation resulting in death.
That actually does make sense. But I'd like to see the data on people successfully defending themselves. I know that data is not very good, for a variety of reasons. But it seems the news is at least as full of a "good guy with a gun" trying to defend himself and getting killed. And, certainly, drunken fights escalating to someone pulling a gun is in the news plenty.
Just saying, the data sucks and it's impossible to determine if concealed carry is a net society positive or negative. IMO, unless you are very highly trained it's a net negative. And it's only a matter of time before the "good guy with a gun" kills innocents in a cross-fire or thru-and-thru.
I get all the arguments. What I'm not getting is the data that allows a proper evaluation of those arguments.
Laley23
GOAT
33,369
posts
133
reps
Joined
Nov 2009
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 8:06 AM
posted by queencitybuckeye
The part I don't get is why it matters Even if a right yields a net negative to society, it's still a right.
That hasn’t been true for decades on a number of rights. Tons of our rights have been “controlled” so to speak.
queencitybuckeye
Senior Member
8,068
posts
121
reps
Joined
Nov 2009
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 8:12 AM
posted by Laley23That hasn’t been true for decades on a number of rights. Tons of our rights have been “controlled” so to speak.
Sad that something so obviously correct per the constitution is an outlier.
Fletch
Member
0
posts
3
reps
Joined
Nov 2020
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 8:13 AM
posted by geeblock
Not sure where this is but I saw a stat that the US is 3rd in the world for gun violence (probably per capita), take Chicago, NY, Baltimore and LA out of it and the US slips to 189th.
Doesnt seem like a gun violence problem at all outside the major Dem ran cities.
jmog
Senior Member
7,737
posts
52
reps
Joined
Nov 2009
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 8:16 AM
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieWe both know this will never happen. There have always been people with Biden’s view, and there always will be. They’re trying to push a boulder up a mountain. So every time there is a school massacre, we get to hear them propose outlawing some type of guns and we get to hear the other side warn us all that they’re finally coming for our guns. Bunch of nonsense.
Biden isn’t an outlier/fringe part of the party, he is the POTUS which actual power. You can’t play those comments off like they could never happen when it’s the POTUS saying them.
It’s not like it was the lunatic with no real power AOC.
Dr Winston O'Boogie
Senior Member
3,345
posts
36
reps
Joined
Oct 2010
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 8:35 AM
posted by jmogBiden isn’t an outlier/fringe part of the party, he is the POTUS which actual power. You can’t play those comments off like they could never happen when it’s the POTUS saying them.
It’s not like it was the lunatic with no real power AOC.
My bet is we’ll be sitting here in 20 years having the same discussion. No one’s going to have their guns taken. Didn’t happen 40 years ago, didn’t happen 30 years ago, didn’t happen 20 years ago, didn’t happen 10 years ago…even though we were warned that it was inevitable each time. The answer to school shootings will have to lie elsewhere.
geeblock
Member
1,123
posts
0
reps
Joined
May 2018
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 9:18 AM
posted by FletchNot sure where this is but I saw a stat that the US is 3rd in the world for gun violence (probably per capita), take Chicago, NY, Baltimore and LA out of it and the US slips to 189th.
Doesnt seem like a gun violence problem at all outside the major Dem ran cities.
Dublin , Ohio
gut
Senior Member
18,369
posts
117
reps
Joined
Nov 2009
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 12:01 PM
posted by queencitybuckeye
The part I don't get is why it matters Even if a right yields a net negative to society, it's still a right.
Well, I think that right is largely derived from the belief that people protect themselves with gun. If the data were to show a gun owner is more likely to die, or murder someone, then that's certainly an argument for restrictions, even bans, outside the home.
Point being, the counter argument is largely based on you defending yourself not being a threat to yourself or others. But what if the data showed that actually isn't true?
iclfan2
Reppin' the 330/216/843
9,465
posts
100
reps
Joined
Nov 2009
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 12:32 PM
posted by gutWell, I think that right is largely derived from the belief that people protect themselves with gun. If the data were to show a gun owner is more likely to die, or murder someone, then that's certainly an argument for restrictions, even bans, outside the home.
Point being, the counter argument is largely based on you defending yourself not being a threat to yourself or others. But what if the data showed that actually isn't true?
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with self defense. Gun ownership is a right, period. No stats matter.
queencitybuckeye
Senior Member
8,068
posts
121
reps
Joined
Nov 2009
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 12:47 PM
posted by gutWell, I think that right is largely derived from the belief that people protect themselves with gun. If the data were to show a gun owner is more likely to die, or murder someone, then that's certainly an argument for restrictions, even bans, outside the home.
Point being, the counter argument is largely based on you defending yourself not being a threat to yourself or others. But what if the data showed that actually isn't true?
"shall not be infringed unless statistics show a likely bad outcome"?
Laley23
GOAT
33,369
posts
133
reps
Joined
Nov 2009
Fri, Jun 24, 2022 12:54 PM
posted by queencitybuckeye"shall not be infringed unless statistics show a likely bad outcome"?
I am not taking a side here, so don't attack.
But isn't that exactly what the limitations on "Freedom of Speech" has done? Saying bomb at airport/airplane, 'Fighting Words', etc.??