Well It's The Offseason And It's Slow

[NWPATSFAN]

The better question might be "where does it start"? My comments thus far have on been in regard to what the second amendment actually promises and not the current state of restrictions, or what restrictions there should be.

Do you need to be in those places that won't let you carry? Do you need to carry in those places? I don't carry at all, should I not be at that place either?

I think you're missing the point. The restrictions I listed was/is the start. Once you open the door...

Some of those no carry places are federal buildings, bars, now schools and the like... Doesn't matter if I need to be in there or not. Are you now infringing on other rights by not allowing me in there with a weapon that I can legally carry? The 2nd ammendment doesn't state anything about where a people/persons can carry.

During the wild west days people open carried everywhere. Up to you if you decided you wanted to pull your piece on someone.

 

[Southieinnc]

During the wild west days people open carried everywhere. Up to you if you decided you wanted to pull your piece on someone.

Most of us were raised by television.
The Wild West was not like on TV. There were virtually no gunfights in the streets.
If you had something against somebody, you shot him from a rooftop or in an alley.

When I was in Alaska in the 70's, I remember seeing guys at the bar with holstered weapons .
Many of these guys had been out in the wild for 6 months and came into town to get liquored or laid.
With most everybody carrying, it was surprising (or not?) that nobody got out of hand.
Now the 18 YO with a big mouth I had with me had requested I go into town with him. He wanted to stay out of trouble.
I had to work on him to keep his mouth shut!

 

[nefansince75]

During the wild west days people open carried everywhere. Up to you if you decided you wanted to pull your piece on someone.

I wasn't there so I can't confirm this, but I have read the "wild west" wasn't as wild as we've been told. Often towns required weapons be checked prior to entering a town. If true there's a precedent for the restrictions you are describing.

 

[Yankee Traveler]

I wasn't there so I can't confirm this, but I have read the "wild west" wasn't as wild as we've been told. Often towns required weapons be checked prior to entering a town. If true there's a precedent for the restrictions you are describing.

Not really, because you have the choice check your guns and go in to town or go find another town.

Regardless, they are still infringements, whether they were 100 years after the amendments were written or 250 years.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Most of us were raised by television.
The Wild West was not like on TV. There were virtually no gunfights in the streets.
If you had something against somebody, you shot him from a rooftop or in an alley.

When I was in Alaska in the 70's, I remember seeing guys at the bar with holstered weapons .
Many of these guys had been out in the wild for 6 months and came into town to get liquored or laid.
With most everybody carrying, it was surprising (or not?) that nobody got out of hand.
Now the 18 YO with a big mouth I had with me had requested I go into town with him. He wanted to stay out of trouble.
I had to work on him to keep his mouth shut!

You're helping make my point. For the most part men were gentlemen. If you had a problem with someone you worked it out. Or went to fistacuffs. Last thing you wanted to do was find out if the other guy was a better shot than you.
People seldom would shoot others in the back. Because you would always be marked as a coward.

I'll say it again. It's not the gun laws or lack there of them. It's the lack of values being taught to children combined with a judicial system that is a total joke.


As someone mentioned it's not automatics that are being used in these killings for the most part.

 

[nefansince75]

Not really, because you have the choice check your guns and go in to town or go find another town.

Regardless, based on my interpretation, they are still infringements, whether they were 100 years after the amendments were written or 250 years.

FIFY

 

[nefansince75]

You're helping make my point. For the most part men were gentlemen. If you had a problem with someone you worked it out. Or went to fistacuffs. Last thing you wanted to do was find out if the other guy was a better shot than you.
People seldom would shoot others in the back. Because you would always be marked as a coward.

I'll say it again. It's not the gun laws or lack there of them. It's the lack of values being taught to children combined with a judicial system that is a total joke.


As someone mentioned it's not automatics that are being used in these killings for the most part.

Seriously, how do you think we should deal with the rash of mass casualties over the past 25 or so years. I'm not baiting for a soap box rebuttal, I actually would like your thoughts.

 

[sharkymcwrath]

Seriously, how do you think we should deal with the rash of mass casualties over the past 25 or so years. I'm not baiting for a soap box rebuttal, I actually would like your thoughts.

I know you're not addressing me right now but the only way to solve the problem is to educate ALL Americans to a higher degree while simultaneously making sure all Americans have access to a fair career/living. Education and financial stability is the long answer but the only correct one IMO.

 

[nefansince75]

I know you're not addressing me right now but the only way to solve the problem is to educate ALL Americans to a higher degree while simultaneously making sure all Americans have access to a fair career/living. Education and financial stability is the long answer but the only correct one IMO.

It's a message board, all messages address everyone. I'd call those more ideals than solutions but they're good ideals. Meeting them could solve a lot of problems. But how do you meet those ideals in what seems to be more and more a "winner take all" system?

