bennett123 wrote:

Seems to me that there are two issues here;

1. The large number of guns in circulation.

2. A serious mental health issue, leading to dangerous people having guns.

1. People in the US cannot/will not tackle.

2. Ensuring that the large number of seriously disturbed individuals are treated will cost a lot of money. Is there the will to invest that money.

Failing 1 or 2, I see no future except more thoughts and prayers.

There's a ton of guns in circulation in other countries too (e.g Switzerland) but you don't see mass shootings and the level of violence you see in the US.

We've had the discussion here before, (exactly what you have picked up on) and that is why does the US have this such apparent high level of mental health issues and if there is this level, why isn't it being tackled and funded? And if that is the case why it is seemingly so easy for these people to get firearms. Proper background checks, register of people who clearly shouldn't have anything to do with them surely is a completely sensible thing to do?

Seems to me it is solvable, but is met by constant blocking by people unwilling to change part of the system. Mental health I assume isn't covered by insurance, or those that have the problems don't have insurance? Is this really the crux of the matter, the healthcare setup and an unwillingness to enforce existing regulations / tighten checks because of the blowback from the NRA?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

Yep, no chance of things changing in my lifetime at least. Anyway it's not really my issue, so long as US citizens don't look to the rest of the world to follow them as an example (no real chance of that happening either).

I honestly believe there will finally be a point when the kids of today are fed up with all the gun violence that they stress the first four words of the Second Amendment instead of the last four that we have been forced to live by for the past ~50 years. It will come after the Boomers die out and the Gen Xers are starting to die off but it will finally happen.

It’s the “kids of today” that are creating all this violence, so I’m guessing not. It’s not the elderly shooting each other over drugs deals and gang affiliation in Chicago, Phillie, etc. I shoot fairly regularly in New England with teenagers involved in shooting sports, they’re not the problem.

I see it as more of a "chicken and egg" scenario. The kids today are only part of the issue. The other part are adults who demand all guns, all the time. Yes, there are parents who teach their kids. There are also parents who have guns and don't say anything. Another issue that must be addressed is the "war" on drugs. That is part of the reason for gun violence righties are always whining about. We need to enforce current gun laws, accept the entire Second Amendment, not just the last four words, and we need to stop criminalizing minorities.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I honestly believe there will finally be a point when the kids of today are fed up with all the gun violence that they stress the first four words of the Second Amendment instead of the last four that we have been forced to live by for the past ~50 years. It will come after the Boomers die out and the Gen Xers are starting to die off but it will finally happen.

It’s the “kids of today” that are creating all this violence, so I’m guessing not. It’s not the elderly shooting each other over drugs deals and gang affiliation in Chicago, Phillie, etc. I shoot fairly regularly in New England with teenagers involved in shooting sports, they’re not the problem.

I see it as more of a "chicken and egg" scenario. The kids today are only part of the issue. The other part are adults who demand all guns, all the time. Yes, there are parents who teach their kids. There are also parents who have guns and don't say anything. Another issue that must be addressed is the "war" on drugs. That is part of the reason for gun violence righties are always whining about. We need to enforce current gun laws, accept the entire Second Amendment, not just the last four words, and we need to stop criminalizing minorities.

I agree with you about the failure of the war on drugs. Not sure what you are referring to about accepting the entire second amendment....as has been said numerous times, the SCOTUS has already interpreted the Second so that is not up for debate. Finally, I'm also not sure what you mean about "we need to stop criminalizing minorities".

N583JB wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s the “kids of today” that are creating all this violence, so I’m guessing not. It’s not the elderly shooting each other over drugs deals and gang affiliation in Chicago, Phillie, etc. I shoot fairly regularly in New England with teenagers involved in shooting sports, they’re not the problem.

I see it as more of a "chicken and egg" scenario. The kids today are only part of the issue. The other part are adults who demand all guns, all the time. Yes, there are parents who teach their kids. There are also parents who have guns and don't say anything. Another issue that must be addressed is the "war" on drugs. That is part of the reason for gun violence righties are always whining about. We need to enforce current gun laws, accept the entire Second Amendment, not just the last four words, and we need to stop criminalizing minorities.

I agree with you about the failure of the war on drugs. Not sure what you are referring to about accepting the entire second amendment....as has been said numerous times, the SCOTUS has already interpreted the Second so that is not up for debate. Finally, I'm also not sure what you mean about "we need to stop criminalizing minorities".

It also makes zero sense to blame all gun crime and the "liberal" position of "take all guns" (which is only a right wing scare tactic) on Chicago. It is as if the rest of Illinois does not matter.

And the one ruling that every righty points to as the be all and end all for reasonable law and even ignoring the laws we already have on the books is up for debate. Roe v. Wade decided the abortion debate once and for all and, yet, the same righties are trying like everything to overturn that SCOTUS decision. So, yes, that harmful "guns for all" law can and will be overturned. How many more will die because of it remains to be seen. Not that the party of "every life is sacred" cares about that.........

seb146 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I see it as more of a "chicken and egg" scenario. The kids today are only part of the issue. The other part are adults who demand all guns, all the time. Yes, there are parents who teach their kids. There are also parents who have guns and don't say anything. Another issue that must be addressed is the "war" on drugs. That is part of the reason for gun violence righties are always whining about. We need to enforce current gun laws, accept the entire Second Amendment, not just the last four words, and we need to stop criminalizing minorities.

I agree with you about the failure of the war on drugs. Not sure what you are referring to about accepting the entire second amendment....as has been said numerous times, the SCOTUS has already interpreted the Second so that is not up for debate. Finally, I'm also not sure what you mean about "we need to stop criminalizing minorities".

It also makes zero sense to blame all gun crime and the "liberal" position of "take all guns" (which is only a right wing scare tactic) on Chicago. It is as if the rest of Illinois does not matter.

