The losing streak for gun owners is now what 8-10 years in front of the United States Supreme Court. In today's rulings they upheld the 9th circuit.

In a blow to gun rights activists, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases that is intended to guard against impulsive violence and suicides.

The justices also declined to take up a separate gun case involving a National Rifle Association challenge to California’s refusal to lower fees on firearms sales and instead use some of the fee money to track down weapons owned illegally.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1G4200

Don't see why gun owners would be against the waiting period. Odds are they're same folks who are quite eager to make women wait a few days before getting an abortion.

Thoughts and prayers. Because it works so well after mass murders...

Oh, and don't politicize this.

910A wrote:

The losing streak for gun owners is now what 8-10 years in front of the United States Supreme Court. In today's rulings they upheld the 9th circuit.

In a blow to gun rights activists, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases that is intended to guard against impulsive violence and suicides.

The justices also declined to take up a separate gun case involving a National Rifle Association challenge to California’s refusal to lower fees on firearms sales and instead use some of the fee money to track down weapons owned illegally.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1G4200

For those who don't know, "declined to take up" translates to "the lower court ruling stands"...

Now, on to deciding what kind of "militia" member Nikolas Cruz is, please...

910A wrote:

The losing streak for gun owners is now what 8-10 years in front of the United States Supreme Court. In today's rulings they upheld the 9th circuit.

In a blow to gun rights activists, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases that is intended to guard against impulsive violence and suicides.

The justices also declined to take up a separate gun case involving a National Rifle Association challenge to California’s refusal to lower fees on firearms sales and instead use some of the fee money to track down weapons owned illegally.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1G4200

Commiefornia? Who cares, and NFG...Already a lost cause for any semblance of gun rights in that state anyway. Unless I decide to ever venture there (NF chance), their rules have no bearing on how I (and millions of other law-abiding US citizens) legally carry and/or purchase firearms elsewhere.

KFLLCFII wrote:

910A wrote:

The losing streak for gun owners is now what 8-10 years in front of the United States Supreme Court. In today's rulings they upheld the 9th circuit.

In a blow to gun rights activists, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases that is intended to guard against impulsive violence and suicides.

The justices also declined to take up a separate gun case involving a National Rifle Association challenge to California’s refusal to lower fees on firearms sales and instead use some of the fee money to track down weapons owned illegally.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1G4200

Commiefornia? Who cares, and NFG...Already a lost cause for any semblance of gun rights in that state anyway. Unless I decide to ever venture there (NF chance), their rules have no bearing on how I (and millions of other law-abiding US citizens) legally carry and/or purchase firearms elsewhere.

In other words: your "rights" are more important than those in California (the correct spelling, BTW). Also, you do know that California citizens do have the right to conceal carry and own firearms, right? Maybe you should get to know what you are debating so you don't sound foolish.

I don't get it, why is a 10-day waiting period such a big problem for pro-gun people? It's not like you won't be able to get a gun, just that you'll get it 10 days later.

seb146 wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

910A wrote:

The losing streak for gun owners is now what 8-10 years in front of the United States Supreme Court. In today's rulings they upheld the 9th circuit.





https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1G4200

Commiefornia? Who cares, and NFG...Already a lost cause for any semblance of gun rights in that state anyway. Unless I decide to ever venture there (NF chance), their rules have no bearing on how I (and millions of other law-abiding US citizens) legally carry and/or purchase firearms elsewhere.

In other words: your "rights" are more important than those in California (the correct spelling, BTW). Also, you do know that California citizens do have the right to conceal carry and own firearms, right? Maybe you should get to know what you are debating so you don't sound foolish.

California citizens voted in their own state lawmakers who enacted these rules...They're the ones who effectively voted their own rights away, yet I'm supposed to sympathize for them? No chance.

Yes, I am aware of the (relatively-severely-limited) "right" of California citizens to own and carry firearms...But to imply by omission that their "right" has any semblance of equal comparison to citizens of most other states in the union is laughable.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I don't get it, why is a 10-day waiting period such a big problem for pro-gun people? It's not like you won't be able to get a gun, just that you'll get it 10 days later.

Playing Devil's advocate by substituting one Constitutional amendment for another:

Why would a 10-day waiting period for publishing articles, giving speeches and sermons, and peacefully protesting be such a big problem? It's not like they wouldn't be able to deliver their message, just that they'll get to do it 10 days later..after being vetted by a government entity to ensure that no undue harm may be inflicted by the subject material..

