Do you support gun control? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Do you support gun control?


Pages : [1] 2

IhRedrider
12-02-2011, 22:52
What controls, if any do you think we should have legislated upon the citizens of this country?

Please include your rationale in your statement. Thanks.

Gunnut 45/454
12-03-2011, 09:52
Why do we need gun control? We have way to much gun control now! I'm for Constitutional carry period! If your legal to own your legal to carry anywhere you wish to carry. If you can afford it buy anything you wish. Why do you want to control guns?:upeyes:

OffRoadTraveler
12-03-2011, 10:05
The only gun control I want to see is the placement of the second shot. :2gun:

pilsbury
12-03-2011, 10:09
As a poster above stated, there's too much even now. If they continue to chip away at our rights, including our right to own and bear arms, we will fall by the wayside.

Numismatist
12-03-2011, 10:31
I support gun control that takes guns away from criminals...:whistling:

OIFx2
12-03-2011, 10:42
I also agree that we should have constitutional carry for the reason stated above. I agree that felons convicted of violent crimes should not be allowed to own firearms as they have lost that right through their own actions. I don't think that we should have to register our firearms, if I am legal to own then it's not their business how many pistols/rifles I have. I agree that we should inform LEO that we are carrying, no need to make their job more stressful than it is.

My view on heavier weapons is mixed... I don't like the idea of your average Joe Nobody having fully automatic weapons or grenade launchers, but I also don't like the idea of the Federal Govenment having the only ones. That would be a difficult issue to figure out/legislate.

Jerry
12-03-2011, 11:31
Absolutely! Good firm grip, breath, sight picture, squuuueeeezzzzeee. We can get into more detail later but for now practice basic control.

What part of “shall not be infringed don’t people understand? You cannot stop the bad guys from possessing firearms you can only regulate honest men and woman. The founders understood this concept and wrote an amendment to the Constitution FORBIDDING government from INFRINGING on that RIGHT. Every gun control law on the books is illegal.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

smokeross
12-03-2011, 11:57
If there's a gun around, I wanna control it.

TheJ
12-03-2011, 12:06
I'm pro freedom. Practically speaking, I don't see a need for the state to limit freedom with respect to firearms.


Self defense is a basic civil-human-natural right.

smokin762
12-03-2011, 12:15
The only thing most laws do is just keep the good citizen in control and turns them into criminals at some point. The bad person just isn’t interested in anybody’s rights or laws. They will do darn well what they please whenever they want. That’s why they are criminals.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Myself, I want fewer laws not more.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
BTW, don’t forget using the breathing technique before pulling the trigger and if your target shooting, pull the trigger and keep the trigger back and then release it after a second. This helps.:cool:<o:p></o:p>

IhRedrider
12-03-2011, 13:32
Why do you want to control guns? Gunnut 45/454

I never stated my own position, so why would you assume I am for gun control?

I did not state my view on gun control because I did not want to slant the approach of the posters.

Jerry
12-03-2011, 15:55
Gunnut 45/454

I never stated my own position, so why would you assume I am for gun control?

I did not state my view on gun control because I did not want to slant the approach of the posters.


Because it’s usually the wacko’s that want gun control that come to gun boards and ask questions like.. “Do you support gun control?”. They are usually fishing/trolling. Many of us are now gun shy and assume the worst. As you can see most here don’t think very much of gun control and even less of those that support it.

TheJ
12-03-2011, 16:02
Because it’s usually the wacko’s that want gun control that come to gun boards and ask questions like.. “Do you support gun control?”. They are usually fishing/trolling. Many of us are now gun shy and assume the worst. As you can see most here don’t think very much of gun control and even less of those that support it.

This. Plus the fact that you posted this thread withlonely one other post ever. Those two things combine to look pretty suspicious.

dcc12
12-03-2011, 18:27
Other than being responsible for every bullet that leaves any gun you fire single shot full auto SBS, SBR that's about it.

Cambo
12-03-2011, 19:02
I look at it this way, if a criminal can use anything to kill another person - blade, car, hatchet, etc., and these items aren't controlled, then guns shouldn't be either. When someone says "You can't kill a lot of people with a machete." I show them the story in the Philippines where a psycho killed 16 people in 2 minutes in a crowded marketplace or one of the ones out of China where sickos killed 8 school children with butcher knives.

SixkillerEnterprises
12-03-2011, 19:54
I think that it should be illegal to hold a gun sideways while you shoot it "gangsta style".




.... unless the barrel is pointed at yourself.

IhRedrider
12-03-2011, 21:31
Fair enough on the suspicious look of my post.

I asked the question with the hopes that anyone who admitted that they feel that there is a need to limit or control any other free mans rights is in favor of gun control. Maybe in a limited sense, but they are pro gun control.

Since I have not revealed my stand, here it is.

I believe that the 2nd amendment is very clear. I am pro freedom.

Gun control is a liberal lie. What we need is self control. And when a man is unwilling or incapable of exercising self control, it is the rest of our responsibility to show said offender that we will not tolerate his lack of self control.

Sorry if I offended anyone with the ambiguity of my OP, that was not my intent. And to anyone offended by this post, NMP (not my problem).

Jerry
12-04-2011, 00:25
No offense taken here. Glad to have you on our side. :welcome: :cheers:

Gunnut 45/454
12-04-2011, 11:35
IhRedrider
Yep as Jerry said we see many "Troll" Liberals that come to our boards trying to justfy this or that law to restrict the 2nd all the time! Believe it or not there are many liberals here! They say they are gun owners maybe they are but as with all liberals they use the fine for me to own but not you mentality to justify why they own a firearm! If you look at every law that restricts guns it all about keeping legal owners from exersising there rights - not preventing criminal use! They all fail the "Shall not be Infringed " test!

IhRedrider
12-04-2011, 17:29
Gunnut 45/454,
I agree, there are a lot of liberal trolls that cruise the forum looking for an opportunity to push their belief systems on others. They, however, concern me far less than the "gun supporting members? who only wish to limit certain peoples rights under certain conditions. These conditions of course are to be decided by them. These are wolves in sheep's clothing, what I refer to as closet liberals. They are far more dangerous then the self professed gun haters. I just wanted people to truly evaluate what gun control they agreed with and what was their motivation for it. I still have hope that when men are faced with the truth, they will recognize it. Thanks to all who posted.

TheJ
12-04-2011, 17:30
IhRedrider
Yep as Jerry said we see many "Troll" Liberals that come to our boards trying to justfy this or that law to restrict the 2nd all the time! Believe it or not there are many liberals here! They say they are gun owners maybe they are but as with all liberals they use the fine for me to own but not you mentality to justify why they own a firearm! If you look at every law that restricts guns it all about keeping legal owners from exersising there rights - not preventing criminal use! They all fail the "Shall not be Infringed " test!

The other common theme among the gun owning liberals is when they don't see a particular restriction on our freedoms as affecting them personally, they assume it is a reasonable restriction and that others shoud just get over it.

John Rambo
12-04-2011, 19:29
What controls, if any do you think we should have legislated upon the citizens of this country?

Please include your rationale in your statement. Thanks.

I support sensible gun control 100%.

Background checks I support. No criminals owning firearms I support. No mentally deranged people owning firearms I support. Junk gun bans (REAL junk guns, not just guns that aren't Brady Campaign friendly) I support. Licensing to carry firearms on a shall-issue basis....I support, but not that strongly.

I can't think of many other gun control measures I support.

HexHead
12-04-2011, 19:42
Objects shouldn't be controlled, just behavior. Punish the people using a gun in the commission of a crime, for the crime.

Gunnut 45/454
12-04-2011, 22:58
John Rambo
So you support all those things - tell me where in the COTUS do you find those restrictions? What part of the 2nd allows them? Who are you to determine what is a "Junk Gun" is? By junk I assome you mean CHEAP? Why do you want to take cheap guns away from people who can't afford a Glock?:whistling:

Think about it no other amendment has these words "Shall not be Infringed" !! Why cause our founders knew the courts and lawmakers would find any excuse to nolify the 2nd if they could! Those four words makes any and all laws that "Infringe UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

NMPOPS
12-05-2011, 02:24
I would agree that if you are legal to own you should be able to carry anywhere. I would add that criminals who use firearms should be punished severely, no prea bargains!

Sent from my Ally

Jerry
12-05-2011, 12:18
Here we go again with the emotional drivel. “People that do bad things with GUNS should be punished severely.” And what makes a GUN soooooo special. See Cambo’s post. #15. The idea that a crime committed with a firearms should be punished “more several” than one committed with any other inanimate object is moronic.

automan
12-05-2011, 12:42
What controls, if any do you think we should have legislated upon the citizens of this country?

Please include your rationale in your statement. Thanks.

Not allowed to shoot a handgun using less than two hands, unless the second one is missing or incapacitated.:rofl:

TheJ
12-05-2011, 14:06
Here we go again with the emotional drivel. “People that do bad things with GUNS should be punished severely.” And what makes a GUN soooooo special. See Cambo’s post. #15. The idea that a crime committed with a firearms should be punished “more severely" that one committed with any other inanimate object is moronic.

Exactly.

To me it's similar to punishing people differently because they committed a crime versus a hate crime. Is it really important that an offender murdered someone for their watch or because of a legally protected characteristic..

Jerry
12-05-2011, 16:40
Exactly.

To me it's similar to punishing people differently because they committed a crime versus a hate crime. Is it really important that an offender murdered someone for their watch or because of a legally protected characteristic..



Not to get off topic; But what I love about the hate crime law is that it is not enforced “equally” not to mention it does nothing to deter crime.

IhRedrider
12-05-2011, 18:07
I see we have see freedom/constitution supporters. That's great. Unfortunately, we also have some enemies of the of Constitution, that's bad. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and I never took that back. I guess that makes us at odds.

CPatt44
12-05-2011, 21:51
My idea of gun control is using two hands and hitting what you are aiming at. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

John Rambo
12-06-2011, 09:50
John Rambo
So you support all those things - tell me where in the COTUS do you find those restrictions?


The 10th, of course. But I'm not sute what you mean by 'restrictions'. Nothing I have posted in any way restricts a law abiding person from owning and carrying firearms.


What part of the 2nd allows them?
No part. The 2nd doesn't address it.


Who are you to determine what is a "Junk Gun" is? By junk I assome you mean CHEAP? Why do you want to take cheap guns away from people who can't afford a Glock?:whistling:Cheap and/or unsafe products are regulated in just about every industry. Why should guns be treated so special?


Think about it no other amendment has these words "Shall not be Infringed" !! Why cause our founders knew the courts and lawmakers would find any excuse to nolify the 2nd if they could! Those four words makes any and all laws that "Infringe UNCONSTITUTIONAL!I disagree. You're forgetting about SCOTUS, who's job it is to interpret and rule on constitutional matters. Like it or not, they don't see a problem with it. And since this country isn't a Democracy, neither your nor my opinion directly matters. If you have a problem, vote in presidents who will appoint more favorable SCOTUS members.



The point of my post is that what I support are proactive measures to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns don't get them. There is nothing wrong with being proactive, so long as it doesn't infringe upon a law abiding citizen's right to purchase and carry them. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a decent explanation of how any of the things I mentioned infringe on your ability to buy and carry a gun.

Jerry
12-06-2011, 13:25
I disagree. You're forgetting about SCOTUS, who's job it is to interpret and rule on constitutional matters. Like it or not, they don't see a problem with it. And since this country isn't a Democracy, neither your nor my opinion directly matters. If you have a problem, vote in presidents who will appoint more favorable SCOTUS members.



The point of my post is that what I support are proactive measures to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns don't get them. There is nothing wrong with being proactive, so long as it doesn't infringe upon a law abiding citizen's right to purchase and carry them. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a decent explanation of how any of the things I mentioned infringe on your ability to buy and carry a gun.
Where you are going wrong with you’re logic is... The SCOTS ARE there to rule on if rulings by a lower courts fall within the limits set by the Constitution not to “interpret” the Constitution. What is truly amazing is how anyone can interpret “shall not be infringed” to mean sometimes the government can infringe.




The point of my post is that what I support are proactive measures to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns don't get them.

Please show me a law the does that. Laws will punish a criminal if caught, but laws only stop honest people. Criminals don’t follow the law. THAT’S WHY THEY ARE CALLED CRIMINALS.

And I don’t know how many times I have to say this but here I go again. If a person is too dangerous to possess a firearm they are too dangerous to be walking the street.

John Rambo
12-06-2011, 15:58
Where you are going wrong with you’re logic is... The SCOTS ARE there to rule on if rulings by a lower courts fall within the limits set by the Constitution not to “interpret” the Constitution. What is truly amazing is how anyone can interpret “shall not be infringed” to mean sometimes the government can infringe.


in·fringe/inˈfrinj/

<table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" valign="top" width="80px">Verb:</td><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;" valign="top"><table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td>

Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
Please show me how any of my stances fit either of those criteria? How do any of my stances infringe upon our right to buy, own, and carry a firearm? I can kinda see the shall issue carry permitting, but I said I'm on the fence on that one. The others? You've got no case for.




Please show me a law the does that. Laws will punish a criminal if caught, but laws only stop honest people. Criminals don’t follow the law. THAT’S WHY THEY ARE CALLED CRIMINALS.

And I don’t know how many times I have to say this but here I go again. If a person is too dangerous to possess a firearm they are too dangerous to be walking the street.

So they're not foolproof. Okay. Does that mean any law we have that doesn't work 100% of the time should be abolished?

Without laws like background checks, a criminal could stroll into a gun shop and buy a gun. I've been there, standing right there, when someone was denied because of their criminal past. That means the law works.

Again, remember that the only gun control measures I support are those that work to proactively keep guns out of criminals' hands without infringing upon our rights.

Jerry
12-06-2011, 16:31
in·fringe/inˈfrinj/

<table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" valign="top" width="80px">Verb:</td><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;" valign="top"><table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td>

Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
Please show me how any of my stances fit either of those criteria? How do any of my stances infringe upon our right to buy, own, and carry a firearm? I can kinda see the shall issue carry permitting, but I said I'm on the fence on that one. The others? You've got no case for.





So they're not foolproof. Okay. Does that mean any law we have that doesn't work 100% of the time should be abolished?

Without laws like background checks, a criminal could stroll into a gun shop and buy a gun. I've been there, standing right there, when someone was denied because of their criminal past. That means the law works.

Again, remember that the only gun control measures I support are those that work to proactively keep guns out of criminals' hands without infringing upon our rights.
Did I say any of your stance infringe? I don’t believe I made any statement about your “stance”. I believe I stated that what you posted about the SCOTS being there to interpret the Constitution was/is incorrect and that people (that includes some of the SCOTS) cant seem to get it through their thick sculls what “shall not infringe means”.

The SCOTS DO NOT/HAVE NOT BEEN GRANTED the power to CHANGE what is written in the Constitution. The only people that have that power are the congress and/or the states.

<table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" valign="top" width="80px">Verb:</td><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;" valign="top"><table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td>

Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

That pretty much covers what is ment by "shall not be infringed" in the Second.

But since you want to know which of your stances fit that criteria here you go… “I support. Licensing to carry firearms”. Having to pay for the “privilege” changes it from a right to a ”PRIVILEGE”. It IS AN INFRINGEMENT!

John Rambo
12-06-2011, 16:51
Did I say any of your stance infringe? I don’t believe I made any statement about your “stance”. I believe I stated that what you posted about the SCOTS being there to interpret the Constitution was/is incorrect and that people (that includes some of the SCOTS) cant seem to get it through their thick sculls what “shall not infringe means”.

The SCOTS DO NOT/HAVE NOT BEEN GRANTED the power to CHANGE what is written in the Constitution. The only people that have that power are the congress and/or the states.

<table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" valign="top" width="80px">Verb:</td><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;" valign="top"><table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td>

Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

That pretty much covers what is ment by "shall not be infringed" in the Second.


SCOTUS rules on constitutional issues. By their very nature, then, they must interpret the constitution. Thats the only way to rule on things. So theres no way around that one unless you want to restructure the American form of government.

And again, none of those stances fit the word 'infringe' so there is no problem here. The constitution has been respected.


But since you want to know which of your stances fit that criteria here you go… “I support. Licensing to carry firearms”. Having to pay for the “privilege” changes it from a right to a ”PRIVILEGE”. It IS AN INFRINGEMENT!

I guess you missed the shall issue part. Its also a right to marry, however people have to get a marriage license to marry, right?

However, like I said, I'm kinda on the fence about that one. I've only ever known a shall issue licensing state, so I don't have much to compare it to. I will say I oppose may issue states.

Jerry
12-06-2011, 17:41
SCOTUS rules on constitutional issues. By their very nature, then, they must interpret the constitution. Thats the only way to rule on things. So theres no way around that one unless you want to restructure the American form of government.

And again, none of those stances fit the word 'infringe' so there is no problem here. The constitution has been respected.



I guess you missed the shall issue part. Its also a right to marry, however people have to get a marriage license to marry, right?

However, like I said, I'm kinda on the fence about that one. I've only ever known a shall issue licensing state, so I don't have much to compare it to. I will say I oppose may issue states.

“Shall not be infringed” means exactly that, (read the definition that you posted) there is no “interpreting” it to mean anything else. The SCOTS cannot change what is written. :faint:

Guess you must have missed the pay for part. I’m sorry to be the one to have to tell you… making people jump through hoops and having to pay for a license IS AND INFRINGEMENT in spite of your opinion that it is not. No pay, no license. Show me where the Constitution grants the power to charge to exercise a right.

John Rambo
12-06-2011, 17:50
“Shall not be infringed” means exactly that, (read the definition that you posted) there is no “interpreting” it to mean anything else. The SCOTS cannot change what is written. :faint:

Guess you must have missed the pay for part. I’m sorry to be the one to have to tell you… making people jump through hoops and having to pay for a license IS AND INFRINGEMENT in spite of your opinion that it is not. No pay, no license. Show me where the Constitution grants the power to charge to exercise a right.

You're really hung up on this one single issue, which is the one of the bunch that I said I'm really not that dedicated to to begin with. Why do you keep returning to this one issue? Am I not making myself clear on it? Please address my other issues which I have firm support for.

TheJ
12-06-2011, 18:51
You're really hung up on this one single issue, which is the one of the bunch that I said I'm really not that dedicated to to begin with. Why do you keep returning to this one issue? Am I not making myself clear on it? Please address my other issues which I have firm support for.

I think he keeps returning to it because it seems empirically unconstitutional.

As for other issues with your post...
I support sensible gun control 100%.

Background checks I support. No criminals owning firearms I support. No mentally deranged people owning firearms I support. Junk gun bans (REAL junk guns, not just guns that aren't Brady Campaign friendly) I support. Licensing to carry firearms on a shall-issue basis....I support, but not that strongly.

I can't think of many other gun control measures I support.
Please explain why you support junk gun bans? What is the logic behind that?

What do you mean when you say you support "no criminals owning firearms" form of gun control?

ScaryPerryDawsy
12-06-2011, 19:01
Pretty damn simple in my eyes.....if the cops can carry it and/or use it so should I. They are civilians just like me after all regardless of the job or not.

Jerry
12-06-2011, 19:02
You're really hung up on this one single issue, which is the one of the bunch that I said I'm really not that dedicated to to begin with. Why do you keep returning to this one issue? Am I not making myself clear on it? Please address my other issues which I have firm support for.

I’m not hung up on any one particular thing. I’m hung up and totally against gun control. YOU asked which part of “your stance” was an infringement.



Please show me how any of my stances fit either of those criteria?

And again, none of those stances fit the word 'infringe' so there is no problem here. The constitution has been respected.

I merely granted your request.

You also state:

The point of my post is that what I support are proactive measures to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns don't get them.

You support, "no criminals owning firearms." That is another folly. Laws do not prevent criminals from doing anything. They only prevent honorable men and women for doing what they have no intension of doing or make something they do criminal when it shouldn’t.

Murder is a crime. Why should murder with a gun be a different crime? Robbery is crime. Why should robbery with a gun be a different crime than robbery with a knife, baseball bat or brick?

You say the mentally dative shouldn't have firearms. Until they do something “criminal” with it, it shouldn’t be anyone’s business. Then they should be punished for what they did not because they did it with a gun. Who decides who’s mental defective liberal Drs? According to liberals anyone that wants to carry a gun is mentally defective.

Everything you say you support is either a fantasy or unconstitutional.

IhRedrider
12-06-2011, 19:15
John Rambo

Cheap and/or unsafe products are regulated in just about every industry. Why should guns be treated so special?

They are so special that they are the only(?) industry created item specifically called out in the constitution with regards to RIGHTS.

The point of my post is that what I support are proactive measures to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns don't get them.

Who is to decide and under exactly what criteria as to who is and is not allowed to have guns? You? Me? A group of you's? A group of me's? If it is a group, how many? what criteria is required? simple majority, 2 thirds, 90 percent? I think this position is one of someone who supports other people's rights, as long as those people in question's decisions are the same as yours. This is simply one man trying to exert his authority of life over another man's authority. This is called forced slavery, and men are willing to die to stop it. I have more respect for the man who stands up and tells me he is my enemy and has plans against me than the man who pretends to be my ally and is only interested in protecting his personal agenda over the God give rights of every free man.

Still at odds with the Rights violators.

John Rambo
12-06-2011, 20:32
Wow, this thread went completely twilight zone. You all have a good evening now, I'm done. Theres no discussing going on here. Just me talking to a wall.

Jerry
12-06-2011, 20:37
Wow, this thread went completely twilight zone. You all have a good evening now, I'm done. Theres no discussing going on here. Just me talking to a wall.


:crying:

Yep! That’s the way it usually ends with gun control supporters. They can’t logically support their opinions so they leave in a huff. :rofl:

Dukedomone
12-06-2011, 23:12
Not to get too far off topic here, but I believe it is a fallacy that it was originally intended for SCOTUS to be the sole interpreter of the Constitution, although it is widely accepted today.

Jerry
12-06-2011, 23:50
Not to get too far off topic here, but I believe it is a fallacy that it was originally intended for SCOTUS to be the sole interpreter of the Constitution, although it is widely accepted today.


The SCOTS weren’t/aren’t to "interpret" the constitution. They are to decide if a lower courts ruling fall within the bounds of the Constitution as written. The Constitution and the original Amendments to it are written in pretty simple language. It’s all the “interpretations” that have muddied the waters. If one reads the words of the founders then reads the Constitution simply as written there is no need for interoperation. It says what is says.

TheJ
12-07-2011, 14:18
:crying:

Yep! That’s the way it usually ends with gun control supporters. They can’t logically support their opinions so they leave in a huff. :rofl:

No need for them to bother with logic when it's easier to just feel good..

Jerry
12-07-2011, 16:38
One of the things I really love when it comes to gun control advocates is their “assertion” that gun control saves lives. They have absolutely nothing factual to base their opinion on yet they insist it’s “fact”. Fact is, and it’s been studied and documented, is that gun control actually costs more lives than it saves. John Lott Jr., More Guns Less Crime. Free men with guns serve to deter crime.

Dukedomone
12-07-2011, 22:20
The SCOTS weren’t/aren’t to "interpret" the constitution. They are to decide if a lower courts ruling fall within the bounds of the Constitution as written. The Constitution and the original Amendments to it are written in pretty simple language. It’s all the “interpretations” that have muddied the waters. If one reads the words of the founders then reads the Constitution simply as written there is no need for interoperation. It says what is says.

I only meant they weren't intended to have the power they do today to effectively modify the Constitution with rulings. They have no magical knowledge and don't hold seances to ask the Founders what they really meant. In no way were a handful of men, who were not elected and are appointed for life, supposed to the the "Lords of the Constitution" and the keeper of all it's secrets. Their main purpose was to be a referee between the States and in other situations where the US was a party.

Jerry
12-08-2011, 11:04
I only meant they weren't intended to have the power they do today to effectively modify the Constitution with rulings. They have no magical knowledge and don't hold seances to ask the Founders what they really meant. In no way were a handful of men, who were not elected and are appointed for life, supposed to the the "Lords of the Constitution" and the keeper of all it's secrets. Their main purpose was to be a referee between the States and in other situations where the US was a party.

:thumbsup: :yourock:

1gewehr
12-08-2011, 12:29
[B][I]
Again, remember that the only gun control measures I support are those that work to proactively keep guns out of criminals' hands without infringing upon our rights.

Name ONE such law! The countries with the most severe gun control laws also have thriving black markets in firearms. Banning or restricting firearms has been shown to have an effect on crime; it goes up! Throughout history, there has never been a single instance of a gun control law leading to a reduction in crime.

As said above, if a person should not have a firearm, they should not be walking the streets. For everyone else, gun control is a joke. And when NICS denies a person based on their 'criminal past', 90% of the time it's a case of similar names, or mistakes in the record. And you do not consider that an 'infringement' on the rights of the person who is mistakenly denied? Shame on you!

Prior to 1968, in most states anybody could walk into the local hardware or gun store and walk out with any rifle, pistol, or shotgun the store had without ANY paperwork, background check, or questions except maybe "How many shells do you want with that". I challenge you to show how the many gun control laws passed since then have reduced crime.

