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 12-15-2011, 13:27   #141
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
No, but they sure can drive through it. Its done all the time. I suppose you’ve never watched world’s dumbest criminals.



Been done! Google is your friend.



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

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



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

Before you try to tell others about the Constitution or teach it you’d better learn what it really says. God help us all with people like you teaching your liberal gun control bull manure to the children.
I did read your post about having to go through all that, and it sucks that you have too. Maybe if you were in a free state like I am you wouldn't have to. You would know that if you read all my post.
Liberal gun control bull?

I think anyone who isn't a violent felon or a drug dealer should be able to have anything they can afford. Heck I would have a tank and 50cal auto on top if I had the cash and would support your right too. How is that liberal gun control. I'm not for anarchy. That's all.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36

Last edited by bandmasterjf; 12-15-2011 at 13:29..
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 14:03   #142
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJ View Post
The only reason a poor person can't afford auto weapons to begin with is that they prices are artificially super-hyper inflated by the prohibition against further production. So the transfer tax is sort of insult to injury...

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

I wouldn't mind having a full auto gun, it would be a blast. I've been thinking about a suppressor for my 223 though. That would be a lot of fun. But for me the full auto thing would be a lot like my opinion on drinking. Fun, but way too expensive to do. I can't imagnine how much ammo I would go through in a day if given the chance. I didn't know there was a prohibition on production.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 14:11   #143
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJ View Post
IMHO it is far far more important to protect everyone's right to self defense then it is to make practically futile attempts to PREvent violent/stupid/crazy people from having one particular means of harming others.
I agree. It IS far more important to ensure the former.

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

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

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

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

I much prefer that we enforce laws already on the books, and I wish in my heart of hearts that we could keep the sickos and crazies locked away forever - but it ain't gonna happen, and while criminals can get guns despite the laws that inconvenience the law-abiding, those laws make it more difficult for them do so.
__________________
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; 12-15-2011 at 16:09..
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 14:19   #144
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454 View Post
We live in a society with rules that protect free men. The founding fathers knew this, and those of us who understand that there are people who ignore those rules (dangerous recidivist felons and deranged individuals) are not 'gun-grabbing liberals', but realists. We desire democracy, not anarchy.


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

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

As for the cost of a permit: Would you prefer that a tax pays for the bureaucracy require to manage the system? I pay for it because I know it costs money, and I know that if searched in a Terry Stop I won't go to jail for having a gun in my pocket. But Mr. Thug will, thanks to laws that prohibit felons from possessing guns.
__________________
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 12-15-2011, 16:03   #145
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambo View Post
Not directed at anyone in particular, just the general mindset.
And you would be correct. That was a dig at the whiners not really a chastise for you.
__________________
Jerry
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 12-15-2011, 16:28   #146
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
So you are just for firearms anarchy?
We lived for almost 200 years without all the unconstitutional gun laws and there wasn’t anarchy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
I don't have a problem with non-voilent/non drug felons having guns. But I don't see a law restricting violent offenders from having them is a bad thing. Yes, I'm a big boy and understand that anyone can get pretty much anything they want if they have enough money. In the case that a felon who shouldn't have a gun is caught with one I think there should be a law on the books that punishes them for it. And yes I do believe that some people forfit their right to have a gun by their past actions.
If someone lies should that lose their right to free speech? If they set fire to Masque should they loose their right to practice their religion? I’ll take a leap here and bet you’ll say no. So why should they loose their right to own a firearm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
Just FYI, Just checked my county records. There are 67 inmates at the county jail waiting for trial. Two with felon in possession charges. One has an assult charge(not with the gun) the other that's the only charge. They weren't using the guns at the time, just had them in their possession. I don't know what thier orignal felony was, but at this point it doesn't matter. They were obviously doing something wrong and were caught with something they shouldn't have had. So the law got two criminals off the streets in my little corner of the world. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
How many felons did you say were in possession of firearms? So you would say the law is working and they didn’t have guns? Or perhaps when they get out (and they will be out shortly) they won’t be able to get them again? Or possibly that NICS and the other laws are working really well right? You just proved my point, the law did nothing. IF THEY ARE TOO DANGEROUS TO HAVE FIREARMS THEY SHOULD NOT BE ON THE STREET IN THE FIRST PLACE