After all, if the First Amendment is relatively harmless compared to the Second, then what's the harm in ensuring (through waiting periods and government checks) that the delivered subject material remains inert and harmless? It certainly can't be that important if it doesn't deserve the same level of government scrutiny and vetting as the subject material in the Second Amendment, right? So what's the big deal if the government does instill a 10-day waiting period on all First Amendment-related material if it isn't that important? After all, it's relatively harmless...And therefore, no harm, no foul if a second set of eyes has a gander and a temporary moratorium...

Oh no!

The SC is endorsing measures meant to protect American citizens! The outrage... what is this World coming to?

KFLLCFII wrote:

Why would a 10-day waiting period for publishing articles, giving speeches and sermons, and peacefully protesting be such a big problem?

Articles, speeches, sermons and peaceful protests do not kill people.
Is that nuance really too hard to grasp?

Francoflier wrote:

Articles, speeches, sermons and peaceful protests do not kill people.
Is that nuance really too hard to grasp?

Apparently, yes!

10 days? But I'm angry now!

Francoflier wrote:

Oh no!

The SC is endorsing measures meant to protect American citizens! The outrage... what is this World coming to?

KFLLCFII wrote:

Why would a 10-day waiting period for publishing articles, giving speeches and sermons, and peacefully protesting be such a big problem?

Articles, speeches, sermons and peaceful protests do not kill people.

Then you'd have no problem allowing the government to vet (and institute a 10-day waiting period) to ensure any and all of yours and everyone else's articles, speeches, sermons, and peaceful protests will not reasonably have the capability to incite violence, right?

KFLLCFII wrote:

seb146 wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

Commiefornia? Who cares, and NFG...Already a lost cause for any semblance of gun rights in that state anyway. Unless I decide to ever venture there (NF chance), their rules have no bearing on how I (and millions of other law-abiding US citizens) legally carry and/or purchase firearms elsewhere.

In other words: your "rights" are more important than those in California (the correct spelling, BTW). Also, you do know that California citizens do have the right to conceal carry and own firearms, right? Maybe you should get to know what you are debating so you don't sound foolish.

California citizens voted in their own state lawmakers who enacted these rules...They're the ones who effectively voted their own rights away, yet I'm supposed to sympathize for them? No chance.

Yes, I am aware of the (relatively-severely-limited) "right" of California citizens to own and carry firearms...But to imply by omission that their "right" has any semblance of equal comparison to citizens of most other states in the union is laughable.

And, yet, Californians can carry guns, if they choose. Unlike the narrative you are trying to put out. They have to work around the crazy ammosexuals and terrorist organization NRA to try to save schools from being shot up. The California legislature can not pass any real and meaningful legislation, of course, because guns are much more important than life.

KFLLCFII wrote:

Then you'd have no problem allowing the government to vet (and institute a 10-day waiting period) to ensure any and all of yours and everyone else's articles, speeches, sermons, and peaceful protests will not reasonably have the capability to incite violence, right?

You are, once again, comparing things that have nothing to do with one another.

Do you understand why the 10 days rule for guns exists in the first place?
If you do, do you understand why it would make no sense to apply it to speeches and protests?

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I don't get it, why is a 10-day waiting period such a big problem for pro-gun people? It's not like you won't be able to get a gun, just that you'll get it 10 days later.

Frequency, man! Frequency.
imagine the drag only being able to buy a gun every ten days

WIederling wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I don't get it, why is a 10-day waiting period such a big problem for pro-gun people? It's not like you won't be able to get a gun, just that you'll get it 10 days later.

Frequency, man! Frequency.
imagine the drag only being able to buy a gun every ten days

Or you really want to shot someone in the face and have 10 days to think and calm down..... how inhumane!

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Or you really want to shot someone in the face and have 10 days to think and calm down..... how inhumane!

Is that why the gun nuts here are so busy posting <beep> ?
.. To keep the Adrenaline boiling for those 10 days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YKbYLb ... tu.be&t=60

KFLLCFII wrote:

Then you'd have no problem allowing the government to vet (and institute a 10-day waiting period) to ensure any and all of yours and everyone else's articles, speeches, sermons, and peaceful protests will not reasonably have the capability to incite violence, right?

It should be obvious that "A well regulated Militia" takes more then ten days to set up (as opposed to a mentally challenged teenager getting an AK-47), so it's obvious that waiting 10 days doesn't infringe on the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

You can keep your arms and you can bear your arms, you just need to wait 10 days to get your arms.

