Ante up anti gunners...what will you allow for normal gun owners, what do you want?

[HereWeGoAgain]

NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?

I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time. The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.

If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.

Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?

What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?

You're serious? The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals. The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.

What a racket.

No,the racket is liberals and their soft on crime approach because it happens to be minorities doing most of the killing.
The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.

in fact if we have certain demographic challenges that European countries do not. Remove that problem and our crime rate might be similar to western European countries

Hell,it'd be lower.

 

[oldsoul]

And that is the only reason we still have the ability to own guns.

And that's not going to change. The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.

Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated. Has that led to prohibition or confiscation? Obviously not. Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.

Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.

Why? What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you? What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past?

And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers". Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue. What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited? And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?

It is the only tool that keeps genocide, mass murder an ethnic cleansing from happening.....it is the tool that let's a woman fight off 1 or more armed attackers......it allows the old to protect themselves from the younger, stronger violent criminals.....

Guns are different from cars, and any thing else that is registered to the government......those who want to control other people have to get rid of guns.....the Germans did it...the Mexicans are doing it.......the people being controlled and murdered by their governments all over the world.....don't have the guns to stop it.....

Guns are not the same as other regulated products........that is why they have their own Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

You are a fool. You live in a relatively safe time and place.....which is the strangest condition known to man...for most of the world, safety and security don't exist.......they live in fear of both criminals and their governments.......we have had over 200 years of safety and security...and because of that you morons are going to give up the tool that made that possible.......

Will we experience the violence that other countries do.....not immediately.....but it only took Germany 20 years to go from a country with the rule of law and of democratic institutions....to murdering people in gas chambers......

Right now, across our border, Mexican people are being slaughtered by the police and military.......because they work for the drug cartels.....and every single argument you make for gun control....and gun regulation....is used by the Mexican government to keep those poor people unarmed...and victims

in the Balkans...in the 1990s.......the communists did not allow people to own guns.......and when communism fell...those same people who were slaves to the communists, because they did not have guns......were slaughtered in ethnic cleansing because they did not have guns......

Gun registration and control allows the bad guys to rape, murder and kill the good guys.......Look at Mexico you fucking moron......they have every single gun control law you want......and they are being slaughtered right across our border.......

That is why we can't register our guns.......we have actual history that shows what happens when you register guns in peaceful times....and then evil people get in charge.....I get it...you are too stupid to understand history....that it can actually happen again.........I can't say if you were born that stupid......or made yourself that stupid.....but you are......and that is why we oppose you......you are too foolish to understand human behavior and human history.......

Must be nice living in your arm chair........

Must be hell living in fear of your own shadow, tormented by suspicion and dark conspiracies.

No wonder your sort is dying out. Nature has a way of removing outliers.

Yeah, fuckwit.........tell that to the people living in democrat, inner city voting districts.......where they have the most gun control...and the criminals run free.......

The problem is hardly gun control in Chicago. It's the lack of it next door. Ever been to the Old West paradise of Gary, Indiana?

Using that very same logic, Minnesota (being surrounded by states with less gun control) should be a venerable cesspool of gun violence, and yet....
Tallying gun deaths: one Minnesotan killed every day by firearms
Of course if one where to merely look at the headline, one might conclude this proves my assertion incorrect. However, if one were to actually read the above linked story, one would find:
"One reason the numbers may surprise many Minnesotans is that most of the deaths were not covered by news media or otherwise publicly reported because they were suicides. Indeed, suicides outnumbered all other causes of gun-related deaths. Between 2000 and 2010, guns were used to commit an average 256 suicides each year in Minnesota compared with 70 homicides per year." And:
"Still, Minnesota is nowhere near leading the nation in gun violence. The state ranked 31st in an FBI tally of the sheer numbers of firearm-related murders during 2011. Among 70 homicides in Minnesota that year, handguns were the most common weapon, used 36 times." Interesting, as most gun-control seems to be geared at "assault weapons", and "assault style weapons". Maybe the hand gun thing is unique to Minnesota.
Table 20
Oops, guess not, according to the FBI at least.
From the Star Tribune, not exactly a bastion of conservative ideology:
As gun-carrying permits reach historic levels in Minnesota, related crimes remain in check

Notice how the highest bracket is not represented in the Minneapolis Metro area, the area with the highest crime rates. Interesting...


