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 12-16-2011, 05:25   #151
MarcDW
MDW Guns
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Maine USA
Posts: 5,047
Almost every time I shoot: My left hand supports the right holding the gun!
__________________
Glock Armorer - FFL/01/08/SOT
Importer of fine firearms
see www.mdwguns.com for current inventory
MarcDW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 05:59   #152
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
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.
__________________
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

Last edited by eracer; 12-16-2011 at 06:03..
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 07:30   #153
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
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. IF THEY ARE TOO DANGEROUS TO HAVE FIREARMS THEY SHOULD NOT BE ON THE STREET IN THE FIRST PLACE


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.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 16:46   #154
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
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.
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
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; 12-16-2011 at 19:16..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 18:06   #155
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
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...

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

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
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.
__________________
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; 12-17-2011 at 10:07..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 03:09   #156
expatman
Senior Member
 
expatman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cape Coral, Fl. & Kampala, Uganda
Posts: 655
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.
__________________
Formerly SW.Fla.Glocker and.... EVIL, CRIMINAL, VERY BAD AND SCARY SECURITY CONTRACTOR....(insert evil, sinister laugh here)
expatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 04:44   #157
MarcDW
MDW Guns
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Maine USA
Posts: 5,047
Quote:
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!
__________________
Glock Armorer - FFL/01/08/SOT
Importer of fine firearms
see www.mdwguns.com for current inventory
MarcDW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 07:08   #158
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 506
Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 12:43   #159
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
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.'
__________________
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

Last edited by eracer; 12-17-2011 at 12:43..
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 12:46   #160
flyboyvet
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Seattle, Lahaina, Medford.
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeross View Post
If there's a gun around, I wanna control it.
Exactly...Well said.
flyboyvet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 15:21   #161
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
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.'
for the least intelligent answer so far.

IhRedrider did you actually expect a rational answer to any of those questions?
__________________
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; 12-17-2011 at 15:22..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 16:19   #162
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 506
eracer

Quote:
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.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 01:01   #163
Dukedomone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
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?
Dukedomone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 05:29   #164
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
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."
-- Thomas Jefferson

And with that, I bid this thread adieu.... Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah.
__________________
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

Last edited by eracer; 12-18-2011 at 05:54..
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 07:18   #165
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 506
eracer

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by IhRedrider; 12-18-2011 at 07:20..
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 07:22   #166
Chesafreak
Senior Member
 
Chesafreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 1,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by OffRoadTraveler View Post
The only gun control I want to see is the placement of the second shot.

+1

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
Chesafreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 08:19   #167
1gewehr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mid TN
Posts: 1,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
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?
'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.
1gewehr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 11:49   #168
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukedomone View Post
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
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; 12-18-2011 at 11:49..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 12:06   #169
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1gewehr View Post
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.

That sarcasm is not directed at you but rather at the gun control idiots.
__________________
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; 12-18-2011 at 12:06..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 12:19   #170
Scattergun1187
Vote Republican
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,067
Send a message via Yahoo to Scattergun1187
Simply answer. NO!!
Scattergun1187 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 07:29   #171
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,478
Blog Entries: 4
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
__________________
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 12-19-2011, 08:09   #172
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
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?
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 08:16   #173
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatman View Post
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?
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36

Last edited by bandmasterjf; 12-19-2011 at 08:32..
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 08:30   #174
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
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.

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

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?
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 08:52   #175
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 bandmasterjf View Post
...
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.
__________________
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 22:41.



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


Users Currently Online: 1,184
327 Members
857 Guests

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