P5 Guy
Member
If we cannot trust a person with a gun then that person does NOT belong in our society.
Poll:Should the 2nd Amendment Truly Not Be Infringed In Any Way?
- Thread starter Duke Junior
- Start date
- Status
Johnnycome
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2008
- Messages
- 20
id only support infringments once they sort out every other major problem in society first.
Restricting any right on felons, the underaged, and the mentally defective is not infringement if they have been adjudicated! That is simply a part of "due process"! Instead, these are used an an excuse for the government to ignore the right. Similiarly, the governent CAN restrict certain acts in public and in peacetime. Beyond that they can do nothing.
And felony convictions isn't the issue anymore. Review US v. Emerson! You can lose your RKBA for misdemeanors and without even committing a crime. You guys are already behind the curve, the camel is already in the tent. There is already a procedure for felons to be given back their RKBA rights, It just almost NEVER happens. As far as I know, people who have lost their RKBA for reasons of past misdemeanor "domestic violence" have no recourse. While all of you are worrying about felons, the anti's have been stealing the rights out from under you. Dr. Emerson, in the case I cited above was getting a divorce. His "due process" was a divorce trial, not a criminal one. On the barest of reasons, his wife was granted a general court order. Later, Emerson was arrested because he owned a couple of pistols. He now had a federal felony charge for criminal possession. While the federal district court dismissed the charges, the 5th CCOA reinstated the charges, reasoning that although the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, the law that imprisoned Emerson, wasn't an infringement. The matter has never been settled legally.
And felony convictions isn't the issue anymore. Review US v. Emerson! You can lose your RKBA for misdemeanors and without even committing a crime. You guys are already behind the curve, the camel is already in the tent. There is already a procedure for felons to be given back their RKBA rights, It just almost NEVER happens. As far as I know, people who have lost their RKBA for reasons of past misdemeanor "domestic violence" have no recourse. While all of you are worrying about felons, the anti's have been stealing the rights out from under you. Dr. Emerson, in the case I cited above was getting a divorce. His "due process" was a divorce trial, not a criminal one. On the barest of reasons, his wife was granted a general court order. Later, Emerson was arrested because he owned a couple of pistols. He now had a federal felony charge for criminal possession. While the federal district court dismissed the charges, the 5th CCOA reinstated the charges, reasoning that although the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, the law that imprisoned Emerson, wasn't an infringement. The matter has never been settled legally.
Felon has been reduced to a mere word, predicated by a pen stroke, predicated by mindless, feel-good, knee-jerk legislation...always to protect the children.
Think about it...if the legislature passed a law making nose-pickers felons, the likes of HRC would be a felon.
Alas I rant.
Doc2005
Think about it...if the legislature passed a law making nose-pickers felons, the likes of HRC would be a felon.
Alas I rant.
Doc2005
1) Mental "defectives": Who's going to define "defective"? I know of a few folks who have an IQ lower than "normal". They are also able to interact effectively in "normal" daily life. They are also harassed and "Picked on" more than most other (all?) segments of the general population. Should they be limited in their ability to carry because of their mental capacity?
How many people get off or are placed in mental institutions because of "temporary insanity"? If any "normal" person can all of a sudden become insane, how are "we" supposed to know if or when anyone can become "temporarily" insane (aka mentally defective)?
2) Felons: Not all felons are violent offenders. Not all violent offenders are repeat offenders. Should those felons who are not violent or repeat offenders have to spend thousands of dollars and many man-hours, not to mention tying up even more court time, trying to get their rights restored? Why not assume that, once they've served their sentences (which were determined to be an appropriate punishment) when they're released and have all of their rights restored?
Keep in mind that, as has been mentioned, daily there are more and more actions being made into "crimes" and more crimes are being made felonies.
OK, so a kid with a firecracker should be lumped in with a murder when talking firearm ownership, because they both have a disregard for the law. I hate to use the automotive allegory, but... What about those who speed or roll through stop signs or ..... Should they also be refused the right to own a firearm because of their disregard for the law?