Gun Control only controls the law-abiding citizen.

polyman305
12-09-2011, 07:44
Give me gun-control...in a sin free world. I'll be all for it then. But unfortunately THIS world isn't. Awww shucks. I don't think any person, organization, faction, company,etc has the RIGHT to place control onto me and not the same amount onto themselves. Control My gun, well then allow me to control yours the same. Because they are not prone to mistakes/misjudgments(as the past have proven oh so perfectly). Simple - in order to make a solid judgment call, you must exemplify ability to make accurate,consistent,sound,equal, and fair mode of judgment. CLEARLY MY Gov. has failed at those miserably quite often. So why should I consent to control based on their views?
No way...

eracer
12-09-2011, 07:53
Too many nimrods these days buying guns. I shudder every time I read about some idiot ejecting a magazine and pulling a trigger, killing someone because they're ignorant of the basics.

As such, I support mandatory training programs. The regulation would clearly spell out that the training is to include basic gun handling and safety training only, and have very simple pass-fail qualification tests. The training should be codified, conducted by an organization like the NRA, and be a requirement to purchase a first gun.


Say what you want about freedom - with freedom comes responsibility, and a gun is a complex deadly weapon that demands training.

TheJ
12-09-2011, 08:21
I think training is great and everyone should be trained but I don't beleive it should be legally required to exercise a fundamental right.

However, they should teach firearm safety in schools like we do fire safety, etc.

Jerry
12-09-2011, 10:40
And when NICS denies a person based on their 'criminal past', 90% of the time it's a case of similar names, or mistakes in the record. And you do not consider that an 'infringement' on the rights of the person who is mistakenly denied? Shame on you!





I can personally attest to this. For some reason right after Katrina I started have a “HOLD” put on my purchases. They never call back! And the “three” day wait thing is a joke. If it happens on a Monday then it actually takes 4 days. Monday doesn’t count and you can’t picket up your firearm until Friday. If it happens on a weekend you have Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday you can pick up Thursday. If there is a holiday or holidays involved it can take longer than a week. Took me seven days once.

Go-ahead, try to find out what the problem is if you dare. I did! Here’s the progression. :dunno: :brickwall: :faint: The final straw was... "Sorry, even if I had that information I couldn't tell you." Now what I can do is fill out a farm and give them my life history and submit fingerprints and they will give me a “SPECIAL NUMBER” so I can have the “PRIVILEGE” of an ”INSTANT” background check. Through no fault of my own I and many others also, have my/our right(s) ”SUSPENDED” “INFRINGED” through a system that is illegal in the first place.

I feel sorry to those that are “denied”. Their only choice is to give the Gummynet all the information it wants and pray they can get it cleared up. But the majority thinks NICS is the best thing since sliced bread and there is no infringement. The dubbing down of America has worked.

polyman305
12-09-2011, 15:31
I can personally attest to this. For some reason right after Katrina I started have a “HOLD” put on my purchases. They never call back! And the “three” day wait thing is a joke. If it happens on a Monday then it actually takes 4 days. Monday doesn’t count and you can’t picket up your firearm until Friday. If it happens on a weekend you have Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday you can pick up Thursday. If there is a holiday or holidays involved it can take longer than a week. Took me seven days once.

Go-ahead, try to find out what the problem is if you dare. I did! Here’s the progression. :dunno: :brickwall: :faint: The final straw was... "Sorry, even if I had that information I couldn't tell you." Now what I can do is fill out a farm and give them my life history and submit fingerprints and they will give me a “SPECIAL NUMBER” so I can have the “PRIVILEGE” of an ”INSTANT” background check. Through no fault of my own I and many others also, have my/our right(s) ”SUSPENDED” “INFRINGED” through a system that is illegal in the first place.

I feel sorry to those that are “denied”. Their only choice is to give the Gummynet all the information it wants and pray they can get it cleared up. But the majority thinks NICS is the best thing since sliced bread and there is no infringement. The dubbing down of America has worked.


That happens to this Customs agent I know. This guy has to walk around with a damn paper incase he gets pulled over. And flash it with 15mins of explanation to buy a gun. By the way, he has a CWP. Yeah exactly, the give him to legal right to carry a gun, but not to buy one without having to wear his uniforn(full weapons rig) into the gun store for additionalsupport of proof...
All because his felon brother used his name.

Jerry
12-09-2011, 16:13
That happens to this Customs agent I know. This guy has to walk around with a damn paper incase he gets pulled over. And flash it with 15mins of explanation to buy a gun. By the way, he has a CWP. Yeah exactly, the give him to legal right to carry a gun, but not to buy one without having to wear his uniforn(full weapons rig) into the gun store for additionalsupport of proof...
All because his felon brother used his name.



I’ve had a CCW/CHP for 15 years. The first time I had a “HOLD” was in 2006. I was purchasing a Glock 22 because I needed a SW 40 to qualify for a commission. Had a .45 ACP., .38 Special, 9 mm. I could have used but I couldn’t qualify with a .45 ACP at the time (can now) so I wanted the next best thing, SW 40. I had to borrow one to qualify with. Then I got to go back and pick up my 22. I’ve requalified for the commission every year since and requalify every 4 years for CCW. yet I still have a ”HOLD” every time I purchase a firearm. Trying to find out why is like trying to find out the combination to the safe a Fort Knocks. :steamed:

WarCry
12-09-2011, 20:18
The federal restrictions on firearms essentially amount to barring felons from owning firearms, and restricting heavy weapons.

So, for those saying you want "Constitutional Carry" in the absolute purest sense, you have no problem with a 2-times convicted serial rapist carrying a gun, right? Because saying he can't? That's gun control. You realize this, yes? When comments are made like "I think every legal person should be allowed to carry however they want", you are already putting restrictions in place. Define "legal person", or more correctly, define how someone is NOT eligible. Welcome to the world of "reasonable gun control."


The federal government doesn't determine May Issue/Shall Issue/No Issue, either. For all of you screaming about the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment, you realize that - as it stands right now - this has NO BEARING on most gun control laws, yes? Most restrictions on things like permits, magazine capacity, open/concealed carry, these are all state-level or lower laws. The 2nd Amendment applies to the FEDERAL government.

So, which are you? Are you a 100% supporter of the 2nd Amendment? Or do you believe in states' rights? Because the two CAN BE mutually exclusive.

polyman305
12-10-2011, 04:00
I’ve had a CCW/CHP for 15 years. The first time I had a “HOLD” was in 2006. I was purchasing a Glock 22 because I needed a SW 40 to qualify for a commission. Had a .45 ACP., .38 Special, 9 mm. I could have used but I couldn’t qualify with a .45 ACP at the time (can now) so I wanted the next best thing, SW 40. I had to borrow one to qualify with. Then I got to go back and pick up my 22. I’ve requalified for the commission every year since and requalify every 4 years for CCW. yet I still have a ”HOLD” every time I purchase a firearm. Trying to find out why is like trying to find out the combination to the safe a Fort Knocks. :steamed:

You tried talking to a lawyer, just getting some advice about it? Because lawyers can make 1 phone call that will get further than your 500 calls/emails/letters ever will. I hope this is not the case but it sounds like someone may have used your name. Also, if NICS is missing some type of info on you like if your citizenship,military discharge, birth certificate, or something is slightly off or whatever that can always get you a non approval.
They don't want us to have guns anyways man. So its not like they will be in a hurry to resolve your issue. I know it sucks like a hooker on a sat night guy.

TheJ
12-10-2011, 08:26
So, for those saying you want "Constitutional Carry" in the absolute purest sense, you have no problem with a 2-times convicted serial rapist carrying a gun, right?
Yes that is correct. However, I reject your question because it is based on a false premise. A twice convicted serial rapist being free to begin with is the core but a separate issue.

1. If he is too dangerous to own a firearm then he shouldn't be out of prison.
2. Whether he has LEGAL access to a firearm has practically nothing to do with wether or not he rapes again. The two have absolutely no connection.
3. SEE #1

Don't lie to yourself by thinking somebody who wants to rape/harm and is not incarcerated, can not get access to a means to do it. Believing that is fantasy. And trying to eliminate anything form people that "might be used as a weapon" is fantasy, ineffective and leads to bans on things like limes (http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10931178-uk-chef-prevented-from-buying-li).
It is not practical think you can prevent free resolute people from having a means by which to harm others. In trying the only thing you can do by law, is make law abiding people sitting ducks.


The federal government doesn't determine May Issue/Shall Issue/No Issue, either. For all of you screaming about the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment, you realize that - as it stands right now - this has NO BEARING on most gun control laws, yes? Most restrictions on things like permits, magazine capacity, open/concealed carry, these are all state-level or lower laws. The 2nd Amendment applies to the FEDERAL government.

So, which are you? Are you a 100% supporter of the 2nd Amendment? Or do you believe in states' rights? Because the two CAN BE mutually exclusive.
Not exactly. I believe the SCOTUS Heller decision reaffirmed the individual rights of the 2A and McDonald "incorporated" them to the states. They said that the right of self defense and to have firearms is a "fundamental right (http://law.yourdictionary.com/fundamental-right)", just like the 1A. And just like the 1A, it applies to the states. Every state ratified the constitution. So the states rights argument on 2a is somewhat fallacious. The SCOTUS did say there is room for some restrictions (just like the 1A) but the bar for restrictions on a fundamental right is exceedingly high (just like the 1A).

It is true that many of the most onerous of the thousands of state/local laws, won't disappear overnight though. Strategic civil rights litigation like that which is being undertaken by the Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org/) takes time and must be done methodically to be the most effective. But if done correctly, with time, we will be emancipated from the enslavement of onerous firearms restrictions eventually.

Jerry
12-10-2011, 10:28
So, for those saying you want "Constitutional Carry" in the absolute purest sense, you have no problem with a 2-times convicted serial rapist carrying a gun, right? Because saying he can't? That's gun control. You realize this, yes? When comments are made like "I think every legal person should be allowed to carry however they want", you are already putting restrictions in place. Define "legal person", or more correctly, define how someone is NOT eligible. Welcome to the world of "reasonable gun control."


So, which are you? Are you a 100% supporter of the 2nd Amendment? Or do you believe in states' rights? Because the two CAN BE mutually exclusive.

There is a fallacy in your thought process. The problem does not lie with the Second Amendment GUARANTEEING the right of a two times convicted serial rapist having a gun because regardless of the law he will. The problem lies with the two times convicted serial rapist being allowed to walk amongst us. What is the difference if he’s raping is facilitated with the use of a gun, knife, broken bottle, brick or a hammer? Say knife or brick or hammer along with the word rape and it oh my, she was raped. Say raped at gun point and it’s the gun that becomes the focal point. Why? Emotion and no other reason!

Yes, I'm a 100% supporter of the 2nd. Amendment. Funny how they have picked and chosen which Amendments override “states rights(?)” and which one don't. Oh! And here’s another little tid-bit for you. The states have no rights. Only The People have rights. The Constitution doesn’t grant rights it acknowledges them and tells the government what it CAN and CAN NOT DO

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Notice it doesn’t say “rights” it says “POWERS”.

HoldHard
12-10-2011, 10:40
If there's a gun around, I wanna control it.
This!!

HH

WarCry
12-10-2011, 10:44
Why do you believe the 2nd Amendment should be the only absolute right of the Bill of Rights? None of the others are.

Jerry
12-10-2011, 10:51
You tried talking to a lawyer, just getting some advice about it? Because lawyers can make 1 phone call that will get further than your 500 calls/emails/letters ever will. I hope this is not the case but it sounds like someone may have used your name. Also, if NICS is missing some type of info on you like if your citizenship,military discharge, birth certificate, or something is slightly off or whatever that can always get you a non approval.
They don't want us to have guns anyways man. So its not like they will be in a hurry to resolve your issue. I know it sucks like a hooker on a sat night guy.

Thanks for the advice but....

My middle name is not a common one. I give them my middle name not just an initial and my SS#.

I’ve had nothing but bad experiences when dealing with lawyers. Lawyers have lied to me on more than one occasion causing me grief. My daughter too! Divorce lawyer lied through her teeth. My daughter got screwed and since then the lawyer has hung her out to dry. I want nothing else to do with lawyers.

I’ve said ever since NICS was rumored that honorable men and women would get screwed by it. I just never imagined I’d be one of them. :steamed:

TheJ
12-10-2011, 10:55
Why do you believe the 2nd Amendment should be the only absolute right of the Bill of Rights? None of the others are.

Personally, I've never said it should be absolute. Why do you believe it deserves less protection then the others though?

The pen IS mightier then the sword and yet we don't need to get a permit to exercise free speech.

.... I believe the SCOTUS Heller decision reaffirmed the individual rights of the 2A and McDonald "incorporated" them to the states. They said that the right of self defense and to have firearms is a "fundamental right (http://law.yourdictionary.com/fundamental-right)", just like the 1A. And just like the 1A, it applies to the states. Every state ratified the constitution. So the states rights argument on 2a is somewhat fallacious. The SCOTUS did say there is room for some restrictions (just like the 1A) but the bar for restrictions on a fundamental right is exceedingly high (just like the 1A).

It is true that many of the most onerous of the thousands of state/local laws, won't disappear overnight though. Strategic civil rights litigation like that which is being undertaken by the Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org/) takes time and must be done methodically to be the most effective. But if done correctly, with time, we will be emancipated from the enslavement of onerous firearms restrictions eventually.

I believe the SCOTUS got this right and that is not absolute.

Jerry
12-10-2011, 10:56
Why do you believe the 2nd Amendment should be the only absolute right of the Bill of Rights? None of the others are.

I’ll answer your question with two questions. What does ”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” mean? Does any other Amendments end in that phrase?

Edited to add:

The founder felt so strongly about the RIGHT of The People to KEEP and “BEAR” arms” that they made sure EVERYONE would know the right was ABSOLUTE. However the government and the socialists have dumbed so many of the people down they can’t read simple English and comprehend the meaning.

A militia being necessary to a free state, (an armed citizenry of each state is necessary to protect the state from government tyranny), the RIGHT of The People SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (the gummeyment is not allowed to put restrictions on citizens owning and carrying firearms. Anyone that does not comprehend that is either out to control the rights of others or is a complete idiot.

Does this sound like the founders wanted to allow restrictions or want the 2nd. to be ABSOLUTE?

“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson

“Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation.” James Madison

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry

The atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all good men. [George Washington]

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." --John Adams

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government . . . . No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own hands." --Thomas Jefferson

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."--Noah Webster, 1787

The RIGHT of The People to keep and bear was meant to be an is ABSOLUTE. Any law to the contrary is unconstitutional.

TheJ
12-12-2011, 09:48
The RIGHT of The People to keep and bear was meant to be an is ABSOLUTE. Any law to the contrary is unconstitutional.

I suspect we are on the same page with this... However, I think I define absolute differently. As I see it, "absolute" means that something can't even be touched even with due process (trial). I don't see any rights as absolute.

eracer
12-12-2011, 10:07
I'm all up for building more prisons and restoring all the cancelled social programs that treated mentally deranged people so that we can allow them to exercise their 2A right.

The day that all criminals (as defined by society) and psychotics (as defined by society) can be safely locked away and/or treated medically in such a way that eliminates the danger to society forever is the day I'll agree to NOT put any restrictions on gun ownership.

There are some people who should not be allowed to own guns. And if that statement along with my sigline causes you any confusion, well, I guess you'll just have to figure that out yourself...

wheelman707
12-12-2011, 11:40
NO!!!!! "No free man shall ever be debarred from the use of arms" Thomas Jefferson
The following is should how it should be.

Felons still can't get firearms, drug related offenses must be over 10 yrs ago to purchase(no burst/full auto allowed), domestic violence must be over 8 years ago to purchase (no burst/full auto allowed).

Handguns-18 y/o w/ safety class(like hunters safety course held at local gunstore) 21 w/o the class, Military personnel exempt from taking class

Long guns- 16 y/o

Suppressors- 18 y/o over the counter purchase

No capacity limit on magazines

Conceal carry- Military personnel will have a condensed course Held on base. This would fall under the same AR that the motorcycle safety course falls under. This would be required to conceal carry on gov installations(proof would be just easy as having a meal card made). If personnel convicted of field grade art.15's can not participate. Personnel on staff duty, leadership, and Courtesy patrol(cp) WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONCEAL CARRY.

FBI instant check still in effect

No wait time

No limit on quantity

I think I tapped everything I wanted to annndd LESS THAN TWO DAYS IM BACK HOME STATESIDE WAAAHOOOOO:rock::drink::rock:

Jerry
12-12-2011, 12:33
I suspect we are on the same page with this... However, I think I define absolute differently. As I see it, "absolute" means that something can't even be touched even with due process (trial). I don't see any rights as absolute.

We’re close but you’re not quite there yet. :winkie:

I understand, however… Show me where the Constitution grants the government the power to deny any “FREE” man’s rights. The key word being FREE. After all, some crimes are punishable by death. However, the Gummyment has not been granted the power to punishing free men.


The Amendments to the Constitution were written to PROTECT FREE MEN. The Constitution and particularly the Amendments are precisely to restrict the gummeyment. They don’t grant freedoms they ACKNOWLEDGE them and forbid gummyment intrusion on them.

The ACLU and other socialists have dumbed people down so much they actually think there is such a thing as separation of church and state. They press the gummeyment into making laws restricting religious activity on public property. And what is the first thing stated in the First Amendment? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Again the MORONS have interoperated that to mean the gummeyment CAN make laws forbidding the expression of religion in and on public places.



“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson The atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all good men. [George Washington]


"Let us hear no more of confidence in man, but let us keep THEM [men in government] from mischief by binding them down by the chains of the Constitution." [Thomas Jefferson] [emphasis added]

"Congress shall make no law, shall not be infringed".

Sounds pretty much like they wanted at least those Amendments to be ABSOLUTE if not all.

Jerry
12-12-2011, 12:42
I'm all up for building more prisons and restoring all the cancelled social programs that treated mentally deranged people so that we can allow them to exercise their 2A right.

The day that all criminals (as defined by society) and psychotics (as defined by society) can be safely locked away and/or treated medically in such a way that eliminates the danger to society forever is the day I'll agree to NOT put any restrictions on gun ownership.

There are some people who should not be allowed to own guns. And if that statement along with my sigline causes you any confusion, well, I guess you'll just have to figure that out yourself...

But then driving automobiles, having gasoline and matches, knives, bottles, bricks, fertilizer and diesel fuel is ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl:

Perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to have firearms since it appears you may have a mental defect. :tongueout:

94stang
12-12-2011, 12:44
I am not for any foreign (other than me or my family) control over my firearms. Firearms are a given right, set forth by our founding fathers who found the matter important enough to make an amendment over 200 years ago to protect our ability to keep and bear our firearms to this day and until the United States no longer exists.

As for Our right to keep and bear arms, bear means obviously to me that we should all have the right to carry our arms it doesn't g. And to many in this Country the get any more clear. Now to many to carry (concealed or open) is given and recognized, however in my state (Illinois) we are still shackled and restrained from using our given rights because of one city. One city to control them all, Chicago.

So I believe that a LAW regulating the sale of firearms to criminals is a necessity but as for a 'law' to restrict our (law abiding free America's) gun ownership or to register our firearms is completely UN-constitutional and UN-ethical and just plain wrong.

eracer
12-12-2011, 13:41
But then driving automobiles, having gasoline and matches, knives, bottles, bricks, fertilizer and diesel fuel is ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl:

Perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to have firearms since it appears you may have a mental defect. :tongueout:Stating that deranged and/or habitually violent individuals shouldn't have access to bottles, and equating that to controlling their access to guns sounds to me like the ravings of someone living in their own little fantasy world. :wavey:

I don't want to take your guns away. Really. Unless you are a deranged and/or habitually violent person. Then I most certainly do.:supergrin:

TexasFats
12-12-2011, 14:19
Mandatory training opens the door to take away the gun rights of most of us by back-door methods. All that the gun grabbers have to do is to get training requirements that are too expensive and inconvenient for the average person to meet. That is exactly what DC is doing right now.

eracer
12-12-2011, 15:18
Mandatory training opens the door to take away the gun rights of most of us by back-door methods. All that the gun grabbers have to do is to get training requirements that are too expensive and inconvenient for the average person to meet. That is exactly what DC is doing right now.So we don't let them do that. But we accept that training in necessary.

Jerry
12-12-2011, 17:03
Stating that deranged and/or habitually violent individuals shouldn't have access to bottles, and equating that to controlling their access to guns sounds to me like the ravings of someone living in their own little fantasy world. :wavey:

Are you that slow? Bottle + gasoline + fire = arsonist. Do you know how many people are killed yearly in arson fires? Probably not!

I don't want to take your guns away. Really. Unless you are a deranged and/or habitually violent person. Then I most certainly do.:supergrin:

So let me see… Because habitual “violent” offenders will have guns if our right is not restricted we should be OK with having our right infringed. Right? Here's a little clue for you. They have guns anyway. So you want to restrict a right because YOU have irrational fears. Name me a case where a law has stopped a criminal from committing a criminal offense. :upeyes:

WarCry
12-12-2011, 18:47
Are you that slow? Bottle + gasoline + fire = arsonist. Do you know how many people are killed yearly in arson fires? Probably not!

Average of around 2960 per year from 2002 - 2010
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t31662010.pdf

Firearms homicides are in the range of 7-9,000 a year.


You cannot keep flammable materials out of the hands of arsonists. You cannot keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

But restricting access give the police one more tool to use to put the animals in the cages where they belong.

Laws saying you can't own a firearm with a violent felony record shouldn't concern you unless you're a violent felon.

Jerry
12-12-2011, 18:58
NO!!!!! "No free man shall ever be debarred from the use of arms" Thomas Jefferson
The following is should how it should be.

Felons still can't get firearms, drug related offenses must be over 10 yrs ago to purchase(no burst/full auto allowed), domestic violence must be over 8 years ago to purchase (no burst/full auto allowed).

Handguns-18 y/o w/ safety class(like hunters safety course held at local gunstore) 21 w/o the class, Military personnel exempt from taking class

Long guns- 16 y/o

Suppressors- 18 y/o over the counter purchase

No capacity limit on magazines

Conceal carry- Military personnel will have a condensed course Held on base. This would fall under the same AR that the motorcycle safety course falls under. This would be required to conceal carry on gov installations(proof would be just easy as having a meal card made). If personnel convicted of field grade art.15's can not participate. Personnel on staff duty, leadership, and Courtesy patrol(cp) WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONCEAL CARRY.

FBI instant check still in effect

No wait time

No limit on quantity

I think I tapped everything I wanted to annndd LESS THAN TWO DAYS IM BACK HOME STATESIDE WAAAHOOOOO:rock::drink::rock:

I love people that want to rewrite the Constitution to fit their particular idea of what is best for everyone else. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That’s why the first ten amendments were written.

They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. [Benjamin Franklin, 1759]

Jerry
12-12-2011, 19:31
Average of around 2960 per year from 2002 - 2010
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t31662010.pdf

Firearms homicides are in the range of 7-9,000 a year.


You cannot keep flammable materials out of the hands of arsonists. You cannot keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

But restricting access give the police one more tool to use to put the animals in the cages where they belong.

Laws saying you can't own a firearm with a violent felony record shouldn't concern you unless you're a violent felon.


Good Google search. However, firstly, your firearms homicide numbers are bogus. They include self defense and accidental (non criminal) shootings. They also include homicides committed with illegal firearms. You know the ones that the criminals don’t have because of gun control laws. :upeyes: Second, your idea that restrictions help law enforcement is bogus. A cop can’t tell if a felon has a weapon unless he has a reason to stop him in the first place. Then he actually has to catch him in possession of the firearm. (“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson). Thirdly, denying a “free man” one right is bogus. And last but not least, allowing someone that is to dangerous to walk the street to partake of every “privilege” a free man does while trying to deny one “Constitutionally protected RIGHT that truely dangerous criminals do anyway is not only ludicrous, but if one actually believes it works he/she is plainly MORONIC.


Laws saying you can't own a firearm with a violent felony record shouldn't concern you unless you're a violent felon.

Any Constitutionally guaranteed right that is denied to a "free man" should be a concern to any and every honorable man. :brickwall:

Edited to add:

Why do you believe the 2nd Amendment should be the only absolute right of the Bill of Rights? None of the others are.


WarCry I’m still awaiting your answers to my questions.

I’ll answer your question with two questions. What does ”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” mean? Does any other Amendments end in that phrase?

Another heads up for you. “Congress shall make no law”. Do you know what amendment starts with that? I’d say that’s pretty absolute also. But you wouldn't know it by the unconstitutional laws.

IhRedrider
12-12-2011, 19:53
Jerry,

I'm glad to see that we are not at odds. Keep up the good fight. To anyone who hasn't thought about it, what are you going to do to protect your freedoms. That is actually just a question for you to think about and requires no response here. If you haven't given it some serious thought, when the time comes to act, you will not act and you will lose whatever they have come to take.

Jerry
12-12-2011, 22:04
Jerry,

I'm glad to see that we are not at odds. Keep up the good fight. To anyone who hasn't thought about it, what are you going to do to protect your freedoms. That is actually just a question for you to think about and requires no response here. If you haven't given it some serious thought, when the time comes to act, you will not act and you will lose whatever they have come to take.


I’ll be happy to answer that one. I lived through Katrina and the aftermath. Guess who’s guns they did not take and who had no intention of letting them take them. :sadangel:

eracer
12-13-2011, 06:33
Are you that slow? Bottle + gasoline + fire = arsonist. Do you know how many people are killed yearly in arson fires? Probably not!Please...