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Seriously, how do you think we should deal with the rash of mass casualties over the past 25 or so years. I'm not baiting for a soap box rebuttal, I actually would like your thoughts.

I am sure most won't like this but here goes.

It would start with revamping and enforcing the law/s for comitting crimes while using a gun (any type of gun).

If you murder someone with a gun you get the death penalty. I would even go as far as making it a public execution.

Watching someone hang has the potential to change a lot of people's poor choices.

People will kill people without using a gun. It's not the gun laws.

 

[nefansince75]

I am sure most won't like this but here goes.

It would start with revamping and enforcing the law/s for comitting crimes while using a gun (any type of gun).

If you murder someone with a gun you get the death penalty. I would even go as far as making it a public execution.

Watching someone hang has the potential to change a lot of people's poor choices.

People will kill people without using a gun. It's not the gun laws.

I asked for your opinion, not a statement I would like.... I'd only view a couple items as a little extreme, no more.

It's true people will kill without guns and there's no changing that. The most famous serial killers came before the past 25 years and stopping or diminishing those crimes would take action eliminating rights that go well beyond the second amendment. The current urgency regarding guns relates to the rash of incidents that do seem preventable, and I stress seem.

But why not common sense laws that allow YOU to keep your guns but might require some action like joining an auxiliary law enforcement group? Let's bypass the political talk of that being a start to removing all rights, we know that threat is there, and in theory is always there.

 

[Southieinnc]

I am sure most won't like this but here goes.

It would start with revamping and enforcing the law/s for comitting crimes while using a gun (any type of gun).

If you murder someone with a gun you get the death penalty. I would even go as far as making it a public execution.

Watching someone hang has the potential to change a lot of people's poor choices.

People will kill people without using a gun. It's not the gun laws.

California tried a crackdown on guns with a "Use a gun - go to prison" law. It worked.
Unfortunately, the state had regrets and hand-wringing and completely flipped over. Now criminals are victims.

I mentioned earlier my personal "war" on drug dealers.
Young men looking for easier money than going to school and working, are buying guns and selling drugs.
They lack morality. They get most of their guns by trading for drug debt - where the druggies get their drugs is not important.
Buying an illegal firearm is not easy.
You will be beaten to a pulp and robbed if you are trying to buy one and are not a known criminal
Mentally ill people that get guns are the biggest problem and cause most of the nass shootings.
Keeping them from guns would infringe on their rights.
That is what must be addressed.
We can't agree what a woman is in this society. How can we agree on who is a sick mother fucker?

 

[Yankee Traveler]

FIFY

You fix nothing.
You add your opinion.
The second amendment is written very succinctly on purpose.
You are trying to add in extra interpretation.



Shall not be infringed.

 

[Yankee Traveler]

Seriously, how do you think we should deal with the rash of mass casualties over the past 25 or so years. I'm not baiting for a soap box rebuttal, I actually would like your thoughts.

First and foremost, stop glamorizing the killers.

Make them nameless heathens. The media needs to partake in this. Social media needs to partake as well.
Social media algorithms can be fed the name and scrub any commentary about them before it gets posted.
Therefore they will never live in infamy.

 

[BigKen]

Hate to break up the guns shit arguments.....................but

Mike Tomlin comments on Patriots' sneaky draft move

Mike Tomlin shares thoughts on Day 1 draft trade with the Patriots.

patriotswire.usatoday.com

 

[Yankee Traveler]

Hate to break up the guns shit arguments.....................but

Mike Tomlin comments on Patriots' sneaky draft move

Mike Tomlin shares thoughts on Day 1 draft trade with the Patriots.

patriotswire.usatoday.com

Let’s just say I’m glad we found a partner,” said Tomlin. “…I’ll put it this way: There wasn’t a lot of hesitation on New England’s end.”

I read it as Pittsburgh approached New England.

 

[BigKen]

Yes they did and Tomlin admitted it.

 

[Yankee Traveler]

Yes they did and Tomlin admitted it.

So it wasn't very "Sneaky" of Bill.
He just gained a 4th and still got his man.

The Jets getting screwed is a bonus.

 

[nefansince75]

You fix nothing.
You add your opinion.
The second amendment is written very succinctly on purpose.
You are trying to add in extra interpretation.



Shall not be infringed.

There's a specific specialization within the law field called "constitutional law" which requires years of study and practice "interpreting" the constitution. All that wasted because it "is written very succinctly on purpose".

 

[Yankee Traveler]

There's a specific specialization within the law field called "constitutional law" which requires years of study and practice "interpreting" the constitution. All that wasted because it "is written very succinctly on purpose".

The constitution and all of it's amendments are a grand display of the infinite wisdom and forethought of our forefathers. There is much to interpret.
But;
Anyone who spends years practicing how to interpret it is probably just trying to add something that isn't there, or is trying to misinterpret something in a haughty misleading way for their own benefit.