|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
View Poll Results: Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws? | |||
None, the 2nd Amendment rules | 165 | 75.34% | |
Yes,there must be some restriction's | 45 | 20.55% | |
Undecided | 9 | 4.11% | |
Voters: 219. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 13, 2013, 09:41 PM | #76 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
In the old days, felonies were seen as serious, harmful crimes. Nowadays, we've got a lot of malum prohibitum laws that make felonies out of less serious offenses. By the original definition, I might agree. By our modern definition, I simply cannot.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 14, 2013, 07:08 AM | #77 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
My original point was that some pro gun are trying to say that firearms are no more dangerous than a stick or a knife in the wrong hands. I disagree firearms are designed to kill they have being developed over hundreds of years to do one thing more efficiently and that's kill. Some are more efficient than others a AK47 is more efficient at killing multiple tragets in as short and efficient way as possible than a air rifle that's what it was designed for. Except this and then make the arguments that its the person with the intent that's the problem people should stop trying to deny that firearms are designed to kill. Last edited by manta49; April 14, 2013 at 07:24 AM. |
|
April 14, 2013, 07:45 AM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,425
|
If you're talking about new laws, not a chance. But there are existing laws, such as no automatic weapons, background checks for FFL purchases, etc., that I do support, because they have some actual value. The laws being proposed now are useless for the purported purposes for which they are being put forth, that is, the reduction of mass slayings. We all know, I'm confident, that gun control laws really are yet another way that the uber-Liberals want to control US. The things happening now in this country, thanks to Obama and his stooges, are apalling, but those we've chosen to represent our interests are, with a few exceptions, failing miserably ... no more gun control! Period!
__________________
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus |
April 14, 2013, 09:17 AM | #79 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 14, 2013, 09:49 AM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 22, 2009
Location: SD
Posts: 141
|
In my "perfect world" the next time there is a majority of Second Amendment advocates in the House, the Senate, and the White House, all firearms regulations would be repealed.
I don't think this is likely to happen, but I think it is something we need to continually remind our elected officials that this should be the goal. |
April 14, 2013, 10:12 AM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 2,018
|
There are some really good thoughts in this thread and I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no right answer.
On the surface agreeing to background checks on all transfers seems like a rational approach, unfortunately it does in fact lead to another foothold on the erosion of 2A. On the other hand, not being willing to run checks on all transfers makes us appear unreasonable, often misconstrued into the notion that America's gun culture just doesnt care about the mayhem on the fringe of our hobby. Its very difficult to convince the rest of the population that guns don't create crime. |
April 14, 2013, 03:41 PM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 25, 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 604
|
2nd amendment
I believe our founding fathers got it right and it should not be infringed on !
|
April 14, 2013, 07:30 PM | #83 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 30, 2010
Posts: 1,581
|
I went to the book store today to pick up a copy of The Constitution. I thought I had one, but can't find it. The first book I picked up had interpretations from some author in it. Paraphrased, he said "the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own guns for their own personal protection and for militia purposes, but the Federal and State Governments have the right to limit what types of weapons you can possess. Funny, when I read the 2nd Amendment it said no such thing.
__________________
Stay Groovy |
April 14, 2013, 08:52 PM | #84 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
|
I quote...
"On every question of the constitution let us carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was past." Thomas Jefferson. Despite this clear evidence, gun control proponents attempt to "squeeze" the text of the second amendment. Any law that restricts the right of an American citizen to keep and bare arms in anyway what so ever is un constitutional. Period. The second amendment is not negotiable! The constitution, the bill of rights and the government do not endow us with our rights. Our rights come from whatever god you believe in and the founders said so. The bill of rights is simply the recognition of our god given rights and the promise not to screw with those rights. The second amendment is in fact absolute! Only another amendment can change that legally. Of it isn't clear I voted no gun restrictions.
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war. We're from the government, we're here to help |
April 14, 2013, 09:12 PM | #85 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: Woodhaven MI
Posts: 477
|
I believe mentally ill people, felons and illegal aliens should not be allowed to own a firearm so I voted yes for some restrictions.
|
April 14, 2013, 10:51 PM | #86 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
|
Who gets to decide what mentality ill means?
Felons that are now free men have paid their debt. If you believe their debt isn't paid why are they now free and not in jail or dead? Anyone that has done something horrific enough not to deserve their basic rights dose not deserve to live. IMO of course. Illegal aliens are not citizens and don't have the right to keep and bare arms. Not one single law that restricts "American citizens" from having the means to protect themselves, their families and their country from all threats, both foreign or domestic is constitutional. This is a fact, not an opinion. Look up infringed in the dictionary. These rights are not negotiable, nor debatable. They simply are that, rights. Boomer
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war. We're from the government, we're here to help |
April 14, 2013, 11:04 PM | #87 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,889
|
[Felons that are now free men have paid their debt. If you believe their debt isn't paid why are they now free and not in jail or dead? Anyone that has done something horrific enough not to deserve their basic rights dose not deserve to live. IMO of course]
The law does not agree with you, and neither do I. Some actions that we take in life cannot be undone and the consequences last forever. So it is with felons. They should have thought of consequences before they committed felonies. Some debts cannot be fully paid even though prison time may be finished. Prison time is only a part of the penalty. Whoever the law says is the one who gets to dedide what/who is mental illness. When people commit crimes and horrific crimes such as school shootings attempts to prevent it again are bound to happen, even though only window dressings. Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. |
April 14, 2013, 11:51 PM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
|
Those who wrote our constitution agree with me. I have read their words. That is much of where my beliefs come from. Our founders were quite clear about their reasoning for those beliefs as well. Just because politicians have eroded our rights slowly over time does not mean the law( the constitution) does not agree with me. Any law that restricts those rights is unconstitutional and the founders said it is not only our right, but our duty to fight back with whatever means are necessary.
