On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 6:30:13 AM UTC-5, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 06:00:40 -0500, dvus wrote:

On 3/6/2018 6:41 AM, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 06:34:39 -0500, dvus wrote:

On 3/5/2018 8:21 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/5/2018 at 3:36:43 AM, dvus wrote:



I've gotten to the point where I don't trust anything Scott Israel
says. He appears to be an ambitious politician and they have a habit
of saying self-serving things that later turn out to be untrue. Let's
wait until all the facts are in and the investigation is closed.


You can approach this however you wish. Personally, I have seen enough
information to form a personal opinion about deputy Peterson.

As it stands, it appears to me that deputy Peterson was derelict in his
duty and acted in a cowardly fashion.

If new information comes to light, I could change my opinion.

Regardless of Peterson's behavior, I am convinced that civilians in our
society have no legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons.

Well, luckily the Founding Fathers didn't agree with you

Were there semi automatic weapons around in their day?

Not that I know of. So?

Duh! You just said, "the Founding Fathers didn't agree with" Dove Tail.
Well they didn't disagree either did they. Whether they looked into the
future we'll never know but they didn't account for semi automatic
weapons or automatic weapons for that matter did they?


Given that the second amendment says that a militia is
necessary to ensure the security of the nation, it sure
looks like that would include at least semi-autos.
How can one argue that semi-auto pistols which are
ubiquitous, used for home defense, store owners defending
themselves, security guards, etc aren't covered?
And beyond that, it sure would seem to include semi
auto rifles. Which is why when the libs tried to ban them
last time, they instead created a do nothing law, where
a gun with one type of stock was outlawed, but if you just
put a different stock on it, then it was legal.





So why are
automatic weapons banned? I mean that gives precedent for banning
certain types of weapons does it not?

Laws are made to be changed and broken are they not?


Yes, but in this case, the law that would have to be changed
is likely the US Constitution, which is a very difficult
procedure, one that is obviously extremely unlikely to succeed.

I'd suggest instead we simply adopt reasonable gun permitting
processes across the USA, similar to what we have here in NJ.
To buy a gun, you need a permit issued by the local police
after they have conducted a background check. That includes
an actual investigation, where they call up where you work,
talk to two references, have access to your mental health
records if needed, look at your contact with police, the
police calls to your address, etc. That's the logical place
for all the "red flags" to come together and be used to deny
a permit. Cruz would not have gotten a permit in NJ.
Regardless of whether any types of guns are banned, as long
as people can buy guns, we definitely need that process.
You'd think FL would wise up, but so far, their reaction
hasn't included fixing the biggest, most obvious problem
with how Cruz got his guns.