So let me see… Because habitual “violent” offenders will have guns if our right is not restricted we should be OK with having our right infringed. Right? Here's a little clue for you. They have guns anyway. So you want to restrict a right because YOU have irrational fears. Name me a case where a law has stopped a criminal from committing a criminal offense. :upeyes:How is a background check restricting my right to own a gun? I own many handguns, and before I got my C/C permit I passed many backgrounds checks. My right to own a handgun has never been infringed.

(As an aside, perhaps you should tone down the patronizing attitude. You are a moderator, and should be setting an example for rational, respectful dialog.)

Jerry
12-13-2011, 10:14
Please...



How is a background check restricting my right to own a gun? I own many handguns, and before I got my C/C permit I passed many backgrounds checks. My right to own a handgun has never been infringed.

Did you read this thread? Evidentially not! Either that are you are that slow? Many, many people have holds put on their purchases or are out right denied when they have done nothing wrong.


(As an aside, perhaps you should tone down the patronizing attitude. You are a moderator, and should be setting an example for rational, respectful dialog.)

Tone it down? I have dealt with your type for far too many years. It’s not enough you want to control my 2nd. Amendment right you want to control my 1st. as well. I have said nothing that brakes GT rules.

I have stated fact and asked questions seeking answers from people who don’t have facts, only emotional notions, in order to open their eyes. Some are just too stupid to comprehend.

Javelin
12-13-2011, 10:33
What the hell is wrong with people anymore? It seems that there is a huge liberal shift and sheeple movement that has taken hold in the US and I am seeing it even here on GT.

Did the liberal underground shut off it's servers or something and folks are ending up here?

Jerry
12-13-2011, 12:38
What the hell is wrong with people anymore? It seems that there is a huge liberal shift and sheeple movement that has taken hold in the US and I am seeing it even here on GT.

Did the liberal underground shut off it's servers or something and folks are ending up here?


They have become far to dependant on gummeyment nanny. They are willing to give up REAL freedom in lieu of PERCEIVED freedom. The false sense of security. They believe they are more safe being watched over and told what to do than they could be depending on their own abilities. Problem is, for too many need a nanny telling them what to do. Just look how they think. Poor things are scared of their own shadows.

Still others just like to “believe” they can control others. Truth is they have no control because free men wont knuckle under and criminals will do as the damn well please regardless of laws. They aren’t smart enough to understand that controlling honorable men has no bearing on controlling criminals, crime, or keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals or idiots.

They don’t have to be liberal to be an idiot. However being an idiot lends very well to liberal tendencies.

I’m sure that will bring the MORONS out of the woodwork. :upeyes:

eracer
12-13-2011, 14:23
Did you read this thread? Evidentially not! Either that are you are that slow? Many, many people have holds put on their purchases or are out right denied when they have done nothing wrong.




Tone it down? I have dealt with your type for far too many years. It’s not enough you want to control my 2nd. Amendment right you want to control my 1st. as well. I have said nothing that brakes GT rules.

I have stated fact and asked questions seeking answers from people who don’t have facts, only emotional notions, in order to open their eyes. Some are just too stupid to comprehend.I suppose you think that we shouldn't teach the English language to our children. Rules and regulation that govern speech? Force them to live by society's rules? Outrageous! A clear violation of their right to free speech!!

Next time someone starts a thread asking for opinions, perhaps you could lay off the personal attacks when someone gives an opinion that differs from yours (which is all you've stated - opinion.)

Or are you incapable of that?

Jerry
12-13-2011, 15:04
I suppose you think that we shouldn't teach the English language to our children. Rules and regulation that govern speech? Force them to live by society's rules? Outrageous! A clear violation of their right to free speech!!

Next time someone starts a thread asking for opinions, perhaps you could lay off the personal attacks when someone gives an opinion that differs from yours (which is all you've stated - opinion.)

Or are you incapable of that?


I've given more than openion. I’ve stated verifiable facts. More Guns Less Crime, John Lotts Jr. Read it you need it. :upeyes:

Show me where I personally attacked you. No, never mind, because you are trying to use a typical “liberal” trick. If you don’t have facts and a logical argument muddy the waters with physicobable. Doesn't work on me. :rofl:

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with teaching on not teaching the English language. What rock did you crawl out from under? The more you post the more proof there is that you are clueless of the U. S. Constitution and common sense. :wow:

Honorable men don’t need to be forced to live by societies rules and criminals cannot be forced to and don’t. But then I wouldn't expect you to comprehend that.

Post factual information and or a “sensible” arguments or you may as well crewel back under your liberal rock. :yawn:

ChadN.
12-13-2011, 15:10
"Do you support gun control"

Don't know why this question was asked in the first place...

eracer
12-13-2011, 15:14
I've given more than openion. I’ve stated verifiable facts. More Guns Less Crime, John Lotts Jr. Read it you need it. :upeyes:

Show me where I personally attacked you. No, never mind, because you are trying to use a typical “liberal” trick. If you don’t have facts and a logical argument muddy the waters with physicobable. Doesn't work on me. :rofl:

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with teaching on not teaching the English language. What rock did you crawl out from under? The more you post the more proof there is that you are clueless of the Your failu U. S. Constitution and common sense. :wow:

Honorable men don’t need to be forced to live by societies rules and criminals cannot be forced to and don’t. But then I wouldn't expect you to comprehend that.

Post factual information and or a “sensible” arguments or you may as well crewel back under your liberal rock. :yawn:You have absolutely nothing to say that interests me anymore. Failing to accept reality is not the path to liberty - as much as you and your pointless, patronizing comments say otherwise.

IhRedrider
12-13-2011, 18:22
"Do you support gun control"

Don't know why this question was asked in the first place...


I believe I answered this question when I said that I wanted people to truly examine their motivations for supporting ANY measure of gun control by legislation. As we see there are a lot of shills and tares in the fold. I think they are more dangerous than the professed enemy and they ned to be exposed for what they are.

eracer

How is a background check restricting my right to own a gun? I own many handguns, and before I got my C/C permit I passed many backgrounds checks. My right to own a handgun has never been infringed.


I think you missed the point. The Constitution is not to protect just eracer's freedoms. The Constitution is here to protect ALL free men's RIGHTS. So if a background check dose not infringe on a free man's RIGHT to own and bear arms. Why even waste time money and effort to enact ANY background checks? Before anyone else chimes in I'll say why. It is so one group of men can regulate/control/deny another group of men their RIGHTS.

Some of us swore an oath to protect the Constitution and by proxy ALL free men's RIGHTS as documented in the Constitution.

I suppose you think that we shouldn't teach the English language to our children. Rules and regulation that govern speech? Force them to live by society's rules? Outrageous! A clear violation of their right to free speech!!
I'm sorry, but WTF? That's a comment even a yellow-bellied liberal would be embarrassed to say. Maybe your computer was in the process of crashing when that got posted and you can change what was posted to what you actually meant to say.

WarCry
12-13-2011, 18:42
I believe I answered this question when I said that I wanted people to truly examine their motivations for supporting ANY measure of gun control by legislation. As we see there are a lot of shills and tares in the fold. I think they are more dangerous than the professed enemy and they ned to be exposed for what they are.




Perhaps - not certainly, just perhaps - you're trying to FORCE an issue to be black and white when it is NOT that simple.

IhRedrider
12-13-2011, 19:27
warcry

I will admit that I tend to see the world through a Right/Wrong Black/White lens.

However, you have to admit that the terminology of "shall not be infringed" in the context of the second amendment is very firm and without room for interpretation.

I also have a very strong opinion on what many men will do to other men in their pursuit of their own agenda. This opinion is based on what history tells us about the action of evil men, not to mention what I have personally seen other people do to their fellow man. People are twisted and bent on self satisfaction at the expense of others. I don't plan to participate in this equation as "others" and I would like to see others plan to not participate with me filing the roll of the oppressor. The best way I see for this to happen is a strict adherence to all of the rights documented in the Constitution. Freedom of expressing what you think/feel/witness is paramount in keeping people "in check". Freedom to keep and bear arms is paramount to keeping the a fore mentioned freedom. I cannot expect to have the freedom afforded me by my Creator as documented in the Constitution, and deny ANY other free man the same freedoms. I refuse to be a hypocrite, even if it puts me at risk.

Jerry
12-13-2011, 19:41
You have absolutely nothing to say that interests me anymore.

:rofl: Yet you keep reading an posting replies. :okie: :animlol:


Failing to accept reality is not the path to liberty - as much as you and your pointless, patronizing comments say otherwise.

You really didn’t need to post that. You have made everyone quite aware that you have no concept of reality and have no intension of following the path of liberty set in motion by the forefathers and guaranteed by the Constitution.

"Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." (John Quincy Adams)

You and your ilk have no idea what they sacrificed or how to preserve what they gave us. :honkie:

Jerry
12-13-2011, 19:46
warcry

I will admit that I tend to see the world through a Right/Wrong Black/White lens.

However, you have to admit that the terminology of "shall not be infringed" in the context of the second amendment is very firm and without room for interpretation.

I also have a very strong opinion on what many men will do to other men in their pursuit of their own agenda. This opinion is based on what history tells us about the action of evil men, not to mention what I have personally seen other people do to their fellow man. People are twisted and bent on self satisfaction at the expense of others. I don't plan to participate in this equation as "others" and I would like to see others plan to not participate with me filing the roll of the oppressor. The best way I see for this to happen is a strict adherence to all of the rights documented in the Constitution. Freedom of expressing what you think/feel/witness is paramount in keeping people "in check". Freedom to keep and bear arms is paramount to keeping the a fore mentioned freedom. I cannot expect to have the freedom afforded me by my Creator as documented in the Constitution, and deny ANY other free man the same freedoms. I refuse to be a hypocrite, even if it puts me at risk.

So simple a concept yet so difficult for so many grasp. :thumbsup:

eracer
12-14-2011, 06:58
I believe I answered this question when I said that I wanted people to truly examine their motivations for supporting ANY measure of gun control by legislation. As we see there are a lot of shills and tares in the fold. I think they are more dangerous than the professed enemy and they ned to be exposed for what they are.

eracer



I think you missed the point. The Constitution is not to protect just eracer's freedoms. The Constitution is here to protect ALL free men's RIGHTS. So if a background check dose not infringe on a free man's RIGHT to own and bear arms. Why even waste time money and effort to enact ANY background checks? Before anyone else chimes in I'll say why. It is so one group of men can regulate/control/deny another group of men their RIGHTS.

Some of us swore an oath to protect the Constitution and by proxy ALL free men's RIGHTS as documented in the Constitution.


I'm sorry, but WTF? That's a comment even a yellow-bellied liberal would be embarrassed to say. Maybe your computer was in the process of crashing when that got posted and you can change what was posted to what you actually meant to say.Hopefully I can answer without igniting another round of insults (yellow-bellied liberal is pretty lame, so I'll just ignore that.)

We live in a society with rules that protect free men. The founding fathers knew this, and those of us who understand that there are people who ignore those rules (dangerous recidivist felons and deranged individuals) are not 'gun-grabbing liberals', but realists. We desire democracy, not anarchy.

The laws that limit our rights exist because we have a judicial system that doesn't work to keep dangerous criminals in prison, or insane people off the street. If it did, if we could somehow identify rapists and murderous psychopaths at birth, then we wouldn't need laws to protect us from them. Are the laws perfect? No, but they do some good.

Anarchists live in a fantasy world where codified laws are not needed, where 'free men' protect their lives, property, and family with force and firepower. Nice dream, but just a dream.

You see background checks as in infringement. I see them as an inconvenience - one I accept as a free man. One that does filter out felons (although doesn't do a good enough job filtering out nutjobs) during the firearm purchase process.

Would I like to live a world where anyone could buy any weapon without any restrictions? Sure. But that world doesn't exist, and I've never been denied the right to own any gun I want, because the laws don't prohibit me from doing so. Nor do they prohibit any free man. They inconvenience us, and the question should be: "What inconvenience are you willing to accept as the price of freedom?" In a perfect world? None. In the world in which we live, more than I like. But I accept it because I'm a realist.

I know and have heard all the arguments. Screaming them back at me doesn't help to 'open my mind' or 'make me see' anything. I've been shooting for 35 years, and have been a Life Member of the NRA for most of that time. I get that there are gun-grabbers out there. I'm simply not one of them. I do however happen to differ with those who believe in absolutes.

As for the comments about 'English'...OK, that was a bit 'out there.'

What I was trying to say is that we accept that there are rules governing the tools we use to express our thoughts. Why do we accept those rules, but think that there should be no rules governing whether dangerous felons and psychopaths own guns? Because they will get them anyway? You want to make it easier for them? They'll just use knives? Do you honestly believe that a knife is the same as a gun? Limes? Really?

The 'give an inch, take a mile' argument has some merit, and I wish it wasn't relevant, but in this world, a world with laws and prisons in which we are still under assault from criminals and untreated lunatics, the danger is real, and while we need to rely on ourselves to protect the things we care about, we need to accept that we can't do it alone. We need to give an inch to GET a mile.

I spend a lot of time on primary school campuses. I can't carry my gun there. Does that bother me? A little. I also have to submit to and pass Level II background checks in order to be allowed on school property (the Jessica Lunsford act - look it up.) Does it bother me that I have to jump through those hoops in order to have rules in place that will stop a known sex offender from having access to the children in those same schools? A little. But I accept it as a good thing. Will it eliminate the danger altogether? Nope. But it adds a filter that makes it more difficult for a criminal to commit a heinous crime against a child.

The answer is not to give give dangerous felons and lunatics unfettered access to weapons. Again (and a point that seems to be missed and/or willfully ignored by the anarchists) WE CAN'T LOCK UP OR CURE ALL THE DANGEROUS PEOPLE FOREVER. And more importantly, as a law-abiding, gun-carrying citizen, I can't be judge, jury, and executioner.

I've lived my whole life able to purchase any gun I want, and have never been more than slightly inconvenienced (except for NFA items, which have been more than a slight inconvenience, but merely an inconvenience nonetheless.) Sorry for those who have had a problem due to a bureaucratic screw-up, but that's the nature of things. No system is perfect. I live in the best country in the world, partly because tomorrow I can walk into any gun shop and purchase a handgun or rifle (NFA items aside - and yes, I think the NFA should be repealed,) and walk out the door with it. Because I'm a law-abiding FREE MAN. Are the current laws that affect me 100% right? No. But the alternative (none at all) is simply not rational.

expatman
12-14-2011, 08:09
It all seems pretty cut and dry to me. The only constitutional way to regulate ownership and/or possession of firearms of any kind is through a constitutional amendment. Therefore all laws that infringe upon the 2A in anyway are by their nature unconstitutional. We have a process for enacting amendments. If some of you want to change what the constitution says then feel free to begin the amendment process.

Gunnut 45/454
12-14-2011, 10:46
WarCry
I love this! All coming from a guy that lives in one of the most restricted states for gun ownership! So you like having to beg the state to own a gun, you like the fact that they can come get your guns at anytime and will if your FOID is not renewed on time! You like the fact you can't transfer a firearm to anyone with out going to a FFL, Can't even buy ammo with out the FOID. Can't get a permit to carry unless your one of the privileged few politians! You do relise that all your restrictions you have on ownership are even in violation of your own States Constitution!!! Even thought the SCOTUS said you have a right to own and carry your state still feels the need to violate that right! If you so love having your rights restricted I say you go right ahead we Free Americans will not tolerate any Infringements! And to your stats on the amount of people killed with firearms maybe you should qualify that with the truth that most of those killed with firearms are criminals or by criminal acts! We kill way more people with cars so are you for banning driving! Understand one thing we that respect the COTUS will never bow to those that want to remove it and its protections from Government interfearance in our lives. :supergrin:

glock30user
12-14-2011, 10:49
i believe in the same controls as we have on the first and forth amendments, very little to none. How can you limit God given rights?!?!

Jerry
12-14-2011, 11:28
Hopefully I can answer without igniting another round of insults (yellow-bellied liberal is pretty lame, so I'll just ignore that.)

We live in a society with rules that protect free men. The founding fathers knew this, and those of us who understand that there are people who ignore those rules (dangerous recidivist felons and deranged individuals) are not 'gun-grabbing liberals', but realists. We desire democracy, not anarchy.

The laws that limit our rights exist because we have a judicial system that doesn't work to keep dangerous criminals in prison, or insane people off the street. If it did, if we could somehow identify rapists and murderous psychopaths at birth, then we wouldn't need laws to protect us from them. Are the laws perfect? No, but they do some good.

Anarchists live in a fantasy world where codified laws are not needed, where 'free men' protect their lives, property, and family with force and firepower. Nice dream, but just a dream.

You see background checks as in infringement. I see them as an inconvenience - one I accept as a free man. One that does filter out felons (although doesn't do a good enough job filtering out nutjobs) during the firearm purchase process.

Would I like to live a world where anyone could buy any weapon without any restrictions? Sure. But that world doesn't exist, and I've never been denied the right to own any gun I want, because the laws don't prohibit me from doing so. Nor do they prohibit any free man. They inconvenience us, and the question should be: "What inconvenience are you willing to accept as the price of freedom?" In a perfect world? None. In the world in which we live, more than I like. But I accept it because I'm a realist.

I know and have heard all the arguments. Screaming them back at me doesn't help to 'open my mind' or 'make me see' anything. I've been shooting for 35 years, and have been a Life Member of the NRA for most of that time. I get that there are gun-grabbers out there. I'm simply not one of them. I do however happen to differ with those who believe in absolutes.

As for the comments about 'English'...OK, that was a bit 'out there.'

What I was trying to say is that we accept that there are rules governing the tools we use to express our thoughts. Why do we accept those rules, but think that there should be no rules governing whether dangerous felons and psychopaths own guns? Because they will get them anyway? You want to make it easier for them? They'll just use knives? Do you honestly believe that a knife is the same as a gun? Limes? Really?

The 'give an inch, take a mile' argument has some merit, and I wish it wasn't relevant, but in this world, a world with laws and prisons in which we are still under assault from criminals and untreated lunatics, the danger is real, and while we need to rely on ourselves to protect the things we care about, we need to accept that we can't do it alone. We need to give an inch to GET a mile.

I spend a lot of time on primary school campuses. I can't carry my gun there. Does that bother me? A little. I also have to submit to and pass Level II background checks in order to be allowed on school property (the Jessica Lunsford act - look it up.) Does it bother me that I have to jump through those hoops in order to have rules in place that will stop a known sex offender from having access to the children in those same schools? A little. But I accept it as a good thing. Will it eliminate the danger altogether? Nope. But it adds a filter that makes it more difficult for a criminal to commit a heinous crime against a child.

The answer is not to give give dangerous felons and lunatics unfettered access to weapons. Again (and a point that seems to be missed and/or willfully ignored by the anarchists) WE CAN'T LOCK UP OR CURE ALL THE DANGEROUS PEOPLE FOREVER. And more importantly, as a law-abiding, gun-carrying citizen, I can't be judge, jury, and executioner.

I've lived my whole life able to purchase any gun I want, and have never been more than slightly inconvenienced (except for NFA items, which have been more than a slight inconvenience, but merely an inconvenience nonetheless.) Sorry for those who have had a problem due to a bureaucratic screw-up, but that's the nature of things. No system is perfect. I live in the best country in the world, partly because tomorrow I can walk into any gun shop and purchase a handgun or rifle (NFA items aside - and yes, I think the NFA should be repealed,) and walk out the door with it. Because I'm a law-abiding FREE MAN. Are the current laws that affect me 100% right? No. But the alternative (none at all) is simply not rational.

Again you have posted a load of manure. You admit you can’t control criminals but you believe in restricting the rights of honorable men to control criminals. Too bad you can’t see the idiocy in that.

You say you’ve lived your whole life being able to purchase just about any firearm you wanted with just minor inconvenience. Just about? Sounds like infringement. Last rifle I purchased, a .22LR bolt action I drove 100 miles to purchase. I had to drive that distance twice because of a hold put on me by NICS. I’m not a criminal; I gave them my full name including my middle name which isn’t a common one and my SS#. Yet I had to drive 400 miles rather 200 to purchase a 5 SHOT BOLT ACTION 22 LR. I suppose you’d call that a minor inconvenience. I call it an infringement.

When I was boy “surplus” military rifles could be ordered through the mail for $18.00. Now one must pay to go through a course to have the PRIVILEGE of paying over $500.00 for a beat to death M1 or you can pay a premium and get one in decent shape. Just a minor inconvenience right?

I’ll bet you are the type that believes the government should robe the rich and give to the poor but believe if a man can’t afford to pay to jump through all the government hoops he should not be ALLOWED to own a firearm. Do you know the origin of gun control? The white man was AFRAID of freed slave having guns. What keeps gun control going? PEOPLE THAT ARE AFRAID! It’s emotionally driven and has no basis in reality. YOU CANNOT CONTROL CRIME OR CRIMINALS THROUGH GUN CONTROL.

If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should ever deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution—certainly would, if such a right w"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of ere a vital one. Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March, 1861

tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, 1783

They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. [Benjamin Franklin, 1759]






Read expatman’s post #96. Then reread it again and then at least one more time and maybe it will sink in. AS OF TODAY ALL FIREARMS RESTRICTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Jerry
12-14-2011, 11:32
WarCry
I love this! All coming from a guy that lives in one of the most restricted states for gun ownership! So you like having to beg the state to own a gun, you like the fact that they can come get your guns at anytime and will if your FOID is not renewed on time! You like the fact you can't transfer a firearm to anyone with out going to a FFL, Can't even buy ammo with out the FOID. Can't get a permit to carry unless your one of the privileged few politians! You do relise that all your restrictions you have on ownership are even in violation of your own States Constitution!!! Even thought the SCOTUS said you have a right to own and carry your state still feels the need to violate that right! If you so love having your rights restricted I say you go right ahead we Free Americans will not tolerate any Infringements! And to your stats on the amount of people killed with firearms maybe you should qualify that with the truth that most of those killed with firearms are criminals or by criminal acts! We kill way more people with cars so are you for banning driving! Understand one thing we that respect the COTUS will never bow to those that want to remove it and its protections from Government interfearance in our lives. :supergrin:

Take note! Those that have the most restrictions placed on them want more restrictions place on others. I’m pretty sure it’s the old… IF I CAN’T HAVE IT NOBODY SHOULD MENTALITY.

eracer
12-14-2011, 11:34
i believe in the same controls as we have on the first and forth amendments, very little to none. How can you limit God given rights?!?!
Does an instant background check limit your right to own a gun? If you're a law-abiding individual in Florida it doesn't.

WarCry
12-14-2011, 12:18
Take not! Those that have the most restrictions placed on them want more restrictions place on others. I’m pretty sure it’s the old… [B]IF I CAN’T HAVE IT NOBODY SHOULD MENTALITY.

I don't care if you're a moderator, you're talking out of your ass with nothing to back up your statements. If you decide to come down on me for this, I'll take it to the boss because you attitude in this entire forum sucks.

Tell me, please, where I EVER advocated more restrictions. I'm talking about restrictions that are already in place - criminals, mentally ill - that I support.

And Gunnut, you also seem to talking from your backside. Yes, all of those restrictions are in place, but what makes you think I'm just sitting back and waiting? The Supreme Court has NOT incorporated carrying rights to the states yet. In both Heller and McDonald, they've stopped just short of making that commitment, so 1) you're assuming that people here like it the way it is and 2) you're believing something that is absolutely not true about the Supreme Court rulings. Look up ANY legal brief about the cases and you'll see. Trust me, I've read them thoroughly.

I'm active at City (using Home Rule), county, and state levels to make the needed changes in IL law. Yes, we're behind every other state, but it's not like every state was founded with those rights. It has been a fight for DECADES and IL is one of the final battlefields. The fight isn't won, but it certainly isn't over.

But even with the right to carry, that doesn't mean that people that have a history of violence need to have a gun. And if you believe they should be locked away and the key tossed, then you're toss out OTHER portions of the Constitution, like that pesky restriction on cruel and unusual punishment. Armed robbery is a felony. That takes you off the "able to keep a gun" list. But that person should not be in jail for 60, 70 or more years. That's moronic and an absolutely infantile point of view that is, frankly, contrary to every concept of civilized society.

So what you accuse me of - try to take my rights, I'll take yours instead! - is EXACTLY what you're advocating. Don't put restrictions on guns, rather, remove common sense on criminal sentencing.

There are several people - moderator included - that are the absolute poster-children for the gun-grabbers because of lunatic ideas.

bandmasterjf
12-14-2011, 13:33
I think a person should have the right to prohibit the use or carrying of firearms on his personal property. Rationale: I don't want someone to be able to come on my land/in my house with a gun unless I give him permission. Public places except maybe bars should be open to carry. A nation recipricacy law would be nice. I may be outside the norm, but I think non-violent, non-drug related, non repetitive felons should be able to have firearms. I'm not sure one mistake, even a big one should make you forfit your right to protect yourself and family.

bandmasterjf
12-14-2011, 13:53
I support sensible gun control 100%.

Background checks I support. No criminals owning firearms I support. No mentally deranged people owning firearms I support. Junk gun bans (REAL junk guns, not just guns that aren't Brady Campaign friendly) I support. Licensing to carry firearms on a shall-issue basis....I support, but not that strongly.

I can't think of many other gun control measures I support.

So poor people who can't afford a good gun shouldn't have guns?:dunno:

bandmasterjf
12-14-2011, 14:09
And I don’t know how many times I have to say this but here I go again. If a person is too dangerous to possess a firearm they are too dangerous to be walking the street.