3) Tanks and full auto weapons: Come on! Do you really think that "blood will run in the streets" because people are able to buy these? Sounds exactly like the argument made by the more anti-gun folks to oppose the carrying of handguns by the general population. These can be purchased and owned now - legally. I've heard of one incident of a tank being used in a crime, and, if memory still serves correctly, it was stolen. And it never fired a shot, just caused a lot of property damage.
4) This is the first thread I recall reading where dishonorable discharge has been mentioned as a reason to restrict firearm ownership. Hopefully it is the first time it's been mentioned - and will be the last. We cannot keep coming up with more reasons to restrict ownership, the anti's will do that quite well. I personally know at least one person who received a DD. Why? Fraternization between officer & enlisted. Should he be restricted? (No, it wasn't me - never wanted to be "Sir").
A bit off topic - to those who don't think it appropriate to shoot someone to protect property - should the thief who stole the tank and destroyed property have been shot to stop him?
I remember living in California a few decades ago. Back then you could buy both hand- and long-guns in hardware stores, department stores and by mail. Gradually, a little at a time, California has tightened things up to where they are now. I'd bet that the history of New York, Illinois and DC followed pretty much the same pattern. Nope, can't happen here though.
Let's change that up just a bit:
Allowing the general population to own firearms doesn't work. Who decides that? Who are you willing to give that power to? Who ensures the government doesn't abuse that power?
BTW, they already are abusing the power to "regulate" firearm ownership.
I mentioned in another thread that here in Texas open carry is not legal. A person has two choices here, get a carry permit, or don't carry. Getting a concealed carry permit is expensive, even more so for a couple on a limited income. If you don't have the extra money, you can't legally carry - because you have to have a permit ("permission slip") from the government. There's nothing in the Second Amendment that says "You can only carry if you're rich enough".
And that strikes me as just plain exaggeration. As K3 said, I'll take that over registration any day.
5) WMD's (Poison gas, deadly germs & biotoxins, and nukes): Seems as if those take a bit of training to use, and they're likely to kill the owner before s/he could use them on anyone else. Unless you support a training class for those similar to a CCW class? Do you really think they're not already available if you got the money and don't care about the laws - like the one against killing someone else?
It's only unconstitutional until the courts reinterpret the laws - again.
6) Age restrictions:
So, my father shouldn't have given me a 16ga at age 13, my brother a 20ga at 12 and little brother a .410 at 10?
I'd almost forgotten to mention misdemeanor "domestic violence". I know a guy who almost lost his RKBA during an "unfriendly" divorce because of a false claim of violence. She fell and claimed he pushed her down. A decent lawyer and a few grand later the charges were dropped, but it was close. Fortunately (?), he'd already sold off all his firearms, or he'd possibly have been facing firearm charges also.
The restrictions are getting tighter.
How many people get off or are placed in mental institutions because of "temporary insanity"? If any "normal" person can all of a sudden become insane, how are "we" supposed to know if or when anyone can become "temporarily" insane (aka mentally defective)?
2) Felons: Not all felons are violent offenders. Not all violent offenders are repeat offenders. Should those felons who are not violent or repeat offenders have to spend thousands of dollars and many man-hours, not to mention tying up even more court time, trying to get their rights restored? Why not assume that, once they've served their sentences (which were determined to be an appropriate punishment) when they're released and have all of their rights restored?
Keep in mind that, as has been mentioned, daily there are more and more actions being made into "crimes" and more crimes are being made felonies.
OK, so a kid with a firecracker should be lumped in with a murder when talking firearm ownership, because they both have a disregard for the law. I hate to use the automotive allegory, but... What about those who speed or roll through stop signs or ..... Should they also be refused the right to own a firearm because of their disregard for the law?
3) Tanks and full auto weapons: Come on! Do you really think that "blood will run in the streets" because people are able to buy these? Sounds exactly like the argument made by the more anti-gun folks to oppose the carrying of handguns by the general population. These can be purchased and owned now - legally. I've heard of one incident of a tank being used in a crime, and, if memory still serves correctly, it was stolen. And it never fired a shot, just caused a lot of property damage.
4) This is the first thread I recall reading where dishonorable discharge has been mentioned as a reason to restrict firearm ownership. Hopefully it is the first time it's been mentioned - and will be the last. We cannot keep coming up with more reasons to restrict ownership, the anti's will do that quite well. I personally know at least one person who received a DD. Why? Fraternization between officer & enlisted. Should he be restricted? (No, it wasn't me - never wanted to be "Sir").