Meanwhile, in Florida, another milestone in civilization development was reached:

"Guns are ok, porn is bad"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/21/florida-house-refuses-to-debate-guns-but-declares-porn-dangerous/?utm_term=.52838029a14e

I dare say that at least 14 children and 3 teachers do not share this conclusion.

Revelation wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

Then you'd have no problem allowing the government to vet (and institute a 10-day waiting period) to ensure any and all of yours and everyone else's articles, speeches, sermons, and peaceful protests will not reasonably have the capability to incite violence, right?

It should be obvious that "A well regulated Militia" takes more then ten days to set up (as opposed to a mentally challenged teenager getting an AK-47), so it's obvious that waiting 10 days doesn't infringe on the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

You can keep your arms and you can bear your arms, you just need to wait 10 days to get your arms.

He doesn't understand and throws out simplistic and incorrect comparisons to other amendments hoping something will stick.

I agree with the fact that "well regulated militia" is part of the 2nd Amendment and as I said in an earlier post (on another shooting), what keeps the NRA supporters etc. up at night and makes them as rabid as they are to any change in how it is viewed, is the absolute fact that the reason we have what we have now is due to the court's interpretation of the amendment. That can (and will at some point - how we don't know) be changed by another court and other judges.

The amendment is written with those words, it is entirely likely even a "strict constructionist" or an "originalist" would agree that is it is integral to the amendments design and that right.

So don't let some people fool you into thinking it "can't be changed", it doesn't need to be. But the interpretation by the court is very open to change how it is applied. And THAT scares the NRA and their supporters.

Tugg

I've been spending a few hours over the last couple of days reading about the history of the NRA and it's past, and present lobby efforts.

The original goal of the NRA I can get on board with, but after the leadership change (which I interpreted as a hostile takeover) in 1968 I think the NRA has lost its way.

coolian2 wrote:

10 days? But I'm angry now!

The Wait is the Hardest Part.

seb146 wrote:

terrorist organization NRA

Please enlighten me how NRA is terrorist organization?
I have no sympathy for their course, but the rhetoric and labeling *progressives* like you use all the time is....hmmm......not very helpfull.
Just because you disagree politically with someone doesn't give you the right to label them nazies or whatever you normally do, even though it makes you feel virtous.

Dahlgardo wrote:

seb146 wrote:

terrorist organization NRA

Please enlighten me how NRA is terrorist organization?
I have no sympathy for their course, but the rhetoric and labeling *progressives* like you use all the time is....hmmm......not very helpfull.
Just because you disagree politically with someone doesn't give you the right to label them nazies or whatever you normally do, even though it makes you feel virtous.

They talk about responsible gun ownership but demand we do nothing when mass shootings happen. They act like they do not want to stop mass shootings. We are all for responsible gun ownership but doing nothing to prevent children being gunned down is sick. And, yes, it does make me feel better. That is really all we can do. We can not discuss sensible gun legislation because, for some reason, NRA and gun nuts can not read anything but "take all guns away."

As long as NRA does nothing to prevent mass shootings or even act like they care, I will continue to call them a terrorist organization.

seb146 wrote:

They talk about responsible gun ownership but demand we do nothing when mass shootings happen. They act like they do not want to stop mass shootings. We are all for responsible gun ownership but doing nothing to prevent children being gunned down is sick. And, yes, it does make me feel better. That is really all we can do. We can not discuss sensible gun legislation because, for some reason, NRA and gun nuts can not read anything but "take all guns away."

As long as NRA does nothing to prevent mass shootings or even act like they care, I will continue to call them a terrorist organization.

Patently false to say they do nothing. The only thing sickening here is the fact that you blatantly lie about other people.

It's no surprise that we can't have that conversation. It takes two reasonable people for honest discourse.

Dahlgardo wrote:

Please enlighten me how NRA is terrorist organization?

Terrorist is unfair. Terrorists could not dream of killing a tenth as many Americans as the NRA has facilitated

MSPNWA wrote:

Patently false to say they do nothing.

OK...what have they done to prevent mass shootings? Or reduce gun deaths in any way?

MaverickM11 wrote:

OK...what have they done to prevent mass shootings? Or reduce gun deaths in any way?

That's a question you need to ask to your lawmakers, not a lobbyist.

MSPNWA wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

OK...what have they done to prevent mass shootings? Or reduce gun deaths in any way?

