DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Why We Need a Firearms Ban

Stick to a point. Jan 6th has nothing to do with this.

How many murders are solved? Conflating homicide and murder is the first rule of gun grabbers.

You keep seeming to claim that training would not stop people with no experience from making mistakes. That simply doesn't make any sense. Once again you try to use the standards of some states out of 50 to make your point. It doesn't. Making you get basic firearms training does not "restrict your rights" to own and carry a firearm. I've made no claims that there aren't certain states that carry things too far. Actually I've said exactly the opposite. Still, that doesn't restrict your rights to own or carry a firearm. A restriction prevents you from doing something. No matter how crazy a states law is, it still doesn't prevent you from carrying a weapon if their guidelines are followed. If you go by history slavery would still be legal and women wouldn't be allowed to vote. Using history as an excuse is a very slippery slope.

I have made no such claim.

You seem to claim that mandatory training would keep people from making mistakes. It will not.

I have always advocated people get training.

Mandatory training may not always be used to stop people, but the fact it can be is the issue. You seem to have this idea that no one will get training if it isn't required and that states will always just do what is right and just.

Try it the other way around and you might understand what freedom looks like.


And stop spinning and using straw arguments. Text, history and tradition are used to test restrictions on rights. It is patently obvious that slavery itself is a restriction on rights.

You know you are lying about what I've said in regards to you supporting gun training. I've said many times, including yesterday that you support training but not mandated training. Try to keep it in mind this time for future reference. I understand what freedom looks like. I also understand what responsibility looks like. They are not mutually exclusive. And no, mandatory training won't stop all people from making mistakes but it will certainly stop some from making basic mistakes. To claim otherwise is living in a fools paradise. I have also made it clear that if left to their own device some responsible people will get training. Many will not. When I'm out shopping I don't want to guess who is carrying a gun that has no clue how to use it. It seems you do because no matter how much you wish to act like everything is okay without mandatory training, it's not.

When you are out shopping you are guessing.

You don't know the quality of the instructor or if they were even training exempt. Shooting is an active skill, it doesn't get better by not doing it, no matter the claim in the thread I started on shooting.

Mandatory training is used as a barrier. States will enact stricter and stricter rules in the name of "common sense safety" to discourage or out right ban people from carrying. Tell me what training will suffice in HI.

If it can be used to restrict the exercise of a basic right it will be used that way and that is wrong. Period. Full stop.

Yet no mention of all the permitless carry states. Your full stop only seems to work in your world. You act as though learning basic gun safety protocol has no value unless you are actively target practice. That's a false premise. And that's the entire issue. You either have people who want to ban guns or people that wish to attach no responsibility in training for people walking around in our society carrying a weapon that can fire off 19 rounds in a few seconds. It a world gone mad. Now that's what a full stop looks like.

Look at those goal posts running about.


I have stated people should get training. I am against arbitration and capricious mandated training. Those two ideas are not exclusive of each other no matter how you spin.

I know you have a need to spin and change what I say so you can attack.

Either you promote mandated training or you don't. You don't. Using your old tactic of blaming others when they call you out doesn't really work. Hoping everyone will do the right thing doesn't work either. So your idea is that you hope and promote they get training but if and when many won't, and many, many won't, the rest of society should just eat it and hope for the best.

Yuli have to hope for the best daily. Baltimore, for instance, is near the top statistically in homicides yearly. How many of those would be prevented if people who are carrying illegally didn't skip the mandatory training?

The use of mandates only burdens those that would be law abiding. You continue to believe laws keep people from doing stupid things.

If you are irresponsible with you rights you should be put somewhere you can't harm others.

It will certainly prevent some. The problem with your scenario is you only know they will be irresponsible with their rights AFTER they are irresponsible with their rights. By then it's too late. I understand that criminals will be criminals. There's no way to stop that. That's no excuse to promote that law abiding citizens have no need to act responsibly. And no "hopes that they will" won't address that issue.

Maybe if you insist on not doing the responsible thing in making sure everyone have a basic understanding of how to handle and use a firearm if they plan to carry one in public is being irresponsible with your rights?

The court was clear in Bruen that "the public safety" is not a test to allow infringement. The 2A two step is "one step too many" according to Bruen.

If you've not read the decision you are punching in the dark. Every single argument you have made is squished in that document.

Text, history and tradition are the only factors. Feelings, "public good" and "common sense" cannot be used to deny, infringe or delay a right. Period. No right has been as burdened at 2A and that time is now done.