A bit off topic - to those who don't think it appropriate to shoot someone to protect property - should the thief who stole the tank and destroyed property have been shot to stop him?
I remember living in California a few decades ago. Back then you could buy both hand- and long-guns in hardware stores, department stores and by mail. Gradually, a little at a time, California has tightened things up to where they are now. I'd bet that the history of New York, Illinois and DC followed pretty much the same pattern. Nope, can't happen here though.
Let's change that up just a bit:
Allowing the general population to own firearms doesn't work. Who decides that? Who are you willing to give that power to? Who ensures the government doesn't abuse that power?
BTW, they already are abusing the power to "regulate" firearm ownership.
I mentioned in another thread that here in Texas open carry is not legal. A person has two choices here, get a carry permit, or don't carry. Getting a concealed carry permit is expensive, even more so for a couple on a limited income. If you don't have the extra money, you can't legally carry - because you have to have a permit ("permission slip") from the government. There's nothing in the Second Amendment that says "You can only carry if you're rich enough".
And that strikes me as just plain exaggeration. As K3 said, I'll take that over registration any day.
5) WMD's (Poison gas, deadly germs & biotoxins, and nukes): Seems as if those take a bit of training to use, and they're likely to kill the owner before s/he could use them on anyone else. Unless you support a training class for those similar to a CCW class? Do you really think they're not already available if you got the money and don't care about the laws - like the one against killing someone else?
It's only unconstitutional until the courts reinterpret the laws - again.
6) Age restrictions:
So, my father shouldn't have given me a 16ga at age 13, my brother a 20ga at 12 and little brother a .410 at 10?
I'd almost forgotten to mention misdemeanor "domestic violence". I know a guy who almost lost his RKBA during an "unfriendly" divorce because of a false claim of violence. She fell and claimed he pushed her down. A decent lawyer and a few grand later the charges were dropped, but it was close. Fortunately (?), he'd already sold off all his firearms, or he'd possibly have been facing firearm charges also.
The restrictions are getting tighter.
Duke Junior
member
They certainly are.The slippery slope becoming more slippery.Over one third of the members voting in this poll believe in some form of gun control.This on American's number one firearm's forum.
I'm very surprised by the results.
Excellent post and fine observations and logic,CliffH.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
I think that anyone competent to vote for the commander in chief of the most powerfull military in the world should be compitent to own our nations service rifle.
Then again, I think that people who are not capable of taking care of themselves should be disinfranchised. Otherwise they will use the power of the legislature to vote themselves other mens property via the welfare state.
Then again, I think that people who are not capable of taking care of themselves should be disinfranchised. Otherwise they will use the power of the legislature to vote themselves other mens property via the welfare state.
I agree with L. Neil Smith!
http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
[email protected]
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?
Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.
You are here: Webley Page > Lever Action > Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
[email protected]
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?
Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.
You are here: Webley Page > Lever Action > Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
If you are in jail - NO gun.
If you are let out of jail, served your time and considered OK to be out on the street - YES to a GUN and a driver's license. Vote too.
If you are in an insane asylum - NO gun.
If you are let out of the 'nut house', no offense, got healed, bla and bla like the above = YES to a GUN and a driver's license. Vote too.
If you are some Manson type and of his ILK - don't waste the taxpayers money on keeping you alive. You should be put down like a rabid dog.
If you are so mentally ILL aka nuts - you should be kept INSIDE if you are not safe enough to roam the streets.
We have so called normal people that take legal Rx drugs that are way off in LA LA land and they roam free.
We have so called leaders that do NUTTY things, pass laws and it is like the inmates are in charge of the asylum = District of Criminals.
So when you think about it all there should ONLY be 2 things that should prevent you from a owning a gun. JAIL and NUT HOUSE. If you are NOT safe to be on the 'OUTSIDE' - mingle among society as we know it... you should have the above apply.
When you get out of JAIL and the NUT HOUSE - you should pay your own way including TAXES like the rest of us working and retired folks. Even if you have to pick up trash --- a JOB!