That's a question you need to ask to your lawmakers, not a lobbyist.

Uhhh...you said:

MSPNWA wrote:

Patently false to say they do nothing.

So what is it they do?

Ten days? But my penis is small now!

910A wrote:

The losing streak for gun owners is now what 8-10 years in front of the United States Supreme Court.

Huh. What a specific time interval. What did the Supreme Court rule at 8-10 years and one day?

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I don't get it, why is a 10-day waiting period such a big problem for pro-gun people? It's not like you won't be able to get a gun, just that you'll get it 10 days later.

Did anyone actually read the details of the case? The lawsuit was challenging the 10-day waiting period for purchasers who already owned firearms. If waiting periods are rationalized as a protection against impulsive or enraged individuals, then they serve no purpose for someone who already has access to firearms. It's totally arbitrary to make firearm owners - who have already waited 10 days, and already demonstrated safe ownership - to wait each and every time they wish to purchase a firearm.

seb146 wrote:

And, yet, Californians can carry guns, if they choose. Unlike the narrative you are trying to put out. They have to work around the crazy ammosexuals and terrorist organization NRA to try to save schools from being shot up. The California legislature can not pass any real and meaningful legislation, of course, because guns are much more important than life.

We learned today that the armed police officer assigned to Douglas High School waited four minutes as gunfire rang out before entering the building. Students and teachers were being murdered and the police officer did nothing. The police officer was on-the-scene the entire time and never confronted the shooter:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/officer-at ... 1519341298

You call those of us who wish to defend ourselves "ammosexuals." You lack any empathy to understand why people are not content with placing the entirely of their personal safety in the hands of law enforcement who have no obligation to protect the public. Instead, you continue to mock and insult us. And you will get zero compromise what-so-ever.

MaverickM11 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

OK...what have they done to prevent mass shootings? Or reduce gun deaths in any way?

That's a question you need to ask to your lawmakers, not a lobbyist.

Uhhh...you said:

MSPNWA wrote:

Patently false to say they do nothing.

So what is it they do?

You have the wrong "do". The NRA doesn't "do" anything in the end. That's the job of your lawmaker.

What the NRA does "do" is project their supporter's voices towards lawmakers. And they have provided their solutions to help prevent shootings, which is the "doing" seb is accusing them of not doing, nor even caring about.

seb146 wrote:

As long as NRA does nothing to prevent mass shootings or even act like they care, I will continue to call them a terrorist organization.

You can't go a single day without personally insulting the people you need to compromise. You are a proximate cause for why nothing will happen. Does that make you a terrorist?

MSPNWA wrote:

You have the wrong "do". The NRA doesn't "do" anything in the end. That's the job of your lawmaker.

What the NRA does "do" is project their supporter's voices towards lawmakers. And they have provided their solutions to help prevent shootings, which is the "doing" seb is accusing them of not doing, nor even caring about.

You're just making this up as you go along aren't you. Someone said the NRA does nothing to prevent mass shootings and you say it's patently false to say they do nothing. And now you say the NRA doesn't "do anything in the end." Do you want to just collect your thoughts and try again?

DfwRevolution wrote:

You call those of us who wish to defend ourselves "ammosexuals." You lack any empathy to understand why people are not content with placing the entirely of their personal safety in the hands of law enforcement who have no obligation to protect the public. Instead, you continue to mock and insult us. And you will get zero compromise what-so-ever.

I thought it was the good guys with guns that are supposed to stop the bad guy with the gun? Does that not include LEOs anymore? Are we just supposed to wait for a neckbeard that thinks he's Jason Bourne to show up? And how are teachers supposed to do better than the person that's there to actually, you know, be the armed good guy?

DfwRevolution wrote:

Instead, you continue to mock and insult us. And you will get zero compromise what-so-ever.

Oh Christ on a cracker that ship has long sailed with lunatic Lapierre and frothing rabid sidekick Loesch, both of whom I *guarantee* would sh!t their pants and run crying like that officer if they were in the same situation, just like every other tough talking NRA nut. When y'all doubled down on "your dead kids aren't worth more than my guns" you stopped having any high horse to sit on and lecture us about "compromise".

DfwRevolution wrote:

910A wrote:

The losing streak for gun owners is now what 8-10 years in front of the United States Supreme Court.

Huh. What a specific time interval. What did the Supreme Court rule at 8-10 years and one day?

