Bump stocks. Who will be

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
spoken like a true bleeding heart lib (a conservative who has yet to be victimized), for God's sake how about the 80% (you like your percentages) and the families they ruined ! I hope they all move into your neighborhood when released !

*sigh*
I've gone back and forth on whether to call you out on this, Dave, but I simply can't hold my tongue. The above-quoted paragraph is unacceptable dialog. Argue the facts, argue the conclusions and policy implications that arise from those facts, but don't resort to juvenile name-calling and don't wish bad things to happen to others for their beliefs. Just stick to your arguments and don't make it personal. At all. This is true for all of us, and all of us make mistakes on occasion, me included. But as a moderator and long-time forum member, you've got to hold yourself to a higher standard.

I've been impressed with the fact that this thread hasn't been shut down, even though the topic is controversial, because people for the most part have been keeping it civil. Let's not let it devolve into personal attacks. We are adults. We can disagree without being jerks to each other. Your last post suggesting that you both agree to disagree and move on from the subject is a much better way to handle it.
 
Seems like the "we can't talk about that now" strategy with Republicans in DC is working again.

Rich, one of these days Dave will be wearing a Nancy Pelosi badge. :D
 
Rich, one of these days Dave will be wearing a Nancy Pelosi badge. :D

LOL Gordon that along with wearing a Trump badge will NEVER happen !

Rich, yeah I know, I get 'heated' when it come to capital punishment, while I've never been violated as such it has happened close to home and thus I've seen the inadequacies of our judicial system first hand, as I know you have. There are some crimes that I FIRMLY believe in zero tolerance and when my button is pushed I push back !
 
Don't run for mayor Mark!! I can see the commercial 'RCHELIGUY SOFT ON CRIME!! Gives murderers and rapists get out of jail free card!!' lol. I used to love the Franken and Davis skits on SNL with the mud slinging. Funny I think we have gone lower than that!!
 
Rich, yeah I know, I get 'heated' when it come to capital punishment, while I've never been violated as such it has happened close to home and thus I've seen the inadequacies of our judicial system first hand, as I know you have. There are some crimes that I FIRMLY believe in zero tolerance and when my button is pushed I push back !

You are right, Dave. I have seen the inadequacies of our judicial system first hand from the inside, but it goes both ways. I have seen many cases where guilty people have gone without punishment for various reasons, but I've also seen dirty cops and prosecutors and incompetent defense attorneys railroading innocent people into convictions.

Regardless of how you feel about whether the death penalty is appropriate for an actual murderer, Mark has a valid and inescapable point that we have been able to prove beyond any doubt (with DNA evidence) that many innocent people have been put to death under this imperfect system. Those people were innocent of the crime charged but were convicted anyway and murdered by our government and its imperfect judicial system. Any murder of any innocent person is a travesty and is reprehensible. Whether it is accomplished by a thug on the streets or by our own government.

To better understand Mark's point, put yourself in the shoes of these victims. Imagine your son was accused of murder and there was loads of circumstantial evidence to support that notion. You know absolutely that he didn't do it, but have no actual evidence to refute it in court. Suppose he hires a lawyer that is supposed to be excellent, but turns out to be awful. He gets convicted and appeal after appeal is denied. Do you think you might start to take a slightly different view of the death penalty at that point?

This is kind of where I'm at. I like the idea of "eye for an eye" type justice when it comes to crimes like murder, but I have seen too many failures of the system to have faith in the results and I'm not o.k. with my government executing innocent people. Because ultimately, that is what is happening. And it's easy to ignore that truth or gloss over it . . . until it actually happens to you or someone you love.
 
Rich, point taken and understood. But..... again, you speak of the minority here. The majority of cops are good and the majority of those on death row belong there.

I get your point with regards to the 'shoes of the innocent victims' , so my challenge to the judicial system is, get better ! In the meantime MY heart goes out to the 'majority' , victims that is.
 
Don't run for mayor Mark!! I can see the commercial 'RCHELIGUY SOFT ON CRIME!! Gives murderers and rapists get out of jail free card!!' lol. I used to love the Franken and Davis skits on SNL with the mud slinging. Funny I think we have gone lower than that!!

There are two things that I have ZERO interest in Fame or Politics !

Both are equally bad in my eyes.
 
Rich, point taken and understood. But..... again, you speak of the minority here. The majority of cops are good and the majority of those on death row belong there.

I get your point with regards to the 'shoes of the innocent victims' , so my challenge to the judicial system is, get better ! In the meantime MY heart goes out to the 'majority' , victims that is.


Got it. To you the satisfaction of VENGEANCE is more important than the LIVES of the innocent.

You are willing to write off the 1 in 5 who should not be losing their life so that the other 4 are put to death and the family's of the victims feel better. Despite the fact it doesn't bring anyone back or undo anything that has been done, you are willing to sacrifice the 20% who don't deserve to die.

I absolutely guarantee that if I saw someone attempting to hurt my wife that I would do anything in my power to stop this including killing someone. This isn't me saying that I'm above violence and emotion. Far from it, I know that in a fit of rage almost anyone is capable of almost anything and that includes me. However I wouldn't want an innocent person to die just because the police wanted to close a case involving someone I know personally. After I calmed down, being put away for life would be good enough in case the police screwed something up.
 