Yours in liberty,
Catherine
If you are let out of jail, served your time and considered OK to be out on the street - YES to a GUN and a driver's license. Vote too.
If you are in an insane asylum - NO gun.
If you are let out of the 'nut house', no offense, got healed, bla and bla like the above = YES to a GUN and a driver's license. Vote too.
If you are some Manson type and of his ILK - don't waste the taxpayers money on keeping you alive. You should be put down like a rabid dog.
If you are so mentally ILL aka nuts - you should be kept INSIDE if you are not safe enough to roam the streets.
We have so called normal people that take legal Rx drugs that are way off in LA LA land and they roam free.
We have so called leaders that do NUTTY things, pass laws and it is like the inmates are in charge of the asylum = District of Criminals.
So when you think about it all there should ONLY be 2 things that should prevent you from a owning a gun. JAIL and NUT HOUSE. If you are NOT safe to be on the 'OUTSIDE' - mingle among society as we know it... you should have the above apply.
When you get out of JAIL and the NUT HOUSE - you should pay your own way including TAXES like the rest of us working and retired folks. Even if you have to pick up trash --- a JOB!
Yours in liberty,
Catherine
Don't have time at the moment to read the whole thing so forgive me if this has been written prior, and give credit to who go it out there first (if you're the type that keeps score in these discussions...).
I have no fear that if the Amendment came as written-with NO restrictions that things would work out just fine.
I truly believe that within six months most violent felons would be standing before the Judge of Judges and not making any trouble for us down here. The mentally incompetent would have been disarmed and 'duly noted', and politicians would be behaving themselves or out of office.
We had better wake up an understand that you CANNOT negotiate with politicians. It has always been all or nothing and it remains all or nothing. The problem is we can't get ourselves to admit it. We like to think that 'they' are 'just like us' and will see the truth and "you know" be more "understanding" and "all" and then they will let us have our "resonable" guns and ammo. This is foolish at best and irresponsible at worst. (NOTE: I am talking about politicians here not the "sheeple", we should never stop talking to other folks about this and encouraging them to shoot with us etc.). Why is it so hard to understand that this "fight" will not end for them until their figurative heel is on your neck?
We cannot suffer this issue to be interpreted as gray any longer. You are either free or not.
And we, my friends are not and haven't been for a long time. Now we either cower or stand but we should not sit on the fence.
I have no fear that if the Amendment came as written-with NO restrictions that things would work out just fine.
I truly believe that within six months most violent felons would be standing before the Judge of Judges and not making any trouble for us down here. The mentally incompetent would have been disarmed and 'duly noted', and politicians would be behaving themselves or out of office.
We had better wake up an understand that you CANNOT negotiate with politicians. It has always been all or nothing and it remains all or nothing. The problem is we can't get ourselves to admit it. We like to think that 'they' are 'just like us' and will see the truth and "you know" be more "understanding" and "all" and then they will let us have our "resonable" guns and ammo. This is foolish at best and irresponsible at worst. (NOTE: I am talking about politicians here not the "sheeple", we should never stop talking to other folks about this and encouraging them to shoot with us etc.). Why is it so hard to understand that this "fight" will not end for them until their figurative heel is on your neck?
We cannot suffer this issue to be interpreted as gray any longer. You are either free or not.
And we, my friends are not and haven't been for a long time. Now we either cower or stand but we should not sit on the fence.
Last edited:
ColinthePilot
Member
If the 2nd rules 100%, that means, to me, children, the mentally defective, and convicted violent felons would have access to guns. As I see it, the Constitution applies to adults, so that rules out unsupervised children. I also figure that violent felons have forfeited their rights. If they can prove, through prison time and probation, that they have been rehabilitated (my plan would be sentence plus 10 years of probation with not a single offense on their record) they can again own firearms. I also don't think the average civilian should own weapons like hand grenades, missiles, etc which fall under my definition of "arms."
My feelings on NFA stuff are mixed. I don't know how criminals would use them, but the benefits to criminals vs law-abiding would not be tit-for-tat as it is now. We think of guns as equalizers now, because for the most part, the guns used for crime and defense are the same types of guns. For defensive purposes, very few would carry full auto weapons, and even fewer would spray and pray in a self defense scenario. Criminals wouldn't care who they shot at or how many rounds get sprayed into innocent bystanders. I believe that the ban on importing machine guns should be lifted, and the ban on manufacturing them for the civilian market should also be lifted, but I'm not sure about the other restrictions.