And the one ruling that every righty points to as the be all and end all for reasonable law and even ignoring the laws we already have on the books is up for debate. Roe v. Wade decided the abortion debate once and for all and, yet, the same righties are trying like everything to overturn that SCOTUS decision. So, yes, that harmful "guns for all" law can and will be overturned. How many more will die because of it remains to be seen. Not that the party of "every life is sacred" cares about that.........

You realize that the SCOTUS is solidly conservative and will likely remain so for the majority of our lifetimes, right?

Missourian here. I'm not a die-hard gun nut but I do believe in strongly defending the Second Amendment. Much of the rest of Missouri shares this view: Guns and Ammo (an obviously pro-gun publication) did a gun friendliness ranking (1 best for gun owners, 50 worst), and MO ranked 12th. https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/b ... ers/369075

Seb146

Yes that decision can be overturned.

Whether it will is an entirely different matter.

N583JB

Are Conservative justices guaranteed to all vote in a bloc?.

bennett123 wrote:

Seb146

Yes that decision can be overturned.

Whether it will is an entirely different matter.

N583JB

Are Conservative justices guaranteed to all vote in a bloc?.

They are not guaranteed to all vote in a bloc, but it is essentially a consensus that the SCOTUS in its current form is very protective of the second amendment. The 9th Circuit in California, a court that is well-known for being very left-of-center, recently ruled in favor of gun rights in a move that many observers believe was an attempt to prevent the challenge from going to the SCOTUS and even further solidifying that Second Amendment's security.

Aw c'mon guys, it's almost Christmas!

Christmas Songs on Steel with Black Rifle Coffee Company https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f782hMNuob4

N583JB wrote:

seb146 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

I agree with you about the failure of the war on drugs. Not sure what you are referring to about accepting the entire second amendment....as has been said numerous times, the SCOTUS has already interpreted the Second so that is not up for debate. Finally, I'm also not sure what you mean about "we need to stop criminalizing minorities".

It also makes zero sense to blame all gun crime and the "liberal" position of "take all guns" (which is only a right wing scare tactic) on Chicago. It is as if the rest of Illinois does not matter.

And the one ruling that every righty points to as the be all and end all for reasonable law and even ignoring the laws we already have on the books is up for debate. Roe v. Wade decided the abortion debate once and for all and, yet, the same righties are trying like everything to overturn that SCOTUS decision. So, yes, that harmful "guns for all" law can and will be overturned. How many more will die because of it remains to be seen. Not that the party of "every life is sacred" cares about that.........

You realize that the SCOTUS is solidly conservative and will likely remain so for the majority of our lifetimes, right?

Right wing extremists legislating from the bench. Overturning already decided cases over things like abortion, marriage equality, and affordable health care. Because their religion is more important that our Constitution. WHEN Democrats get a majority in the Senate, all that will change. We will finally have laws interpreted for ALL Americans, not just a few radicals.

And still no response from anyone on why enforcing current gun laws is bad. That used to be a huge argument from the right. "We must enforce current laws instead of making extremely restrictive new laws." Well, instead of burning the whole thing down, why not go back to "let's enforce current laws"?

seb146 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

seb146 wrote:

It also makes zero sense to blame all gun crime and the "liberal" position of "take all guns" (which is only a right wing scare tactic) on Chicago. It is as if the rest of Illinois does not matter.

And the one ruling that every righty points to as the be all and end all for reasonable law and even ignoring the laws we already have on the books is up for debate. Roe v. Wade decided the abortion debate once and for all and, yet, the same righties are trying like everything to overturn that SCOTUS decision. So, yes, that harmful "guns for all" law can and will be overturned. How many more will die because of it remains to be seen. Not that the party of "every life is sacred" cares about that.........

You realize that the SCOTUS is solidly conservative and will likely remain so for the majority of our lifetimes, right?

Right wing extremists legislating from the bench. Overturning already decided cases over things like abortion, marriage equality, and affordable health care. Because their religion is more important that our Constitution. WHEN Democrats get a majority in the Senate, all that will change. We will finally have laws interpreted for ALL Americans, not just a few radicals.

And still no response from anyone on why enforcing current gun laws is bad. That used to be a huge argument from the right. "We must enforce current laws instead of making extremely restrictive new laws." Well, instead of burning the whole thing down, why not go back to "let's enforce current laws"?

No one on the right is arguing that current gun laws shouldn’t be enforced. It’s generally the left that doesn’t want them enforced as it is seen as discriminatory on their chosen minority group. See Chicago.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

You realize that the SCOTUS is solidly conservative and will likely remain so for the majority of our lifetimes, right?

Right wing extremists legislating from the bench. Overturning already decided cases over things like abortion, marriage equality, and affordable health care. Because their religion is more important that our Constitution. WHEN Democrats get a majority in the Senate, all that will change. We will finally have laws interpreted for ALL Americans, not just a few radicals.

And still no response from anyone on why enforcing current gun laws is bad. That used to be a huge argument from the right. "We must enforce current laws instead of making extremely restrictive new laws." Well, instead of burning the whole thing down, why not go back to "let's enforce current laws"?

No one on the right is arguing that current gun laws shouldn’t be enforced. It’s generally the left that doesn’t want them enforced as it is seen as discriminatory on their chosen minority group. See Chicago.

We are literally arguing that point of enforcing current laws or not. Democrats are constantly screaming and demanding current gun laws be enforced only to be told "no because SCOTUS said so in the Heller decision.

You keep saying "look at Chicago" like that negates Illinois law or the armed men who stormed into state houses making demands or the armed people who pulled over Kamala Harris' bus in Texas or the armed men who took federal property in southeast Oregon or the armed man who walked into a South Carolina church and gunned down nine worshipers and the list goes on. Just because you say "but... but.. but... CHICAGO!!!!" does not mean anything.