It appears as though that decision must have been pretty meaningless since so many states still have actual required training for the right to carry a firearm in public. It appears that is not considered an infringement as you keep insisting it is. As I said, if those were the only factors we would still have slavery and women wouldn't have the right to vote.

Your excuses as to why as a society we do not demand basic public safety are just that, excuses.

You don't understand how it all works do you?

Once the court renders this type of decision laws can be challenged in court, using the new text, history and tradition as the standard of review.

We get to pay the government to let us sue them. Hopefully as the cases work their way through the courts plaintiffs can realize 1983 claims.

You mean like Roe vs Wade? Pretending that outdated text or precedent holds up in courts these days is a fools errand. I understand how it all works. I've seen some of the dumbest things contested in courts across this country since the 2020 election I certainly understand how it all works.

I don't see mandated training doing anything. What is that going to accomplish other than maybe prevent a few accidental shootings? The bulk of the people doing the shootings that are causing the problems aren't going to submit to training.

I am not trying to be a dork and argue with you. I just don't see that having any impact other than to create one more layer of red tape and infringement of privacy on us law abiding citizens.

Both of us are gun owners. You don't go around shooting people. I don't, yet we are the ones who end up paying for everything and have to jump through hoops because of the bad actors in society.

Maybe I am just old fashioned, but I don't like it when the government starts telling people they don't need guns, shouldn't, or can't have them.

Outdated text? Bruen was decided in June 2022.

Lol I’m no math genius but if you subtract 50% from 100% you’ll have your answer. And a high majority of those solved are white victims.

You are no legal genius either.

Homicide = the killing of a human by a human. This include justified and unjustified killings.
Murder = a type of unjustified homicide, usually but not always with an intent or malice factor.

So how many murders are solved? Not how many homicides are solved. Tossing homicide into the bucket is done to make the stat look more firendly.

But the government didn't say those things. Gun safety training in no way even suggests the things you mentioned. Some states simply require that if you're going to go around in public carrying a loaded firearm you should be required to have some basic training in how to handle it and fire it. And actually there are people who certainly don't need it. I was raised around firearms. Taught to safely handle them and fire them. When and if the government does what you are claiming I will gladly join you. But that's not what's being done. There's noting about a firearms safety course that suggests you "don't need guns, shouldn't, or can't have them." Quite the opposite in fact.

I guess we just have a different definition of what jumping through hoops means. I've never looked at a basic gun safety course that way. Any time you purchase a firearm legally you must fill out paperwork. If privacy is your concern, that's where it was lost at not after it was purchased when you take a safety course. There's nothing about taking a safety course that has any impact on that. I have known people who decided to purchase and carry a firearm who certainly would not have gone through a safety course had it not been required. They had no clue and no experience handling a weapon much less firing one.

I'm not that much less old fashioned in a lot of ways than you are. But insuring that every legal gun owner who is walking around in public at least has basic gun training is something I myself am willing to go through so we don't have a bunch of wannabe Dirty Harry's who have no clue what they're doing are out there with loaded weapons at the grocery store. In the event that a "good guy with a gun has to defend against a bad guy with a gun", I don't want that good guy shooting innocent people because he doesn't have a clue how to handle a gun.

Good to know you have conceded again.

We already have a lot of wannabe gangsters who don't have any training.

Although 'discussions' like this thread are ultimately pointless, you do bring up a legit question and I have a minute to spare.

I think a lot depends on the State and the circumstances. There was a case where NYPD opened up on a guy stabbing people in Midtown Manhattan. They got him but also hit something like 9 bystanders. They got in trouble. During the Rittenhouse trial hitting a bystander was an issue. When he fired the shots at the pedo Rosenbaum, there was a journalist behind him that got grazed in the leg from one of the shots. If the jury found Rittenhouse lawfully shot Rosenbaum, they could not as a matter of WI law find him guilty of hitting the journo (that was a reckless endangerment type charge). However, if they found he did unlawfully shoot Rosenbaum, they could find him guilty for hitting the journo.

*for the record I don't care what anyone's opinion of that case was. I only brought it up because it was a good, real life Court illustration of this type of scenario *

If we eliminate suicides 24,292 gun deaths a year, we are left talking about 20,930 of which, 19,000 were murders.

On a per capita basis, there were 13.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020 – the highest rate since the mid-1990s, but still well below the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974.

So you propose we just add to that number. Perfect!

What you fail to mention is that as this goes through the court system it could just as easily be overturned and end up being meaningless. But that's what you do. You use legal cases that are not settled law to try and prove your point. People aren't as gullible as you seem to think they are. And no, why would I concede to some wannabe lawyer?