I agree with most of what you're saying here Jerry, but what about a 25 year old mentally retarded person that's on a 1st grade level who has never done anything violent, but doesn't understand that they have a deadly weapon. Should they be able to carry? Or perhaps a guy who has sevier anger issues and fits of rage? Or a schizophrenic who has lost touch with reality? A firearm does two things, it makes those who can't defend themself able to or gives one person the ability to protect more people from a greater distance. That's a great thing. But it also makes someone who is dangerous a lot more dangerous. Moreso than a knife, rock or club. It amplifies their ability to do harm. That is reality. There is no arguing that. It makes 75 year old grandma as powerfull as the gangbanger, but it also makes the gang banger a much greater threat. I think we can all agree that most laws are written only to punish people if they get caught. I get that. Laws do nothing to keep guns out of most criminals hands, though I do know several felons who don't have guns, becuase they are against the law for them. Both good guys who I wouldn't have a problem shooting next to.

I don't have a problem keeping laws that punish criminals for having or using guns. I also don't have a problem with a background check. I know sometimes it doesn't work out for the best, but does anything that happens millions of times a day always work right? Heck how many mistakes does McDonald's make in a day. I still keep going back.

bandmasterjf
12-14-2011, 15:24
Too many nimrods these days buying guns. I shudder every time I read about some idiot ejecting a magazine and pulling a trigger, killing someone because they're ignorant of the basics.

As such, I support mandatory training programs. The regulation would clearly spell out that the training is to include basic gun handling and safety training only, and have very simple pass-fail qualification tests. The training should be codified, conducted by an organization like the NRA, and be a requirement to purchase a first gun.


Say what you want about freedom - with freedom comes responsibility, and a gun is a complex deadly weapon that demands training.

I shot guns of all kinds starting at 5 years old with my first bbgun. By the time I had enough money to buy a hand gun I was well versed in it's use. Should I have to go through that training? Should we be trained before becoming parents. That's a bigger responsibility.

bandmasterjf
12-14-2011, 15:28
That happens to this Customs agent I know. This guy has to walk around with a damn paper incase he gets pulled over. And flash it with 15mins of explanation to buy a gun. By the way, he has a CWP. Yeah exactly, the give him to legal right to carry a gun, but not to buy one without having to wear his uniforn(full weapons rig) into the gun store for additionalsupport of proof...
All because his felon brother used his name.

That's odd. In Arkansas if you have a CCL they don't make the call. You just fill out the trasfer info, pay and go on your merry way packin' your new gun.

IhRedrider
12-14-2011, 17:23
eracer
Hopefully I can answer without igniting another round of insults (yellow-bellied liberal is pretty lame, so I'll just ignore that.)

I hope that you do not think that I was trying to insult you. I was not. If you took that as a personal insult, I do apologize. Not trying to expain away a perceived insult, but I was only remarking on what you said, not you. In any case my apology stands.

I am glad that you admit this.

As for the comments about 'English'...OK, that was a bit 'out there.'


I guess my points are:

1. You cannot legally legislate God given Rights with man written laws, I think that is the whole point of the Constitution. If you demand your RIGHTS, you must support all free men's same RIGHTS. If you do not like this concept then you need to amend the Constitution to reflect what you want it to guarantee when it comes to rights. Or a quicker more "clean" method would be to simple render the Constitution null and void. Then we can all live under the dictatorship of whoever is in power.

2. ANY laws which regulate (in anyway) ARMS with the respect to free men. Is by definition is unconstitutional.

When you talk about background checks, What do you wish to accomplish with them. Can they do anything except regulate (infringe) upon the ability of a free man access to ARMS. They do not help anyone get ARMS. If background checks don't regulate the sale of ARMS, why even perform them?


warcry

I'm talking about restrictions that are already in place - criminals, mentally ill - that I support.

The problem I have with this is, first it is unconstitutional. Second I'd like to know how you would feel if some bureaucrat or group of bureaucrats, decided that you were mentally ill? I assume from you avatar that you have a military background. You can't possible tell me that mistakes aren't made.

Jerry
12-14-2011, 20:41
I don't care if you're a moderator, you're talking out of your ass with nothing to back up your statements. If you decide to come down on me for this, I'll take it to the boss because you attitude in this entire forum sucks.

Tell me, please, where I EVER advocated more restrictions. I'm talking about restrictions that are already in place - criminals, mentally ill - that I support.

And Gunnut, you also seem to talking from your backside. Yes, all of those restrictions are in place, but what makes you think I'm just sitting back and waiting? The Supreme Court has NOT incorporated carrying rights to the states yet. In both Heller and McDonald, they've stopped just short of making that commitment, so 1) you're assuming that people here like it the way it is and 2) you're believing something that is absolutely not true about the Supreme Court rulings. Look up ANY legal brief about the cases and you'll see. Trust me, I've read them thoroughly.

I'm active at City (using Home Rule), county, and state levels to make the needed changes in IL law. Yes, we're behind every other state, but it's not like every state was founded with those rights. It has been a fight for DECADES and IL is one of the final battlefields. The fight isn't won, but it certainly isn't over.

But even with the right to carry, that doesn't mean that people that have a history of violence need to have a gun. And if you believe they should be locked away and the key tossed, then you're toss out OTHER portions of the Constitution, like that pesky restriction on cruel and unusual punishment. Armed robbery is a felony. That takes you off the "able to keep a gun" list. But that person should not be in jail for 60, 70 or more years. That's moronic and an absolutely infantile point of view that is, frankly, contrary to every concept of civilized society.

So what you accuse me of - try to take my rights, I'll take yours instead! - is EXACTLY what you're advocating. Don't put restrictions on guns, rather, remove common sense on criminal sentencing.

There are several people - moderator included - that are the absolute poster-children for the gun-grabbers because of lunatic ideas.

Take it to whom every you want. If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.

Now before you start whining like a little girl, this is question. Are you rally this stupid?

Tell me, please, where I EVER advocated more restrictions. I'm talking about restrictions that are already in place - criminals, mentally ill - that I support.

I never said you advocated “more” restrictions. Buy your own admission… I'm talking about restrictions that are already in place
you support gun control.

And I’ll ask you AGAIN what does "shall not be infringed” mean?

Now :panties: or go find another sand box to play in. :wedgie:

Jerry
12-14-2011, 21:02
I agree with most of what you're saying here Jerry, but what about a 25 year old mentally retarded person that's on a 1st grade level who has never done anything violent, but doesn't understand that they have a deadly weapon. Should they be able to carry? Or perhaps a guy who has sevier anger issues and fits of rage? Or a schizophrenic who has lost touch with reality? A firearm does two things, it makes those who can't defend themself able to or gives one person the ability to protect more people from a greater distance. That's a great thing. But it also makes someone who is dangerous a lot more dangerous. Moreso than a knife, rock or club. It amplifies their ability to do harm. That is reality. There is no arguing that. It makes 75 year old grandma as powerfull as the gangbanger, but it also makes the gang banger a much greater threat. I think we can all agree that most laws are written only to punish people if they get caught. I get that. Laws do nothing to keep guns out of most criminals hands, though I do know several felons who don't have guns, becuase they are against the law for them. Both good guys who I wouldn't have a problem shooting next to.

I don't have a problem keeping laws that punish criminals for having or using guns. I also don't have a problem with a background check. I know sometimes it doesn't work out for the best, but does anything that happens millions of times a day always work right? Heck how many mistakes does McDonald's make in a day. I still keep going back.

If someone has been adjudicated mentally defective they aren’t free are they? They must have an overseer correct? It’s the overseer’s duty to decide if they can have a firearm or not. And the overseer is held responsible for their actions.

Now there is a fly in this ointment. A liberal Dr. and a liberal court will say someone that wants to carry a firearm is mentally defective. So what checks and balance would you put in place? I prefer to take the chance that a mentally defective person would first, have to want to purchase a firearm and second actually do harm with it. I'd rather take that chance than give liberals the chance to curtail the rights of honorable me. The mentally defective may purchase a firearm. He may do harm with it. I can grantee the gun grabbers will rule people that want firearms to be mentally defective.

I had a problem with NICS when they first talked about it. I knew it would be FUBAR. Now that I’m one of the people being screwed by it my fears have become reality. I’ll bet a dollar to a donut that if you start have holds put on your purchases, or worse yet, are out right denied, you'll start having a BIG problem with it.


A firearm does not amplify danger anymore than gasoline, matches, fertilizer and diesel fuel. It’s very easy to mix the right combinations and do a lot more harm in a shorter period of time than one can with a firearm. Hell a person can take out more people with an automobile in a shorter amount of time than with a firearm.

Scattergun1187
12-14-2011, 21:07
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would agree.

Cambo
12-14-2011, 21:23
I can't believe this thread is still going. I can't believe there are people on here acting like anti-gunners. To those obsessed with keeping guns out of criminal hands, what difference does it make what someone uses to commit a crime? A crime is a crime regardless of what is used. It is your emotional immaturity that blinds you from logic and reason. You say "you could kill a lot people with a gun". I say you could kill a lot more with homemade explosives, a truck, etc. Stop acting like guns are the ONLY weapon someone could use to inflict harm. There is no machete control, there is no samurai sword control, there is no gasoline/matches control. Therefore, there should be no gun control, end of story.

Jerry
12-14-2011, 21:30
I can't believe this thread is still going. I can't believe there are people on here acting like anti-gunners. To those obsessed with keeping guns out of criminal hands, what difference does it make what someone uses to commit a crime? A crime is a crime regardless of what is used. It is your emotional immaturity that blinds you from logic and reason. You say "you could kill a lot people with a gun". I say you could kill a lot more with homemade explosives, a truck, etc. Stop acting like guns are the ONLY weapon someone could use to inflict harm. There is no machete control, there is no samurai sword control, there is no gasoline/matches control. Therefore, there should be no gun control, end of story.

Watch that emotional immaturity stuff. Some will take it as personal attacks. :whistling:

Cambo
12-15-2011, 05:13
Watch that emotional immaturity stuff. Some will take it as personal attacks. :whistling:

Not directed at anyone in particular, just the general mindset.

Scattergun1187
12-15-2011, 06:33
What the hell is wrong with people anymore? It seems that there is a huge liberal shift and sheeple movement that has taken hold in the US and I am seeing it even here on GT.

Did the liberal underground shut off it's servers or something and folks are ending up here?


I think the liberal underground did shut off it's servers. Wish they would find somewhere else to spew there liberal views.

For those against criminals that have guns. Well a criminal can get what ever he/she wants with the right amount of money. Plus they can get full auto, suppressors and other items that a normal citizen can't.
So no matter how you want to spin it. It will not work.
And law abiding citizens have to fly the straight and narrow for Class III items or even a regular handgun.
But not a criminal; where their is a way they will get it.

eracer
12-15-2011, 06:35
I shot guns of all kinds starting at 5 years old with my first bbgun. By the time I had enough money to buy a hand gun I was well versed in it's use. Should I have to go through that training? Should we be trained before becoming parents. That's a bigger responsibility.
You make a good point. So how would you address the issue of those idiots who buy a gun to impress their girlfriends, then shoot their best friend in the face because they never learned how to safely handle a gun? Chalk it up to Darwinism? Acceptable losses?

TheJ
12-15-2011, 06:59
...
But even with the right to carry, that doesn't mean that people that have a history of violence need to have a gun. And if you believe they should be locked away and the key tossed, then you're toss out OTHER portions of the Constitution, like that pesky restriction on cruel and unusual punishment. Armed robbery is a felony. That takes you off the "able to keep a gun" list. But that person should not be in jail for 60, 70 or more years. That's moronic and an absolutely infantile point of view that is, frankly, contrary to every concept of civilized society.

So what you accuse me of - try to take my rights, I'll take yours instead! - is EXACTLY what you're advocating. Don't put restrictions on guns, rather, remove common sense on criminal sentencing.


What constitutes a "history of violence? Who do think should determine that? Do you believe that (as it is now) ANY felony conviction (even non-violent ones) should bar someone from there basic civil right of self defense for the rest of their entire life? Even after they have served what we said was their sentence? Or would you be ok if the laws were changed to only prevent violent felons from owning firearms?

When somebody convicted of a violent crime as already served their sentence and is out, do honestly believe that laws against them owning or carrying a firearms actually do ANYTHING to prevent them from harming/killing others should they actually be resolute to do so again?

I can imagine a scenario where an attractive 18 year old girl gets caught up with bad types, ends up committing a felony and is convicted. She serves her sentence and years later she is released. So we as a society have said she has served her sentence and released her and told her to go be a productive member of our society. She makes all attempts to go the straight and narrow. Doesn't have much money so it would be logical that she lives in the crappiest (read most dangerous) part of town. So then she is brutally raped and murdered in the most horrid way imaginable because we deny her basic civil right of self defense for the rest of her (now abbreviated) life. Some would say we practically guaranteed it would happen to her. Effectively making her brutal rape and murder part of her sentence.
That seems to be "cruel and unusual punishment" to me.

eracer
12-15-2011, 07:21
eracer


I hope that you do not think that I was trying to insult you. I was not. If you took that as a personal insult, I do apologize. Not trying to expain away a perceived insult, but I was only remarking on what you said, not you. In any case my apology stands.

No, it was not you to whom I was referring.

I am glad that you admit this.

Yes, but can you think about what I said without immediately dismissing it? Can you consider that the regulation of speech that we accept as a society by establishing rules for language is akin to the regulation of arms? It is a rather abstract thought, but if you think about it, you will see some truth.

I guess my points are:

1. You cannot legally legislate God given Rights with man written laws, I think that is the whole point of the Constitution. If you demand your RIGHTS, you must support all free men's same RIGHTS. If you do not like this concept then you need to amend the Constitution to reflect what you want it to guarantee when it comes to rights. Or a quicker more "clean" method would be to simple render the Constitution null and void. Then we can all live under the dictatorship of whoever is in power.

2. ANY laws which regulate (in anyway) ARMS with the respect to free men. Is by definition is unconstitutional.

When you talk about background checks, What do you wish to accomplish with them. Can they do anything except regulate (infringe) upon the ability of a free man access to ARMS. They do not help anyone get ARMS. If background checks don't regulate the sale of ARMS, why even perform them?

But the point is that, as a society, we regulate behavior all the time. The 1st amendment is highly regulated. Can you burn the US flag inside of a federal courtroom? Can you openly threaten to kill the prez? Is that what you want?

The 1st amendment prohibits the '...abridging of freedom of speech.' Prohibiting the above acts is in direct violation of the 1st amendment - if you believe that 'abridging = prohibiting,' and not 'abridging = regulating.'

What about that pesky 10th amendment? Should each state be allowed to determine its own adherence to the other amendments?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Inconvenience is not infringement. As long as I, as a free man and law-abiding citizen of the American society I choose to remain a member of, has the right to own to own a gun, my right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed by the enacting of certain regulations.

Many are Constitutional absolutists. I applaud your work to keep the Constitution safe against those who would destroy it. I happen to be of a more moderate mind, and accept that we live in a society that demands some level of protection against criminality that I can't provide. My right to keep and bear arms is an adjunct to the protection that I demand from society's law enforcement and judicial systems. But by demanding that protection, I must allow a certain amount of inconvenience. As long as we elect those who can hold the Constitution dear, while addressing the problems we face as a society in a rational manner, we will continue to enjoy the protection of liberty.

TheJ
12-15-2011, 07:21
You make a good point. So how would you address the issue of those idiots who buy a gun to impress their girlfriends, then shoot their best friend in the face because they never learned how to safely handle a gun? Chalk it up to Darwinism? Acceptable losses?
I know this wasn't directed at me but..
Yes.

Plenty of places do not require any training to simply own a firearm. Several states require no training to carry. Doesn't seems to be a problem at present.

You can't fix stupid.

I personally think everyone should be trained in firearm use but I don't think it should be required by law. But even with training, you would not be able to eliminate stupid people from doing stupid things. Some stupid person may think its funny to yell fire in a crowded theater but we don't legally require people to be trained to exercise there right to free speech. And we don't make it illegal to speak in a theater in an attempt to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things.

TheJ
12-15-2011, 07:52
Not meant to offend anyone but it does seem to me that many, even here, almost reflexively operate on the false premise that primarily "firearms = crime"... and almost completely gloss over that the truth that primarily "firearms = self defense". I believe that may be due to so many years of anti-gun propaganda that is so pervasive.

IMHO it is far far more important to protect everyone's right to self defense then it is to make practically futile attempts to PREvent violent/stupid/crazy people from having one particular means of harming others.

Sippo
12-15-2011, 08:59
Show me one gun control law that actually has saved lives and decreased victimization of the innocent, and then and only then would I consider it.
Maybe the Brady Bunch should troll the documents of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao to come up with justifications.

bandmasterjf
12-15-2011, 09:40
You make a good point. So how would you address the issue of those idiots who buy a gun to impress their girlfriends, then shoot their best friend in the face because they never learned how to safely handle a gun? Chalk it up to Darwinism? Acceptable losses?

What are you going to do with a guy who buys a crotch rocket and flips it over on himself and dies the first time he gets on it. It does happen. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. You can't legislate stupidity, only react to it.

If we play the "What if" game we would all sit in our homes in a plastic bubble and never move. Life is full of risk and responsibilities.

bandmasterjf
12-15-2011, 09:50
If someone has been adjudicated mentally defective they aren’t free are they? They must have an overseer correct? It’s the overseer’s duty to decide if they can have a firearm or not. And the overseer is held responsible for their actions.

Now there is a fly in this ointment. A liberal Dr. and a liberal court will say someone that wants to carry a firearm is mentally defective. So what checks and balance would you put in place? I prefer to take the chance that a mentally defective person would first, have to want to purchase a firearm and second actually do harm with it. I'd rather take that chance than give liberals the chance to curtail the rights of honorable me. The mentally defective may purchase a firearm. He may do harm with it. I can grantee the gun grabbers will rule people that want firearms to be mentally defective.

I had a problem with NICS when they first talked about it. I knew it would be FUBAR. Now that I’m one of the people being screwed by it my fears have become reality. I’ll bet a dollar to a donut that if you start have holds put on your purchases, or worse yet, are out right denied, you'll start having a BIG problem with it.


A firearm does not amplify danger anymore than gasoline, matches, fertilizer and diesel fuel. It’s very easy to mix the right combinations and do a lot more harm in a shorter period of time than one can with a firearm. Hell a person can take out more people with an automobile in a shorter amount of time than with a firearm.

But they can't stick thier car in their pocket and walk into a 7-11.:tongueout:

I can just see some idiot trying to rob a liquer store with a gas can. Uh, hey dude. If you light that match your going up too. Oh crap............never mind.


So you are unlucky and are one of the few poor souls that the NICS screws. That sucks and I can understand your frustration with it. If you were in Arkansas and had a CCL it would be a hickup in your process. The CCL would probably be delayed for a further search. The regular CCL takes 6 weeks and the delayed process is usually doubled. After you got your license your gun purchase would go like this.

Pick out a gun.
Fill out the paper work.
Show them the CCL
Pay for the gun/s
Walk out the door.

For a CCL holder they aren't required to do the background check.

And no not all "mentally defective" people have an overseer. Some do have people that look after them, but it's not required. At least not here. I had a student a few years back that was functionally retarded. I would guess his IQ was around 65-75 and he has no one to watch over him. He was a nice kid, but not everyone is. Prisons are full of people like him who have been down on thier luck and have done something against the law.

bandmasterjf
12-15-2011, 10:03
I can't believe this thread is still going. I can't believe there are people on here acting like anti-gunners. To those obsessed with keeping guns out of criminal hands, what difference does it make what someone uses to commit a crime? A crime is a crime regardless of what is used. It is your emotional immaturity that blinds you from logic and reason. You say "you could kill a lot people with a gun". I say you could kill a lot more with homemade explosives, a truck, etc. Stop acting like guns are the ONLY weapon someone could use to inflict harm. There is no machete control, there is no samurai sword control, there is no gasoline/matches control. Therefore, there should be no gun control, end of story.


Home made explosives are also illigal and get greater punishments then guns. Just sayin'

There are also penalties for assault with a deadly weapon ie. machete, samurai sward, broken coffee cup. We can't really stop most crimes, but what we can do is punish them differently for their severity. If a guy assults me with a rock it's going to hurt. If he puts a bullet in me it's going to damage me a lot worse and should be punished greater. I don't see how that's so hard to get.

bandmasterjf
12-15-2011, 10:13
I think the liberal underground did shut off it's servers. Wish they would find somewhere else to spew there liberal views.

For those against criminals that have guns. Well a criminal can get what ever he/she wants with the right amount of money. Plus they can get full auto, suppressors and other items that a normal citizen can't.
So no matter how you want to spin it. It will not work.
And law abiding citizens have to fly the straight and narrow for Class III items or even a regular handgun.
But not a criminal; where their is a way they will get it.


So it should be a gun free for all becuase criminals can get them if they really want them?:upeyes:

Are there any statistics on Class III weapons being used in crimes or is that just a fantacy that you have?

Did you know that it's perfectly legal to have Class III weapons, you just have to jump through a few more hoops. I don't have a problem with the hoops, but I don't much care for the $300 "tax"

Jerry
12-15-2011, 10:14
No, it was not you to whom I was referring.



Yes, but can you think about what I said without immediately dismissing it? Can you consider that the regulation of speech that we accept as a society by establishing rules for language is akin to the regulation of arms? It is a rather abstract thought, but if you think about it, you will see some truth.



But the point is that, as a society, we regulate behavior all the time. The 1st amendment is highly regulated. Can you burn the US flag inside of a federal courtroom? Can you openly threaten to kill the prez? Is that what you want?

The 1st amendment prohibits the '...abridging of freedom of speech.' Prohibiting the above acts is in direct violation of the 1st amendment - if you believe that 'abridging = prohibiting,' and not 'abridging = regulating.'

What about that pesky 10th amendment? Should each state be allowed to determine its own adherence to the other amendments?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Inconvenience is not infringement. As long as I, as a free man and law-abiding citizen of the American society I choose to remain a member of, has the right to own to own a gun, my right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed by the enacting of certain regulations.

Many are Constitutional absolutists. I applaud your work to keep the Constitution safe against those who would destroy it. I happen to be of a more moderate mind, and accept that we live in a society that demands some level of protection against criminality that I can't provide. My right to keep and bear arms is an adjunct to the protection that I demand from society's law enforcement and judicial systems. But by demanding that protection, I must allow a certain amount of inconvenience. As long as we elect those who can hold the Constitution dear, while addressing the problems we face as a society in a rational manner, we will continue to enjoy the protection of liberty.

Again you have a misconception brought about by the liberal, progressives, socialists, ACLU call them what you will. The first amendment does not grantee freedom of action. It’s quite specific. It’s not hard to understand, read it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No laws regarding establishment of religion or practicing religion. No law regarding free SPEECH. Are not to stop people from PEACFULLT assembling. Not to stop people from petitioning government.

Burning a flag inside any building is not freedom of speech. It’s an action and falls under arson laws. You can say I wish someone would kill the SOB (the prez). That’s freedom of speech. Threatening to kill or harm the President shows intent. The arrest would not be for saying it, but rather for what you admittedly/confessed the intent to do.

You say you are glad to have some level of protection against criminality that you can't provide. Exactly what level is that? You have a cop living with you and riding on your hip 24/7? Perhaps you actually believe laws prevent crime? They don’t! They only provide a means of punishing those that break them. You’re living in a fantasy world and you have a false sense of security.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, 1783

They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. [Benjamin Franklin, 1759]

TheJ
12-15-2011, 10:16
But they can't stick thier car in their pocket and walk into a 7-11.:tongueout:

I can just see some idiot trying to rob a liquer store with a gas can. Uh, hey dude. If you light that match your going up too. Oh crap............never mind.


:) A car may not fit in a pocket but any number of perfectly available things can be. However, there is a practically infinite number of things that one may easily use to harm/threaten others can be easily concealed...

If some idiot trying to rob a liquor store tosses half of a solo cup of gasoline onto the clerk while holding holding a zippo in the other hand, it probably wouldn't be hard to get a liquor store clerk to hand over the contents of the register.

I think the point Jerry was trying to make is that there are practically an infinite number of things that can be used to do harm and the concept that restricting firearms will actually prevent violence/crime/etc is based on a false premise.

TheJ
12-15-2011, 10:22
Home made explosives are also illigal and get greater punishments then guns. Just sayin'

There are also penalties for assault with a deadly weapon ie. machete, samurai sward, broken coffee cup. We can't really stop most crimes, but what we can do is punish them differently for their severity. If a guy assults me with a rock it's going to hurt. If he puts a bullet in me it's going to damage me a lot worse and should be punished greater. I don't see how that's so hard to get.

If your killed with a rock or a gun should the offender be punished differently?

Why would you assume that being shot will hurt you more then being beat with a rock?

What if somebody jams their fingers into your windpipe and you die... Should the punishment for that be worse or less then if they shot you and you died? And why?

bandmasterjf
12-15-2011, 10:23
Show me one gun control law that actually has saved lives and decreased victimization of the innocent, and then and only then would I consider it.
Maybe the Brady Bunch should troll the documents of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao to come up with justifications.


I could give you a Obamaeque answer about the number of jobs saved/ people saved because some idiot coudn't get a gun. But it would be just that, a wild guess.