Democrats want gun laws enforced. Yes, look at Illinois and the lack of Republicans enforcing gun laws there.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Right wing extremists legislating from the bench. Overturning already decided cases over things like abortion, marriage equality, and affordable health care. Because their religion is more important that our Constitution. WHEN Democrats get a majority in the Senate, all that will change. We will finally have laws interpreted for ALL Americans, not just a few radicals.

And still no response from anyone on why enforcing current gun laws is bad. That used to be a huge argument from the right. "We must enforce current laws instead of making extremely restrictive new laws." Well, instead of burning the whole thing down, why not go back to "let's enforce current laws"?

No one on the right is arguing that current gun laws shouldn’t be enforced. It’s generally the left that doesn’t want them enforced as it is seen as discriminatory on their chosen minority group. See Chicago.

We are literally arguing that point of enforcing current laws or not. Democrats are constantly screaming and demanding current gun laws be enforced only to be told "no because SCOTUS said so in the Heller decision.

You keep saying "look at Chicago" like that negates Illinois law or the armed men who stormed into state houses making demands or the armed people who pulled over Kamala Harris' bus in Texas or the armed men who took federal property in southeast Oregon or the armed man who walked into a South Carolina church and gunned down nine worshipers and the list goes on. Just because you say "but... but.. but... CHICAGO!!!!" does not mean anything.

Democrats want gun laws enforced. Yes, look at Illinois and the lack of Republicans enforcing gun laws there.

I really don't know what point you are trying to make. The man who shot up the church in Charleston, for example, was arrested and is currently in prison. None of the other things you listed were against the law. So, "enforcing current gun laws" wouldn't have prevented them.

As to Chicago, the Feds, under AG Barr, have been enforcing the gun laws even when Cook County prosecutors wouldn’t. It’s politically incorrect to enforce gun laws when the criminals are a favored minority whose lives are supposed to matter, but really don’t much. I believe Barr is a hated Republican.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/us ... at-violent

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousan ... al-courts/

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

As to Chicago, the Feds, under AG Barr, have been enforcing the gun laws even when Cook County prosecutors wouldn’t. It’s politically incorrect to enforce gun laws when the criminals are a favored minority whose lives are supposed to matter, but really don’t much. I believe Barr is a hated Republican.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/us ... at-violent

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousan ... al-courts/

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Chicago one of those "liberal" cities that MAGA wants to defund but also one of those "liberal" cities that passed restrictive gun laws but are not allowed to enforce them because the last four words of 2A is the only section of the Constitution worth keeping according to righties?

N583JB wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

No one on the right is arguing that current gun laws shouldn’t be enforced. It’s generally the left that doesn’t want them enforced as it is seen as discriminatory on their chosen minority group. See Chicago.

We are literally arguing that point of enforcing current laws or not. Democrats are constantly screaming and demanding current gun laws be enforced only to be told "no because SCOTUS said so in the Heller decision.

You keep saying "look at Chicago" like that negates Illinois law or the armed men who stormed into state houses making demands or the armed people who pulled over Kamala Harris' bus in Texas or the armed men who took federal property in southeast Oregon or the armed man who walked into a South Carolina church and gunned down nine worshipers and the list goes on. Just because you say "but... but.. but... CHICAGO!!!!" does not mean anything.

Democrats want gun laws enforced. Yes, look at Illinois and the lack of Republicans enforcing gun laws there.

I really don't know what point you are trying to make. The man who shot up the church in Charleston, for example, was arrested and is currently in prison. None of the other things you listed were against the law. So, "enforcing current gun laws" wouldn't have prevented them.

One point I am trying to make is righties are fighting like everything to overturn laws that have already been set by SCOTUS.

Another point I am trying to make is that it is illegal to carry weapons into many government buildings. But, those who claim to be patriots (right wing code for racist) got away with it and none of them were shot and killed. A White man crossed state lines (illegal) with a gun that was not his (also illegal) and murdered two people in Wisconsin. And Republicans are defending him.

We need to enforce gun laws. Republican feelings be damned. Republicans had this mantra of "your feelings don't matter" and I think it is high time they had that thrown back at them.

seb146 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

seb146 wrote:

We are literally arguing that point of enforcing current laws or not. Democrats are constantly screaming and demanding current gun laws be enforced only to be told "no because SCOTUS said so in the Heller decision.

You keep saying "look at Chicago" like that negates Illinois law or the armed men who stormed into state houses making demands or the armed people who pulled over Kamala Harris' bus in Texas or the armed men who took federal property in southeast Oregon or the armed man who walked into a South Carolina church and gunned down nine worshipers and the list goes on. Just because you say "but... but.. but... CHICAGO!!!!" does not mean anything.

Democrats want gun laws enforced. Yes, look at Illinois and the lack of Republicans enforcing gun laws there.

I really don't know what point you are trying to make. The man who shot up the church in Charleston, for example, was arrested and is currently in prison. None of the other things you listed were against the law. So, "enforcing current gun laws" wouldn't have prevented them.

One point I am trying to make is righties are fighting like everything to overturn laws that have already been set by SCOTUS.

Another point I am trying to make is that it is illegal to carry weapons into many government buildings. But, those who claim to be patriots (right wing code for racist) got away with it and none of them were shot and killed. A White man crossed state lines (illegal) with a gun that was not his (also illegal) and murdered two people in Wisconsin. And Republicans are defending him.

We need to enforce gun laws. Republican feelings be damned. Republicans had this mantra of "your feelings don't matter" and I think it is high time they had that thrown back at them.

Which laws are they trying to overturn?

The idiots carrying guns to protest outside the capital building in Michigan didn't violate the law. Just because something is illegal in, say, California doesn't mean that it is also illegal in Michigan.

With regard to Rittenhouse, there is no evidence that he crossed state lines with that gun. He appears to have been too young to have been carrying a firearm without parental supervision, and he is currently in jail and charged with several very serious crimes. I'm not sure how you can claim that the laws are not being enforced while also giving examples of people who are currently incarcerated because they broke those laws.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

As to Chicago, the Feds, under AG Barr, have been enforcing the gun laws even when Cook County prosecutors wouldn’t. It’s politically incorrect to enforce gun laws when the criminals are a favored minority whose lives are supposed to matter, but really don’t much. I believe Barr is a hated Republican.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/us ... at-violent

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousan ... al-courts/

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Chicago one of those "liberal" cities that MAGA wants to defund but also one of those "liberal" cities that passed restrictive gun laws but are not allowed to enforce them because the last four words of 2A is the only section of the Constitution worth keeping according to righties?

If you think the laws that you claim are UN enforced would stop anything, you’re delusional.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

As to Chicago, the Feds, under AG Barr, have been enforcing the gun laws even when Cook County prosecutors wouldn’t. It’s politically incorrect to enforce gun laws when the criminals are a favored minority whose lives are supposed to matter, but really don’t much. I believe Barr is a hated Republican.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/us ... at-violent

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousan ... al-courts/

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Chicago one of those "liberal" cities that MAGA wants to defund but also one of those "liberal" cities that passed restrictive gun laws but are not allowed to enforce them because the last four words of 2A is the only section of the Constitution worth keeping according to righties?

If you think the laws that you claim are UN enforced would stop anything, you’re delusional.

Name calling is only for your god.

We The People (read: liberals, read: Americans, read: Pro life) want American gun laws enforced. Not just the last four words of the Second Amendment. THE ENTIRE SECOND AMENDMENT. Are you a member of a well regulated militia? No? Well, then.... If Roe v. Wade and marriage equality can be overturned, then so can Heller. Get over it.

N583JB wrote:

seb146 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

I really don't know what point you are trying to make. The man who shot up the church in Charleston, for example, was arrested and is currently in prison. None of the other things you listed were against the law. So, "enforcing current gun laws" wouldn't have prevented them.

One point I am trying to make is righties are fighting like everything to overturn laws that have already been set by SCOTUS.

Another point I am trying to make is that it is illegal to carry weapons into many government buildings. But, those who claim to be patriots (right wing code for racist) got away with it and none of them were shot and killed. A White man crossed state lines (illegal) with a gun that was not his (also illegal) and murdered two people in Wisconsin. And Republicans are defending him.

We need to enforce gun laws. Republican feelings be damned. Republicans had this mantra of "your feelings don't matter" and I think it is high time they had that thrown back at them.

Which laws are they trying to overturn?

The idiots carrying guns to protest outside the capital building in Michigan didn't violate the law. Just because something is illegal in, say, California doesn't mean that it is also illegal in Michigan.

With regard to Rittenhouse, there is no evidence that he crossed state lines with that gun. He appears to have been too young to have been carrying a firearm without parental supervision, and he is currently in jail and charged with several very serious crimes. I'm not sure how you can claim that the laws are not being enforced while also giving examples of people who are currently incarcerated because they broke those laws.

The laws trying to be overturned are Roe v. Wade and marriage equality and ACA. Not to mention the landslide Biden win. If Heller v. DC is the "law of the land" then that would mean that a victory in a "liberal" state like California or Utah is the "law of the land", no?

And, yes, pointing a gun at a federal officer is a federal crime. Look at George Floyd or Tamir Rice or Andy Lopez or Brionna Taylor. They were not federal officers, but guns were involved a a "justified" murder happened. The White racists who invaded a federal outpost in Oregon are celebrated for using guns and force and not a shot was fired.

Yes, Rittenhouse crossed lines with a gun his family in Illionois gave him. He crossed state lines to murder people. So few "liberals" care if he would have gone deer or elk hunting so that does not matter. He took a gun in Illinois, crossed state lines, killed people, and left. And Republicans are silent and even give money to defend him. They do not care. This should be echoed and shouted.

Again, and I can not stress this enough, I am one of those "liberals" who know and support gun rights for things like feeding a family or standing up to monarchies like MAGA. As long as a person is part of a "well regulated militia" great. But, if you need every type of gun because "them liburulz iz takin ourz gunz!!!!" then no. Prove it. Prove the jack boot thugs busting in doors to take all guns under Obama. Show it. Prove it. Give us links. Give us proof. Show us how "liberals" hate the Second Amendment. I'll wait..........

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Chicago one of those "liberal" cities that MAGA wants to defund but also one of those "liberal" cities that passed restrictive gun laws but are not allowed to enforce them because the last four words of 2A is the only section of the Constitution worth keeping according to righties?

If you think the laws that you claim are UN enforced would stop anything, you’re delusional.

Name calling is only for your god.

We The People (read: liberals, read: Americans, read: Pro life) want American gun laws enforced. Not just the last four words of the Second Amendment. THE ENTIRE SECOND AMENDMENT. Are you a member of a well regulated militia? No? Well, then.... If Roe v. Wade and marriage equality can be overturned, then so can Heller. Get over it.

You claim that, but statistically the vast majority of Americans don't agree with you. "We the people" strongly believe in the individual right to gun ownership. Get over it.

seb146 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

seb146 wrote:

One point I am trying to make is righties are fighting like everything to overturn laws that have already been set by SCOTUS.

Another point I am trying to make is that it is illegal to carry weapons into many government buildings. But, those who claim to be patriots (right wing code for racist) got away with it and none of them were shot and killed. A White man crossed state lines (illegal) with a gun that was not his (also illegal) and murdered two people in Wisconsin. And Republicans are defending him.

We need to enforce gun laws. Republican feelings be damned. Republicans had this mantra of "your feelings don't matter" and I think it is high time they had that thrown back at them.

Which laws are they trying to overturn?

The idiots carrying guns to protest outside the capital building in Michigan didn't violate the law. Just because something is illegal in, say, California doesn't mean that it is also illegal in Michigan.

With regard to Rittenhouse, there is no evidence that he crossed state lines with that gun. He appears to have been too young to have been carrying a firearm without parental supervision, and he is currently in jail and charged with several very serious crimes. I'm not sure how you can claim that the laws are not being enforced while also giving examples of people who are currently incarcerated because they broke those laws.

The laws trying to be overturned are Roe v. Wade and marriage equality and ACA. Not to mention the landslide Biden win. If Heller v. DC is the "law of the land" then that would mean that a victory in a "liberal" state like California or Utah is the "law of the land", no?

And, yes, pointing a gun at a federal officer is a federal crime. Look at George Floyd or Tamir Rice or Andy Lopez or Brionna Taylor. They were not federal officers, but guns were involved a a "justified" murder happened. The White racists who invaded a federal outpost in Oregon are celebrated for using guns and force and not a shot was fired.

Yes, Rittenhouse crossed lines with a gun his family in Illionois gave him. He crossed state lines to murder people. So few "liberals" care if he would have gone deer or elk hunting so that does not matter. He took a gun in Illinois, crossed state lines, killed people, and left. And Republicans are silent and even give money to defend him. They do not care. This should be echoed and shouted.

Again, and I can not stress this enough, I am one of those "liberals" who know and support gun rights for things like feeding a family or standing up to monarchies like MAGA. As long as a person is part of a "well regulated militia" great. But, if you need every type of gun because "them liburulz iz takin ourz gunz!!!!" then no. Prove it. Prove the jack boot thugs busting in doors to take all guns under Obama. Show it. Prove it. Give us links. Give us proof. Show us how "liberals" hate the Second Amendment. I'll wait..........

No, that is not how it works. The Constitution is the law of the land. Heller was an attempt to circumvent the constitution and was struck down as such by the SCOTUS. If California, Washington, or any other state tries to go after the 2A again, the SCOTUS will strike down that challenge as well.

Once again you are using bad examples. The cops who killed Floyd were arrested and charged with murder. How does that make his death "legal" in your eyes?

Rittenhouse has stated that he got the gun from a friend in Wisconsin, so the gun never crossed state lines. Regardless, the defense of Rittenhouse stems from the fact that he appeared to be defending himself from violent attackers. If Rittenhouse was 6 months older when the riots happened, he probably wouldn't be in jail right now. But, that is for the courts to sort out. I personally believe that he belongs in jail as I believe that he knew he wasn't old enough to openly carry a firearm and chose to do so anyways.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Chicago one of those "liberal" cities that MAGA wants to defund but also one of those "liberal" cities that passed restrictive gun laws but are not allowed to enforce them because the last four words of 2A is the only section of the Constitution worth keeping according to righties?

If you think the laws that you claim are UN enforced would stop anything, you’re delusional.

Name calling is only for your god.

We The People (read: liberals, read: Americans, read: Pro life) want American gun laws enforced. Not just the last four words of the Second Amendment. THE ENTIRE SECOND AMENDMENT. Are you a member of a well regulated militia? No? Well, then.... If Roe v. Wade and marriage equality can be overturned, then so can Heller. Get over it.

If you looked at the links I posted, you would see that local (read Cook county Democrats) were NOT enforcing the laws, so the Federals under Barr acted.

Yes, 29 years and 6 months in the well-regulated militia aka ANG. I’m thinking that’s more time than you have in any militia.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

As to Chicago, the Feds, under AG Barr, have been enforcing the gun laws even when Cook County prosecutors wouldn’t. It’s politically incorrect to enforce gun laws when the criminals are a favored minority whose lives are supposed to matter, but really don’t much. I believe Barr is a hated Republican.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/us ... at-violent

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousan ... al-courts/

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Chicago one of those "liberal" cities that MAGA wants to defund but also one of those "liberal" cities that passed restrictive gun laws but are not allowed to enforce them because the last four words of 2A is the only section of the Constitution worth keeping according to righties?

Why does Chicago need stricter gun laws than the rest of Illinois? Since the rest of Illinois has more lenient gun laws, wouldn't it follow that there'd be more crime? There isn't. What is it about Chicago that makes it different?

I think the best solution is to sell the good guys more, bigger guns, to protect their families.

That'll solve the problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... death_rate

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

As to Chicago, the Feds, under AG Barr, have been enforcing the gun laws even when Cook County prosecutors wouldn’t. It’s politically incorrect to enforce gun laws when the criminals are a favored minority whose lives are supposed to matter, but really don’t much. I believe Barr is a hated Republican.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/us ... at-violent

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousan ... al-courts/

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Chicago one of those "liberal" cities that MAGA wants to defund but also one of those "liberal" cities that passed restrictive gun laws but are not allowed to enforce them because the last four words of 2A is the only section of the Constitution worth keeping according to righties?

Why does Chicago need stricter gun laws than the rest of Illinois? Since the rest of Illinois has more lenient gun laws, wouldn't it follow that there'd be more crime? There isn't. What is it about Chicago that makes it different?

Poverty, opportunity, housing crises. Some (please keep this word in mind) of the most vocal 2A supporters believe that Chicago violence is only Blacks. Some 2A supporters want guns out of the hands of minorities. Not all. Just like not all "liberals" want to take all guns away. Still have not found any of those except that one time Pelosi said something about enforcing the first four words of the Second Amendment.

There are corrolations between violent crime and lack of education, lack of health care, lack of housing, lack of jobs to violent crimes in inner cities. But, since that does not have anything at all to do with rural MAGA areas, it must be them "liberals" doing this.

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodic ... ight2.html
https://www.keranews.org/2019-08-08/exp ... nd-poverty

seb146 wrote:

. Some 2A supporters want guns out of the hands of minorities.

