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 12-06-2011, 19:02   #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 19:53..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 19:15   #42
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 517
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, 20:32   #43
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 9,041
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, 20:37   #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, 23:12   #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, 23:50   #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, 14:18   #47
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


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, 16:38   #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 16:39..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 22:20   #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, 11:04   #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
Old 12-08-2011, 12:29   #51
1gewehr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mid TN
Posts: 1,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View Post
[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.
1gewehr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 07:44   #52
polyman305
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: South FL
Posts: 70
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...
polyman305 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 07:53   #53
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
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.
__________________
Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now...the weather! ---- Bill Hicks
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 08:21   #54
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
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.
__________________
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 12-09-2011, 10:40   #55
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1gewehr View Post
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. 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.
__________________
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; 12-09-2011 at 10:42..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 15:31   #56
polyman305
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: South FL
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
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. 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.
polyman305 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 16:13   #57
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by polyman305 View Post
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.
__________________
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 12-09-2011, 20:18   #58
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,804
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.
__________________
"I'm your priest, your shrink, your main connection to the switchboard of souls. I'm the Magic Man, the Santa Claus of the Subconscious. You say it, you even think it, you can have it." - Lenny Nero
WarCry is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 04:00   #59
polyman305
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: South FL
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by polyman305; 12-10-2011 at 04:01..
polyman305 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 08:26   #60
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 WarCry View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
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", 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 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.
__________________
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

 
  
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 16:54.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,064
327 Members
737 Guests

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