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 12-05-2011, 11:18   #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 15:35..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2011, 11:42   #27
automan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NVA
Posts: 434
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, 13:06   #28
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,478
Blog Entries: 4
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, 15:40   #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, 17:07   #30
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 506
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, 20:51   #31
CPatt44
Senior Member
 
CPatt44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 290
Send a message via Yahoo to CPatt44
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!
Gen 4 G19, Sig Sauer MK25
CPatt44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 08:50   #32
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 8,038
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 08:57..
John Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 12:25   #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 12:26..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 14:58   #34
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 8,038
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, 15:31   #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 15:45..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 15:51   #36
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 8,038
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, 16:41   #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 16:42..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 16:50   #38
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 8,038
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, 17:51   #39
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,478
Blog Entries: 4
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, 18:01   #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
Old 12-06-2011, 18:02   #41
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
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’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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View Post
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:
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.
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.
__________________
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 18:53..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 18:15   #42
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 506
John Rambo

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 19:32   #43
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 8,038
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.
John Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 19:37   #44
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View Post
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.



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.
__________________
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 12-06-2011, 22:12   #45
Dukedomone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 108
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.
Dukedomone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 22:50   #46
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukedomone View Post
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.
__________________
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 12-07-2011, 13:18   #47
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,478
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post


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.
No need for them to bother with logic when it's easier to just feel good..
__________________
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 12-07-2011, 15:38   #48
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
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.
__________________
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; 12-07-2011 at 15:39..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 21:20   #49
Dukedomone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
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.
Dukedomone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 10:04   #50
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukedomone View Post
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
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
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 00:55.



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


Users Currently Online: 809
214 Members
595 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42