As far as the guns we buy, carry, and shoot every day, I'm fine with no restrictions. No waiting periods, no in-state buying restrictions on handguns, no high capacity restrictions or AWB's. No Concealed Carry Licenses or laws. Let anyone carry their gun as they see fit. Open or concealed or both. Doesn't matter.
My feelings on NFA stuff are mixed. I don't know how criminals would use them, but the benefits to criminals vs law-abiding would not be tit-for-tat as it is now. We think of guns as equalizers now, because for the most part, the guns used for crime and defense are the same types of guns. For defensive purposes, very few would carry full auto weapons, and even fewer would spray and pray in a self defense scenario. Criminals wouldn't care who they shot at or how many rounds get sprayed into innocent bystanders. I believe that the ban on importing machine guns should be lifted, and the ban on manufacturing them for the civilian market should also be lifted, but I'm not sure about the other restrictions.
As far as the guns we buy, carry, and shoot every day, I'm fine with no restrictions. No waiting periods, no in-state buying restrictions on handguns, no high capacity restrictions or AWB's. No Concealed Carry Licenses or laws. Let anyone carry their gun as they see fit. Open or concealed or both. Doesn't matter.
It is 2:00 AM where I am, and I have been writing computer code for 19 hours. If this isn't entirely cohesive...my apologies.
Those who have seen my posts in other similar threads know my position on this topic: I am very hold the opinion that if you are free to walk the street you should be free to arm yourself. (Indeed you are free in that the ability cannot be denied you....You can get a gun, you may not have one however.)
I understand those who have posted that Heller is the most recent reading in what constitutes the current legal 'right'. However, I interpret the question differently. I believe the intent of the OP was to ascertain our (individual/collective) interpretation of the right. I also worry that Heller gives with one hand, and takes away with another. Lots more case law is needed before we will see whether it was really a 'win'.
The topic of children keeps coming up. I have children. 12, 10, 8, 6, 3, 1 are the ages. Three and three, girls to boys. I know the limitations that some exhibit with firearms at a young age, and the responsibility that manifests in others.
My mind returns to my grand-father, many greats back. I wonder what he would think of what we have done with his country. See, he helped General Washington win it from the British in the Revolutionary War.
I don't think he would much like us not letting minors have guns. I think he would be very cross about such non-sense. Almost 100% certain he would have stern words about such opinions.
Why can I express with such certainty how he would feel? Why do I think he was fighting to establish these rights, even for those under age?
He was 12 when he joined the revolutionary fight.
Those who have seen my posts in other similar threads know my position on this topic: I am very hold the opinion that if you are free to walk the street you should be free to arm yourself. (Indeed you are free in that the ability cannot be denied you....You can get a gun, you may not have one however.)
I understand those who have posted that Heller is the most recent reading in what constitutes the current legal 'right'. However, I interpret the question differently. I believe the intent of the OP was to ascertain our (individual/collective) interpretation of the right. I also worry that Heller gives with one hand, and takes away with another. Lots more case law is needed before we will see whether it was really a 'win'.
The topic of children keeps coming up. I have children. 12, 10, 8, 6, 3, 1 are the ages. Three and three, girls to boys. I know the limitations that some exhibit with firearms at a young age, and the responsibility that manifests in others.
My mind returns to my grand-father, many greats back. I wonder what he would think of what we have done with his country. See, he helped General Washington win it from the British in the Revolutionary War.
I don't think he would much like us not letting minors have guns. I think he would be very cross about such non-sense. Almost 100% certain he would have stern words about such opinions.
Why can I express with such certainty how he would feel? Why do I think he was fighting to establish these rights, even for those under age?
He was 12 when he joined the revolutionary fight.
Kind of Blued
Member
As long as murder is illegal and punishable by death, I'm fine with felons owning tanks.
How's that for "Quote most likely to be nonsense when taken out of context"?
How's that for "Quote most likely to be nonsense when taken out of context"?