This is complete rubbish. Source? I think you meant to say they wanted guns out of the hands of criminals. I made this as our position on guns not to get the race injected into it. Especially since it's a false race thing.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

No one on the right is arguing that current gun laws shouldn’t be enforced. It’s generally the left that doesn’t want them enforced as it is seen as discriminatory on their chosen minority group. See Chicago.

Please support that statement with actual facts.

LMP737 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

No one on the right is arguing that current gun laws shouldn’t be enforced. It’s generally the left that doesn’t want them enforced as it is seen as discriminatory on their chosen minority group. See Chicago.

Please support that statement with actual facts.

I did upthread with link to Cook County prosecutors. Enforcement is seen as discriminatory to a certain minorities responsible for gang violence. Similar to NYC stop and frisk which was hated but did keep a lot of guns off the street.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I did upthread with link to Cook County prosecutors. Enforcement is seen as discriminatory to a certain minorities responsible for gang violence. Similar to NYC stop and frisk which was hated but did keep a lot of guns off the street.

You conveniently ignore the fact that not only do groups like the NRA oppose any sort of gun control laws but also do their best to hamstring enforcement of laws that are passed. If you doubt me look it up.

Yes, I’m sure the Cook County prosecutors hang on every word from the NRA. I’m not doing your research, by the way.

seb146 wrote:

Democrats want gun laws enforced. Yes, look at Illinois and the lack of Republicans enforcing gun laws there.

Nearly all gun-related crime in Illinois is in the Chicago metro area, and nearly all gun-related crime in the Chicago metro area is committed by one group. Your citing that Republicans are not enforcing gun laws is absurd – virtually ALL its politicians are Democrats.

johns624 wrote:

Why does Chicago need stricter gun laws than the rest of Illinois? Since the rest of Illinois has more lenient gun laws, wouldn't it follow that there'd be more crime? There isn't. What is it about Chicago that makes it different?

This is a rhetorical question, right?

seb146 wrote:

There are corrolations between violent crime and lack of education, lack of health care, lack of housing, lack of jobs to violent crimes in inner cities. But, since that does not have anything at all to do with rural MAGA areas, it must be them "liberals" doing this.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodic ... ight2.html
https://www.keranews.org/2019-08-08/exp ... nd-poverty

I don’t have to open the link “... exploring the connection between violent crime and poverty.” The answer is simple but nobody on the Left wants to tackle this political third rail: DRUGS. Put a huge dent in the illegal drug trade and (somehow, LOL) get all illegals firearms off the street and you would see a tremendous drop in crime, and homeowners, businesses and politicians making meaningful investments in the stricken communities.

Elkadad313 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Why does Chicago need stricter gun laws than the rest of Illinois? Since the rest of Illinois has more lenient gun laws, wouldn't it follow that there'd be more crime? There isn't. What is it about Chicago that makes it different?

This is a rhetorical question, right?

Yes, it was. I was trying to get seb146 to answer truthfully, but I wasn't expecting it and wasn't disappointed.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Yes, I’m sure the Cook County prosecutors hang on every word from the NRA. I’m not doing your research, by the way.

Guess I have to do yours for you.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... s/1894355/

This fantasy you seem to have that the right just wants to enforce the laws that we already have is not supported by facts,

LMP737 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Yes, I’m sure the Cook County prosecutors hang on every word from the NRA. I’m not doing your research, by the way.

Guess I have to do yours for you.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... s/1894355/

This fantasy you seem to have that the right just wants to enforce the laws that we already have is not supported by facts,

7 1/2 year old article.
Also, most gun law violations are at the state level.

LMP737 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Yes, I’m sure the Cook County prosecutors hang on every word from the NRA. I’m not doing your research, by the way.

Guess I have to do yours for you.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... s/1894355/

This fantasy you seem to have that the right just wants to enforce the laws that we already have is not supported by facts,

Why would leftist Cook County politicians be concerned with what the NRA does? Most on the right want gun laws enforced and do not worship the NRA. If existing gun laws were followed there would be very little gun-related crime.

'It’s Chicago — why shouldn’t I have a gun?' says parolee accused of weapons violation.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/bre ... story.html

johns624 wrote:

7 1/2 year old article.
Also, most gun law violations are at the state level.

Do you think the NRA changed course all of a sudden?

Here's a more recent article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/p ... f-nra.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire, ... on_murders

Ever since I learned about this, I never questioned the right to own a gun. Statistics in the US are skewed because people lump in self inflicted handgun suicides and then blame it all on a scary AR-15

Veigar wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

Ever since I learned about this, I never questioned the right to own a gun. Statistics in the US are skewed because people lump in self inflicted handgun suicides and then blame it all on a scary AR-15

"The Connecticut Supreme Court, in defiance of the General Assembly which had abolished the death penalty only for future cases, ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional and commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment, even if that sentencing took place prior to the date that the death penalty was abolished."

The court should have sentenced them to 5 years of extremely cruel torture, and then death.

LMP737 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

7 1/2 year old article.
Also, most gun law violations are at the state level.

Do you think the NRA changed course all of a sudden?

Here's a more recent article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/p ... f-nra.html

If you actually knew something about gun regulation, you’d know about 95% of all regulation is state and local,based, not Federal. Gun licensing, enforcement of gun laws is all state based, not Federal. My permit has no connection to the Feds except the five year criminal check and a NICS check when I buy a firearm. So, you’re NYT article is politics, not practical gun control. Hilarious that the Federal agency that does have gun control jurisdiction lost their own guns during the Obama/Holder era.

Elkadad313 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Democrats want gun laws enforced. Yes, look at Illinois and the lack of Republicans enforcing gun laws there.