Quote:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson
That is straight from the man that helped write the Amendment. Do you think that they did not have criminals at the time it was written?
__________________
Jerry
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; 12-15-2011 at 16:40..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 16:36   #147
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
How does an instant background check stop me (a law-abiding citizen) from buying a gun at a retail shop? Answer: It does not.
I really hope you and your ilk get caught up in the system and become one of the people that are flat out denied. We’ll see how much you like it then. It happens more than you are willing to admit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
As for the cost of a permit: Would you prefer that a tax pays for the bureaucracy require to manage the system? I pay for it because I know it costs money, and I know that if searched in a Terry Stop I won't go to jail for having a gun in my pocket. But Mr. Thug will, thanks to laws that prohibit felons from possessing guns.
There shouldn't be a bureaucracy require to manage the system. The system is Unconstitutional. If you pay for a right it is no longer a right it has been turned into a PRIVILEGE.
__________________
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; 12-15-2011 at 17:59..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 19:39   #148
Gunnut 45/454
Senior Member
 
Gunnut 45/454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,046
Jerry
As we've seen these Liberal Progressive will do and say anything to deminish the COTUS. It's for the children, we got to remove guns from the crazies etc. They are bought an paid for by the belief that Uncle sugar will protect them. As normal speaking the truth falls on deaf ears with these types. They live there lives by emotions , and until they have a life changing event- EI stare the BG in the eye's or down the barrel of his gun they will never get it! If they survive such an encounter they might actually see why we are so against there Progressive world veiw!
__________________
Gunnut45/454-One shot one kill!
Gunnut 45/454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 20:37   #149
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454 View Post
Jerry
As we've seen these Liberal Progressive will do and say anything to deminish the COTUS. It's for the children, we got to remove guns from the crazies etc. They are bought an paid for by the belief that Uncle sugar will protect them. As normal speaking the truth falls on deaf ears with these types. They live there lives by emotions , and until they have a life changing event- EI stare the BG in the eye's or down the barrel of his gun they will never get it! If they survive such an encounter they might actually see why we are so against there Progressive world veiw!
I’ll tell you, I get so damn frustrated, as I’m sure you do. We tell them over and over to look at history and examine the facts. We give the places to find legitimate statistics and faucal data and they keep coming back with emotional drivel. Seems the more we disprove their illogical opinions the more they come out of the woodwork. I keep saying I give up, but then I realize if I don’t do it I won't be able to look myself in the mirror. If I can convince one person at least I’ve accomplished something. I have had two people in the last couple of years come back to say that after going back and forth with me they decide to look at things with an open mind. They did some research and found out that their openion was just that, an incorrect opinion and that the facts proved to be different from what they had been lead to believe. Sooooo I keep on keeping on. And if people take it personally when I call it like I see it… to darn bad. If they didn’t come across as such idiots I wouldn’t treat them like idiots.

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

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

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
They comfort themselves in the false illusion of safety provided by the law. However they cannot show me where a law stopped murder, rape or kidnapping. But to them gun control works.

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

But here I am preaching to the choir again.


Yours in Liberty,

Jerry
__________________
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; 12-15-2011 at 20:51..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 00:09   #150
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454 View Post
Warcry
Yes the SCOTUS said the 2nd APPLIES EQUALLY TO EVERY STATE (Incorperated)! There fore it negated most of the restrctions IL has on gun ownership. But you all just said oh well when your state still enforced there restrictions. As I've posted on other threads - the question was not asked nor did the SCOTUS define 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and because of this omission by them - either intentional or by mistake there ruling was incomplete cause any right minded person would see that if they were to actually read these words they'd have to invalidate all gun control laws as they are in direct violation of the 2nd! The Second leaves no room for Reasonable restrictions - it say's NO restrictions are allowed! I can't for the life of me understand why anyone can't see this to be the truth. And yes the founders intended this to be a BLACK AND WHITE thing -no room for interpitation!
In Heller and McDonald, SCOTUS incorporated "Keep", but not "Bear". They moved the bar toward saying that all states have to SOME form of carry (open or concealed), but they stopped just short of doing so. Again, if you don't believe me, go read the actual decisions, not some summary that's twisted by EITHER side.

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

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

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

So, the question is, do you believe that strongly in the word-for-word interpretation, or do you only believe in that when it suits your purpose?
__________________
"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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 06:25   #151
MarcDW
MDW Guns
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Maine USA
Posts: 5,078
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
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
for current inventory
MarcDW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 06:59   #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 07:03..
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 08:30   #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 wasnít 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? Iíll take a leap here and bet youíll 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 didnít have guns? Or perhaps when they get out (and they will be out shortly) they wonít 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, 17:46   #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 20:16..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 19:06   #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 11:07..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 04:09   #156
expatman
Senior Member
 
expatman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cape Coral, Fl. & Kampala, Uganda
Posts: 657
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, 05:44   #157
MarcDW
MDW Guns
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Maine USA
Posts: 5,078
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
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
for current inventory
MarcDW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 08:08   #158
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 510
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, 13:43   #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 13:43..
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 13:46   #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

 
  
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 22:30.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,126
292 Members
834 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42