"Opponents had feared that the law would lead to a surge in shootings and gun deaths. But Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension data show that fatalities involving permit holders are rare. In the past five years, there have been five deadly or nonlethal instances of justifiable use of a firearm by permit holders." As gun-carrying permits reach historic levels in Minnesota, related crimes remain in check
Kinda blows a "small" hole in the whole "wild west" theory, doesn't it? Only one permit holder involved per year. Wow, what a bunch of gun waving lunatics.

 

[oldsoul]

That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......

For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.

If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that. Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.

The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....

We register automobiles. We already ban some types of guns. No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.

Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.

The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.

I don't want to ban guns. I own guns. My husband owns guns. Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating. Every right has limitations - none is unlimited. Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?

Well, using that logic, let's reinstitute "restrictions" on voting, free speech, jury of peers, etc. Why is it that the 2nd is the only amendment people want to "restrict"? Why are there no calls for restrictions on any other right?

 

[oldsoul]

The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....

We register automobiles. We already ban some types of guns. No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.

Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.

The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.

I don't want to ban guns. I own guns. My husband owns guns. Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating. Every right has limitations - none is unlimited. Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?

Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves.

Why are they unreasonable?

You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
You can not libel or slander.
You can not incite a crowd to violence.
You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.

All of those are restrictions on basic rights?

How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself? Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?

I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.

 

[oldsoul]

We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....

We get it. The Nazis did very bad things. Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?

That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......

For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.

If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that. Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.

Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........

Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...

The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings. Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison

So, how, exactly, would "We the people" defend (aka protect) ourselves from a tyrannical government, if we where vastly out-gunned? How would that work, exactly? How would a people go about fighting a force that has tanks, armor, aircraft, warships, automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, etc. with hunting rifles, pick-ups, SUVs, fishing boats, pistols, and shot-guns?
See, the right to keep and bear arms must, necessarily, be unrestricted for the people to have any hope of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. This is why we even have the 2nd amendment, to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny within our own government.

 

[Coyote]

For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.

If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that. Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.

The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....

We register automobiles. We already ban some types of guns. No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.

Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.

The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.

I don't want to ban guns. I own guns. My husband owns guns. Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating. Every right has limitations - none is unlimited. Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?

what are " reasonable restrictions" ?

In my opinion, background checks, waiting periods, restricting certain types of weapons, such as what is commonly used for military and high capacity magazines. I would also support a national registry, and some sort of educational requirement.

 

[2aguy]

And that's not going to change. The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.

Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated. Has that led to prohibition or confiscation? Obviously not. Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.

Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.

Why? What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you? What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past?

And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers". Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue. What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited? And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?

It is the only tool that keeps genocide, mass murder an ethnic cleansing from happening.....it is the tool that let's a woman fight off 1 or more armed attackers......it allows the old to protect themselves from the younger, stronger violent criminals.....

Guns are different from cars, and any thing else that is registered to the government......those who want to control other people have to get rid of guns.....the Germans did it...the Mexicans are doing it.......the people being controlled and murdered by their governments all over the world.....don't have the guns to stop it.....

Guns are not the same as other regulated products........that is why they have their own Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

You are a fool. You live in a relatively safe time and place.....which is the strangest condition known to man...for most of the world, safety and security don't exist.......they live in fear of both criminals and their governments.......we have had over 200 years of safety and security...and because of that you morons are going to give up the tool that made that possible.......

Will we experience the violence that other countries do.....not immediately.....but it only took Germany 20 years to go from a country with the rule of law and of democratic institutions....to murdering people in gas chambers......

Right now, across our border, Mexican people are being slaughtered by the police and military.......because they work for the drug cartels.....and every single argument you make for gun control....and gun regulation....is used by the Mexican government to keep those poor people unarmed...and victims

in the Balkans...in the 1990s.......the communists did not allow people to own guns.......and when communism fell...those same people who were slaves to the communists, because they did not have guns......were slaughtered in ethnic cleansing because they did not have guns......

Gun registration and control allows the bad guys to rape, murder and kill the good guys.......Look at Mexico you fucking moron......they have every single gun control law you want......and they are being slaughtered right across our border.......