Nearly all gun-related crime in Illinois is in the Chicago metro area, and nearly all gun-related crime in the Chicago metro area is committed by one group. Your citing that Republicans are not enforcing gun laws is absurd – virtually ALL its politicians are Democrats.

Is Chicago it's own state? Did I miss something? Last time I checked, Chicago was part of the state of Illinois. The state where Kyle Rittenhouse was allowed to buy a gun WHILE HE WAS 17 and cross state lines WHILE HE WAS 17 and not living in Chicago and still gun down three people. But, somehow, we need to focus on the strict laws of Chicago because Democrats but ignore the loose laws of Illinois that are Republican. Just keep screaming Chicago because that wins the argument somehow?

seb146 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Democrats want gun laws enforced. Yes, look at Illinois and the lack of Republicans enforcing gun laws there.

Nearly all gun-related crime in Illinois is in the Chicago metro area, and nearly all gun-related crime in the Chicago metro area is committed by one group. Your citing that Republicans are not enforcing gun laws is absurd – virtually ALL its politicians are Democrats.

Is Chicago it's own state? Did I miss something? Last time I checked, Chicago was part of the state of Illinois. The state where Kyle Rittenhouse was allowed to buy a gun WHILE HE WAS 17 and cross state lines WHILE HE WAS 17 and not living in Chicago and still gun down three people. But, somehow, we need to focus on the strict laws of Chicago because Democrats but ignore the loose laws of Illinois that are Republican. Just keep screaming Chicago because that wins the argument somehow?

Rittenhouse was not able to buy a gun when he was 17....he allegedly paid someone to buy the gun for him, which is illegal.

seb146 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Democrats want gun laws enforced. Yes, look at Illinois and the lack of Republicans enforcing gun laws there.

Nearly all gun-related crime in Illinois is in the Chicago metro area, and nearly all gun-related crime in the Chicago metro area is committed by one group. Your citing that Republicans are not enforcing gun laws is absurd – virtually ALL its politicians are Democrats.

Is Chicago it's own state? Did I miss something? Last time I checked, Chicago was part of the state of Illinois. The state where Kyle Rittenhouse was allowed to buy a gun WHILE HE WAS 17 and cross state lines WHILE HE WAS 17 and not living in Chicago and still gun down three people. But, somehow, we need to focus on the strict laws of Chicago because Democrats but ignore the loose laws of Illinois that are Republican. Just keep screaming Chicago because that wins the argument somehow?

Have you looked at IL voting patterns, Chicago might as well be the state for downstate votes matter. Again, I’m sure the cities, long ruled by Democrat machines, that account for the majority of murders hang on NRA lobbying—NOT. They are the police departments and prosecutors refusing to enforce gun laws you cherish.

Are you suggesting states establish border checks, inspecting vehicles for guns? Stop and frisk goes nationwide?

seb146 wrote:

The state where Kyle Rittenhouse was allowed to buy a gun WHILE HE WAS 17 and cross state lines WHILE HE WAS 17 and not living in Chicago and still gun down three people. But, somehow, we need to focus on the strict laws of Chicago because Democrats but ignore the loose laws of Illinois that are Republican.

Gun purchases from dealers are regulated by federal law. That's why they are referred to as FFLs--FEDERAL Firearms License. Rittenhouse and his friend did what's called a "straw purchase", which is a federal felony. You still haven't answered why the stricter laws of Chicago aren't working.

seb146 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Democrats want gun laws enforced. Yes, look at Illinois and the lack of Republicans enforcing gun laws there.

Nearly all gun-related crime in Illinois is in the Chicago metro area, and nearly all gun-related crime in the Chicago metro area is committed by one group. Your citing that Republicans are not enforcing gun laws is absurd – virtually ALL its politicians are Democrats.

Is Chicago it's own state? Did I miss something? Last time I checked, Chicago was part of the state of Illinois. The state where Kyle Rittenhouse was allowed to buy a gun WHILE HE WAS 17 and cross state lines WHILE HE WAS 17 and not living in Chicago and still gun down three people. But, somehow, we need to focus on the strict laws of Chicago because Democrats but ignore the loose laws of Illinois that are Republican. Just keep screaming Chicago because that wins the argument somehow?

The inaccuracy of your post indicates your level of ignorance on the subject insofar as Illinois is concerned. Kyle Rittenhouse was NOT allowed to buy a gun in Illinois, and he DIDN’T. And he also didn’t cross the state line with the gun either.

Chicago is in Cook County, and its states attorney (also known as the DA) is very lenient on the prosecution of those who break existing gun laws. The police are frustrated because most arrested are back on the street a day or two later. I cannot make much sense of most of your post. It seems you are willfully ignoring facts here.

'It’s Chicago — why shouldn’t I have a gun?' says parolee accused of weapons violation.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/bre ... story.html

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

Nearly all gun-related crime in Illinois is in the Chicago metro area, and nearly all gun-related crime in the Chicago metro area is committed by one group. Your citing that Republicans are not enforcing gun laws is absurd – virtually ALL its politicians are Democrats.

Is Chicago it's own state? Did I miss something? Last time I checked, Chicago was part of the state of Illinois. The state where Kyle Rittenhouse was allowed to buy a gun WHILE HE WAS 17 and cross state lines WHILE HE WAS 17 and not living in Chicago and still gun down three people. But, somehow, we need to focus on the strict laws of Chicago because Democrats but ignore the loose laws of Illinois that are Republican. Just keep screaming Chicago because that wins the argument somehow?

Have you looked at IL voting patterns, Chicago might as well be the state for downstate votes matter. Again, I’m sure the cities, long ruled by Democrat machines, that account for the majority of murders hang on NRA lobbying—NOT. They are the police departments and prosecutors refusing to enforce gun laws you cherish.

Are you suggesting states establish border checks, inspecting vehicles for guns? Stop and frisk goes nationwide?