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I don't get it, why is a 10-day waiting period such a big problem for pro-gun people? It's not like you won't be able to get a gun, just that you'll get it 10 days later.

Did anyone actually read the details of the case? The lawsuit was challenging the 10-day waiting period for purchasers who already owned firearms. If waiting periods are rationalized as a protection against impulsive or enraged individuals, then they serve no purpose for someone who already has access to firearms. It's totally arbitrary to make firearm owners - who have already waited 10 days, and already demonstrated safe ownership - to wait each and every time they wish to purchase a firearm.

seb146 wrote:

And, yet, Californians can carry guns, if they choose. Unlike the narrative you are trying to put out. They have to work around the crazy ammosexuals and terrorist organization NRA to try to save schools from being shot up. The California legislature can not pass any real and meaningful legislation, of course, because guns are much more important than life.

We learned today that the armed police officer assigned to Douglas High School waited four minutes as gunfire rang out before entering the building. Students and teachers were being murdered and the police officer did nothing. The police officer was on-the-scene the entire time and never confronted the shooter:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/officer-at ... 1519341298

You call those of us who wish to defend ourselves "ammosexuals." You lack any empathy to understand why people are not content with placing the entirely of their personal safety in the hands of law enforcement who have no obligation to protect the public. Instead, you continue to mock and insult us. And you will get zero compromise what-so-ever.

No, nobody here read the case. This is the internet. Its all about the quick opinionated response.

DfwRevolution wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I don't get it, why is a 10-day waiting period such a big problem for pro-gun people? It's not like you won't be able to get a gun, just that you'll get it 10 days later.

Did anyone actually read the details of the case? The lawsuit was challenging the 10-day waiting period for purchasers who already owned firearms. If waiting periods are rationalized as a protection against impulsive or enraged individuals, then they serve no purpose for someone who already has access to firearms. It's totally arbitrary to make firearm owners - who have already waited 10 days, and already demonstrated safe ownership - to wait each and every time they wish to purchase a firearm.

Same difference. So what if you have to wait 10 days to get your gun even though you already have a gun? Even more so, it's not like YOU DON'T HAVE A GUN, just that you'll get a NEW GUN 10 days later.

MaverickM11 wrote:

You're just making this up as you go along aren't you. Someone said the NRA does nothing to prevent mass shootings and you say it's patently false to say they do nothing. And now you say the NRA doesn't "do anything in the end." Do you want to just collect your thoughts and try again?

No, I'm responding to the subtle, crucial shifting of the goalposts in your post. I've made myself clear. Maybe you are having trouble with the context of seb's false message, and it's simply unintentional. Only you can answer that.

MaverickM11 wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

You call those of us who wish to defend ourselves "ammosexuals." You lack any empathy to understand why people are not content with placing the entirely of their personal safety in the hands of law enforcement who have no obligation to protect the public. Instead, you continue to mock and insult us. And you will get zero compromise what-so-ever.

I thought it was the good guys with guns that are supposed to stop the bad guy with the gun? Does that not include LEOs anymore? Are we just supposed to wait for a neckbeard that thinks he's Jason Bourne to show up? And how are teachers supposed to do better than the person that's there to actually, you know, be the armed good guy?

We the people are the good guys.

How many lives would have been saved if a bearded hero like Aaron Feis had been armed?

MaverickM11 wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Instead, you continue to mock and insult us. And you will get zero compromise what-so-ever.

Oh Christ on a cracker that ship has long sailed with lunatic Lapierre and frothing rabid sidekick Loesch, both of whom I *guarantee* would sh!t their pants and run crying like that officer if they were in the same situation, just like every other tough talking NRA nut. When y'all doubled down on "your dead kids aren't worth more than my guns" you stopped having any high horse to sit on and lecture us about "compromise".

Figures. More disgusting insults. What is your objective then if not compromise? Rage until you're exhausted?

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Same difference. So what if you have to wait 10 days to get your gun even though you already have a gun? Even more so, it's not like YOU DON'T HAVE A GUN, just that you'll get a NEW GUN 10 days later.

The "so what" is a purposeless restriction on a Constitutionally-defined right of the American citizen. That's "what." The Supreme Court has routinely held that the government must have a damn good and narrowly focused reason for abridging Constitutional rights. Unfortunately, they can't take every case.

DfwRevolution wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Same difference. So what if you have to wait 10 days to get your gun even though you already have a gun? Even more so, it's not like YOU DON'T HAVE A GUN, just that you'll get a NEW GUN 10 days later.

The "so what" is a purposeless restriction on a Constitutionally-defined right of the American citizen. That's "what." The Supreme Court has routinely held that the government must have a damn good and narrowly focused reason for abridging Constitutional rights. Unfortunately, they can't take every case.

How is it a restriction on a Constitutionally-defined right of the American citizen given that YOU WILL GET YOUR GUN, only 10 days later? It's not like the Second Amendment has a clause stating that the American citizen's right to bear arms shall not be encumbered by waiting periods.

Dahlgardo wrote:

seb146 wrote:

terrorist organization NRA

Please enlighten me how NRA is terrorist organization?
I have no sympathy for their course, but the rhetoric and labeling *progressives* like you use all the time is....hmmm......not very helpfull.
Just because you disagree politically with someone doesn't give you the right to label them nazies or whatever you normally do, even though it makes you feel virtous.

The NRA advocate for the unregulated proliferation of rapid fire weapons used solely to kill people. They also support politicians who resist reasonable attempts to control weapons.

These type of weapons are used for hunting people, not animals.
the republican party has taken 30,000,000.00 from the NRA. simply put the NRA are buying off politicians to do their bidding.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

The NRA advocate for the unregulated proliferation of rapid fire weapons used solely to kill people.....

...These type of weapons are used for hunting people, not animals.

Two more patently false statements.

Seriously, if those wanting more gun restrictions don't make factual, sound arguments, then there will be no honest debate or compromise.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Same difference. So what if you have to wait 10 days to get your gun even though you already have a gun? Even more so, it's not like YOU DON'T HAVE A GUN, just that you'll get a NEW GUN 10 days later.

The "so what" is a purposeless restriction on a Constitutionally-defined right of the American citizen. That's "what." The Supreme Court has routinely held that the government must have a damn good and narrowly focused reason for abridging Constitutional rights. Unfortunately, they can't take every case.

How is it a restriction on a Constitutionally-defined right of the American citizen given that YOU WILL GET YOUR GUN, only 10 days later? It's not like the Second Amendment has a clause stating that the American citizen's right to bear arms shall not be encumbered by waiting periods.

You're explaining why it is a restriction in your own words. You're just choosing to dismiss the impact as inconsequential. Maybe for you. Not so for others.

Our civil liberties are not to be nickel and dimed. The government can't say "we know it's peacetime, but we're going to quarter troops in your house for 10 days. It's just 10 days. YOU WILL GET YOUR HOUSE BACK, only 10 days later."

MSPNWA wrote:

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

The NRA advocate for the unregulated proliferation of rapid fire weapons used solely to kill people.....

...These type of weapons are used for hunting people, not animals.

Two more patently false statements.

Seriously, if those wanting more gun restrictions don't make factual, sound arguments, then there will be no honest debate or compromise.

give me a break, i grew up in Wyoming, nobody uses rapid fire weapons to hunt animals unless they are jerks.

DfwRevolution wrote:

You're explaining why it is a restriction in your own words. You're just choosing to dismiss the impact as inconsequential. Maybe for you. Not so for others.

Our civil liberties are not to be nickel and dimed. The government can't say "we know it's peacetime, but we're going to quarter troops in your house for 10 days. It's just 10 days. YOU WILL GET YOUR HOUSE BACK, only 10 days later."

The fact that your own Constitution does not clearly define that the right to bear arms shall not be encumbered by waiting periods set by the government means that your civil liberties is not nickel and dimed if the government chose to apply a 10 day waiting period. Your right to bear arms is not infringed in the least in this case.

It's different to that of the Third Amendment which you have tried to make an example of. That amendment is clear. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

And you never even answered my question - why is it so bloody important for a gun owner to have a gun instantly, especially considering that he or she already has a weapon?

You Americans sure are a funny lot. Thousands of Americans are killed by indiscriminate shootings and yet ZERO action is taken. One dude unsuccessfully attempts to bomb a plane and as quickly as you can you introduce stringent limits on the amount of liquids you can carry on board.

DfwRevolution wrote:

We the people are the good guys.

Whatever you need to tell yourself as the body count goes up every day...

DfwRevolution wrote:

How many lives would have been saved if a bearded hero like Aaron Feis had been armed?

You really have no idea--you *fantasize* that the hero would save the day, and yet it never really happens. But chances are a surprise AR-15 attack would have had the same result whether or not he was armed. But now he's just another one of tens of thousands of lives cut short because one very specific group doesn't want to talk about the obvious.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Figures. More disgusting insults. What is your objective then if not compromise? Rage until you're exhausted?