Last edited:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government in check by arming its citizens. If a bunch of armed citizens today marched on Capitol Hill, intending to do just that, they would be met by the might of the United Stated Armed Services.....so it would be a futile attempt.

So, isn't the 2nd Amendment, as originally written, obsolete today? Isn't it time to rewrite it, or just do away with the damned thing?

No flames, please, guys. This is from the perspective of an outsider.
 
I thought I had heard that the NRA was on board with the banning of the 'bump stock' weapons, it appears I was wrong .......

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...partisan-plans-to-ban-bump-stock-devices.html

My understanding is that they were ok with the executive branch (ATF specifically) banning them, but didn't want Congress to do it by legislation as they have slippery slope concerns that once that legislation is introduced then amendments could be added to it to ban other things. Of course, this position makes no sense in that they have always argued against just this type of executive over-reach and, regardless, the ATF long ago concluded (correctly) that they have no legislative authority to ban these devices.

The truth is that this ban, regardless of how it is accomplished, will do nothing. It is just political window-dressing and cover for the NRA. People have been bump-firing semi-auto rifles since long before bumpfire stocks became available.
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government in check by arming its citizens. If a bunch of armed citizens today marched on Capitol Hill, intending to do just that, they would be met by the might of the United Stated Armed Services.....so it would be a futile attempt.

So, isn't the 2nd Amendment, as originally written, obsolete today? Isn't it time to rewrite it, or just do away with the damned thing?

No flames, please, guys. This is from the perspective of an outsider.


The 2nd Amendment is completely obsolete and does not remotely apply to today.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

With our US ARMY, US NAVY, US MARINES, US AIRFORCE etc.. we have a regulated Militia to guarantee our security.

Personal gun ownership outside of those organizations has absolutely nothing to do with maintaining a militia. The last Supreme Court interpretation of this Amendment had ZERO to do with the original intent.

The 2nd Amendment has been perverted since then and now that the NRA is the largest contributor to politics, that perversion will only continue.
 
So, isn't the 2nd Amendment, as originally written, obsolete today? Isn't it time to rewrite it, or just do away with the damned thing?

Well, yes and no. First of all, you could say the same thing about every single constitutional amendment. Our world has changed a lot in 200 years, and the constitution has evolved with it (mostly through changing judicial interpretation). This is why Jefferson felt the constitution should be completely re-written every generation, to keep up with changing societal norms. Over the years, the right to personal self-defense against criminal assailents has become just as (if not more) important a factor in the second amendment as defending against a traitorous government, in people's eyes.

Most (outside of fringe elements) could not imagine taking up arms against the government, but will be damned if they are not allowed access to firearms to defend themselves and their loved ones. I certainly fall into this group. Then, of course, you have the hunters and those involved in the shooting sports, who cherish the right to pursue those endeavors that is protected by the second amendment.

As to your point about the futility of fighting the government, I think Afghanistan, and before that, Vietnam, showed that an underpowered geurilla force can cause a lot of problems for a stronger opponent. Seeing someone like Trump gain power, and seeing his authoritarian tendencies and the large swath of the Country that just goes along with it, I'm thinking the original purpose of the second amendment is now more important than ever.
 
The 2nd Amendment has been perverted since then and now that the NRA is the largest contributor to politics, that perversion will only continue.

As a (mostly) liberal person, it always amuses me when liberals seem to only care about "original intent" when discussing the second amendment. Do you really think the original intent of the founders was to constitutionally protect a woman's right to an abortion? Or the right of gays to marry? Or so many other progressive accomplishments in the courts? Original intent became meaningless with the 1803 Supreme Court decision, Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review. And our nation is better off for it overall.
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government in check by arming its citizens. If a bunch of armed citizens today marched on Capitol Hill, intending to do just that, they would be met by the might of the United Stated Armed Services.....so it would be a futile attempt.

So, isn't the 2nd Amendment, as originally written, obsolete today? Isn't it time to rewrite it, or just do away with the damned thing?

No flames, please, guys. This is from the perspective of an outsider.

No flames Bernard, you know I wouldn't do that to you !

First off, Rich summed it quite well IMO, as usual.

I have advocated for years for sensible, universally enforced gun laws. Yes, as I've said before, I'm a life long member of the NRA and acknowledge that they are 'part' of the problem along our legislators in Gov't.

I am an active participant in various shooting sports and hunting venues, no I do not want to give up my rights.
 
Dave, with views like that, it seems to me that YOU should be in Congress, the maverick leading the charge for sensible gun laws.
 
Everyone should understand that the inability to get sensible gun regulations passed is a small symptom of a much larger issue that affects every major policy the public cares about, and that is the uncontrolled flow of money into politics. Until we solve that problem, we will do nothing to better this country or to pass sensible, reasonable, fact-based legislation.
 
Everyone should understand that the inability to get sensible gun regulations passed is a small symptom of a much larger issue that affects every major policy the public cares about, and that is the uncontrolled flow of money into politics. Until we solve that problem, we will do nothing to better this country or to pass sensible, reasonable, fact-based legislation.
Yes, the lobbyists have Congress, the Senate, and the WH by the balls!

I wonder about their influence in the Supreme Court.
 
Back
Top