Message from @Doc
Discord ID: 784588516155719730
Its why its just as important to look at the discussions of the founding fathers in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers when looking at the 2nd Amendment as it is the intentions of the legislatures who passed the gun control laws. Bad faith reasons for passing a piece of legislation should be weighted as well
Freedom of Information Act where US diplomats at the Ukraine Embassy and also Deputy Director of the State Department's Office of European Union and Regional Affairs after Ukraine coup of revolution and installment of EU friendly puppet govt for EU oil (Burisma/Astana oil) can request information on Giuliani tweets and Dan Bongino YT channel info. "Transparency" at it's finest!
And this rant has gone on and on... Sorry if I derailed the actual topic for this chat.
What gun control laws dont you like antifish?
Most of the most recent proposed...
@AntiFish03 There was an actual topic?
The channel is named <#771201221145919499>
Do you just want to roll it back to the gun control the founding fathers used?
Like Gitler without H? -itler, like a god? Very intresting, Doc.
Red Flag, universal background checks, ammo bans, Semi-automatic rifle bans, magazine capacity limits...
none of these has changed anything in any state that has them
Hello
Is guliani not working for Trump who is in power? if Dan bongino not also tied? This is good @inwa
and they won't... add additional penalties to crimes committed with firearms
You work for or with the government you are subject to transparency @inwa
make the penalties more hash and pretty soon criminals will either be incarcerated, or avoid using firearms in the commission of their crimes
I'm pretty certian there are plenty of felons who voted for Biden...the same guy who put them in the pin after importing drugs, creating an epidemic and declaring war on the poor! The insanity!
@AntiFish03 elect congress people who make pushing that kind of legislation a priority
Also, that list of proposed gun control is already possible with the current laws. While respecting due process, and property rights.
That's who I voted for.
People to make government more transparent? @AntiFish03
Citizens cannot yell fire in a theater but our govt surely can start one, incite a revolution and overthrow a Shaw for British oil destabilizing an entire region for decades though. Sound familiar?
You might want to find to look at my reply to that if you missed it about fire in a theater https://discord.com/channels/760945067107680286/771201221145919499/784582827823988756
Not something that most politicians talk about... I was meaning firearms wise...
I was responding to the thing about government being resistant to passing legislation for transparency. @AntiFish03 it would require a bipartisan effort to prioritize that to make legislators campaign on that front
Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. And even with the death penalty, criminals still tend to use firearms.
Agreed, its something I'd love to see. Better transparency in our government
Agreed for the most part. But stiffer penalties means that they are at least incarcerated for longer. And not in our society.
I'm not advocating for gun control. I was trying to see if there was a way to bridge the gap. It was a thought experiment. Where is the reasonable limit on what kind of weapon can or cannot be owned by a citizen? If there is one.
Sensible and responsible appraoch to gun ownership just like including in womens rights access to a safe abortion via allowing MD hospital privlages while also giving her the weighted knowledge of her decision and allowing time for a sensible and responsible decision. Perhaps gun rights should be allowcated to the state.
@inwa, you just advanced to level 10!
Safe abortion is a relative term
There are some who believe only muskets are allowed as that was the common firearm of the time. By that standard, only the written or printed word would be permissible under the 1st amendment, all other forms such as texting, internet, cellular, etc would be restricted or banned.
@Bey, you just advanced to level 15!
I was using a quick shorthand. I am aware that it is not an apt analogy, I was being lazy.
Making something a crime is a way of enforcing an established limit.
@TaLoN132, you just advanced to level 27!
A limit that is predicated on a person abusing a right, not a limit on everyone who isn't abusing the right