"Your dead kids matter less than my guns" is practically the NRA motto. Remember that one? It was after Sandy Hook. Terrorist Lapierre and rabid dog Loesch--seriously, what is it with severe right wing women in bandage dresses that love to trash victims suffering unimaginable loss?--have only underlined that further lately, while drawing a target on journalists, democrats, and *gasp* socialists, and they are by no means outliers.

MSPNWA wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

You're just making this up as you go along aren't you. Someone said the NRA does nothing to prevent mass shootings and you say it's patently false to say they do nothing. And now you say the NRA doesn't "do anything in the end." Do you want to just collect your thoughts and try again?

No, I'm responding to the subtle, crucial shifting of the goalposts in your post. I've made myself clear. Maybe you are having trouble with the context of seb's false message, and it's simply unintentional. Only you can answer that.

Here is the live view of you moving the goalposts...

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

As long as NRA does nothing to prevent mass shootings or even act like they care, I will continue to call them a terrorist organization.

Patently false to say they do nothing.

MaverickM11 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

Patently false to say they do nothing.

OK...what have they done to prevent mass shootings? Or reduce gun deaths in any way?

MSPNWA wrote:

You have the wrong "do". The NRA doesn't "do" anything in the end. That's the job of your lawmaker.

What the NRA does "do" is project their supporter's voices towards lawmakers. And they have provided their solutions to help prevent shootings, which is the "doing" seb is accusing them of not doing, nor even caring about.

So...what is this "doing" you speak of? Or are you gonna lecture us on what the definition of is is, but in this case "do"?

MaverickM11 wrote:

Here is the live view of you moving the goalposts...

I guess we need to go back to give you a review of where you moved the posts.

This initial falsehood from seb was this:

seb146 wrote:

They talk about responsible gun ownership but demand we do nothing when mass shootings happen. They act like they do not want to stop mass shootings. We are all for responsible gun ownership but doing nothing to prevent children being gunned down is sick. And, yes, it does make me feel better. That is really all we can do. We can not discuss sensible gun legislation because, for some reason, NRA and gun nuts can not read anything but "take all guns away."

As long as NRA does nothing to prevent mass shootings or even act like they care, I will continue to call them a terrorist organization.

It's a false statement, as the NRA has all along been public with their concern about mass shootings and their ideas to improve the situation. They don't demand to do nothing, only the opposite. They clearly do care about mass shootings, otherwise they wouldn't say what they do and offer solutions. And to say that leaves only two options. It was either woeful ignorance of the NRA's actions, or a deliberate falsehood. Considering how easy it is to discover just one instance of the NRA offering ideas or care about the situation, it's likely the latter.

But next you change the demand into another jurisdiction in an attempt to make your rebuttal stronger:

MaverickM11 wrote:

OK...what have they done to prevent mass shootings? Or reduce gun deaths in any way?

The NRA doesn't make laws. The NRA doesn't enforce laws. The NRA doesn't control human behavior of its members or anyone else. They don't prevent mass shootings. They don't reduce gun deaths. That's not what they do. What you are attacking them for isn't their authority. Your question needs to be asked to lawmakers and those in law enforcement positions who do have that authority. Like I've stated before, the NRA is a voice to the lawmakers and law enforcers. They offer solutions that others agree and disagree with. It's not their job to actually enact the change that will potentially reduce mass shootings or gun deaths in general. Seb's initial post also made the mistake of accusing the NRA of not enacting laws, but that's not the falsehood I was pointing out.

We learned today that the armed police officer assigned to Douglas High School waited four minutes as gunfire rang out before entering the building. Students and teachers were being murdered and the police officer did nothing. The police officer was on-the-scene the entire time and never confronted the shooter:

So then we ought to ask Wayne Lapierre how that "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" thing is working out........Not so much
But yeah, arming teachers is the solution. Someone with zero real life experience in an active shooter situation and a crazed kid with an AR-15 in a gunfight. No way any innocent bystanders could get hurt or anything. What could possibly go wrong?

MSPNWA wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Here is the live view of you moving the goalposts...

I guess we need to go back to give you a review of where you moved the posts.

This initial falsehood from seb was this:

seb146 wrote:

They talk about responsible gun ownership but demand we do nothing when mass shootings happen. They act like they do not want to stop mass shootings. We are all for responsible gun ownership but doing nothing to prevent children being gunned down is sick. And, yes, it does make me feel better. That is really all we can do. We can not discuss sensible gun legislation because, for some reason, NRA and gun nuts can not read anything but "take all guns away."

As long as NRA does nothing to prevent mass shootings or even act like they care, I will continue to call them a terrorist organization.

It's a false statement, as the NRA has all along been public with their concern about mass shootings and their ideas to improve the situation. They don't demand to do nothing, only the opposite. They clearly do care about mass shootings, otherwise they wouldn't say what they do and offer solutions. And to say that leaves only two options. It was either woeful ignorance of the NRA's actions, or a deliberate falsehood. Considering how easy it is to discover just one instance of the NRA offering ideas or care about the situation, it's likely the latter.

But next you change the demand into another jurisdiction in an attempt to make your rebuttal stronger:

MaverickM11 wrote:

OK...what have they done to prevent mass shootings? Or reduce gun deaths in any way?

The NRA doesn't make laws. The NRA doesn't enforce laws. The NRA doesn't control human behavior of its members or anyone else. They don't prevent mass shootings. They don't reduce gun deaths. That's not what they do. What you are attacking them for isn't their authority. Your question needs to be asked to lawmakers and those in law enforcement positions who do have that authority. Like I've stated before, the NRA is a voice to the lawmakers and law enforcers. They offer solutions that others agree and disagree with. It's not their job to actually enact the change that will potentially reduce mass shootings or gun deaths in general. Seb's initial post also made the mistake of accusing the NRA of not enacting laws, but that's not the falsehood I was pointing out.

The terrorist organization NRA has bought enough elected officials that it can make gun and firearm laws. The only real solution they offer is vague statements on background checks and mental health. That is a start, but anything else is met with "why are you trying to take our guns away?"

MSPNWA wrote:

This initial falsehood from seb was this:

seb146 wrote:

As long as NRA does nothing to prevent mass shootings or even act like they care, I will continue to call them a terrorist organization.

It's a false statement, as the NRA has all along been public with their concern about mass shootings and their ideas to improve the situation. They don't demand to do nothing, only the opposite. They clearly do care about mass shootings, otherwise they wouldn't say what they do and offer solutions. And to say that leaves only two options. It was either woeful ignorance of the NRA's actions, or a deliberate falsehood. Considering how easy it is to discover just one instance of the NRA offering ideas or care about the situation, it's likely the latter.

But next you change the demand into another jurisdiction in an attempt to make your rebuttal stronger:

.

Seb said they do nothing to prevent mass shootings--you said that was false--and you can't come up with a damn thing to show how that's false. The end--now you're yip yapping about jurisdiction and blah blah blah when the question is very simple since the statement you and seb both made are very clear cut. I think you're confusing "moving the goal posts" with you "digging yourself deeper into a hole". But thanks for this word salad that Sarah Palin would even shake her head at.

seb146 wrote:

The terrorist organization NRA has bought enough elected officials that it can make gun and firearm laws. The only real solution they offer is vague statements on background checks and mental health. That is a start, but anything else is met with "why are you trying to take our guns away?"

There you go off again on the same tangent. Until you can be honest and respectful about other views, there will be no honest debate.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Seb said they do nothing to prevent mass shootings--you said that was false--and you can't come up with a damn thing to show how that's false. The end--now you're yip yapping about jurisdiction and blah blah blah when the question is very simple since the statement you and seb both made are very clear cut. I think you're confusing "moving the goal posts" with you "digging yourself deeper into a hole". But thanks for this word salad that Sarah Palin would even shake her head at.

seb made multiple statements that were false (there is no debate about that - the NRA came out yet again with their solutions). But it doesn't matter exactly what seb said. What matters is what you said. And what you said isn't even a valid criticism towards the NRA, let alone an accurate one or not. It derailed the debate.

Since you must need more examples to understand the concept, I'll give you an analogy. When you go to your local mega-mart and are critical of their repeatedly hacked customer information system, is it valid to use the lack of action on their cyber security to criticize the cashier and shame them? Obviously not. They don't have authority. They could be telling authority everyday to do something, but they can't authorize the action. Criticism towards the cashier is obviously misplaced. That it where your argument immediately went off the rails. seb made the same mistake. Be honest and respectful about other views. Then maybe there can be debate, and only then can your ideas be seen as ingenuous. As they stand they cannot be taken seriously.