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

[pbrower2a]

(02-13-2019, 12:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-11-2019, 11:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I'm a sharp tool and I'm colored blue, and no I don't quite understand what you think I am doing. But I know you referred to white male civil rights, which shows your priorities are based on race and gender. Blues like me, we are interested in rights for everyone. Well, except maybe your right to own a gun; that depends.....

I referred to civil rights that equally pertain to white people in general  and males in general (all males). Like I said, I'm not deaf and  blind or unable to read and decipher and so on. I have some issues with writing and typing related to lack of doing them on a regular basis but that's about it. So, what are blues doing promoting/supporting/advancing/accepting the views of racist or bigoted people on their side? You do understand that's what you're/blues are doing right. So, what's your issue with white people and white males in particular. I'm not directly related to an old  slave owner or a person who fought for the Confederacy or a person who fought against integration. Yes, you're a sharper tool affiliated with a shed of tools that are mostly dull or one of the smartest people in a room full of idiots or one of the more clever people in a market full of clueless and naive people. Are you really as good as you claim?

Does anyone think that the right to bear arms would be denied to people on the basis of race or ethnicity?

The Second Amendment is written to ensure that the States have the right to form militias for quick action against such concerns as existed in the late eighteenth century (pirates, Indian attacks, slave revolts) that we obviously do not have today, and emergency responses to invasions. Or perhaps usurpation of power as many feared.

The official state militias have evolved into state police forces and the state National Guard units, and those have valid purpose.

I can think of circumstances under which I would have a firearm. Dangerous animals such as bears or big cats nearby? Drug activity? For the garden variety of crime, dogs are effective under most circumstances. Three of these



can be about as scary as one of these



should one misbehave in the presence of the dogs. Burglars, muggers, and rapists are meat. Dogs have all the characteristics of animals usually considered man-eaters, as I have posted in Wikipedia: strength, power, agility, speed, voracity, cunning, large sharp claws and teeth, and great bite force. (This has stuck). If one dog is not large enough to kill and eat a man in a predatory attack, several medium-to-large dogs can attack as if one giant predator. Besides, it has no predatory intent to kill like a bear or Big Cat. Even a small dog can maul someone badly, and risking an attack from even a Yorkshire terrier which is as ferocious as a bear or Big Cat is not worth some criminal objective. I have gotten inadvertent scratches by a cocker spaniel and needed hospital treatment for the infection that came from the painful laceration.

...At some time it might be appropriate to re-write the Second Amendment so at the least that it has a non-discrimination clause for both possession of firearms as for their confiscation.

Can you admit that a government that can deny people the right to keep and drive a car has a model for gun control? Don't you think that a gun owner should have to pass a test on gun safety? Sample test question:

15. What is a safe place for keeping a firearm

a. within the reach of its owner
b. in a secret place that nobody knows about
c. in a locked cabinet for which only responsible people have the key or know the combination
d. in the passenger compartment of any licensed motor vehicle