Gun laws only keep guns out of the hand of criminals/crazies who want to get guns legally. :faint: Good point. But I still think it's a good idea.

bandmasterjf
12-15-2011, 10:24
If your killed with a rock or a gun should the offender be punished differently?

Why would you assume that being shot will hurt you more then being beat with a rock?



No

Have you ever been shot or hit with a rock? Given the choice, I'm going with the rock.

TheJ
12-15-2011, 10:27
So it should be a gun free for all becuase criminals can get them if they really want them?:upeyes:

Are there any statistics on Class III weapons being used in crimes or is that just a fantacy that you have?

Did you know that it's perfectly legal to have Class III weapons, you just have to jump through a few more hoops. I don't have a problem with the hoops, but I don't much care for the $300 "tax"

That tax in class 3 weapons could be perceived as a way of keeping the poor from exercising their right to bear arms. Some would see it as tantamount to a poll tax.

TheJ
12-15-2011, 10:34
..Gun laws only keep guns out of the hand of criminals/crazies who want to get guns legally. :faint: Good point. But I still think it's a good idea.

Logically, gun laws can only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding people. Not criminals. Criminals by definition, aren't abiding by the laws and so gun laws do not prevent them from having guns or any number of other things that may be used as weapons.

Jerry
12-15-2011, 10:44
But they can't stick thier car in their pocket and walk into a 7-11.:tongueout:

No, but they sure can drive through it. :yawn: Its done all the time. I suppose you’ve never watched world’s dumbest criminals.


I can just see some idiot trying to rob a liquer store with a gas can. Uh, hey dude. If you light that match your going up too. Oh crap............never mind.
Been done! Google is your friend.

So you are unlucky and are one of the few poor souls that the NICS screws. That sucks and I can understand your frustration with it. If you were in Arkansas and had a CCL it would be a hickup in your process. The CCL would probably be delayed for a further search. The regular CCL takes 6 weeks and the delayed process is usually doubled. After you got your license your gun purchase would go like this.

Pick out a gun.
Fill out the paper work.
Show them the CCL
Pay for the gun/s
Walk out the door.

For a CCL holder they aren't required to do the background check.

No I’m not one of the few. I’m one of the many. And if you had read my other posts you’d have seen I hold CCW and a law enforcement commission. We still have to go through NICS. Most states do!

So paying for a license for the PRIVILEGE of carrying s firearm is not an infringement? Having a hold put on your purchase is not an infringement? You’re a school teacher? Better get the dictionary out.

And no not all "mentally defective" people have an overseer. Some do have people that look after them, but it's not required. At least not here. I had a student a few years back that was functionally retarded. I would guess his IQ was around 65-75 and he has no one to watch over him. He was a nice kid, but not everyone is. Prisons are full of people like him who have been down on thier luck and have done something against the law.

So you justify restricting everyone’s else’s right because you "believe" it will stop your retarded kid from acquiring a firearm? Exactly how do you stop him? You want a gun. Stop by your local corner dope peddler, he can get you one. Dope peddling on the corner…see how laws stop crime. Heres a little clue… for you… firearms dealers nor privates citizens have to sell a firearm to anyone. If your retarded kid shows up to buy a gun legall all one has to do is say NO.

Before you try to tell others about the Constitution or teach it you’d better learn what it really says. God help us all with people like you teaching your liberal gun control bull manure to the children.

Gunnut 45/454
12-15-2011, 11:22
We live in a society with rules that protect free men. The founding fathers knew this, and those of us who understand that there are people who ignore those rules (dangerous recidivist felons and deranged individuals) are not 'gun-grabbing liberals', but realists. We desire democracy, not anarchy.


Here In lies the problem- When did we become a democracy? We are a Republic! Just shows you don't have a clue! Have you really read the laws on gun control- NONE stop these felons fron gettting a weapon, None stop them from using it! All they do is restrict lawabiding people from owning them , carring them , using them. Why do good people have to prove they are good people to the government before they can own a legal item? Why do good people have to prove they can use that legal item the way the Government says before they can carry it? Why do good people have to pay for a permit to be able to carry it?

janice6
12-15-2011, 11:46
This is a liberal trap.

If you say you are not for gun control, then they will say you are letting psychopath's have weapons.

If you say you are for gun control then they will want your gun.

If you say you are for limited gun control then you will find laws that severely restrict your weapon possession.

Gunnut 45/454
12-15-2011, 11:56
Warcry
Yes the SCOTUS said the 2nd APPLIES EQUALLY TO EVERY STATE (Incorperated)! There fore it negated most of the restrctions IL has on gun ownership. But you all just said oh well when your state still enforced there restrictions. As I've posted on other threads - the question was not asked nor did the SCOTUS define 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and because of this omission by them - either intentional or by mistake there ruling was incomplete cause any right minded person would see that if they were to actually read these words they'd have to invalidate all gun control laws as they are in direct violation of the 2nd! The Second leaves no room for Reasonable restrictions - it say's NO restrictions are allowed! I can't for the life of me understand why anyone can't see this to be the truth. And yes the founders intended this to be a BLACK AND WHITE thing -no room for interpitation!:faint:

expatman
12-15-2011, 12:04
Warcry
Yes the SCOTUS said the 2nd APPLIES EQUALLY TO EVERY STATE (Incorperated)! There fore it negated most of the restrctions IL has on gun ownership. But you all just said oh well when your state still enforced there restrictions. As I've posted on other threads - the question was not asked nor did the SCOTUS define 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and because of this omission by them - either intentional or by mistake there ruling was incomplete cause any right minded person would see that if they were to actually read these words they'd have to invalidate all gun control laws as they are in direct violation of the 2nd! The Second leaves no room for Reasonable restrictions - it say's NO restrictions are allowed! I can't for the life of me understand why anyone can't see this to be the truth. And yes the founders intended this to be a BLACK AND WHITE thing -no room for interpitation!:faint:

This is what I have always said.

If some of you want restrictions on ownership and the carrying of firearms then you need to add an amendment to the Constitution. There is even a process available for this since the founding Fathers knew that some would want to change things. Some, have seen fit to circumvent the Constitution by enacting legislation that effectively, as has been outlined in this discussion; limit or infringe upon our right to "keep and bear arms".

bandmasterjf
12-15-2011, 12:25
That tax in class 3 weapons could be perceived as a way of keeping the poor from exercising their right to bear arms. Some would see it as tantamount to a poll tax.


A poor person probably couldn't afford the thing in the first place. The class III license is nothing compared to the price of the gun.

TheJ
12-15-2011, 12:41
A poor person probably couldn't afford the thing in the first place. The class III license is nothing compared to the price of the gun.

The only reason a poor person can't afford auto weapons to begin with is that they prices are artificially super-hyper inflated by the prohibition against further production. So the transfer tax is sort of insult to injury...

And yes the $200 isn't much now but it certainly was when they came out with it in 1934. Back then only the very rich were allowed to have class 3 weapons because they were the only ones who could afford the tax. Now because of the law the tax isn't prohibitive but the artificial prices certainly are.

bandmasterjf
12-15-2011, 13:22
No, but they sure can drive through it. :yawn: Its done all the time. I suppose you’ve never watched world’s dumbest criminals.



Been done! Google is your friend.



No I’m not one of the few. I’m one of the many. And if you had read my other posts you’d have seen I hold CCW and a law enforcement commission. We still have to go through NICS. Most states do!

So paying for a license for the PRIVILEGE of carrying s firearm is not an infringement? Having a hold put on your purchase is not an infringement? You’re a school teacher? Better get the dictionary out.



So you justify restricting everyone’s else’s right because you "believe" it will stop your retarded kid from acquiring a firearm? Exactly how do you stop him? You want a gun. Stop by your local corner dope peddler, he can get you one. Dope peddling on the corner…see how laws stop crime. Heres a little clue… for you… firearms dealers nor privates citizens have to sell a firearm to anyone. If your retarded kid shows up to buy a gun legall all one has to do is say NO.

Before you try to tell others about the Constitution or teach it you’d better learn what it really says. God help us all with people like you teaching your liberal gun control bull manure to the children.


So you are just for firearms anarchy?

I don't have a problem with non-voilent/non drug felons having guns. But I don't see a law restricting violent offenders from having them is a bad thing. Yes, I'm a big boy and understand that anyone can get pretty much anything they want if they have enough money. In the case that a felon who shouldn't have a gun is caught with one I think there should be a law on the books that punishes them for it. And yes I do believe that some people forfit their right to have a gun by their past actions.

Just FYI, Just checked my county records. There are 67 inmates at the county jail waiting for trial. Two with felon in possession charges. One has an assult charge(not with the gun) the other that's the only charge. They weren't using the guns at the time, just had them in their possession. I don't know what thier orignal felony was, but at this point it doesn't matter. They were obviously doing something wrong and were caught with something they shouldn't have had. So the law got two criminals off the streets in my little corner of the world. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

bandmasterjf
12-15-2011, 13:27
No, but they sure can drive through it. :yawn: Its done all the time. I suppose you’ve never watched world’s dumbest criminals.



Been done! Google is your friend.



No I’m not one of the few. I’m one of the many. And if you had read my other posts you’d have seen I hold CCW and a law enforcement commission. We still have to go through NICS. Most states do!

So paying for a license for the PRIVILEGE of carrying s firearm is not an infringement? Having a hold put on your purchase is not an infringement? You’re a school teacher? Better get the dictionary out.



So you justify restricting everyone’s else’s right because you "believe" it will stop your retarded kid from acquiring a firearm? Exactly how do you stop him? You want a gun. Stop by your local corner dope peddler, he can get you one. Dope peddling on the corner…see how laws stop crime. Heres a little clue… for you… firearms dealers nor privates citizens have to sell a firearm to anyone. If your retarded kid shows up to buy a gun legall all one has to do is say NO.

Before you try to tell others about the Constitution or teach it you’d better learn what it really says. God help us all with people like you teaching your liberal gun control bull manure to the children.

I did read your post about having to go through all that, and it sucks that you have too. Maybe if you were in a free state like I am you wouldn't have to. You would know that if you read all my post.
Liberal gun control bull? :rofl:

I think anyone who isn't a violent felon or a drug dealer should be able to have anything they can afford. Heck I would have a tank and 50cal auto on top if I had the cash and would support your right too. How is that liberal gun control. I'm not for anarchy. That's all.

bandmasterjf
12-15-2011, 14:03
The only reason a poor person can't afford auto weapons to begin with is that they prices are artificially super-hyper inflated by the prohibition against further production. So the transfer tax is sort of insult to injury...

And yes the $200 isn't much now but it certainly was when they came out with it in 1934. Back then only the very rich were allowed to have class 3 weapons because they were the only ones who could afford the tax. Now because of the law the tax isn't prohibitive but the artificial prices certainly are.


I wouldn't mind having a full auto gun, it would be a blast. I've been thinking about a suppressor for my 223 though. That would be a lot of fun. But for me the full auto thing would be a lot like my opinion on drinking. Fun, but way too expensive to do. I can't imagnine how much ammo I would go through in a day if given the chance. I didn't know there was a prohibition on production.

eracer
12-15-2011, 14:11
IMHO it is far far more important to protect everyone's right to self defense then it is to make practically futile attempts to PREvent violent/stupid/crazy people from having one particular means of harming others.I agree. It IS far more important to ensure the former.

But I maintain that reasonable regulations enacted by reasonable men that help deter the willfully criminal and the insane from owning guns is a necessity in the society we choose to be a part of. Would you advocate a 'submachinegun' aisle in Wal-Mart, with nothing more than a barcode between a person with bad intent and the parking lot? Is that what the 2nd amendment really intends?

What is a 'well-regulated militia?' I'll answer that: A militia is an armed and prepared force of free men willing and able to defend their home and their country from foes both domestic and foreign. 'Regulated', in the era of the founding fathers, meant trained, governed, and yes, counted among the citizens. Who here believes that the criminals and the insane of their time were counted as part of the militia?

The constitution provided that each state have a militia, commanded by the governor of each state. We know this as the National Guard today. They AMENDED (not replaced) the language in the constitution to ensure that free men (law-abiding citizens not part of a state-sponsored militia) were not denied the right to own guns.

The discipline, training, and organization (regulation) implied in the language of the 2nd amendment is an adjunct to the freedom implied by the phrase 'The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.' Nothing in the language of either the original articles or the 2nd amendment denies society the right to prevent those who don't respect the rule of law to own guns.

I much prefer that we enforce laws already on the books, and I wish in my heart of hearts that we could keep the sickos and crazies locked away forever - but it ain't gonna happen, and while criminals can get guns despite the laws that inconvenience the law-abiding, those laws make it more difficult for them do so.

eracer
12-15-2011, 14:19
We live in a society with rules that protect free men. The founding fathers knew this, and those of us who understand that there are people who ignore those rules (dangerous recidivist felons and deranged individuals) are not 'gun-grabbing liberals', but realists. We desire democracy, not anarchy.


Here In lies the problem- When did we become a democracy? We are a Republic! Just shows you don't have a clue! Have you really read the laws on gun control- NONE stop these felons fron gettting a weapon, None stop them from using it! All they do is restrict lawabiding people from owning them , carring them , using them. Why do good people have to prove they are good people to the government before they can own a legal item? Why do good people have to prove they can use that legal item the way the Government says before they can carry it? Why do good people have to pay for a permit to be able to carry it?How does an instant background check NOT stop a felon from buying a gun at a retail shop? Answer: It does.

How does an instant background check stop me (a law-abiding citizen) from buying a gun at a retail shop? Answer: It does not.

As for the cost of a permit: Would you prefer that a tax pays for the bureaucracy require to manage the system? I pay for it because I know it costs money, and I know that if searched in a Terry Stop I won't go to jail for having a gun in my pocket. But Mr. Thug will, thanks to laws that prohibit felons from possessing guns.

Jerry
12-15-2011, 16:03
Not directed at anyone in particular, just the general mindset.

And you would be correct. That was a dig at the whiners not really a chastise for you. :)

Jerry
12-15-2011, 16:28
So you are just for firearms anarchy?

We lived for almost 200 years without all the unconstitutional gun laws and there wasn’t anarchy.


I don't have a problem with non-voilent/non drug felons having guns. But I don't see a law restricting violent offenders from having them is a bad thing. Yes, I'm a big boy and understand that anyone can get pretty much anything they want if they have enough money. In the case that a felon who shouldn't have a gun is caught with one I think there should be a law on the books that punishes them for it. And yes I do believe that some people forfit their right to have a gun by their past actions.

If someone lies should that lose their right to free speech? If they set fire to Masque should they loose their right to practice their religion? I’ll take a leap here and bet you’ll say no. So why should they loose their right to own a firearm?

Just FYI, Just checked my county records. There are 67 inmates at the county jail waiting for trial. Two with felon in possession charges. One has an assult charge(not with the gun) the other that's the only charge. They weren't using the guns at the time, just had them in their possession. I don't know what thier orignal felony was, but at this point it doesn't matter. They were obviously doing something wrong and were caught with something they shouldn't have had. So the law got two criminals off the streets in my little corner of the world. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

How many felons did you say were in possession of firearms? So you would say the law is working and they didn’t have guns? Or perhaps when they get out (and they will be out shortly) they won’t be able to get them again? Or possibly that NICS and the other laws are working really well right? You just proved my point, the law did nothing. :faint: IF THEY ARE TOO DANGEROUS TO HAVE FIREARMS THEY SHOULD NOT BE ON THE STREET IN THE FIRST PLACE :upeyes:

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson
That is straight from the man that helped write the Amendment. Do you think that they did not have criminals at the time it was written?

Jerry
12-15-2011, 16:36
How does an instant background check stop me (a law-abiding citizen) from buying a gun at a retail shop? Answer: It does not.

I really hope you and your ilk get caught up in the system and become one of the people that are flat out denied. We’ll see how much you like it then. It happens more than you are willing to admit.

As for the cost of a permit: Would you prefer that a tax pays for the bureaucracy require to manage the system? I pay for it because I know it costs money, and I know that if searched in a Terry Stop I won't go to jail for having a gun in my pocket. But Mr. Thug will, thanks to laws that prohibit felons from possessing guns.

There shouldn't be a bureaucracy require to manage the system. The system is Unconstitutional. If you pay for a right it is no longer a right it has been turned into a PRIVILEGE.

Gunnut 45/454
12-15-2011, 19:39
Jerry
As we've seen these Liberal Progressive will do and say anything to deminish the COTUS. It's for the children, we got to remove guns from the crazies etc. They are bought an paid for by the belief that Uncle sugar will protect them. As normal speaking the truth falls on deaf ears with these types. They live there lives by emotions , and until they have a life changing event- EI stare the BG in the eye's or down the barrel of his gun they will never get it! If they survive such an encounter they might actually see why we are so against there Progressive world veiw!:supergrin:

Jerry
12-15-2011, 20:37
Jerry
As we've seen these Liberal Progressive will do and say anything to deminish the COTUS. It's for the children, we got to remove guns from the crazies etc. They are bought an paid for by the belief that Uncle sugar will protect them. As normal speaking the truth falls on deaf ears with these types. They live there lives by emotions , and until they have a life changing event- EI stare the BG in the eye's or down the barrel of his gun they will never get it! If they survive such an encounter they might actually see why we are so against there Progressive world veiw!:supergrin:

I’ll tell you, I get so damn frustrated, as I’m sure you do. We tell them over and over to look at history and examine the facts. We give the places to find legitimate statistics and faucal data and they keep coming back with emotional drivel. Seems the more we disprove their illogical opinions the more they come out of the woodwork. I keep saying I give up, but then I realize if I don’t do it I won't be able to look myself in the mirror. If I can convince one person at least I’ve accomplished something. I have had two people in the last couple of years come back to say that after going back and forth with me they decide to look at things with an open mind. They did some research and found out that their openion was just that, an incorrect opinion and that the facts proved to be different from what they had been lead to believe. Sooooo I keep on keeping on. And if people take it personally when I call it like I see it… to darn bad. If they didn’t come across as such idiots I wouldn’t treat them like idiots.

I haven’t had anyone prove that “shall not be infringe” means anything other than what it says or that “shall make no law” has a different meaning, yet they keep talking about interpretation. You’ve seen what happens when I tell them to “interpret” that.

Just keep on keeping on and I be right there at your side. I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do! [Everett Hale]

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke


They comfort themselves in the false illusion of safety provided by the law. However they cannot show me where a law stopped murder, rape or kidnapping. But to them gun control works.

Evidently they don’t understand that the personification of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

But here I am preaching to the choir again.


Yours in Liberty,

Jerry

WarCry
12-16-2011, 00:09
Warcry
Yes the SCOTUS said the 2nd APPLIES EQUALLY TO EVERY STATE (Incorperated)! There fore it negated most of the restrctions IL has on gun ownership. But you all just said oh well when your state still enforced there restrictions. As I've posted on other threads - the question was not asked nor did the SCOTUS define 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and because of this omission by them - either intentional or by mistake there ruling was incomplete cause any right minded person would see that if they were to actually read these words they'd have to invalidate all gun control laws as they are in direct violation of the 2nd! The Second leaves no room for Reasonable restrictions - it say's NO restrictions are allowed! I can't for the life of me understand why anyone can't see this to be the truth. And yes the founders intended this to be a BLACK AND WHITE thing -no room for interpitation!:faint:

In Heller and McDonald, SCOTUS incorporated "Keep", but not "Bear". They moved the bar toward saying that all states have to SOME form of carry (open or concealed), but they stopped just short of doing so. Again, if you don't believe me, go read the actual decisions, not some summary that's twisted by EITHER side.

Now, I FULLY believe SCOTUS WILL incorporate "Bear" within the next few years, but the cases they were addressing were specifically about ownership (namely, the out-right bans in DC and Chicago). The Court has a history of only addressing the very narrowest points in any case before them.

And, for the record, according the Constitution, the Supreme Court IS the final word on what the Constitution means. The are the arbitrators of the word of law. THAT is what the Founders wanted, and that's what they're doing right now. And yes, it IS a process. They've ruled on most of the other Bill of Rights amendments - INCLUDING the fact that "Speech" in the First Amendment is interpreted as "expression" which DOES include actions such as flag burning. THIS is the reason why the only way to make flag burning illegal would be to make a new Constitutional Amendment for it - because legislation would not pass muster under the 1st Amendment.

And, while I absolutely, positively do NOT believe in the literal, word-for-word interpretation (I agree with SPEECH meaning more than SPEECH), for those of you here that DO believe that way, I have yet to see your argument about the OTHER part of the 2nd Amendment you've so conveniently ignored. Yes, "Shall not be infringed" is the last portion, but the FIRST portion is "A well regulated Militia". Are you implying that the Founders ever so carefully parsed EVERY word of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but they didn't REALLY mean this part, so we'll just shrug it off?

So, the question is, do you believe that strongly in the word-for-word interpretation, or do you only believe in that when it suits your purpose?

MarcDW
12-16-2011, 06:25
Almost every time I shoot: My left hand supports the right holding the gun!

eracer
12-16-2011, 06:59
And, while I absolutely, positively do NOT believe in the literal, word-for-word interpretation (I agree with SPEECH meaning more than SPEECH), for those of you here that DO believe that way, I have yet to see your argument about the OTHER part of the 2nd Amendment you've so conveniently ignored. Yes, "Shall not be infringed" is the last portion, but the FIRST portion is "A well regulated Militia". Are you implying that the Founders ever so carefully parsed EVERY word of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but they didn't REALLY mean this part, so we'll just shrug it off?

So, the question is, do you believe that strongly in the word-for-word interpretation, or do you only believe in that when it suits your purpose?As I stated above, the phrase 'well-regulated militia' come from the original articles of the constitution that were later amended. The anti-federalists were worried that the original articles, while empowering congress to regulate (form and train) state militias (National Guard) it didn't provide for free men (i.e., citizens - more specifically, law-abiding citizens) the right to keep and bear arms in the defense of their homes from usurpers. Of course, slaves were not considered citizens, and thus were not of 'the people' and couldn't own guns. So even in the time the constitution and its amendments were written, there were people who were not allowed to own guns, and there were methods in place to prevent them from doing so.

The brick wall that the literalists keep banging their heads on is their idea that 'free men' = 'all men', and that 'shall not infringe' means 'shall not stop dangerous criminals and insane people from buying guns at Wal-Mart without anything but cash and a wink of the eye.'

And of course, just as the anti-gunner's argument that an armed citizenry doesn't significantly reduce crime is a fallacy, so is the literalist argument that background checks don't reduce the number of guns that fall into the hands of criminals.

When an armed citizen foils a crime with his weapon (but does not fire it) the event is generally unreported. Lots of law-abiding citizens stop crimes using guns, even if the statistics don't show it.

Similarly, background checks stop felons from buying guns through lawful means. But again, those cases don't make it into the statistics, because felons, even though most are pretty stupid, are at least smart enough in general to know that a background check will reveal their criminal history.

bandmasterjf
12-16-2011, 08:30
We lived for almost 200 years without all the unconstitutional gun laws and there wasn’t anarchy.




If someone lies should that lose their right to free speech? If they set fire to Masque should they loose their right to practice their religion? I’ll take a leap here and bet you’ll say no. So why should they loose their right to own a firearm?



How many felons did you say were in possession of firearms? So you would say the law is working and they didn’t have guns? Or perhaps when they get out (and they will be out shortly) they won’t be able to get them again? Or possibly that NICS and the other laws are working really well right? You just proved my point, the law did nothing. :faint: IF THEY ARE TOO DANGEROUS TO HAVE FIREARMS THEY SHOULD NOT BE ON THE STREET IN THE FIRST PLACE :upeyes:


That is straight from the man that helped write the Amendment. Do you think that they did not have criminals at the time it was written?

I get that we don't agree on this jerry. I understand where your coming from. I just don't agree with you. That doesn't make me liberal.

I just think someone who has a history of voilence should be limited in any way they can from committing voilence again. I know that if they really really want a gun they'll get it too. You know what the best deterent for keeping someone out of your house is? Locking the door. Sure if they really want in there they'll do it. But most won't.

I think the problem here is that you feel like you've been wronged because your brother used your name and now it's inconveniencing you. Now you're mad at the government for making a law that you don't like because you can't get a gun when you want to. You still get the gun, right? Why don't you take that misplaced anger and throw it at your felon brother for using your name and putting you in this situation. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

Jerry
12-16-2011, 17:46
I get that we don't agree on this jerry. I understand where your coming from. I just don't agree with you. That doesn't make me liberal.

I just think someone who has a history of voilence should be limited in any way they can from committing voilence again. I know that if they really really want a gun they'll get it too. You know what the best deterent for keeping someone out of your house is? Locking the door. Sure if they really want in there they'll do it. But most won't.


I think the problem here is that you feel like you've been wronged because your brother used your name and now it's inconveniencing you. Now you're mad at the government for making a law that you don't like because you can't get a gun when you want to. You still get the gun, right? Why don't you take that misplaced anger and throw it at your felon brother for using your name and putting you in this situation. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

You're correct that doesn't make you liberal. What makes you sond like a liberal is you’re totally misinformed don’t have a clue what you’re talking about but actually believe you do. Someone with a “history” of violence has one right denied and not one “privilege”. He can purchase any number of lethal products but not a gun. Your belief that that actually affords people safety from a violent individual is pure idiocy.

Here's proof that yoy are totall misinformed. I've been on this board since befor the incesption of NISC. I voiced my objection to it before it was actually put into operation. I was totally against NICS from the beginning. As I posted earlier I KNEW it would be FUBAR just like every other gummyment run program. I also KNEW it was unconstitutional. If you had done any research before posting you wouldn’t be coming across as having your head up your but.

I did not start having a hold put on me until five years ago. I purchased many forearms through NICS before that so I’m not against it JUST BECAUSE I personally now have a problem. I’ve had more than 10 people in the last five years tell me that they have the same problem. And no they aren’t criminals. One actually sells firearms at Cabellas but has a HOLD every time he purchases one.

My brother is not a felon and he didn’t use my name.

Get your head out of your but and do some research. Or you can keep showing everyone your lack of intellect.

Jerry
12-16-2011, 19:06
As I stated above, the phrase 'well-regulated militia' come from the original articles of the constitution that were later amended. The anti-federalists were worried that the original articles, while empowering congress to regulate (form and train) state militias (National Guard) it didn't provide for free men (i.e., citizens - more specifically, law-abiding citizens) the right to keep and bear arms in the defense of their homes from usurpers. Of course, slaves were not considered citizens, and thus were not of 'the people' and couldn't own guns. So even in the time the constitution and its amendments were written, there were people who were not allowed to own guns, and there were methods in place to prevent them from doing so.

The brick wall that the literalists keep banging their heads on is their idea that 'free men' = 'all men', and that 'shall not infringe' means 'shall not stop dangerous criminals and insane people from buying guns at Wal-Mart without anything but cash and a wink of the eye.'

Explain the difference between “shall not infringe” and shall not stop. You really need to look up the definition. Better yet... here you go...

in•fringedin•fring•ing
Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2
obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE
intransitive verb
: ENCROACH —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>

stoppedstop•ping
Definition of STOP
transitive verb
1
a : to close by filling or obstructing b : to hinder or prevent the passage of c : to get in the way of :


What you fail to understand is that slaves were not free men. They were considered property and weren’t even considered when writing the amendments. Criminals once released form prison were considered free men. They weren’t worried about slaves or ex cons they were worried about government tyranny. So your argument is bogus. Infringment is tyranny.

“DANGEROUS VIOLENT” people should not be allowed to walk among us. And the fly in your ointment is that they are only denied the ”RIGHT" to own a firearm. They are free to purchase any other dangerous weapon or substance they please.

And of course, just as the anti-gunner's argument that an armed citizenry doesn't significantly reduce crime is a fallacy, so is the literalist argument that background checks don't reduce the number of guns that fall into the hands of criminals.

Prove it! You’d better read More Guns Less Crime before posting BS.


When an armed citizen foils a crime with his weapon (but does not fire it) the event is generally unreported. Lots of law-abiding citizens stop crimes using guns, even if the statistics don't show it.

You finally got something right.


Similarly, background checks stop felons from buying guns through lawful means. But again, those cases don't make it into the statistics, because felons, even though most are pretty stupid, are at least smart enough in general to know that a background check will reveal their criminal history.

NISC infringes on more honorably men’s purchases than felons are prevented from getting firearms. If it was really about stopping felons they would be arrested while trying to purchase from an FFL. Instead they are allowed to walk away and to go buy on the street. NICS records are supposed to be destroyed. They have been caught several times keeping a data base of purchases. That’s illegal! The people that are supposedly protecting citizens from criminals are criminals themselves. They are committing a felony and they are running a system that is “supposedly” protecting The People from felons. That is exactly the sort of thing the Constitution was meant to protect us from.

expatman
12-17-2011, 04:09
I will say it again.

Any law that relates to the purchase of firearms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Pure and simple. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For the sake of this discussion, it does not matter what you think is OK, what you are willing to allow, or what laws you would deem admissable. The fact is that anything that contradicts the "shall not be infringed" part or the 2A is by definition UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We have a process for changing that amendment but the current laws regarding firearms simply circumvent that.

MarcDW
12-17-2011, 05:44
Maine Constitution:
Article 1.
Section 1. Natural rights.
All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

Still you have to obtain and pay for a CCW in Maine!

IhRedrider
12-17-2011, 08:08
Any law that relates to the purchase of firearms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Pure and simple. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For the sake of this discussion, it does not matter what you think is OK, what you are willing to allow, or what laws you would deem admissable. The fact is that anything that contradicts the "shall not be infringed" part or the 2A is by definition UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We have a process for changing that amendment but the current laws regarding firearms simply circumvent that.

I absolutely agree with this. I would also add that ANYTHING, LAW, PERON or OFFICE which violates the Constitution is, by definition ILLEGAL in any territory that is governed by the Constitution.

eracer

you said:

The brick wall that the literalists keep banging their heads on is their idea that 'free men' = 'all men', and that 'shall not infringe' means 'shall not stop dangerous criminals and insane people from buying guns at Wal-Mart without anything but cash and a wink of the eye.'

Ignoring our obvious difference on what we each believe on the issue of gun control. I would like you to explain to me these things;

1. How is a "dangerous criminal" defined in the Constitution?
2. What standards do YOU think need to be applied to determine if someone is a "dangerous criminal"?
3. Who do you think needs to be the person responsible to decide who meets the qualifications of "dangerous criminal"?
4. Even harder, I want to know the answer to the previous questions as they pertain to "insane person" instead of "dangerous criminal"?
5. If someone was determined "dangerous criminal" or "insane person" is there some mechanism for them to appeal this categorization, and who would they appeal to?

Thanks in advance for the reply.

eracer
12-17-2011, 13:43
Ignoring our obvious difference on what we each believe on the issue of gun control. I would like you to explain to me these things;

1. How is a "dangerous criminal" defined in the Constitution?
2. What standards do YOU think need to be applied to determine if someone is a "dangerous criminal"?
3. Who do you think needs to be the person responsible to decide who meets the qualifications of "dangerous criminal"?
4. Even harder, I want to know the answer to the previous questions as they pertain to "insane person" instead of "dangerous criminal"?
5. If someone was determined "dangerous criminal" or "insane person" is there some mechanism for them to appeal this categorization, and who would they appeal to?

Thanks in advance for the reply.Simple.

I've said it before in this thread. (I even highlighted the words in one post...)

Constitutional protections apply to 'free men.'
'The People' refers to citizens who are 'free men.'

flyboyvet
12-17-2011, 13:46
If there's a gun around, I wanna control it.

Exactly...Well said.

Jerry
12-17-2011, 16:21
Simple.

I've said it before in this thread. (I even highlighted the words in one post...)

Constitutional protections apply to 'free men.'
'The People' refers to citizens who are 'free men.'

:laughabove: :number1: for the least intelligent answer so far.

IhRedrider did you actually expect a rational answer to any of those questions? :rofl:

IhRedrider
12-17-2011, 17:19
eracer

Constitutional protections apply to 'free men.'
'The People' refers to citizens who are 'free men.'

What, according to the Constitution, then is 'free man'?

Are you a 'free man'?

Am I a 'free man'?

What would cause me to lose my status as 'free man'?

Who would make the determination as to whether I had lost my status as a 'free man'?

If I had lost my status as 'free man', could I regain it and how?

Could you answer these questions please? I will also note that you did not answer my last post questions. I still would like to hear your answers to them.

Thanks again, in advance.

Dukedomone
12-18-2011, 02:01
And, for the record, according the Constitution, the Supreme Court IS the final word on what the Constitution means. The are the arbitrators of the word of law. THAT is what the Founders wanted, and that's what they're doing right now.

Could you cite in the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court is the final word on what the Constitution means?

eracer
12-18-2011, 06:29
eracer



What, according to the Constitution, then is 'free man'?

The constitution did not define it as far as I know. But of course the constitution is not the sum of all laws, and the phrase was well understood in the time of the framers. The phrase 'The People' referred to law-abiding 'citizens.' 'Citizen' at the time, did not include slaves. Thankfully, we've eliminated that class distinction.

Are you a 'free man'?

Yes - I am neither a felon, nor deemed mentally ill by any authority that matters.)

Am I a 'free man'?

I don't know.

What would cause me to lose my status as 'free man'?

Criminal activity, sedition, treason, etc.

Who would make the determination as to whether I had lost my status as a 'free man'?

Legal definition. If you are in prison, you are no longer a 'free man.' If you are out of prison you may be defined as a felon. If you are felon, you are not a free man. I know what you're fishing for, and no, I don't believe that all felons should be barred from owning guns. Violent recidivist criminals, however, have chosen to infringe upon the rights of other free men. The laws exist (and rightly so) to reduce their ability to purchase a gun. It would certainly be better for society in general if we could guarantee that they were rehabilitated or permanently imprisoned, but (repeating myself again) that's a fantasy, a dream, wishful thinking that all who support the concept of unregulated Natural Law share in.

If I had lost my status as 'free man', could I regain it and how?

If you gave up a kidney, could you get it back?

Could you answer these questions please? I will also note that you did not answer my last post questions. I still would like to hear your answers to them.

Actually, I did answer them.

Thanks again, in advance.

Can you answer a question for me? Would you allow a murderer the right to buy a machine gun at Wal-Mart without any restrictions on the purchase?

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
<center>-- Thomas Jefferson

And with that, I bid this thread adieu.... Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah.
</center>

IhRedrider
12-18-2011, 08:18
eracer

Who would make the determination as to whether I had lost my status as a 'free man'?

Legal definition. If you are in prison, you are no longer a 'free man.' If you are out of prison you may be defined as a felon. If you are felon, you are not a free man. I know what you're fishing for, and no, I don't believe that all felons should be barred from owning guns. Violent recidivist criminals, however, have chosen to infringe upon the rights of other free men. The laws exist (and rightly so) to reduce their ability to purchase a gun. It would certainly be better for society in general if we could guarantee that they were rehabilitated or permanently imprisoned, but (repeating myself again) that's a fantasy, a dream, wishful thinking that all who support the concept of unregulated Natural Law share in.

If I had lost my status as 'free man', could I regain it and how?

If you gave up a kidney, could you get it back?

Could you answer these questions please? I will also note that you did not answer my last post questions. I still would like to hear your answers to them.

Actually, I did answer them.


OK, correct me if I am wrong. I think you said that anyone who is a citizen, not in prison, and not a particular version of a convicted felon who is now legally free on the street, is a 'free man'.

I will answer your question first. I have absolutely no LEGAL problem with a convicted murderer, who has paid his dues as prescribed by the Justice system, buying any weapon at Wal-mart or anywhere else.

I do have a HUGE problem with a CONVICTED murderer ever walking the streets. A convicted murderer should be put to death, that is what is just. Do NOT violate my RIGHTS because the Justice system is broken. FIX the damn system. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Legal definition. If you are in prison, you are no longer a 'free man.'

I think this is a dangerous and sweeping statement that need some evaluation. If you are accused and arrested for some crime then placed in prison. Have you lost your status as a 'free man'? If you have you no longer have the RIGHT to free speech, and ALL the other RIGHTS documented in the Constitution. Is that what you believe or want? I think that this line of reasoning will quickly lead to tyranny, slavery and misery. I think you can see this in such things as "the patriot bill" and others that are coming our way.

If I had lost my status as 'free man', could I regain it and how?

If you gave up a kidney, could you get it back?

That did not even answer anything. Even worse, it compares the willing gift of a kidney to someone revoking a 'free man's' RIGHTS. Please try again, or just tell me you are not going to answer a question.

Could you answer these questions please? I will also note that you did not answer my last post questions. I still would like to hear your answers to them.

Actually, I did answer them.


These were the questions, I did not see where they were answered.

1. How is a "dangerous criminal" defined in the Constitution?
2. What standards do YOU think need to be applied to determine if someone is a "dangerous criminal"?
3. Who do you think needs to be the person responsible to decide who meets the qualifications of "dangerous criminal"?
4. Even harder, I want to know the answer to the previous questions as they pertain to "insane person" instead of "dangerous criminal"?
5. If someone was determined "dangerous criminal" or "insane person" is there some mechanism for them to appeal this categorization, and who would they appeal to?

I would like to know what your answers for these questions are, thanks again in advance.

Chesafreak
12-18-2011, 08:22
The only gun control I want to see is the placement of the second shot. :2gun:


+1

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

1gewehr
12-18-2011, 09:19
Can you answer a question for me? Would you allow a murderer the right to buy a machine gun at Wal-Mart without any restrictions on the purchase?</center>

'Murderer' is a nice, emotionally-laden word. Some use it to describe a home-owner who kills a couple of armed home-invaders. In that case, yes, I would support that person's right to walk into a WalMart and buy a brand-new M4 without any background checks or paperwork. I'd also say that he had ample justification for the purchase!

Now, I suppose that use of 'murderer' was not your intent. So let's suppose the scenario you I suspect you envision. A person convicted of brutally raping three young women and then slowly torturing them to death is now the subject of your inquiry. The fact that this person can even walk into a Walmart is the travesty here. Not whether he can buy a firearm.

I'll state again. If a person is too dangerous to be permitted to have firearms, why are they walking our streets? THAT is the issue, not gun control.

Jerry
12-18-2011, 12:49
Could you cite in the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court is the final word on what the Constitution means?



Constitutional ”INTERPRETATION” in 5,4,3,2.

Jerry
12-18-2011, 13:06
I'll state again. If a person is too dangerous to be permitted to have firearms, why are they walking our streets? THAT is the issue, not gun control.

But, but killing them is too cruel and we can’t afford to keep them all in prison. All Free Men should be willing to give up any and all rights so these poor misunderstood people can be allowed to “freely” walk among us. I also have several bridges and some swampland in Arizona for sale. Now please excuse me while I go hug a tree. :rofl:

That sarcasm is not directed at you but rather at the gun control idiots. :goodpost:

Scattergun1187
12-18-2011, 13:19
Simply answer. NO!!

TheJ
12-19-2011, 08:29
Clearly gun conrols didn't prevent this guy from committing horrific murder:
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1388473



But it did prevent this ccw licensed GT member from picking up a firearm for Christmas.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1388599

bandmasterjf
12-19-2011, 09:09
You're correct that doesn't make you liberal. What makes you sond like a liberal is you’re totally misinformed don’t have a clue what you’re talking about but actually believe you do. Someone with a “history” of violence has one right denied and not one “privilege”. He can purchase any number of lethal products but not a gun. Your belief that that actually affords people safety from a violent individual is pure idiocy.

Here's proof that yoy are totall misinformed. I've been on this board since befor the incesption of NISC. I voiced my objection to it before it was actually put into operation. I was totally against NICS from the beginning. As I posted earlier I KNEW it would be FUBAR just like every other gummyment run program. I also KNEW it was unconstitutional. If you had done any research before posting you wouldn’t be coming across as having your head up your but.

I did not start having a hold put on me until five years ago. I purchased many forearms through NICS before that so I’m not against it JUST BECAUSE I personally now have a problem. I’ve had more than 10 people in the last five years tell me that they have the same problem. And no they aren’t criminals. One actually sells firearms at Cabellas but has a HOLD every time he purchases one.

My brother is not a felon and he didn’t use my name.

Get your head out of your but and do some research. Or you can keep showing everyone your lack of intellect.

Must have been someone elses brother.

By the way, you spell butt with two t's.

So in 5 years you found 10 people who have problems bying a gun right? That's an acceptable risk to me. Did I ever say that it kept the guns out of criminals hands? Could you point that at to me if I did? Being uniformed doesn't make someone a liberal, as you point out every time you post. I know we have the right to life-but that doesn't make the death penalty unconstitutional. We have the right to liberty, but that doesn't mean prisons, quarenteens or mental institutions are unconstitutional. Or does it Jerry?

Your assertion that a criminal can buy other lethal objects is just a bad point Jerry. It really just makes you look like a raving idiot. Not that you are one, it just makes you look like one. In the right hands a q-tip could probably be lethal. Don't get me wrong, I think everyone has the right to buy a q-tip any time they want, even without a background check.

You say the NICS is FUBAR, yet in 5 years you could only find 10 people who are having a problem with it? There are roughly 38,356 guns sold a day in the US and you know 5 whole people that are affected by NICS and it's not working? I think you're delusional man. According to the BATF there were 71,010 initial denial in 2009. That's only .5% or 1 in 200 checks. Of those, all but 4,681 had a 3 day or less wait. Of those who had to wait longer around 1/2 were not legally supposed to have a gun for whatever reason. So about 2,300 people had to wait more than 3 days to get then gun that they should have legally walked out the door with. Again, that's an acceptable risk to me. Of course I don't "need" anymore guns. There are guns I would like to have, but a 3 or even 7 day wait isn't going to kill me. Sure it would be a pain, but so are a lot of things. So of the 14,000,000 background checks .017% are false positives that have to wait more than 3 days. That's 17 people in every 100,000. I can accept that, and think most resonable people can too.

So the guy at Cabelas has a hold every time he buys a gun, right? So he has more than one gun then, right? He eventually get's the gun he's trying to buy, right? So if a zombie appocolips happens he can just run to the closet or gun cabinet/safe and get one, right?

So if you are driving down the interstate and have to stop at a sobriety check point or pay money at a toll booth is your right to travel being infringed? What about a stop light? Does that infringe on your persuit of happieness? What about if your trying to catch up to a really hot chick? Is your persuit of happieness infringed by the speed limit?

bandmasterjf
12-19-2011, 09:16
I will say it again.

Any law that relates to the purchase of firearms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Pure and simple. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For the sake of this discussion, it does not matter what you think is OK, what you are willing to allow, or what laws you would deem admissable. The fact is that anything that contradicts the "shall not be infringed" part or the 2A is by definition UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We have a process for changing that amendment but the current laws regarding firearms simply circumvent that.

Do you pay sales tax when you buy a gun? If so you are paying more than the manufacturer or shop intended. Wouldn't a sales tax be an infringement?

bandmasterjf
12-19-2011, 09:30
But, but killing them is too cruel and we can’t afford to keep them all in prison. All Free Men should be willing to give up any and all rights so these poor misunderstood people can be allowed to “freely” walk among us. I also have several bridges and some swampland in Arizona for sale. Now please excuse me while I go hug a tree. :rofl:

That sarcasm is not directed at you but rather at the gun control idiots. :goodpost:


You guys seem to be living in some dream world that says that everything right will always be done. If that were true we wouldn't have a use for guns.

The truth is that dangerous people walk the streets because of our panzy a-- PC world. I think the rapist should be put down like a rabid dog and the cold blooded murderers should be publically hung. The sad truth is that it doesn't happen and those guys walk the streets. So you think they should be able to have guns becuase they walk the streets?

TheJ
12-19-2011, 09:52
...
So the guy at Cabelas has a hold every time he buys a gun, right? So he has more than one gun then, right? He eventually get's the gun he's trying to buy, right? So if a zombie appocolips happens he can just run to the closet or gun cabinet/safe and get one, right?

So if you are driving down the interstate and have to stop at a sobriety check point or pay money at a toll booth is your right to travel being infringed? What about a stop light? Does that infringe on your persuit of happieness? What about if your trying to catch up to a really hot chick? Is your persuit of happieness infringed by the speed limit?

I think your operating under the premise that just because most gun control laws don't currently seem to bother you personally, than that means everything is ok. It's a common thing for people to try to put things in context of thier own life. It's the same reason why Steve Lee doesn't see the gun restrictions in Austrailia as oppressive, even though they are.

The right to travel is not constitutionally protected. Right to pursue happiness ends at harming others.

TheJ
12-19-2011, 09:54
Do you pay sales tax when you buy a gun? If so you are paying more than the manufacturer or shop intended. Wouldn't a sales tax be an infringement?

Good point. No tax should be levied on the sale of firearms.

TheJ
12-19-2011, 10:00
You guys seem to be living in some dream world that says that everything right will always be done. If that were true we wouldn't have a use for guns.

The truth is that dangerous people walk the streets because of our panzy a-- PC world. I think the rapist should be put down like a rabid dog and the cold blooded murderers should be publically hung. The sad truth is that it doesn't happen and those guys walk the streets. So you think they should be able to have guns becuase they walk the streets?

You seem to be living in a dream world where gun laws actually prevent criminals from being able to have weapons and/or do harm to others.

The only people laws can stop are people who chose to abide by them... Law abiding citizens.

b_oglethorpe
12-19-2011, 10:06
I exhibit great gun control. Even in rapid fire. Hehe

Buy seriously now folks, no absolutely not. The armed citizens of this country is was makes us unable to invade. Why limit your best defense in the country, our citizens.

bandmasterjf
12-19-2011, 10:17
I think your operating under the premise that just because most gun control laws don't currently seem to bother you personally, than that means everything is ok. It's a common thing for people to try to put things in context of thier own life. It's the same reason why Steve Lee doesn't see the gun restrictions in Austrailia as oppressive, even though they are.

The right to travel is not constitutionally protected. Right to pursue happiness ends at harming others.

No I'm operating under the premise that 0.0017% is an acceptable number of people being inconvenienced to make guns less accessable to people who shouldn't have them.

bandmasterjf
12-19-2011, 10:23
You seem to be living in a dream world where gun laws actually prevent criminals from being able to have weapons and/or do harm to others.

The only people laws can stop are people who chose to abide by them... Law abiding citizens.

So you didn't answer my question. Should anyone allowed to walk the streets be allowed to buy a gun here?

When did I say that? You and Jerry seem to live in a dream world where criminals are either killed or locked up for life. I simply think there should be something in place to make it harder for them to get a gun. I would rather see them locked up, but they aren't. You've got to do the next best thing then...........try.

TheJ
12-19-2011, 10:34
No I'm operating under the premise that 0.0017% is an acceptable number of people being inconvenienced. To make guns less accessable to people who shouldn't have them.

The less accessibility is not stopping any crime what so ever though... So the only significant thing accomplished is infringement on civil rights.

It seems obvious that at the core of this disagreement is that you simply do not consider the right to bear arms and of self defense to be an incredibly important human right.. You clearly see it as a "nice to have", no?

Knowing full well that the background checks can not stop a single murder/rape/etc., what would say if any of those people who were "inconvienenced" were murdered/raped/etc because their civil rights were violated by the government.. Is that acceptable to you?

TheJ
12-19-2011, 10:46
So you didn't answer my question. Should anyone allowed to walk the streets be allowed to buy a gun here?

When did I say that? You and Jerry seem to live in a dream world where criminals are either killed or locked up for life. I simply think there should be something in place to make it harder for them to get a gun. I would rather see them locked up, but they aren't. You've got to do the next best thing then...........try.

I didn't answer your question because it is based on the false premise that any of our gun control laws CAN prevent criminals from having weapons.. AND that even if it were possible to prevent them from having weapons (which we clearly can not) that it would stop a single one from committing murder/rape/harm/etc.

I understand that making laws makes some people feel better but feelings don't save anyone from bad guys and don't stop bad guys from commiting crimes. So practically speaking the only thing accomplished is humna rights are violated in the name of making some people feel better.

Jerry
12-19-2011, 13:34
Must have been someone elses brother.

By the way, you spell butt with two t's.

So you wonder why I think you’re a liberal. There’s another “liberal” ploy, attack the posters spelling, punctuation and or word usage to try to show you actually know what “you’re” talking about. If I had a total lack of spelling ability it wouldn’t make your opinions correct.

So in 5 years you found 10 people who have problems bying a gun right? That's an acceptable risk to me. Did I ever say that it kept the guns out of criminals hands? Could you point that at to me if I did? Being uniformed doesn't make someone a liberal, as you point out every time you post. I know we have the right to life-but that doesn't make the death penalty unconstitutional. We have the right to liberty, but that doesn't mean prisons, quarenteens or mental institutions are unconstitutional. Or does it Jerry?

Again your head is so far up your “BUTT” you’re blind to the truth. I said I’ve had five people tell “ME” about their experiences. There have been more post about it here and it happens to thousands.

What you said was it stopped felons from buying guns legally. Again you show your ignorance. Even without NICS (at this time) it is still illegal for felons to purchase firearms.

I don’t care what sacrifice “you” are willing to make. You aren’t the one sacrificing others are. If you were denied a purchase I’ll guarantee you’ll start screaming from the roof tops.

Your assertion that a criminal can buy other lethal objects is just a bad point Jerry. It really just makes you look like a raving idiot. Not that you are one, it just makes you look like one. In the right hands a q-tip could probably be lethal. Don't get me wrong, I think everyone has the right to buy a q-tip any time they want, even without a background check.

So you think everyone has a RIGHT to buy q-tips. Allllllllll right then. Explain to all of us the Constitutional “RIGHT” to buy a q-tip. You believe people have a “right” to buy q-tips but that our constitutional PROTECTED RIGHT to not have our firearms rights infringed upon is ok. Now I ask you who sounds like a raving idiot. Not that you are one. I believe you're just totally misguided and a liberal at heart.

You say the NICS is FUBAR, yet in 5 years you could only find 10 people who are having a problem with it? There are roughly 38,356 guns sold a day in the US and you know 5 whole people that are affected by NICS and it's not working? I think you're delusional man. According to the BATF there were 71,010 initial denial in 2009. That's only .5% or 1 in 200 checks. Of those, all but 4,681 had a 3 day or less wait. Of those who had to wait longer around 1/2 were not legally supposed to have a gun for whatever reason. So about 2,300 people had to wait more than 3 days to get then gun that they should have legally walked out the door with. Again, that's an acceptable risk to me. Of course I don't "need" anymore guns. There are guns I would like to have, but a 3 or even 7 day wait isn't going to kill me. Sure it would be a pain, but so are a lot of things. So of the 14,000,000 background checks .017% are false positives that have to wait more than 3 days. That's 17 people in every 100,000. I can accept that, and think most resonable people can too.