I was speaking about the text the case is predicated on. But then I didn't expect people like you and Memphis to comprehend that. I thought it was pretty clear when I said that it often times doesn't hold up in court these days but I need to keep in mind who is reading and who I'm responding to. I should have known a much deeper explanation would be required for it to sink in.

I did not fail to mention anything. You might want to a specious argument but I am not required to produce it for you.

The law of the land is now text, history, and tradition. This is the legal requirement. This is not a hard concept to understand. If a lower court rules opposed to that it moves up the chain. It is likely that it will eventually make it back to SCOTUS who have set the rule of the land to be text, history and tradition.

Lower courts do not like to be overruled. It doesn't look good on your resume to ignore a legal precedent from SCOTUS. Can it happen? Yes. Should it happen? No. If it does it is likely yet another activist judge who should not be on the bench to start with.

Bruen was mentioned then you said it was outdated. We cannot be expected to read your mind. The fact you cannot communicate well is no one's fault but your own.

first, glad to see you back here.

second, make sense with the rittenhouse example. i think rittenhouse would've still been in the clear though. with this case, i dunno if this was during the act of the incident. Rittenhouse at least had that benefit of doubt, but the guy was already robbed, the suspect was already bolting out of the area, and THEN the guy fired into the wrong vehicle. So he didn't even fire at the actual suspect at minimum, he had the wrong target and ended up hitting an innocent bystander. maybe he's in the clear the if the suspect was actually driving the vehicle?

It's not my fault you have a comprehension issue. Deflection won't help you with that.

When you make gibberish points it is your fault.

Bruen is the law of the land. It takes time to overturn laws that are in conflict. This is simple.

If a lower court overruled an abortion law using Roe as precedent it would fail since Dobbs is the law of the law now. That is how the legal system works.

I hope you are being purposefully obtuse because I imagine a man in your position in life couldn't possibly be so stupid. Until the SCOTUS decides on a law, no such law is settled. If that were so there would be no legal requirements in any state for training to obtain a CCW permit. That certainly isn't the case because as of now it isn't a settled matter.

Just as your accusation of how I claimed that antiquated texts being used in a case meant the case itself. Because you see, a court case is given in an oral manner. The precedents used in a case are based on texts written from transcripts of previous cases. I see you have tried to move away from the actual debate itself to try to and make this personal but you are failing miserably.

Usually when you run out of counter points you insult people and this is no different. You also continue to use specious arguments.

The standard SCOTUS has handed down is text, history and tradition. This was part of the Bruen decision. That is not up for debate. Go read the decision if you refuse to believe it. This does not immediately invalidate laws in place. I have not said that. It is the standard of review for any case that comes before any court now. Current laws can be, and are being, challenged using that standard. It is the required standard now.

As laws are challenged, if the fail this test, they will go. Never have I indicated this is an instantaneous process, but it IS the process. The 2A Two Step given in Heller I is dead. No more it is an unparrot.

Keep your schoolhouse insult to yourself.

If it were not up for debate it wouldn't still be going through the court system. By your example Roe vs wade was also a ruling the SCOTUS handed down that was text, tradition and history for almost 50 years. It was not a settled matter either.

I had no idea telling you that I didn't think you're stupid would be something you would find so offensive. Maybe I should reconsider that opinion of you to make you happy.

"I hope you are being purposefully obtuse"

Which implies I am obtuse, purposefully or otherwise. But of course you only include the part you can spin as not an insult.

Bruen is not still going through the system. It is decided. It is conceivable a much different court (in the future) would change that, but since June it is decided. Lower courts must adhere to it. That's how the hierarchy of the judicial branch works.

Roe was not overturned at the state or circuit, which is part of the point. It was the standard of review until SCOTUS reviewed and change it. Before that courts had to use it.

I do hope that's what you're doing. Because to believe otherwise would cause me to come to a far more negative conclusion. And I backed that up by concluding that I didn't think you were stupid. You aren't one of those #snowflakes are you?

No I am one of those people that get tired of using cogent arguments the the being insulted.

Again saying that would imply I am obtuse, which is an insult. Backtracking and spin do not change it. You say it, own it.

I do own it. Unlike you who bring obtuse points and sidetrack the discussion by making it a personal issue. Your problem seems to be that when you do that I just happen to be better than you at it. You act as though only your points are cogent and nobody else could possibly make counterpoints that hold merit. That would be incorrect.

As I said, I own it but I'll also repeat that if I didn't believe you were being purposefully obtuse it would cause me to come to a far more negative conclusion.