That is why we can't register our guns.......we have actual history that shows what happens when you register guns in peaceful times....and then evil people get in charge.....I get it...you are too stupid to understand history....that it can actually happen again.........I can't say if you were born that stupid......or made yourself that stupid.....but you are......and that is why we oppose you......you are too foolish to understand human behavior and human history.......

Must be nice living in your arm chair........

Must be hell living in fear of your own shadow, tormented by suspicion and dark conspiracies.

No wonder your sort is dying out. Nature has a way of removing outliers.

Yeah, fuckwit.........tell that to the people living in democrat, inner city voting districts.......where they have the most gun control...and the criminals run free.......

The problem is hardly gun control in Chicago. It's the lack of it next door. Ever been to the Old West paradise of Gary, Indiana?

Using that very same logic, Minnesota (being surrounded by states with less gun control) should be a venerable cesspool of gun violence, and yet....
Tallying gun deaths: one Minnesotan killed every day by firearms
Of course if one where to merely look at the headline, one might conclude this proves my assertion incorrect. However, if one were to actually read the above linked story, one would find:
"One reason the numbers may surprise many Minnesotans is that most of the deaths were not covered by news media or otherwise publicly reported because they were suicides. Indeed, suicides outnumbered all other causes of gun-related deaths. Between 2000 and 2010, guns were used to commit an average 256 suicides each year in Minnesota compared with 70 homicides per year." And:
"Still, Minnesota is nowhere near leading the nation in gun violence. The state ranked 31st in an FBI tally of the sheer numbers of firearm-related murders during 2011. Among 70 homicides in Minnesota that year, handguns were the most common weapon, used 36 times." Interesting, as most gun-control seems to be geared at "assault weapons", and "assault style weapons". Maybe the hand gun thing is unique to Minnesota.
Table 20
Oops, guess not, according to the FBI at least.
From the Star Tribune, not exactly a bastion of conservative ideology:
As gun-carrying permits reach historic levels in Minnesota, related crimes remain in check

Notice how the highest bracket is not represented in the Minneapolis Metro area, the area with the highest crime rates. Interesting...


"Opponents had feared that the law would lead to a surge in shootings and gun deaths. But Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension data show that fatalities involving permit holders are rare. In the past five years, there have been five deadly or nonlethal instances of justifiable use of a firearm by permit holders." As gun-carrying permits reach historic levels in Minnesota, related crimes remain in check
Kinda blows a "small" hole in the whole "wild west" theory, doesn't it? Only one permit holder involved per year. Wow, what a bunch of gun waving lunatics.

20 years of people carrying guns and not shooting each other also shows the anti gunners are wrong.

 

[oldsoul]

The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....

We register automobiles. We already ban some types of guns. No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.

Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.

The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.

I don't want to ban guns. I own guns. My husband owns guns. Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating. Every right has limitations - none is unlimited. Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?

what are " reasonable restrictions" ?

In my opinion, background checks, waiting periods, restricting certain types of weapons, such as what is commonly used for military and high capacity magazines. I would also support a national registry, and some sort of educational requirement.

So, taking into account what I posted in post #445, you would be in favor of making easier for a tyrannical government to go unchecked. At least you are being honest, or maybe you simply have not thought things through to the end.

 

[Coyote]

We register automobiles. We already ban some types of guns. No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.

Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.

The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.

I don't want to ban guns. I own guns. My husband owns guns. Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating. Every right has limitations - none is unlimited. Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?

Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves.

Why are they unreasonable?

You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
You can not libel or slander.
You can not incite a crowd to violence.
You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.

All of those are restrictions on basic rights?

How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself? Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?

I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.

2nd Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.

Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:

15th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.

 

[Coyote]

We register automobiles. We already ban some types of guns. No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.

Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.

The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.

I don't want to ban guns. I own guns. My husband owns guns. Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating. Every right has limitations - none is unlimited. Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?

what are " reasonable restrictions" ?

In my opinion, background checks, waiting periods, restricting certain types of weapons, such as what is commonly used for military and high capacity magazines. I would also support a national registry, and some sort of educational requirement.

So, taking into account what I posted in post #445, you would be in favor of making easier for a tyrannical government to go unchecked. At least you are being honest, or maybe you simply have not thought things through to the end.