According the BATF? And where did they get those statistics? Keeping NISC records is ILLEGAL. It’s a FELONY.

Again you read yet you don’t comprehend. I said in the last five years I had five people tell me. I don’t go seeking these people out. The way I cam upon them, or they me, is I was having conversations with other people and those gentlemen heard us an joined in our conversation. The two most resent. Sitting in a restraint with my wife, grandson, the gentleman that had just installed a muzsle brake on my 06 and his son. We were talking about how FUBAR NICS is. Gentleman at the next table says yah I have the same problem. I'm a retired military officer and I'm in security at “the oil refinery”. I have a hold every time I try to purchase. “It’s a pain in the A-word. The last was just last month. I was picking up my latest purchase and was complain to the FFL about the bull dung hold all the time. Fellow that I see at the range almost ever time I’m there says, “you to?” “I work at the gun counter at Cabela’s. I sell them all day long but have a hold put on me every time I buy one.” I’m more that sure if I started poling everyone I come in contact with that number would go from 5 to several hundred.

Another problem you have is you believe what is acceptable to “you” should be acceptable to all. And that sir is a “LIBERAL” trait. Imposing your will or others no matter who it hurts or what it cost is to others so you can have a false sense of security. What is acceptable to me is the following of the Constitution. No more no less.

So the guy at Cabelas has a hold every time he buys a gun, right? So he has more than one gun then, right? He eventually get's the gun he's trying to buy, right? So if a zombie appocolips happens he can just run to the closet or gun cabinet/safe and get one, right?

“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I would think someone that likes to give spelling lessons would have noticed that there is an “S” at the end of “ARMS”. It doesn’t say ARM. If one owns 1,000 arms their right to procure another “shall not be infringed”. Or perhaps you’d like it better that if someone owns a knife than their RIGHT to own and bear arms has been fulfilled?

Little history for you, Tomas Jefferson owned a LARGE collections of firearmS.

So if you are driving down the interstate and have to stop at a sobriety check point or pay money at a toll booth is your right to travel being infringed? What about a stop light? Does that infringe on your persuit of happieness? What about if your trying to catch up to a really hot chick? Is your persuit of happieness infringed by the speed limit?

Here you go comparing “privilege” with RIGHT. Liberals love doing that because they don’t comprehend the difference. But hey, this time I’ll play your silly game. You have to stop for traffic signals right? You get held up in traffic when there is an accident right? It’s all part of what is expected when partaking in the PRIVILEGE of “traveling” in your automobile. You are perfectly “free” to get out and walk without your right(?) to travel being impeded. Please quote the part of the Constitution that protects “freedom to travel”.

o Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Speach
o Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
o Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
o Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
o Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
o Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
o Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
o Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
o Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
o Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
o Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
o Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice President
o Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
o Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
o Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
o Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
o Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote
o Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished
o Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage
o Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms
o Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed
o Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits
o Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
o Amendment 24 - Poll Taxes Barred
o Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession
o Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years
o Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay

Right to travil is another made up, by liberals, interpretation of something that isn’t there.

expatman
12-19-2011, 13:37
Do you pay sales tax when you buy a gun? If so you are paying more than the manufacturer or shop intended. Wouldn't a sales tax be an infringement?

Yes you are required to pay sales tax. I have always considered this acceptable because it is a commercialy produced retail product. Also the govt. has a constitutional authority to levy taxes. However, the way you putting it I am also willing to go with it being unconstitutional due to it being an infringement. I never said I had to like it or even disagree with it. If it effects my ability to keep it or bear it then it is unconstitutional.

In this instance though it may be OK since as I have stated the govt. has the right to levy taxes. It is a point worth discussing.

IhRedrider
12-19-2011, 19:55
Hello, I was hoping eracer would answer my questions. If you've been busy I understand, but I would like to hear how you would answer what I asked.

Thanks.

TheJ
12-19-2011, 20:07
Hello, I was hoping eracer would answer my questions. If you've been busy I understand, but I would like to hear how you would answer what I asked.

Thanks.

I don't think he has just been busy but it appears he has chosen not to continue particating in this thread further.


.....
And with that, I bid this thread adieu.... Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah.
</center>

IhRedrider
12-19-2011, 20:10
bandmaster,

No I'm operating under the premise that 0.0017% is an acceptable number of people being inconvenienced to make guns less accessable to people who shouldn't have them.

Please don't interchange inconvenienced with denied. Beyond that, both inconvenienced AND denied have infringed upon the RIGHTS of a 'free man' as documented in the Constitution. Thus it is a violation of Federal law as laid out by the Constitution.

Now, for discussion's sake, at what percentage do YOU think it is an infringement upon 'free mens' RIGHTS? Where do YOU draw the line? By the way these questions, in NO way actually validate the information YOU have presented as FACT. Because I think, like Jerry pointed out, these statements you have asserted as fact are indeed, your suppositions and NOT based in fact. Before anyone deflects these questions by calling into MY opinion as to what is acceptable "inconvenience", I will tell you. 0.00%.

As a last note, who or what gives you the right to determine who should or should not have arms?

Thanks, in advance, for the reply.

1gewehr
12-20-2011, 10:14
Please quote the part of the Constitution that protects “freedom to travel”.

Right to travil is another made up, by liberals, interpretation of something that isn’t there.

Actually, it IS in the Bill of Rights. Would you argue that it is NOT included in the 9th & 10th amendments?

[Amendment IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Amendment X]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are those which our Founders believed to be so important that they expressly forbade the Federal government from making laws, infringing, or interfering.These are the rights that they felt a people HAD to retain above all others in order to remain a free society.

Jerry
12-20-2011, 13:00
Actually, it IS in the Bill of Rights. Would you argue that it is NOT included in the 9th & 10th amendments?

[Amendment IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Amendment X]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are those which our Founders believed to be so important that they expressly forbade the Federal government from making laws, infringing, or interfering.These are the rights that they felt a people HAD to retain above all others in order to remain a free society.

Good point!

It’s arguable that that could be used to acknowledge travel as a “RIGHT”. However it does not overshadow the fact that traveling “by automobile”, trains, plains etc. are privileges.

The reason I won’t give you argument is I really don’t want to. I’d like to think that I could go from point A to point B without arbitrarily being stopped. Truth be told, with reasonable suspicion we can, which leads me to the conclusion that it is not a “right”. But then again, it wouldn’t be the only right we are fighting to keep from being infringed. :sad:

Dukedomone
12-20-2011, 19:44
I'm still waiting for my Constitutional reference in regards to the Supreme Court...... :poke:

Jerry
12-20-2011, 21:14
I'm still waiting for my Constitutional reference in regards to the Supreme Court...... :poke:



Not sure what your referenc was but this is what the Constitutions says..

Edited to add: I found your reference and it doesn't appear to be in there. Perhaps one of the liberals could give us and ”interpretation”. :whistling:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry
12-21-2011, 17:27
Funny we should be discussing this as today I saw something I haven’t see in a very long time. Coming home from the range I saw a State Trooper with his lights on in the emergency lane on I-10. He had three young people sitting on the ground. I’m under the impression they were hitchhiking since there was no vehicle to be seen and they all had backpacks.

Seems there either is no “right” to travel or walking along side of I-10 gives reasonable cause to detain. Or perhaps as my wife believes hitchhiking is now illegal. Don’t know if it is or isn’t but would think it should not be since no one is forced to either get into a vehicle or to stop and give someone a ride. But then, prostitution, an act between to consenting adults is. Seem to me seeking sex should be covered by the 9th. And no I’m not being sarcastic. No I have not been arrested for soliciting and no I’ve never used the services of a prostitute. I just don’t understand an act between two consenting adults being illegal. But that’s a discussion for another time.

IhRedrider
12-21-2011, 18:32
eracer, and bandmaster

I have questions for you that you have not addressed. I hope I have not offended you. If I have, I do apologize. And if there is something I else I need to do to correct the issue, please let me know. I genuinely wish to know what you guys have to say about what I have asked. The only way for me to understand where people with differing views are coming from is to listen to what they have to say.

Thanks again , in advance.

1gewehr
12-22-2011, 09:44
Jerry, the problem comes when you utilize either a government-owned method of transportation, or privately-owned means. In the case of the interstate, the Feds have rules for how the highway may be utilized, including speed limits, what kind of traffic may use it, and the ability to control access when they want to (during emergencies or war). Of course, the owners of property have the legal right to control or forbid access. This has nothing to do with a right to travel.
In the case of air travel, the Feds believe that they have a right to regulate commercial flights that cross a state line. Notice you do not have TSA checking owners of private aircraft. When I was younger, I caught many a ride on private planes by 'hitch-hiking' and offering to share fuel costs. This is much harder due to the increased security caused by the many aircraft thefts in the '80's by drug smugglers. But there are still ride-share boards where you can hop a ride on a private plane. No TSA groping required!

Jerry
12-22-2011, 13:42
Jerry, the problem comes when you utilize either a government-owned method of transportation, or privately-owned means. In the case of the interstate, the Feds have rules for how the highway may be utilized, including speed limits, what kind of traffic may use it, and the ability to control access when they want to (during emergencies or war). Of course, the owners of property have the legal right to control or forbid access. This has nothing to do with a right to travel.
In the case of air travel, the Feds believe that they have a right to regulate commercial flights that cross a state line. Notice you do not have TSA checking owners of private aircraft. When I was younger, I caught many a ride on private planes by 'hitch-hiking' and offering to share fuel costs. This is much harder due to the increased security caused by the many aircraft thefts in the '80's by drug smugglers. But there are still ride-share boards where you can hop a ride on a private plane. No TSA groping required!

Thanks of that explanation it explains a lot. “The Feds believe”. This seems to be the root of all our problems. Even when a “right” is CLEARLY defined and the Feds are CLEARLY forbidden from interfere the Feds, some in congress and far too many in the judicial branch “believe” they have the “right”, notice I didn’t say power, but the “right” to make laws that infringe on the RIGHTS of The People and the vocal ‘minority’ agree with them. :faint:

Jerry
12-24-2011, 13:43
I mentioned the Fed. tax on firearms and that I didn’t know exactly what it was. Well here’s one of them.

Due to Federal law, if you order an AR15 lower and AR15 parts, we will have to add an additional 11% Federal Excise Tax to the purchase price of the AR15 lower and AR15 parts.

Sbh87
12-27-2011, 00:12
I love gun control...I always make sure to have a good grip, I line up my sites, exhale, and squeeze (not pull) the trigger and bullseye!!!


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

bandmasterjf
01-02-2012, 00:19
The less accessibility is not stopping any crime what so ever though... So the only significant thing accomplished is infringement on civil rights.

It seems obvious that at the core of this disagreement is that you simply do not consider the right to bear arms and of self defense to be an incredibly important human right.. You clearly see it as a "nice to have", no?

Knowing full well that the background checks can not stop a single murder/rape/etc., what would say if any of those people who were "inconvienenced" were murdered/raped/etc because their civil rights were violated by the government.. Is that acceptable to you?

You are putting words in my mouth, and don't have a clue what I believe or don't believe. You don't seem to have a grasp on reality. So do you think criminals should legally be allowed to have guns?
People lose rights all the time for thier actions or their state of mind.

bandmasterjf
01-02-2012, 00:23
I didn't answer your question because it is based on the false premise that any of our gun control laws CAN prevent criminals from having weapons.. AND that even if it were possible to prevent them from having weapons (which we clearly can not) that it would stop a single one from committing murder/rape/harm/etc.

I understand that making laws makes some people feel better but feelings don't save anyone from bad guys and don't stop bad guys from commiting crimes. So practically speaking the only thing accomplished is humna rights are violated in the name of making some people feel better.


It does two things. One if they do have a weapon, they can be prosicuted further for that which will get them off the strets longer. Someone with a a lawless attitude and propensity for violence should be off the streets for as long as possible. I think we can all agree to that. Sure in your and Jerry's perfect little dream world dangerous people would be locked up forever, but that's not going to happen.

SK2344
01-02-2012, 02:17
What controls, if any do you think we should have legislated upon the citizens of this country?

Please include your rationale in your statement. Thanks.
I say Absolutely NO! I do not believe that my Government should have control over my guns in any way shape or manner! A responsible adult who has no criminal background should be able to own a firearm without the Government having some sort of control of your personal property! The only control the Government should have, is the sale and control over mass supplies of guns and weapons to any individual and Class 3 automatic weapons and other types of very dangerous weapons that can be used by Terrorists! The Feds should concentrate their efforts on keeping us safe from harm instead of trying to control our guns we use for hunting and personal protection!

TheJ
01-02-2012, 10:00
You are putting words in my mouth, and don't have a clue what I believe or don't believe. You don't seem to have a grasp on reality...
If you'll please notice, I put a question mark at the end as if to ask you if my perception of your view is correct or not. It wasn't a rhetorical question it was legitimate. If my perception of your view is incorrect, you can simply say that and state your view correctly. Stating that I don't have a grasp on reality is a bit dramatic.
... So do you think criminals should legally be allowed to have guns?
People lose rights all the time for thier actions or their state of mind.
You are missing my point. Gun control laws can and do ONLY prevent those who chose to obey laws from having guns. Criminals by definition are not following the law so laws don't stop them.

Do you honestly believe if somebody who (even somebody previously convicted of a crime) is resolute to harm/kill someone else, that the gun control laws will stop them? (not a rhetorical question).


I do believe that if somebody previously convicted, is determined to be safe enough to be free in our society then they should be able to legally defend themselves because the right of self defense is a basic human right. Additionally, I personally have never said that there can never be a case where rights may not be suspended with due process.

Are you ok with the scenerio below? Do you believe that once someone has committed a felony that they should forever be legally denied the human right of self defense?
...I can imagine a scenario where an 18 year old girl gets caught up with bad types, ends up committing a felony and is convicted. She serves her sentence and years later she is released. So we as a society have said she has served her sentence, is safe enough to be released and told her to go be a productive member of our society. She makes all attempts to go the straight and narrow. Doesn't have much money so it would be logical that she lives in the crappiest (read most dangerous) part of town. So then she is brutally raped and murdered in the most horrid way imaginable because we have denied her basic human right of self defense for the rest of her (now abbreviated) life.

Some would say we practically guaranteed it would happen to her. Effectively making her brutal rape and murder part of her sentence.
That seems to be "cruel and unusual punishment" to me..

IhRedrider
01-02-2012, 10:03
The only control the Government should have, is the sale and control over mass supplies of guns and weapons to any individual and Class 3 automatic weapons and other types of very dangerous weapons that can be used by Terrorists!

Just a few question.

What is "mass supplies of guns and weapons", what constitutional definition should be used? What would prevent some branch of the government from saying that any gun the shoots more than one projectile without reloading falls into this category?

How would you or the government define "very dangerous weapons"?

"that can be used by Terrorists!" what weapon could not be used by terrorists? I understand your sentiment, but using this criteria, all weapons (including rocks) would fall into government control. How would you propose to prevent this from happening?

Thanks in advance.

IhRedrider
01-02-2012, 10:28
Bandmaster,

Could you answer these questions??

1. How is a "dangerous criminal" defined in the Constitution?
2. What standards do YOU think need to be applied to determine if someone is a "dangerous criminal"?
3. Who do you think needs to be the person responsible to decide who meets the qualifications of "dangerous criminal"?
4. Even harder, I want to know the answer to the previous questions as they pertain to "insane person" instead of "dangerous criminal"?
5. If someone was determined "dangerous criminal" or "insane person" is there some mechanism for them to appeal this categorization, and who would they appeal to?

Jerry
01-02-2012, 12:08
Jerry, the problem comes when you utilize either a government-owned method of transportation, or privately-owned means. In the case of the interstate, the Feds have rules for how the highway may be utilized, including speed limits, what kind of traffic may use it, and the ability to control access when they want to (during emergencies or war). Of course, the owners of property have the legal right to control or forbid access. This has nothing to do with a right to travel.
In the case of air travel, the Feds believe that they have a right to regulate commercial flights that cross a state line. Notice you do not have TSA checking owners of private aircraft. When I was younger, I caught many a ride on private planes by 'hitch-hiking' and offering to share fuel costs. This is much harder due to the increased security caused by the many aircraft thefts in the '80's by drug smugglers. But there are still ride-share boards where you can hop a ride on a private plane. No TSA groping required!

I was just skimming the posts today and realized what you said. See bold print in your post. There is a VERY HUGE PROBLEM in today’s society. We have been conditioned to "think" THE GOVERNMENT OWNS. The People have been conditioned to “think” things belong to “the government” and the politicians believe it belongs to them.

I understand what you meant but it’s kind of like clips and magazines. We all know with it means and we all except it but it just AIN'T right.

AND this is a perfect example of why I don’t believe we have a “right” to travel. Feds can stop people from using federal highways and waterways. States can stop people from using state highways, roads and waterways and citizens can stop people from crossing their land. So where is the freedom to travel? A freedom that the government can denied is a privilege.

PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG.

TheJ
01-02-2012, 12:47
It does two things. One if they do have a weapon, they can be prosicuted further for that which will get them off the strets longer. Someone with a a lawless attitude and propensity for violence should be off the streets for as long as possible. I think we can all agree to that. Sure in your and Jerry's perfect little dream world dangerous people would be locked up forever, but that's not going to happen.

That "sounds" well intentioned...

But what exactly is a "lawless attitude" and "propensity for violence"?
Do you simply mean someone convicted of multiple violent felonies?
If so, wouldn't is make more sense to attempt mitigation of danger to others by pushing for tougher sentencing, rather than deny free people their human right to self defense??

Speaking of "perfect little dream worlds" you still seem to advocate the position that gun control actually stops criminals from doing anything bad. Your positions seems to be based on fallacious logic.

Based on your post, you believe people should be held to a higher degree of account by the law because they have a gun.

What other stuff should we put dangerous people in jail for possesing? What about cigarette lighters they could use to burn down houses with and easily kill many? Or cars that they could run people over with in the blink of an eye? Should they be allowed to buy gasoline? Or fertilizer? What about pocket knives/box cutters they could cause death with? Or #2 pencils they could easily stab someone to death with? What if they are just big and are skilled at harming people with thier hands? Should we remove thier hands and feet? Obviously this paragraph is somewhat rhetorical but the purpose is to point out how fallacious the logicis that "guns = crime" or the lack of guns means bad people are unable to do harm just as easily. Take prison for example.. No guns there should mean that they are nice safe places where people can rest right? No violence/rapes/murder there..

Guns are only one tool on an infinite list of tools that one may use to commit violent offenses that harm others. Conversely, guns are not magical but they are one of THE best tools for self defense. Practically speaking gun control laws will almost exclusively result in denying free people the right to self defense, while doing practically nothing to deny any criminal the ability to harm others.

Jerry
01-02-2012, 13:41
Take prison for example.. No guns there should mean that they are nice safe places where people can rest right? No violence/rapes/murder there..



If that doesn’t bring it into perspective nothing will. :thumbsup:

bandmasterjf
01-05-2012, 19:00
If you'll please notice, I put a question mark at the end as if to ask you if my perception of your view is correct or not. It wasn't a rhetorical question it was legitimate. If my perception of your view is incorrect, you can simply say that and state your view correctly. Stating that I don't have a grasp on reality is a bit dramatic.

You are missing my point. Gun control laws can and do ONLY prevent those who chose to obey laws from having guns. Criminals by definition are not following the law so laws don't stop them.

Do you honestly believe if somebody who (even somebody previously convicted of a crime) is resolute to harm/kill someone else, that the gun control laws will stop them? (not a rhetorical question).


I do believe that if somebody previously convicted, is determined to be safe enough to be free in our society then they should be able to legally defend themselves because the right of self defense is a basic human right. Additionally, I personally have never said that there can never be a case where rights may not be suspended with due process.

Are you ok with the scenerio below? Do you believe that once someone has committed a felony that they should forever be legally denied the human right of self defense?

If you have read all my post you would know I don't have a problem with non-violent/drug felons having or carrying guns.

To answer your question, no. Anyone who wants a gun bad enough can find a way to get it. Do you have some problem with making it harder for them to get one? Most laws are reactive rather than proactive. I see the most gun laws as both as they work in my state. People who shouldn't have one get punished more when they do, just like you would get punished for speeding. You do have to be doing something wrong to get caught. I'm sure there are thousands of felons out there now that have guns that will never get in trouble for it because they either don't do anything wrong with it, or don't get caught.

I think part of your guys problem is your specific states rules and policies. In Arkansas buying a gun/s is very quick and easy. With a CCL it takes only enough time to fill out the top portion of the firearms trasfer with name CCL# and signature. All of your personal info is connected to the CCL# so you don't have to fill that part out. Then you pay your money and walk out with as many guns as you can afford. There is no phone call and no background check. For folks without the CCL the paperwork probably takes 2 more minutes and the background check generally takes less than 5 minutes. I've only met one person who had to wait more than an hour.

bandmasterjf
01-05-2012, 19:21
Bandmaster,

Could you answer these questions??

1. How is a "dangerous criminal" defined in the Constitution?
2. What standards do YOU think need to be applied to determine if someone is a "dangerous criminal"?
3. Who do you think needs to be the person responsible to decide who meets the qualifications of "dangerous criminal"?
4. Even harder, I want to know the answer to the previous questions as they pertain to "insane person" instead of "dangerous criminal"?
5. If someone was determined "dangerous criminal" or "insane person" is there some mechanism for them to appeal this categorization, and who would they appeal to?

If you had read all my post you would already know my answer to 1-3. Let's get serious on number 1. The folks I'm talking about would have been hanged when the constitution was written. You seriously think Thomas Jefferson would think a child rapist should have a gun? NO! He would be hanging from a tree somewhere, like he should be today. Not a good argument. I don't think violent felons or people with drug felonies should legally have guns. They are catagorized by the jury that convicts them and the judge that sentences them. I don't care about the guy with 3DWI's or the bad check folks or even the negligant homisides. Insane people are defined all the time by doctors. Some are locked up. I think if you've been locked up against your will then you shouldn't have a gun, but do think you should be able the appeal that. I also think if a guy has voices in his head that says "kill them all" probably shouldn't be packin' either. The felons I think are out of luck.

Jerry
01-05-2012, 19:54
To answer your question, no. Anyone who wants a gun bad enough can find a way to get it. Do you have some problem with making it harder for them to get one? Most laws are reactive rather than proactive. I see the most gun laws as both as they work in my state. People who shouldn't have one get punished more when they do, just like you would get punished for speeding. You do have to be doing something wrong to get caught. I'm sure there are thousands of felons out there now that have guns that will never get in trouble for it because they either don't do anything wrong with it, or don't get caught.

I think part of your guys problem is your specific states rules and policies. In Arkansas buying a gun/s is very quick and easy. With a CCL it takes only enough time to fill out the top portion of the firearms trasfer with name CCL# and signature. All of your personal info is connected to the CCL# so you don't have to fill that part out. Then you pay your money and walk out with as many guns as you can afford. There is no phone call and no background check. For folks without the CCL the paperwork probably takes 2 more minutes and the background check generally takes less than 5 minutes. I've only met one person who had to wait more than an hour.

There are two very big PROBLEMS that don’t seem to concern you so “you” believe they shouldn’t concern others. Again, typical liberal mindset.

1) They have not made it harder only on those “you” believe should not have firearms. They have made it harder on many, many honest, hard working and honorable citizens. "INFRINGEMENT"!
2) In your state CCW eliminates background checks. Well isn’t that special! Your state, like many others have turned a “right” into a privilege. "INFRINGEMENT"!

bandmasterjf
01-05-2012, 20:09
There are two very big PROBLEMS that don’t seem to concern you so “you” believe they shouldn’t concern others. Again, typical liberal mindset.

1) They have not made it harder only on those “you” believe should not have firearms. They have made it harder on many, many honest, hard working and honorable citizens. "INFRINGEMENT"!
2) In your state CCW eliminates background checks. Well isn’t that special! Your state, like many others have turned a “right” into a privilege. "INFRINGEMENT"!

When someone asks me MY opinion. I give them My opinion. Do YOU not get that? That's not a liberal idea.

So you think a felon who can't get a gun at a gun store and has to find one on the streets and pay twice as much doesn't find it harder to get a gun?

You can go where you want and get what you want when you want it. You can buy one with a credit card or put it on layaway in some places. Or you could if you didn't live in whatever comunist state you live in. Sorry your state hasn't found a way around law abiding citizens from having to wait. Sucks to be you.

So do you think Thomas Jefferson would want a rapist to have a gun?

If we were taking care of criminals the way we should we wouldn't be having this argument because they would all be dead and would have no need for the laws. That's why it's not illigal to be rabid in public. The problem takes care of itself.

Jerry
01-05-2012, 20:26
You seriously think Thomas Jefferson would think a child rapist should have a gun? NO!

Here in lies the problem with the/your liberal way of thinking. You believe you know what Tomas Jefferson would or would not want when it comes to a pedophile and firearms when he never put anything about it in writing. However what he did put into writing you believe should be “interoperated” to fit what “you” believe / what “you” want it to mean. “Shall not be infringed”. I see no exceptions listed anywhere in the Constitution.

