GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-04-2011, 17:30   #21
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454 View Post
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.
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 19:29   #22
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 9,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
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.

Last edited by John Rambo; 12-04-2011 at 19:29..
John Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 19:42   #23
HexHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,818
Objects shouldn't be controlled, just behavior. Punish the people using a gun in the commission of a crime, for the crime.
HexHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 22:58   #24
Gunnut 45/454
Senior Member
 
Gunnut 45/454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,049
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?

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!
__________________
Gunnut45/454-One shot one kill!

Last edited by Gunnut 45/454; 12-04-2011 at 23:07..
Gunnut 45/454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2011, 02:24   #25
NMPOPS
Senior Member
 
NMPOPS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arizona / New Mexico
Posts: 848
Send a message via ICQ to NMPOPS
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
__________________
"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY"
NRA Endowment Life Member, Glock Armorer
NMPOPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2011, 12:18   #26
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
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.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 12-05-2011 at 16:35..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2011, 12:42   #27
automan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NVA
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
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.
automan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2011, 14:06   #28
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
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..
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2011, 16:40   #29
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJ View Post
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.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2011, 18:07   #30
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 518
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.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2011, 21:51   #31
CPatt44
Senior Member
 
CPatt44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 297
My idea of gun control is using two hands and hitting what you are aiming at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
NRA Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor
There is no substitute for training!
CPatt44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 09:50   #32
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 9,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454 View Post
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.

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

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

Quote:
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.

Last edited by John Rambo; 12-06-2011 at 09:57..
John Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 13:25   #33
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View Post

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View Post

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.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 12-06-2011 at 13:26..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 15:58   #34
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 9,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
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/

Verb:
  • 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".

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.



Quote:
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.
John Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 16:31   #35
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View Post
in·fringe/inˈfrinj/

Verb:
  • 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".

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.

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


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!
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 12-06-2011 at 16:45..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 16:51   #36
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 9,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
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.

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


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.

Quote:
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.
John Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 17:41   #37
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View Post
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.

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.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 12-06-2011 at 17:42..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 17:50   #38
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 9,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
“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.

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.
John Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 18:51   #39
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View Post
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View 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?
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 19:01   #40
ScaryPerryDawsy
Member
 
ScaryPerryDawsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 36
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.
ScaryPerryDawsy is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:51.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 848
248 Members
600 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31