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
It's an unfortunate fact of life that not everyone can be trusted. And it's an even more unfortunate fact that some people not only are untrustworthy, they're just dirty, rotten individuals.
Our aim should be to mitigate and prevent damage caused by noisome regulations and restrictions enacted under the guise of crime prevention and public health and safety.
It may very well be true that Heller will not prove to be quite the boon that Second Amendment champions had expected.
Our aim should be to mitigate and prevent damage caused by noisome regulations and restrictions enacted under the guise of crime prevention and public health and safety.
It may very well be true that Heller will not prove to be quite the boon that Second Amendment champions had expected.
LaEscopeta
Member
Making up things that aren’t true is not the same as making a point. Here is a partial list of things stated in this thread that in fact are not true:
1. It is not a felony to bounce a check. A jury has to find the intent to commit fraud (cash a check on an account that doesn’t exist, use a false name, know you can’t get the funds to cover the check, etc) for it to be a felony.
2. A dishonorable discharge from the military does not prevent owning firearms.
3. You do not have to prove you are not a felon to buy a firearm. You have to prove who you are and where you live (show 2 forms of ID) just like when you exercise your Right to vote. You have to check a box on a form saying you are not a felony, but the burden of proof that you are a felon lies with the Government workers running the NICS.
4. There is not a trend to make traffic offense felonries. In fact the trend is the opposite, to lower the level running red lights and speeding from moving violations to be like parking tickets, so when they send you the photo ticket in the mail you don’t have the same right to a trial.
5. No one loses the Right to keep and bear arms by seeing a therapist, having depression, taking anti-anxiety medication, staying in a mental hospital or having occasional seizures. You have to be found by a court (in many states a jury) to be mentally defective AND a danger to yourself or others.
6. Having a ponytail does not make you mentally defective, neither in the USA nor in England.
7. Spitting on the sidewalk is not currently a crime, felony nor misdemeanor, in any State of the Union, and has not been for several decades. Likewise it is not illegal, nor has it ever been, to urinate in a state or national park, where there are no nearby facilities.
Have you heard of NetFlicks?
denfoote
Member
I bet if everybody had a nuke missile silo in their back yard, the Hitler of our time would think twice about attacking us!! 
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Not yet, LaEscopeta, not yet.
Note date: 13 Oct 2009.
"It is the 13th of October, 2009, and... " (Post #11)
"It is up to the Government to prove you are a felon..."
So much for the theory.
Actually, I go along with that statement, in one respect. You go in a store, you buy a gun, you are found with it later, and the Government alleges you are a prohibited person. That's what your statement would have us do.
But to presume in advance that I am a felon, and have to prove otherwise to purchase a firearm, violates the idea that I am innocent until proven guilty, which ArfinGreebly brought up (thank you, ArfinGreebly.)
Note date: 13 Oct 2009.
"It is the 13th of October, 2009, and... " (Post #11)
"It is up to the Government to prove you are a felon..."
So much for the theory.
Actually, I go along with that statement, in one respect. You go in a store, you buy a gun, you are found with it later, and the Government alleges you are a prohibited person. That's what your statement would have us do.
But to presume in advance that I am a felon, and have to prove otherwise to purchase a firearm, violates the idea that I am innocent until proven guilty, which ArfinGreebly brought up (thank you, ArfinGreebly.)
LaEscopeta
Member
If the way it is is so important, why are we making things up about 13 Oct 2009?
Last edited:
K3
Member
Perhaps it's good to be cognizant of what can happen if government is not kept in check. The trend so far has not been good, with an increasing number of crimes classified as felonies, many of which are non-violent.
You have a LOT of politicians that would love to abolish private ownership of firearms. Many claim otherwise, saying they support hunting and go after deer on their belly with their trusty 12 gauge, but the records and votes of these people clears up any doubt for those truly paying attention. Nothing good comes out of compromising with them
Did we need the 94 AWB? What did it solve? If the answer is nothing, and it is, anti politicians will make the claim that 'it didn't go far enough'.
This is not rocket science. These 'reasonable regulations' and 'reasonable restrictions' only hinder the good guys.
What good has 68 GCA done with it's FFLs and 4473s? Has it made a statistically significant dent in the murder w/ firearms rate?
LaEscopeta
Member
Source, please?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