In the past when a felon was released from jail his weapons were returned to him because his debt was paid, because any debt that could not be paid in full was paid for with their life. And people wonder why crime rates are so high now days.
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war. We're from the government, we're here to help |
April 15, 2013, 12:47 AM | #89 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 2,018
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 03:07 AM | #90 | ||
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
|
Quote:
I also suggest reading Sir William Blackstone commentaries and John Adams the literal father of the second amendment. Quote:
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster-- |
||
April 15, 2013, 08:07 AM | #91 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 2,018
|
Quote:
I Support 2A in mind and wallet, but I for one could do without the "well regulated militia" part. |
|
April 15, 2013, 08:12 AM | #92 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 26, 2005
Location: Osborn, Missouri
Posts: 2,697
|
Quote:
It's also time for all this gun control BS to stop, and gun ownership to quit being the polictical football it's become. The 2A is very clear, in my opinion only those that want to destroy it and the rest of the constitution think it's "as clear as mud". Best Regards Bob Hunter www.huntercustoms.com |
|
April 15, 2013, 09:48 AM | #93 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: Woodhaven MI
Posts: 477
|
Felons and lunatics are the reasons we risk losing our rights in the first place. When you break the law you willingly give up your rights. Letting these idiots own guns is just asking for trouble.
|
April 15, 2013, 09:50 AM | #94 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
Dashunde
Quote:
If the gov't can't make their case for additional regulation using logic and empirical data to prove that there is a reason for this or that, then they can go pound sand. Example: Interstate highways were designed by civil engineers to carry traffic at a certain speed. The curves turn at X degree; they are banked at y degree, etc. If the gov't makes a law that says I cannot exceed speed limit Z b/c that would exceed the designed speed limit for safe travel, then I"m willing to accept that. If they say that I cannot drive a truck that exceeds weight limit AA tons b/c the road isn't designed for that, I'm willing to accept that as well. I'm not seeing the beauty of the options recently laid out in Congress. Dashunde, i'm not picking a fight with you personally. Your comment, however, resonates very strongly with me; my wife and I have had this discussion in many flavors over the past several years. She says "what could it hurt, if ..?" I always reply "How is it helping?" So...
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
|
April 15, 2013, 10:34 AM | #95 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
In answer to "what could it hurt?"
Let's see.... 1) Would expand power of an already bloated federal government; 2) Would chip away further at individual freedoms, in a country that was theoretically founded on the principle of maximizing individual liberties; 3) Would require additional manpower to run the expanded system, plus cost of hardware and software upgrades, office space, etc (IE it ain't free); 4) Would lend credibility to the antis' claims that guns are bad, and therefore require regulation of a type which is not seen against other potentially hazardous items, and which is definitely not seen against other Constitutionally protected rights; 5) Would lend credibility to the idea that Second Amendment protections should only fall under "Rational Basis," since we aren't even requiring antis to prove that what they suggest would be effective, let alone necessary or least intrusive. You get the idea. This isn't harmless. And I really don't care about the perceptions of those who can't figure out how to look things up for themselves. |
April 15, 2013, 12:06 PM | #96 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
mleake
Quote:
But i live in bizarro world.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
|
April 15, 2013, 03:13 PM | #97 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 1,210
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 15, 2013, 03:21 PM | #98 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
gaseousclay, if you are at a gun show, with a booth, selling firearms then you had better be an FFL, because you will certainly appear to be in the business of buying and selling firearms. If you are an FFL, you have to use NICS.
On the other hand, if you are John Q Public going to the show with your privately owned gun that you would like to sell or trade toward something else, then you are a private seller and must comply with state laws governing private sales. You'll see this at shows. Guys will have a gun or two along in hopes of selling or trading, but they aren't doing high volume sales, and they don't constitute a significant percentage of the business at most shows. Also, if they end up trading with or selling to an FFL, then they will also end up using NICS (because the FFL is required to do so). Going to a gun show in hopes of finding another private citizen there who has something you actually want to buy is a mixed strategy: If it works, you may find a really good deal, but the odds are you will not find what you are looking for. |
April 15, 2013, 03:27 PM | #99 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 15, 2013, 04:45 PM | #100 | |
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
|
Quote:
there has never been any law passed regulating guns that has inconvenienced a felon from using one to commit a crime.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster-- |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|