No, it's more along the lines of recognizing a slippery slope fallacy rather than a slippery slope. I'm not for banning all or even most guns.

 

[oldsoul]

As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.

 

[Coyote]

We get it. The Nazis did very bad things. Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?

That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......

For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.

If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that. Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.

Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........

Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...

The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings. Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison

So, how, exactly, would "We the people" defend (aka protect) ourselves from a tyrannical government, if we where vastly out-gunned? How would that work, exactly? How would a people go about fighting a force that has tanks, armor, aircraft, warships, automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, etc. with hunting rifles, pick-ups, SUVs, fishing boats, pistols, and shot-guns?
See, the right to keep and bear arms must, necessarily, be unrestricted for the people to have any hope of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. This is why we even have the 2nd amendment, to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny within our own government.

That is not what the 2nd Amendment says however.

 

[Coyote]

As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.

I disagree with that. All rights have limitations and restrictions and those restrictions most commonly have to do with when those rights intersect with someone else's rights or with public safety. 2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right even though the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in favor of reasonable restrictions.

Even when you say it's necessary to defend against a "tyrannical government" - who exactly makes that determination? Some nut bunkered down in Idaho?

We have a lot of checks and balances in place to prevent tyrannical governments - that includes the 2nd amendment but it also includes our entire system that while cumbersome makes it difficult for one person to accumulate a lot of power or to change the constitution.

I think reasonable restrictions on guns are appropriate.

 

[oldsoul]

Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.

The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.

I don't want to ban guns. I own guns. My husband owns guns. Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating. Every right has limitations - none is unlimited. Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?

Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves.

Why are they unreasonable?

You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
You can not libel or slander.
You can not incite a crowd to violence.
You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.

All of those are restrictions on basic rights?

How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself? Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?

I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.

2nd Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.

Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:

15th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.

I can't help but notice the difference in phrasing:

• Shall not be infringed.
• shall not be denied or abridged... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
• shall not be denied or abridged....on account of sex.
• Shall not be denied or a bridged...by reason of failure to pay...
• shall not be denied or abridged...on account of age.

See the difference? The 2nd has no qualifying statement. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th all do.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID

All of which is in the COTUS, is done by due process or is HOTLY debated.
For the record, I would be in favor of an ID requirement, as long as it is written into the COTUS via amendment. Otherwise, no.

 

[Coyote]

The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.

I don't want to ban guns. I own guns. My husband owns guns. Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating. Every right has limitations - none is unlimited. Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?

Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves.

Why are they unreasonable?

You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
You can not libel or slander.
You can not incite a crowd to violence.
You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.

All of those are restrictions on basic rights?

How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself? Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?

I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.

2nd Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.

Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:

15th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.

I can't help but notice the difference in phrasing:

• Shall not be infringed.
• shall not be denied or abridged... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
• shall not be denied or abridged....on account of sex.
• Shall not be denied or a bridged...by reason of failure to pay...
• shall not be denied or abridged...on account of age.

See the difference? The 2nd has no qualifying statement. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th all do.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID

All of which is in the COTUS, is done by due process or is HOTLY debated.
For the record, I would be in favor of an ID requirement, as long as it is written into the COTUS via amendment. Otherwise, no.

The second also states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

It has that one qualifying phrase.

 

[oldsoul]

Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.

The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.

I don't want to ban guns. I own guns. My husband owns guns. Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating. Every right has limitations - none is unlimited. Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?

what are " reasonable restrictions" ?

In my opinion, background checks, waiting periods, restricting certain types of weapons, such as what is commonly used for military and high capacity magazines. I would also support a national registry, and some sort of educational requirement.

So, taking into account what I posted in post #445, you would be in favor of making easier for a tyrannical government to go unchecked. At least you are being honest, or maybe you simply have not thought things through to the end.

No, it's more along the lines of recognizing a slippery slope fallacy rather than a slippery slope. I'm not for banning all or even most guns.

What is the "slippery slope fallacy" as you see it? The "slippery slope" as I see it is overtly violating the COTUS, via gun regulation that violates the "shall not be infringed" clause.
I know what the SOTUS has ruled, I also know they have been wrong before.
So, if guns can be "regulated" pursuant to the 2nd, then I guess passing a law requiring people to get a permit for public speaking would be legal pursuant to the 1st, right? If not, explain to me what the difference is?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....