Now you would have us believe that he would have had a pedophile put to death. I would hope so. But tell my why because in todays society they don’t you believe there “right” to own a firearm should be “infringed”. Is their right to speech, practice religion or to petition the government for redress infringed? No they’re not! How about their right to peacefully assemble? Nope! But you want their right to purchase and own a firearm denied just because society didn’t see fit to kill them. Sounds like you want “your” idea of vengeance to out-way what the founders set down in writing in the Constitution.

Should pedophiles be put down? Absolutely! Should a right be denied to “anyone” that is free. Absolutely not!

Please explain to me how denying a pedophile a gun will stop them from being a pedophile. Please explain why a pedophile would be deterred by knowing that if they are caught they will not be allowed to purchase of own a firearm. :upeyes:

Jerry
01-05-2012, 20:29
When someone asks me MY opinion. I give them My opinion. Do YOU not get that? That's not a liberal idea.

So you think a felon who can't get a gun at a gun store and has to find one on the streets and pay twice as much doesn't find it harder to get a gun?

You can go where you want and get what you want when you want it. You can buy one with a credit card or put it on layaway in some places. Or you could if you didn't live in whatever comunist state you live in. Sorry your state hasn't found a way around law abiding citizens from having to wait. Sucks to be you.

So do you think Thomas Jefferson would want a rapist to have a gun?

If we were taking care of criminals the way we should we wouldn't be having this argument because they would all be dead and would have no need for the laws. That's why it's not illigal to be rabid in public. The problem takes care of itself.

Getting guns on the street is not hard. Stolen guns cost less than new ones at the fun store.

If “THEY” were taking care of criminals the way they were supposed to we would still be having this argument because gun control isn’t about stooping crime or criminals. It’s about control!

IhRedrider
01-05-2012, 20:33
So do you think Thomas Jefferson would want a rapist to have a gun?

You seriously think Thomas Jefferson would think a child rapist should have a gun?

This is your rationale on why it's ok to violate the second amendment? Do you think there were no rapist in Thomas Jefferson's time? Do you think they just forgot to address this problem?

Like I said before. Just because the justice system is broken (let's convicted murderers free), gives NO ONE the right to violate the constitution by violating anyone's RIGHTS.

bandmasterjf
01-05-2012, 20:43
Your collective lack of grasp on reality is staggering. You are just as bad as the liberals.

IhRedrider
01-05-2012, 20:55
Your collective lack of grasp on reality is staggering. You are just as bad as the liberals.

I assume you are referring to me so, explain with logic not emotion, where I am lacking a grasp on reality. And please explain why my defense of RIGHTS, as documented in the Constitution, is "as bad as the liberals". Thanks.

p.s. If you wish to surrender your rights to someone else, that's your business. Just don't assume to volunteer up someone else's rights. They might resist with surprising determination and fortitude.

IhRedrider
01-05-2012, 21:17
bandmaster,

something else you said has caught my attention.

So you think a felon who can't get a gun at a gun store and has to find one on the streets and pay twice as much doesn't find it harder to get a gun?

Do you think that the point of gun control is to make it harder for felons to get guns?

If that is the point, just make guns illegal, punishable by death, and commence the search seizure and execution of all persons and homes with guns. When the search is complete then law enforcement can destroy their guns and we will have a truly gun free, therefore crime-free society. Utopia, if only some else would have implemented this type of plan (Hitler 1933) we would be living in global peace.

bandmasterjf
01-05-2012, 22:28
bandmaster,

something else you said has caught my attention.



Do you think that the point of gun control is to make it harder for felons to get guns?

If that is the point, just make guns illegal, punishable by death, and commence the search seizure and execution of all persons and homes with guns. When the search is complete then law enforcement can destroy their guns and we will have a truly gun free, therefore crime-free society. Utopia, if only some else would have implemented this type of plan (Hitler 1933) we would be living in global peace.

This whole post is just silly. FELONS dude. Read it. FELONS.

That's just a stupid argument. You're grasping at straws and saying stuff that lacks a bit of reality. Such a liberal ploy.

Jerry
01-05-2012, 23:08
Your collective lack of grasp on reality is staggering. You are just as bad as the liberals.

Seems you’re the one with lack of grasp. Liberals believe in their particular version of freedom and only when it applies to them being free to impose their will on others. A lot like your version of freedom. Your trying to turn the tables of liberalism on Constitutionalism is further proof of your liberal leanings. We believe in freedom and equality for all FREE MEN. You believe in your particular version regardless of what the Constitution states.

1gewehr
01-06-2012, 08:48
I was just skimming the posts today and realized what you said. See bold print in your post. There is a VERY HUGE PROBLEM in today’s society. We have been conditioned to "think" THE GOVERNMENT OWNS. The People have been conditioned to “think” things belong to “the government” and the politicians believe it belongs to them. ....

AND this is a perfect example of why I don’t believe we have a “right” to travel. Feds can stop people from using federal highways and waterways. States can stop people from using state highways, roads and waterways and citizens can stop people from crossing their land. So where is the freedom to travel? A freedom that the government can denied is a privilege.

PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG.

I don't want to derail the real topic, so I'll just briefly address your response.

There is obviously a difference between what is 'legal' and what is 'practical'. Legally, you have a right to travel. You can still do so without using government-owned methods. As a practical matter, it is more difficult now to travel 'off the grid'. A hundred years ago, there were very few government-owned roads and no government-owned railroads. Waterways, while regulated, are mostly still 'free' as long as you obey the traffic rules.

Personally, I think that having a perception of public facilities (interstate highways, airports, etc) as 'government-owned' is a good thing. It drives home the reality that what our masters call a 'public good' is not necessarily either 'public' or 'good'.

John Rambo
01-06-2012, 08:57
I don't want to derail the real topic, so I'll just briefly address your response.

There is obviously a difference between what is 'legal' and what is 'practical'. Legally, you have a right to travel. You can still do so without using government-owned methods. As a practical matter, it is more difficult now to travel 'off the grid'. A hundred years ago, there were very few government-owned roads and no government-owned railroads. Waterways, while regulated, are mostly still 'free' as long as you obey the traffic rules.

Personally, I think that having a perception of public facilities (interstate highways, airports, etc) as 'government-owned' is a good thing. It drives home the reality that what our masters call a 'public good' is not necessarily either 'public' or 'good'.

Your masters don't call it a public good. Economists do. Public goods are nonrival and nonexcludable. Technically, roads wouldn't fit that criteria if traffic levels got to a certain point. But practically, they're public goods. So are street lights and those types of things.

The government provides public goods because by their very nature, there is no profit motive for the private sector to do so, and thus they will not do so.

Now, roads being used as an extortion tool? Thats another animal altogether.

1gewehr
01-06-2012, 09:17
This whole post is just silly. FELONS dude. Read it. FELONS.

That's just a stupid argument. You're grasping at straws and saying stuff that lacks a bit of reality. Such a liberal ploy.

I don't think you really understand that anyone can become a 'felon' without ever meaning to. Just on the Federal level there are some really scary laws that have sent people to jail who are absolutely no threat to society. Do you realize that it is a felony to lie to a Federal official? ANY Federal official, not just law enforcement. And ANY kind of lie, even an unintentional one. Telling a Park Ranger your campsite is clean, is a lie if they find even one tiny scrap of trash.
At the state level, there are even more absurdities. Did you know that as of January 1st, there are now 40,000 MORE laws on the books than there were on December 31st? How many of them are you aware of? Can you honestly state with certainty that YOU have not committed a felony?

And you assert that a NICS check is not an infringement because it only takes a couple of minutes. Well, you still had to spend another 3-4 minutes filling out the 4473, didn't you? So now it's not just a 'couple of minutes', but really almost 10 minutes. And if the system is running slow, or down, it can take much longer. At what point in time do you think it turns into an 'infringement'? How about a 3-day waiting period? Is that an infringement? If so, you are now just splitting hairs on how long of a wait constitutes an infringement.

You have said that you don't mind a bit of regulation if it keeps firearms out of the hands of 'felons'. But, you have repeatedly been shown that not all felons are any threat to anyone. And you have been shown that all current gun control laws have not done anything to keep firearms out of the hands of violent criminals. How, then, can you still justify your support for those useless laws?

1gewehr
01-06-2012, 09:28
Your masters don't call it a public good. Economists do. Public goods are nonrival and nonexcludable. ...

The government provides public goods because by their very nature, there is no profit motive for the private sector to do so, and thus they will not do so.

The examples I gave (airports and roads) are both 'rival' and 'excludable'. And there are motives for the private sector to build and maintain them. In fact, historically the private sector has done a much better job of that than government has. All early airports were privately owned and operated. Most roads before 1920 were also privately-owned and maintained.
But this is a discussion for another thread.

IhRedrider
01-06-2012, 09:34
This whole post is just silly. FELONS dude. Read it. FELONS.

That's just a stupid argument. You're grasping at straws and saying stuff that lacks a bit of reality. Such a liberal ploy.


Name calling and avoiding the questions, Is that all you can do or will you answer the questions I asked you? If you cannot or will not that is fine, just admit it otherwise just give a cogent answer to the following, if you are able.


1. How is a "dangerous criminal" defined in the Constitution?

2. What standards do YOU think need to be applied to determine if someone is a "dangerous criminal"?

3. Who do you think needs to be the person responsible to decide who meets the qualifications of "dangerous criminal"?
4. Even harder, I want to know the answer to the previous questions as they pertain to "insane person" instead of "dangerous criminal"?
5. If someone was determined "dangerous criminal" or "insane person" is there some mechanism for them to appeal this categorization, and who would they appeal to?

6. Do you think that the point of gun control is to make it harder for felons to get guns?

7. Please explain why my defense of RIGHTS, as documented in the Constitution, is "as bad as the liberals".

8. Do you think there were no rapist in Thomas Jefferson's time?

9. Do you think they just forgot to address the problem of rapists when the Constitution was written?

10. Do you think it is LEGAL to infringe upon the RIGHTS of FREE MEN because there are evil doers in the world? or

11. Do you think there were no evil doers when the Constitution was written AND the writers could not, or did not foresee the possible evil deed of individual men?


These are the questions that the pro gun control crowd has yet to answer. If you notice the more bad logic that is applied results in more questions. So, I challenge anyone to post up LOGICAL and FACTUAL answers to these questions.

Jerry
01-06-2012, 12:12
I don't want to derail the real topic, so I'll just briefly address your response.

There is obviously a difference between what is 'legal' and what is 'practical'. Legally, you have a right to travel. You can still do so without using government-owned methods. As a practical matter, it is more difficult now to travel 'off the grid'. A hundred years ago, there were very few government-owned roads and no government-owned railroads. Waterways, while regulated, are mostly still 'free' as long as you obey the traffic rules.

Personally, I think that having a perception of public facilities (interstate highways, airports, etc) as 'government-owned' is a good thing. It drives home the reality that what our masters call a 'public good' is not necessarily either 'public' or 'good'.

Seems that what we both realize to be true and what we both would prefer is one in the same. I enjoyed the exchange of information, opinion and probe into reality. :)

Glockbuster
01-06-2012, 22:13
So let me ask you where you guys stand on this. If the 2nd is absolutely non negotiable, then you have a "right" to keep and bear arms wherever you want ? does this include airline flights ? you think you have a right to get on board a flight because the 2nd gives you that right ? no regulation whatsoever ?

just asking.

expatman
01-07-2012, 03:56
Strictly speaking, YES. If you want to curtail that then there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution. Specifically, adressing the 2A.

TheJ
01-07-2012, 07:43
So let me ask you where you guys stand on this. If the 2nd is absolutely non negotiable, then you have a "right" to keep and bear arms wherever you want ? does this include airline flights ? you think you have a right to get on board a flight because the 2nd gives you that right ? no regulation whatsoever ?

just asking.

Basically yes but IMHO private property is different. If the airlines want to exclude firearms they should be free to just like any other private business. There doesn't need to be laws concerning it though.

What is so terrible about legally armed citizens on an airplane? If there were armed citizens on those planes in September 2001, perhaps things would have turn out very differently.

Glockbuster
01-07-2012, 09:46
Basically yes but IMHO private property is different. If the airlines want to exclude firearms they should be free to just like any other private business. There doesn't need to be laws concerning it though.

What is so terrible about legally armed citizens on an airplane? If there were armed citizens on those planes in September 2001, perhaps things would have turn out very differently.



What if the airlines don't want to restrict firearms on their own accord, would it be safe to have a flock of people with firearms on board ? Plenty of legally armed citizens have committed atrocities in public places, airplanes would not be a good place for sure.

Interesting question you pose, maybe the terrorists would have deemed it too risky contemplating a bunch of vigilantes on board, ant it would have been a deterrant force, in my book the most efficient use of firearms.

But still you will always have the fact that on majority public opinion mind, guns are just too dangerous to have around unregulated and without certain restrictions and education--legal, operational and others.

expatman
01-07-2012, 10:18
Contrary to common belief, guns on aircraft, ie. decompression from bullet holes, is not that big of a danger. In other words, I just don't see where guns on board are any more dangerous than, say, guns on a bus, guns on a boat, etc.....

TheJ
01-07-2012, 10:36
What if the airlines don't want to restrict firearms on their own accord, would it be safe to have a flock of people with firearms on board ? Plenty of legally armed citizens have committed atrocities in public places, airplanes would not be a good place for sure....


This is the same argument they use for making it illegal to carry in bars. Plenty of states allow it and it has not resulted in blood baths. Additionally, in places where it is legal to carry in bars, bars are free to and many do restrict it on their own. It is their right to do so on their private property. The same would logically follow for airlines. It just isn't an issue.
Additionally, if somebody want to commit mass mayhem, a law against having a firearm will not and can not prevent that. (see 9-11)

...
Interesting question you pose, maybe the terrorists would have deemed it too risky contemplating a bunch of vigilantes on board, ant it would have been a deterrant force, in my book the most efficient use of firearms.
...

The truth is the ONLY reason weapons are not allowed on planes is to make people feel better/safer. Further the ONLY thing accomplished by ensuring law abiding people are not armed is you make them sitting ducks for criminals to commit mass homicide (see Virginia Tech, Columbine, 9/11, etc, etc.) Gun-Free-Zone = Target-Rich-Zone. The reasons for this are not simply because criminals ignore the law and carry anyway but because the list of tools to commit harm is practically infinite, while the list of tools one can use for self defense that are as effective and efficient as firearms is very short. So the net effect of less firearms is merely a reduction in self defense capability of law abiding citizens, while having practically no negative impact on offensive capabilities of criminals.

...
But still you will always have the fact that on majority public opinion mind, guns are just too dangerous to have around unregulated and without certain restrictions and education--legal, operational and others.
That is a sad result of many years of propaganda by (however well intentioned) anti-gun types who see the trade off of freedom for perceived safety as a positive.. and that is parroted by the lazy media and politicians looking to portray themselves as making things better (and yes often they actually believe their rhetoric).

Jerry
01-07-2012, 11:46
What if the airlines don't want to restrict firearms on their own accord, would it be safe to have a flock of people with firearms on board ? Plenty of legally armed citizens have committed atrocities in public places, airplanes would not be a good place for sure.

When I was a boy they didn’t restrict firearms on planes. No blood bath!

Interesting question you pose, maybe the terrorists would have deemed it too risky contemplating a bunch of vigilantes on board, ant it would have been a deterrant force, in my book the most efficient use of firearms.

Allowing pilots to arm themselves and having air marshal seems to have a put a pretty big dent in terrorist on planes. Think maybe having armed citizens on the planes would have prevented 911. I’m guessing yes but then that’s just a guess.

But still you will always have the fact that on majority public opinion mind, guns are just too dangerous to have around unregulated and without certain restrictions and education--legal, operational and others.

Which shown the ignorance of those who want them restricted. It’s been proven throughout history and over and over again from state to state… “More Guns Less Crime”.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

TheJ
01-07-2012, 11:53
If that doesn’t bring it into perspective nothing will. :thumbsup:
:)

You would think that analogy/example would give more people pause to think it through.. Unfortunately, I think cognitive dissonance prevents many from logically thinking it through.

bandmasterjf
01-07-2012, 12:24
Seems you’re the one with lack of grasp. Liberals believe in their particular version of freedom and only when it applies to them being free to impose their will on others. A lot like your version of freedom. Your trying to turn the tables of liberalism on Constitutionalism is further proof of your liberal leanings. We believe in freedom and equality for all FREE MEN. You believe in your particular version regardless of what the Constitution states.

No, I see the reality that many people that live in our society would not be free men when the 2nd Amendment was written. There was no contention for murderers walking the streets because it didn't happen then. They had the forthought to write a law giving free men the right to have guns, but didn't have see a future where criminals would be set free becuase of paperwork errors and crazy people would walk the streets. Those people would be locked up or dead then. They should be now, but they aren't. Things have changed. You don't see that reality for whatever reason.

bandmasterjf
01-07-2012, 12:33
This is your rationale on why it's ok to violate the second amendment? Do you think there were no rapist in Thomas Jefferson's time? Do you think they just forgot to address this problem?

Like I said before. Just because the justice system is broken (let's convicted murderers free), gives NO ONE the right to violate the constitution by violating anyone's RIGHTS.


Like I said and your reading comprehention obviously missed is that those people would have been put to death so the law wasn't necessary. If a rapist is dead then his ability to own a firearm isn't an issue.

They also lose the right to vote, to live where they want(can't live near a school), to freely travel (can't go to places where children congrigate). It's not all about gun rights.

TheJ
01-07-2012, 12:43
No, I see the reality that many people that live in our society would not be free men when the 2nd Amendment was written. There was no contention for murderers walking the streets because it didn't happen then. They had the forthought to write a law giving free men the right to have guns, but didn't have see a future where criminals would be set free becuase of paperwork errors and crazy people would walk the streets. Those people would be locked up or dead then. They should be now, but they aren't. Things have changed. You don't see that reality for whatever reason.
So.... You think the framers were unaware that murderers and crazy people were around back then, or are you saying that just not many murders and crazy people actually existed back then because all were dealt with so swiftly? Wow.
You don't think the framers knew that the constitutional protections against self incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure would lead to, in some cases, crazy/murderers remaining free? Really? You don't think they thought of that?

Jerry
01-07-2012, 13:39
No, I see the reality that many people that live in our society would not be free men when the 2nd Amendment was written. There was no contention for murderers walking the streets because it didn't happen then. They had the forthought to write a law giving free men the right to have guns, but didn't have see a future where criminals would be set free becuase of paperwork errors and crazy people would walk the streets. Those people would be locked up or dead then. They should be now, but they aren't. Things have changed. You don't see that reality for whatever reason.

You really need to study some history because what you’ve just posted screams of ignorance. Do you honestly believe that “every” violent person was behind bars when the Bill of Rights was put to parchment?


“No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.
-- Colin Greenwood, in the study "Firearms Control", 1972”


"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, 1783

1gewehr
01-07-2012, 17:50
What if the airlines don't want to restrict firearms on their own accord, would it be safe to have a flock of people with firearms on board ?

But still you will always have the fact that on majority public opinion mind, guns are just too dangerous to have around unregulated and without certain restrictions and education--legal, operational and others.

Before 1968, no US airliner had ever been successfully hijacked. (There were several unsuccessful attempts.) There were NO regulations against carrying on aircraft until 1968. In fact, pilots were encouraged to go armed as many airliners carried US Mail.

In 1968, Congress in it's wisdom decided to ban guns on commercial airliners. In 1969 eight airliners were hijacked to Cuba. Airline hijacking was a significant problem throughout the 70's and '80's.

In the 1950's, my grandfather went on a safari in Southern Rhodesia. The airline ticket agent suggested that he should hand-carry his guns on board the plane and put them in the overhead compartment because they were valuable. He flew from NY-Brussels, Brussels-Leopoldville, Leopoldville-Salisbury. Nobody ever questioned his carrying firearms on board a plane. That was two rifles, a shotgun, and a 1911 .45 in his briefcase.

Dukedomone
01-07-2012, 23:30
The examples I gave (airports and roads) are both 'rival' and 'excludable'. And there are motives for the private sector to build and maintain them. In fact, historically the private sector has done a much better job of that than government has. All early airports were privately owned and operated. Most roads before 1920 were also privately-owned and maintained.
But this is a discussion for another thread.

Agreed. You beat me to it. Off topic, but great myth busting. You also have to remember that the government spending crowds out private investment. This is another reason you see less private roads. Private roads would be much better than government roads [end of off topic rant].

IhRedrider
01-09-2012, 21:45
bandmaster

Why do you continue to attack my reading comprehension? Is it due to the fact that YOU cannot follow a logical discussion? Since you cannot answer simple questions without spewing stupidity, I now have some more questions for you.

If a rapist is dead then his ability to own a firearm isn't an issue.

This statement does not answer my questions. Please look at them and try again. The rapist's state of life was not in any of my questions. If you are trying to claim that in Thomas Jefferson's time all rapists were caught, tried and executed, then you are truly delusional. Or if you can back any of these implied claims up, please do, that is a challenge.

They also lose the right to vote, to live where they want(can't live near a school), to freely travel (can't go to places where children congrigate). It's not all about gun rights.

First of all you have employed a weak diversionary tactic by making statements that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It IS all about gun rights. Read the OP and read the second amendment.
There are no amendments in the bill of RIGHTS that have anything to do with; right to vote, right to live where you want, or right to freely travel. Nice try, please stay on topic or start your own post.

They had the forthought to write a law giving free men the right to have guns, but didn't have see a future where criminals would be set free becuase of paperwork errors and crazy people would walk the streets.

Did you think about this statement before you typed it and do you still stand by this statement?
If you do stand by this statement, please show with facts how our founding fathers were either stupid or gullible enough to believe that there would be no rapists ever to get away with their crime. The same applies to crazy people walking the streets. OR show that when the constitution was being drafted, there were no crazy people, mistakes in justice, or criminals set free.

94stang
01-09-2012, 21:50
bandmaster

Why do you continue to attack my reading comprehension? Is it due to the fact that YOU cannot follow a logical discussion? Since you cannot answer simple questions without spewing stupidity, I now have some more questions for you.



This statement does not answer my questions. Please look at them and try again. The rapist's state of life was not in any of my questions. If you are trying to claim that in Thomas Jefferson's time all rapists were caught, tried and executed, then you are truly delusional. Or if you can back any of these implied claims up, please do, that is a challenge.



First of all you have employed a weak diversionary tactic by making statements that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It IS all about gun rights. Read the OP and read the second amendment.
There are no amendments in the bill of RIGHTS that have anything to do with; right to vote, right to live where you want, or right to freely travel. Nice try, please stay on topic or start your own post.



Did you think about this statement before you typed it and do you still stand by this statement?
If you do stand by this statement, please show with facts how our founding fathers were either stupid or gullible enough to believe that there would be no rapists ever to get away with their crime. The same applies to crazy people walking the streets. OR show that when the constitution was being drafted, there were no crazy people, mistakes in justice, or criminals set free.
I got some random email notification for this message and LOL'd... Spewing stupidity... That statement contains so much truth about certain parties.

IhRedrider
01-16-2012, 16:54
Bandmaster,

I guess you don't want to answer my questions that I have for you. O well.

Jerry
01-18-2012, 21:27
Hey bandmasterjf take a look at this http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1395693 and tell us how great NICS is and how it only “inconveniences” a few people. :okie:

runcible68
01-26-2012, 13:20
Sadly, just because you can own a gun, it does not follow that you SHOULD own a gun. We've all met some people with spotless criminal records who make us very nervous at the gun range. Some people are just to stupid to own a gun. Of course, what defines stupid and who would make that determination? I don't know. Sometimes I like the fact that cops in some states can say, "That guy's as dumb as a bag of rocks. No way we're letting him have a gun." Then again, that power will always be abused to restrict 2cd Amendment rights. In my fantasy world, there's be some kind of aptitude test. Never gonna happen though.

I, like most people, really want to keep guns out of the hands of the "crazies." They're the ones doing all the mass shootings. Sure, we can strengthen reporting systems, but what about people who fall through the cracks? I don't have an answer. What do you think?

YtownGlock
01-26-2012, 13:24
Gun Control means hitting what you are shooting at :)

Therefore, I fully and 100% support Gun Control. https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/406559_2743888768016_1581415520_32328395_1066095936_n.jpg

loomis22
02-06-2012, 23:47
Well you can be for constitutional carry....but I am a self proclaimed demorcrat and I can't stand Obama (thought he was great at first) or any other guy running for office except Ron Paul.... If you want to live your life under the constitution then Ron Paul is the only way to go IMO........and im a demorcarat just sayin........

Jerry
02-07-2012, 10:21
You can’t be a Demorat and claim to support the Constitution or firearms rights. Just saying!

YtownGlock
02-07-2012, 12:21
You can’t be a Demrat and claim to support the Constitution or firearms rights. Just saying!

Oh boy...

Jerry
02-07-2012, 16:37
Oh boy...

Sometimes the truth hurts. :devildance:

dalegates
02-25-2012, 08:03
This issue is much like the discussions I've heard on evolution - there's really no way to prove many of the points made. The end result is circular conversations that can never end.

Rather than reading further, I think I'll go to the range and blow up melons with my guns. Far more productive...

YtownGlock
02-25-2012, 10:32
Sometimes the truth hurts. :devildance:

Personally, I'm not a Democrat and I am not a Republican. I am just an American who loves his country, the constitution, the flag, and the right to own/bear arms and ammo :)