None it makes any sense. Police are supposedly there to enforce laws as are attorneys. But, they do not in Chicago but they do in the rest of Illinois? There is so much to unpack here. Not to mention half the posters defend Rittenhouse because "he didn't buy a gun" vs. the other half who defend Rittenhouse because "he bought a gun". Maybe this is why attorneys in Chicago don't do anything about gun laws? Not because of "liberal" policies, but, rather, because of the schizophrenic ways people defend them?

Chicago! Chicago! Chicago! So what? Why are you 2A people defending Rittenhouse but not defending the people of Chicago who are allegedly charged with weapons possession? Could it be that those who are charged with weapons possession have those charges dropped because there are more serious charges to pursue? Or could it be that the 2A group is chomping at the bit for law enforcement in Chicago to enforce Chicago law so they can get another 2A law suit under way?

Again, so much to unpack here.....

I never defended Rittenhouse. He's an idiot. I was told decades ago "Never go somewhere with a gun that you wouldn't go unarmed". Why won't you admit that it's gangs and drugs that are the problem, and not guns?

seb146 wrote:

None it makes any sense. Police are supposedly there to enforce laws as are attorneys. But, they do not in Chicago but they do in the rest of Illinois? There is so much to unpack here. Not to mention half the posters defend Rittenhouse because "he didn't buy a gun" vs. the other half who defend Rittenhouse because "he bought a gun". Maybe this is why attorneys in Chicago don't do anything about gun laws? Not because of "liberal" policies, but, rather, because of the schizophrenic ways people defend them?

Chicago’s police enforce gun laws to the extent politically permissible under a 99% Democrat city/county administration. But the police can only arrest and charge offenders. It’s up to the corrupt Cook County state’s attorney’s office to pursue and obtain indictments and convictions, at which its performance is woefully and intentionally poor.
Most ‘2A people’ are not defending Rittenhouse, they are defending his right to simply get a fair trial. You do want him to have a fair trial, regardless of your bias, don’t you?
Chicago! Chicago! Chicago! So what? Why are you 2A people defending Rittenhouse but not defending the people of Chicago who are allegedly charged with weapons possession?

Most ‘2A people’ are not defending Rittenhouse, they are defending the right of law-abiding citizens, regardless of where they reside, to be protected from gun-related crime. Your contention that 2A people do not defend those charged with gun crimes is absurd on its face. 2A people support fair and equal justice, and despite the efforts of the police the city/county politicians have the last say in the matter (and gun law offenders are treated with leniency compared to the rest of the state).

seb146 wrote:

Could it be that those who are charged with weapons possession have those charges dropped because there are more serious charges to pursue? Or could it be that the 2A group is chomping at the bit for law enforcement in Chicago to enforce Chicago law so they can get another 2A law suit under way?

How many more serious crimes than those committed with firearms are there? Get real! Your posts are full of generalizations, straying from the intent of the OP’s thread. I suggest you start a thread that conforms to your agenda instead of attempting to redefine the purpose of this one.

johns624 wrote:

I never defended Rittenhouse. He's an idiot. I was told decades ago "Never go somewhere with a gun that you wouldn't go unarmed". Why won't you admit that it's gangs and drugs that are the problem, and not guns?

Seb is determined to find causes that largely don’t exist as he is incapable of admitting what he knows to the real problem.

Elkadad313 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

None it makes any sense. Police are supposedly there to enforce laws as are attorneys. But, they do not in Chicago but they do in the rest of Illinois? There is so much to unpack here. Not to mention half the posters defend Rittenhouse because "he didn't buy a gun" vs. the other half who defend Rittenhouse because "he bought a gun". Maybe this is why attorneys in Chicago don't do anything about gun laws? Not because of "liberal" policies, but, rather, because of the schizophrenic ways people defend them?

Chicago’s police enforce gun laws to the extent politically permissible under a 99% Democrat city/county administration. But the police can only arrest and charge offenders. It’s up to the corrupt Cook County state’s attorney’s office to pursue and obtain indictments and convictions, at which its performance is woefully and intentionally poor.
Most ‘2A people’ are not defending Rittenhouse, they are defending his right to simply get a fair trial. You do want him to have a fair trial, regardless of your bias, don’t you?
Chicago! Chicago! Chicago! So what? Why are you 2A people defending Rittenhouse but not defending the people of Chicago who are allegedly charged with weapons possession?

Most ‘2A people’ are not defending Rittenhouse, they are defending the right of law-abiding citizens, regardless of where they reside, to be protected from gun-related crime. Your contention that 2A people do not defend those charged with gun crimes is absurd on its face. 2A people support fair and equal justice, and despite the efforts of the police the city/county politicians have the last say in the matter (and gun law offenders are treated with leniency compared to the rest of the state).

seb146 wrote:

Could it be that those who are charged with weapons possession have those charges dropped because there are more serious charges to pursue? Or could it be that the 2A group is chomping at the bit for law enforcement in Chicago to enforce Chicago law so they can get another 2A law suit under way?

How many more serious crimes than those committed with firearms are there? Get real! Your posts are full of generalizations, straying from the intent of the OP’s thread. I suggest you start a thread that conforms to your agenda instead of attempting to redefine the purpose of this one.

johns624 wrote:

I never defended Rittenhouse. He's an idiot. I was told decades ago "Never go somewhere with a gun that you wouldn't go unarmed". Why won't you admit that it's gangs and drugs that are the problem, and not guns?

Seb is determined to find causes that largely don’t exist as he is incapable of admitting what he knows to the real problem.

I've only really seen pro 2A folks say it was a shitty situation all around, but that his right to self defense is still there regardless of where he went and why. I won't defend his cause and "patriotism" (since that's a very subjective thing), but no matter what happens, I won't invalidate one's right to self defense just because they aren't old enough to carry a weapon.

Surely where he went and why are relevant.