We register automobiles. We already ban some types of guns. No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.

Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.

The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.

I don't want to ban guns. I own guns. My husband owns guns. Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating. Every right has limitations - none is unlimited. Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?

Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves.

Why are they unreasonable?

You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
You can not libel or slander.
You can not incite a crowd to violence.
You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.

All of those are restrictions on basic rights?

How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself? Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?

For one the so called "assault" rifle ban in nothing but a feel good waste of time and money because all an "assault" rifle is is an ordinary everyday semiautomatic rifle that has been around since 1885 with some new polymers for materials and some cosmetic doodads

So in all reality the only reason to ban them is to eventually ban all semiautomatic rifles.

What does it matter if my rifle has a 10 or a 30 round magazine?
I have passed every background check that could conceivably be thrown at me and I have been deemed responsible enough to carry a concealed weapon. What does it matter if that concealed weapon has a 10 round magazine or a 16 round magazine?

Will those extra 6 rounds all of a sudden turn me into a spree killer?

No it won't

I have no problem with keeping felons from getting firearms of any kind but telling me I can't have one particular style of a semiauto rifle or a magazine of what some idiot calls a high capacity is ridiculous

 

[Skull Pilot]

Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves.

Why are they unreasonable?

You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
You can not libel or slander.
You can not incite a crowd to violence.
You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.

All of those are restrictions on basic rights?

How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself? Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?

I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.

2nd Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.

Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:

15th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.

I can't help but notice the difference in phrasing:

• Shall not be infringed.
• shall not be denied or abridged... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
• shall not be denied or abridged....on account of sex.
• Shall not be denied or a bridged...by reason of failure to pay...
• shall not be denied or abridged...on account of age.

See the difference? The 2nd has no qualifying statement. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th all do.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID

All of which is in the COTUS, is done by due process or is HOTLY debated.
For the record, I would be in favor of an ID requirement, as long as it is written into the COTUS via amendment. Otherwise, no.

The second also states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

It has that one qualifying phrase.

no it is not.

The militia was considered all of the citizenry capable of fighting not government troops

It is the people's right to keep and bear arms and the people were the militia

 

[oldsoul]

As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.

I disagree with that. All rights have limitations and restrictions and those restrictions most commonly have to do with when those rights intersect with someone else's rights or with public safety. 2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right even though the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in favor of reasonable restrictions.

Even when you say it's necessary to defend against a "tyrannical government" - who exactly makes that determination? Some nut bunkered down in Idaho?

We have a lot of checks and balances in place to prevent tyrannical governments - that includes the 2nd amendment but it also includes our entire system that while cumbersome makes it difficult for one person to accumulate a lot of power or to change the constitution.

I think reasonable restrictions on guns are appropriate.

Where is your "line in the sand" then? At what point to restrictions become "unreasonable"?

 

[Coyote]

As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.

I disagree with that. All rights have limitations and restrictions and those restrictions most commonly have to do with when those rights intersect with someone else's rights or with public safety. 2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right even though the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in favor of reasonable restrictions.

Even when you say it's necessary to defend against a "tyrannical government" - who exactly makes that determination? Some nut bunkered down in Idaho?

We have a lot of checks and balances in place to prevent tyrannical governments - that includes the 2nd amendment but it also includes our entire system that while cumbersome makes it difficult for one person to accumulate a lot of power or to change the constitution.

I think reasonable restrictions on guns are appropriate.

Where is your "line in the sand" then? At what point to restrictions become "unreasonable"?

Hard to answer.

It's easier to answer what I consider reasonable.

Unreasonable would be banning ownership of guns for any reason other being a felon, history of violent domestic abuse or mental health issues.
Unreasonable would be banning magazines of 10 rounds or less.
Unreasonable would be requiring a lengthy or expensive training period - I think there should be a one-time educational component, like with getting a license to drive, pass a test, and that's it and it should be free.
Unreasonable would be anything that publishes private information on gun owners publically.
A 3-day waiting period is reasonable imo, mostly because it might limit impulse buying out of rage, or suicidal desires. More than that would be unreasonable.