Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Eric the Green]

(02-21-2018, 07:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-20-2018, 01:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes. Many believe the 2nd granted a right for a well-regulated militia member to carry a firearm. Bob says it should be interpreted according to state constitutions of the 18th century. Since times have changed, and guns have become such a danger to society, it is valid to interpret the justification clause as a qualifications clause, as was done for many decades before Heller. This danger to society is not a personal opinion, but a fact.

If the current conservative, right-wing majority on the Bush/Trump Court is updated in the future, this view may return. This might make it possible for certain localities to ban certain weapons, unless their bearers are part of a well-regulated militia, which in updated terms means the national guard and the police. Meanwhile, the Court in Heller says gun control is permitted, and that likely includes a ban on military weapons (semi-automatics).

I think that society has the right to judge someone unfit to own and carry a weapon, just as they judge someone unfit to drive a vehicle or obtain other kinds of licenses. Whether (s)he has actually been convicted of a felony or not, may not matter. If someone is behaving dangerously, including making threats, a restraining order is appropriate, and this includes restraint on the right to bear arms. Guns are for killing life; those not qualified to kill, should not have access to them.

Our unique American obsession with the unnecessary, ammosexual "right" to own and carry weapons is just one way in which the USA is backward, self-destructive and regressive today. I hope the USA can recover its bearings as the 4T reaches its climax and moves us into a new saeculum and the next 2 turnings, with the USA embracing a higher purpose and consciousness than it has had in the Reagan/Bush/Trump era. I look forward to this. Since I am a blue/green, idealistic, awakened core Boomer, I continue to nourish hope and expectation for progress, creativity and enlightenment. In this lifetime, or the next. May it be so

So, you wouldn't have a problem if I or a group of politicians were to declare you and others like you as unfit to own or carry a weapon and speak freely and so forth. Guns are for killing people as you say. Guns are also for protecting people. You'd be wise to focus on those who are killing people with guns and focus on ways of protecting unarmed people. The issue with blues is that blues seem more unable to differentiate between good gun owners and bad gun owners, people and groups in general. The blues are used to speaking to blues and seem unable to speak to the masses. Don't take it personal, Obama was no better at speaking/appealing to the masses than you.

It's fine for you to write your opinions and speak your mind. I speak mine as well, and my knowledge and my heart tells me different things than what yours does. I would have no problem if someone says I am unfit to own or carry a weapon, because I don't want one. Guns do not protect people, they only kill. There are better ways of self defense. We have laid them out before for this forum. They include:

move to a safe neighborhood
locks
dogs
mace
tasers
alarms
9-1-1

There are also better ways to manage wildlife that may invade farms or become overgrown. Restoring the full range of wildlife including top predators. Hiring rangers to shoot dart tranquilizers, and bullets if necessary. Fences and dogs. etc. No-one needs a gun.

Guns, on the other hand, are only good protection for people who are expert with them, against criminals who might invade your space. You can only defend yourself against another gun in a shootout in which you probably lose your life. Other methods might work better against knives, baseball bats, choking, etc. In fact, as long as guns are safe, they are useless, because it takes too much time to unlock and load them in an emergency when you are being attacked. And if they are NOT locked and unloaded, then a child or a criminal might get them and use them. Or the owner or other resident might get drunk or angry and shoot someone in a fit of rage. Then, who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

It is also wise to focus on people killing with guns, but that is what I was talking about. Certain people are not qualified to own or carry them, and should be prevented from doing so, and should get help for their problems. Penalties for using a gun are fine, but it won't do much to solve the problem. Anyone who has a gun might become a bad guy; that's what you guys fail to realize.

Americans are obsessed with guns. It is the only country so obsessed. We have 10 to 100 times more gun violence, and many times more murders and suicides, just because we also have many times more guns than any other society. I don't know why blues have so much trouble getting you guys to understand these facts. You tell me.

The children are speaking out now. It may dawn on some people that having a gun to kill people with is less important than our childrens' lives.

Obama was pretty good. His horoscope score is 19-2. Very few candidates or presidents are better communicators than Obama. Bill Clinton, 21-3. FDR, 21-4. Reagan, 21-6. Truman, 14-0. Even George W Bush had 17-2. Hillary was not as good: 9-11. Kerry, 8-12. McCain 15-13. Romney 4-10. The horoscope score is a good index of the communication skill of candidates for president. http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

The fact is, Obama was as good a communicator as you're likely to find. If he can't communicate with you guys, the fault is yours and yours alone for not being able to hear him.