Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 195

Thread: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

  1. #101
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,626

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Μολὼν λαβέ View Post
    I also received the best firearm training I ever acquired from my father. I was under his watchful eye from age 6 until being allowed to go out on my own with a firearm at about age 11. By then handling a firearm safely was second nature to me, and he knew it.
    Then passing any test on strictly firearm safety ought to be a snap for you! Some certifications require a bit of law as well. but sounds like you have a good start.

  2. #102
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,723

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Paxaeon View Post
    `
    In my humble opinion; SCOTUS dodged the issue because a decision either way, will cause civil unrest, especially if it ruled against the gun nuts.
    gun nuts being the low wattage ninnies who are afraid of honest people being armed? or worse yet, whine about gun ownership because they don't like the politics of most gun owners



  3. #103
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,723

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    I never mentioned crime. A gun is a deadly machine, deadly machines in public should require permits that require proof of knowledge of safety, laws, rules, and ability to use the machine. "Well regulated" militia, ie regulations are not only allowed but required. And don't give me any bull**** about supposedly "well regulated" not meaning well regulated.

    Regardless of your usual slant. To decry a course prior to a CCW permit is idiotic and the view of the extreme right wing nutjobs.
    that's moronic-well regulated applies to militia not individuals. And your distrust of fellow citizens is really nutty



  4. #104
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,866
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    When I was cc'd in Vancouver WA before moving to Idaho, I went through training and a background check. Now is that because it was a police officer down the street who assisted me in getting cc'd or was it the law? That I can't say for sure. I assumed it was the law. Nonetheless, there's never a harm in requiring people who legally want to be able to operate a deadly machine in a public place to take a test to show reasonable knowledge of the laws, the policies, and the operation of said machine.
    In this case that would even include a bicycle. People have died riding those. Should we require 4-5 year olds to get a training permit? I know, that was an extreme example. But when you use generalities like you did here it sorta naturally leads to such.

    I have no problem requiring that people go through training. It makes sense. But I think that the state should provide such training free of charge. A weeks worth of trianing at most would most definitely cover what people NEED to know. No Right should cost money paid to the government to exercise.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  5. #105
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,866
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    But the words "well regulated" do. I think there's a huge difference between what should the gun laws be and what should the gun laws be allowed to be. IMO, SCOTUS isn't the place to make gun laws.
    Well regulated refers to the militia, not The People in general.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #106
    Hot Flash Mama
    Summerwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Seen
    01-23-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,010

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    In this case that would even include a bicycle. People have died riding those. Should we require 4-5 year olds to get a training permit? I know, that was an extreme example. But when you use generalities like you did here it sorta naturally leads to such.

    I have no problem requiring that people go through training. It makes sense. But I think that the state should provide such training free of charge. A weeks worth of trianing at most would most definitely cover what people NEED to know. No Right should cost money paid to the government to exercise.
    The training course was one day in class, one hour at the range. Cost was $30, certainly reasonable. Why should the taxpayers pay your way? Pay your own way.
    jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "

  7. #107
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,723

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Paxaeon View Post
    `
    The judicial branch of the federal government has every constitutional right to decline to see a case. Congress is trying to force the judicial to do what they are elected to do: Pass laws.
    how is this a congressional issue when it was about a state infringement on the 2A?



  8. #108
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,966

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    The training course was one day in class, one hour at the range. Cost was $30, certainly reasonable. Why should the taxpayers pay your way? Pay your own way.
    In some states it's more than $200. And more than 1 day.

    And the "processing" periods are up to 18 months long...which is complete obstructionist bull****.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #109
    Hot Flash Mama
    Summerwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Seen
    01-23-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,010

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    In some states it's more than $200. And more than 1 day.

    And the "processing" periods are up to 18 months long...which is complete obstructionist bull****.
    I agree with that. I've never said the rules should be allowed to be unreasonable. Boy, you sure are exaggerating what I'm saying to try to make counterpoints to points I've never presented or embraced.
    jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "

  10. #110
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,866
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    The training course was one day in class, one hour at the range. Cost was $30, certainly reasonable. Why should the taxpayers pay your way? Pay your own way.
    Because having a gun is a right. If you require someone to pay for an ID to vote, that is considered an infringement of the right to vote...even if that ID only costs 1 dollar. Why should it be ANY different for guns?

    BTW, I'm all for voter ID laws...but I also recognize that the State should have to pay for those ID's along with any other costs incured in order to get the ID so as not to disenfranchise any voters.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •