|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 30, 2012, 04:36 PM | #76 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
Quote:
I know...You insist you aren't blaming guns, but those of us that are 'not contributing' see your sole 'middle-ground' suggestion to require us to jump through different hoops than we do now in order to exercise a right, as doing just that... Now that we have that out of the way, maybe we can discuss the real issue at hand, which is how we deal with the Mental Health issues of some of our citizens...The fact that we can not 'control' dangerously disturbed individuals until they actually harm others should be the focus of our words and worries over whether to infringe on an individual's liberty... Just a thought... |
||
December 30, 2012, 04:44 PM | #77 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
|
Quote:
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis |
|
December 30, 2012, 04:53 PM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Absolutism is a long term looser.
|
December 30, 2012, 04:54 PM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 243
|
Myshoulder
You are right. There are extremists on both sides, but they will not prevail. The middle ground will. There are people here who state "both are clearly and obviously unconstitutional" with regard to certain gun laws. And it never occurs to them to ask "according to who?" You and the mouse in your pocket? Has the Supreme Court ruled on that? The Supreme Court is the authority on what is, and what is not constitutional. And there are recent cases. Heller and McDonald. If you have never heard about those cases, you should read those cases, or at least read about them. They do not jump to irrational and self serving conclusions on either side of the issue. They take a middle ground. And that is what will prevail. And what that middle ground is is that you have a right to own guns for self defense, against criminals and crime. Not because you think you have a right to overthrow the government because you think it is unconstitutional or tyrannical. And the issue will not be decided or determined on the forums. So don't waste your time with the wacky statements. dc |
December 30, 2012, 05:05 PM | #80 |
Member
Join Date: February 19, 2012
Posts: 51
|
Nice to see some comments from other reasonable gun owners. It is very possible to fully support 2A without stifling discussion or name calling (I seem to remember another amendment about free speech?).
|
December 30, 2012, 05:07 PM | #81 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
The government is claiming authority to regulate guns via the Commerce Clause (in Article I, Section 8.) The 2nd Amendment (all the amendments, actually) modifies the body of the Constitution -- if the government ever had any authority under the commerce clause to regulate arms (which is debatable), the 2nd Amendment removes that authority. Only a dishonest "what the meaning of 'is' is" -type reading could interpret it differently.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
December 30, 2012, 05:28 PM | #82 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
Consider if our other rights were to be restricted in similar ways... License to speak in public. Background check prior to public speaking. You have to get a new background check for each speech. If your speech papers get seen prior to the speech you could become subject to arrest. Or how about if you attend religious ceremonies more than twice a month then you need to fill out special paperwork for high volume attendance... Religious books must be kept with lock and key and when not in use place in a safe meeting California standards.. None of these things would fly for our other rights, not one of them so how is expecting the equal treatment of a right extreme? There never is any compromise by antis, never we loss more and more and they lose nothing, that's not compromise. No, I honor your sentiments and your right to have them even if I strongly disagree with you... I don't have a lot of grey area, things are either right or wrong, but we are all different..
__________________
Molon Labe |
|
December 30, 2012, 05:39 PM | #83 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
|
Quote:
First Amendment rights, for instance, are subject to all sorts of restrictions...narrowly tailored, for the most part, but restrictions nonetheless. The constitution is a constitution, not a legal code. The details get worked out over the years, in the political and judicial arenas.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis |
|
December 30, 2012, 05:46 PM | #84 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 801
|
I heard someone make a few arguments that I absolutely agree with:
1. If armed security guards are a bad idea in schools, which are targets, they should be a bad idea in airports, local/state/federal government property, outside the rich Beverly Hills home, and basically...armed private security guards should no longer exist. 2. If Joe citizen, who is also a target should not carry concealed, no one else other than law enforcement should either; including judges, private investigators, politicians, etc. Guns are bad, cops will arrive in a minute right? 3. The local business or rich guy should not be able to rent an off duty cop to protect them or their property just to get around who can carry a gun and protect said person or property. Guns are bad, on-duty cops are coming right? There must be some gun restrictions, such as mental and criminal history, but other than that...leave lawful gun owners alone, and increase the public safety net for the mentally ill are the answers. |
December 30, 2012, 05:53 PM | #85 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I haven't read this whole thread, but I'll try to answer the OP:
Quote:
With that said, let's talk about what "middle ground" means. To my mind, "middle ground" ought to mean the midpoint between: (a) anybody can own anything they can afford, no restrictions whatsoever; and (b) no civilian ownership of firearms whatsoever. It seems to me that we're already beyond "middle ground" and closer to (b) than (a) as it stands today. On the federal level alone, we already have a background check on the purchaser of every new firearm, and every used firearm sold by FFLs. In many states, you must get state permission before you can carry a pistol, unless you pack it in the trunk of your car. If the seller of a firearm has any reason to believe the buyer is a felon or otherwise prohibited, he has to call off the sale, or face significant penalties. Many of these newly-started "let's just be reasonable" threads seem to operate on the assumption that we (gun owners) should be willing to retreat to a middle ground between the law is it currently stands, and a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms. The phrase "middle ground" also implies that there is some kind of negotiation, some kind of compromise. Surely someone has already posted a link to the LawDog Files' "Ok, I'll play?" What the big antis like Feinstein are pushing does not, in any way, shape, manner or form, resemble a negotiation or compromise. What they're pushing is nothing more than stripping law-abiding gun owners of our rights, based on the acts of a lunatic. For most of my life, gun owners had their rights taken, little by little, one piece at a time. And it has all been done in the name of "the greater good." Note that I said, "in the name of" the greater good. I am unconvinced that the measures were actually taken to improve the good of the many, but that's a discussion for another day. More importantly, we're talking about whether or not I will be allowed to legally possess the most effective means of protecting my wife and my daughter. Right wrong or indifferent, bad things happen. Riots, floods, tornadoes, looting, carjackings, home invasions, etc. I have a wife and daughter and I'm utterly undemocratic when it comes to my family. If it's going to impair my ability to protect them, screw the greater good.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. Last edited by Spats McGee; December 30, 2012 at 06:06 PM. |
|
December 30, 2012, 06:18 PM | #86 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
|
|
December 30, 2012, 06:31 PM | #87 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
|
Quote:
In my estimation, though, we've never come within a country mile of (b). In fact, with 200,000,000+ firearms out there, it's hard to draw any other conclusion.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis |
|
December 30, 2012, 06:41 PM | #88 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
You're certainly welcome to disagree, but I am not sure that using the number of firearms in civilian hands is really the way to measure severity of restrictions.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
December 30, 2012, 06:46 PM | #89 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
If they'd open up the NICS program so private sellers *could* use it, I would be in favor of that. Right now, it's only available to FFL dealers and I think law enforcement.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
December 30, 2012, 06:49 PM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
|
Well, as we're approaching one firearm for every man, woman and child in the United States (a ratio that may go above one soon enough, at the current rate), I'd be curious how it is anybody can conclude that the laws over the last decade have gotten us closer to "no civilian ownership of firearms whatsoever."
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis |
December 30, 2012, 06:59 PM | #91 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Perhaps I phrased it poorly, MedicineBow. Here was my original statement:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
December 30, 2012, 07:09 PM | #92 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
|
Spats...
I'm not trying to jump on your phrasing. What I thought you were saying is that the current regulatory structure is closer to a ban than not. I don't think that's even close to being true. In fact, the very opposite is true. Guns, under the current regulations, are being easily sold and bought at record rates. Now, if you're saying that a gun ban could be proposed, well, I suppose it could.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis |
December 30, 2012, 07:19 PM | #93 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
MedicineBow, you're always welcome to disagree, but bear a couple of facts in mind:
1) The 200M number includes every firearm purchased before 1968 that is still out there and was transferred, inherited, etc. 2) There are significant restrictions that many of us (myself included) don't think about simply because, in our memory, they've always been in place. Machine guns, suppressors, interstate shipping, etc. 3) As it stands, the first buyer for every firearm in the US requires a NICS check. Compare this to, say 1920, when a 10-year-old could have ordered a machine gun through the mail and had it delivered to his home.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
December 30, 2012, 07:28 PM | #94 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
|
Trust me, I know I'm welcome to disagree.
But the point remains: we have a record number of firearms. We are not and have never been anywhere within a country mile of having no guns in civilian hands. I have never once heard of a non-felon, non-crazy who couldn't buy a gun or two or five in this country when he wanted to. Not a single one. And, yep, no suppressors...so it's going to be louder when you shoot. And, yep, hard to get automatic weapons...so you have to pull the trigger one time for every shot. But, let's face it, for decades we've had unparalleled choice in weapons. A really remarkable feast. And I've sure taken advantage of it.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis |
December 30, 2012, 07:31 PM | #95 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Let's return to the opening post:
Quote:
And then you must know that, at age 20, the shooter didn't qualify for a carry permit, but they don't apply to rifles anyway. His mother reportedly kept the guns in a safe or locked cabinet even though she was not required to by law. She was knowledgeable about firearms safety and had trained both her sons. In other words, none of the things you apparently view as crucial based on your first post would have made any difference, as conclusively proven by the fact that they were ALL in place and they DIDN'T make any difference. So what do have to bring to the table that WOULD make a difference, and that would NOT be an unconstitutional infringement on the 2nd Amendment RKBA? Quote:
Last edited by Aguila Blanca; December 30, 2012 at 07:52 PM. |
||
December 30, 2012, 07:42 PM | #96 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
|
|
December 30, 2012, 07:52 PM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
|
I would like to state that I am sorry for how I approached this issue.
I am all for less restrictions on gun ownership, and I want to work towards that. My talk of middle ground is merely due to the fact that we are in middle ground already. My reasoning behind the initial post was to discuss the reality of the issue, and because I believe that blanket bans on features or properties of some guns is pretty dumb, but I also see no point in discussing *only* a full return to, for lack of a better term, "full gun liberation". The reality that we are currently already in the middle ground means to me that middle ground is where discussion needs to be focused on. I would ideally like much more freedoms in not just this arena, but others as well. To get there, I wanted to discuss, in a civil manner, how we could propose to roll back restrictions that are in place, and useless. I DO NOT think that gun ownership should be absolutely unwatched, or unregulated. I do think that *some* measures of control should be in place. I do not think restricting carry in most currently restricted places is good in any way, I do not think that restrictions on MGs, SBR/SBSs, or suppressors is helping any issue in any way. This discussion was NOT started over the Sandy Hook incident, and I am not going to get into it in any way. I am aware of many of the same things the rest of you are. I don't need convincing, I just wanted to discuss the realities, and perhaps what measures could actually be kept and be useful, and how to deal with our current situation without resorting to faceless statistics that would be ignored anyway, or the "all or nothing" approach. Small steps are how things change, and the laws aren't going to be lifted in one fell swoop, nor is the talk of how things "should be" from either side doing anything but make the sides despise each other further. I hope that clears up my stance... |
December 30, 2012, 07:54 PM | #98 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
|
|
December 30, 2012, 07:55 PM | #99 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
The reality is that the anti-gun forces are going to pull out all the stops to push for as close to a total ban on every type of firearm we currently regard as "mainstream" as they can possibly get. The only way to fend off a full frontal assault is with a full frontal counter-attack -- or carpet bombing and napalm.
|
December 30, 2012, 08:07 PM | #100 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 2,654
|
Whatever gets passed i pray to God it's not this : http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...aws-Nationally
Fact of the matter is there are plenty restrictions on firearms to keep them out of the hands of evil people...yet they still get them because if someone wants to do something bad enough your going to do it, no written law is going to change a thing. The incident that happened with the man ambushing the firemen Christmas day.. the man is a felon that just got out of a 17yr sentence for killing a relative. Legally he can't own a single firearm, yet he had four. So then how is any control supposed to stop that man? If there were no guns on earth people would still be killing people then we'd all be hearing about banning knives and going to all plastic silverware. Then comes the truth of why should I and other law abiding citizens be punished because of what some nut did unlawfully in the first place? We have a middle ground and it's the laws currently in place. This whole thing is a bunch of BS and its driving me insane.
__________________
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me." |
|
|