Gun Ownership / Laws Discussion & Debate

[Full-Auto]

The propaganda was effective, in the end no pile of melted weapons found.

Did they go in and airstrike? did they use artillery? Cruise missiles? If a large effort went forth to disarm the public, they would meet heavy resistance. How long do you think their support would last? How many children are you willing top kill to disarm the public?

Guy, I've already said I didn't think confiscating guns was a good idea or desirable. Several times.

However, I have also stated that the two reasons you nutters say you want guns (protecting yourself from criminals and the government) are just brain-dead stupid.

You seem unable to draw that distinction. There's a lot of stupid behavior, most of which I think people should be able to engage in as long as they are willing to accept the consequences.

As an agnostic, I think religion is stupid. But I wouldn't want to ban it. If you want to pretend you are eating a god made of wafers, go ahead. Knock yourself out, at least until you do something dangerous. But it's still stupid.

And stockpiling guns to fight a government you don't like is pretty stupid, too. After if you act in a dangerous or stupid way, like the Davidians did, then people will cheer when the government takes you out.

I havent mentioned any of the things you seem to think I own them for. Your hatred is laughable. As an FFL holder the ATF can come in and inspect without warrant.

What part of shall not be infringed are you to fuckin stupid to understand?


Private ownership does keep the government in check. Even our enemies stated they would not invade because we have the best armed populace in the world.

Criminals avoid areas they know have firearms.


Get over your fear.

 

[BoycottTheday]

Who needs enemies to invade when liberals are in power.

 

[Full-Auto]

Who needs enemies to invade when liberals are in power.

Many would rollover and work for them. Turn members of their family in.

What a gutless bunch.

 

[BoycottTheday]

Oh well, who was it that said its good to be living during interesting times?

 

[Liberty]

why is there a debate? the 2nd amendment is pretty fucking clear.

 

[Full-Auto]

why is there a debate? the 2nd amendment is pretty fucking clear.

Because liberals need to climb up on the soap box and tell us how to live.

It wasnt that long ago they championed single parent households, now 40% of ALL BIRTHS ARE TO SINGLE PARENTS.

But the idiocy doesnt stop there.

 

[BoycottTheday]

No debate here...id rather die a freeman, end of story.

Time to get rid of the UN imho before they shove their agenda 21 down our throats.

 

[Full-Auto]

No debate here...id rather die a freeman, end of story.

Time to get rid of the UN imho before they shove their agenda 21 down our throats.

What the looney left doesnt realize is many democrats will turn on them too.

 

[tonystewart1]

There will come a day when all these lefty gun grabers will be at my house begging for a wepon.

 

[pete]

Guns don't kill people ... people kill people

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[
Are you guys done jerking yourselves off? If the government ever attacked its own citizens in the manner you describe it would be the end of that government.

Ok you can return to your stupidity.

It would really depend which citizens they were attacking, wouldn't it?

After all, Clinton killed the Branch Davidians, and got re-elected easily.

The propaganda was effective, in the end no pile of melted weapons found.

Did they go in and airstrike? did they use artillery? Cruise missiles? If a large effort went forth to disarm the public, they would meet heavy resistance. How long do you think their support would last? How many children are you willing top kill to disarm the public?

Porgressives don't mind killing children that they cannot control and feed their propaganda bullshit to.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No debate here...id rather die a freeman, end of story.

Time to get rid of the UN imho before they shove their agenda 21 down our throats.

What the looney left doesnt realize is many democrats will turn on them too.

Exactly.

 

[Full-Auto]

No debate here...id rather die a freeman, end of story.

Time to get rid of the UN imho before they shove their agenda 21 down our throats.

What the looney left doesnt realize is many democrats will turn on them too.

Exactly.

Reb some of the most comical reactions I have seen in my life, were liberals catching sight of a firearm. Literally breaking into a sweat. Having to get up and leave.
Funny shit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What the looney left doesnt realize is many democrats will turn on them too.

Exactly.

Reb some of the most comical reactions I have seen in my life, were liberals catching sight of a firearm. Literally breaking into a sweat. Having to get up and leave.
Funny shit.

Thats why I don't mind open carry. It's good to see the enemy run away.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxBJaAioXE0]NRA: "Assault Weapons", the Clinton Gun Ban Story - YouTube[/ame]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even if one subscribes to the living breathing document theory (which I don't)...

That the Constitution is subject to judicial interpretation is beyond dispute, as intended by the Framers, who understood and anticipated this. Scalia acknowledges such in Heller, as ‘original intent’ is not evident, he bases his opinion on ‘original understanding,’ where ‘a variety of legal and other sources [are used] to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification. That sort of inquiry is a critical tool of constitutional interpretation.’ (See DC v Heller, 2008.)

Indeed, the word ‘individual’ is nowhere in the Second Amendment, yet in Heller the Court interprets an ‘individual right’ nonetheless. If two hard-core arch-conservatives such as Scalia and Thomas agree that the Constitution is subject to interpretation/judicial review and infer an individual right where no such right is mentioned in the Original Text, I fail to see how any conservative of any stripe can still maintain the position that the Constitution is not subject to interpretation.

...it's hard to interpret "shall not be infringed" as anything but...well...shall not be infringed.

Heller did not address the issue of regulation, as that was beyond the scope of the review. Scalia does note, however, that the Second Amendment is no different than any other enumerated privilege in the Bill of Rights, in that it is subject to limitations:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The sensible middle position is that you should have the ability to own a gun in the same context that you are able to own a car- only after you've been trained, licensed and insured to do so.

Is one required to be trained, licensed, or insured to give a speech, practice a religion, or peaceably assemble? Is one required to wait three days before he may give a speech so the authorities may review the content of the speech for ‘dangerous ideas’?

Of course not. Yet the same is being required of those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights, determined an individual right by the Court.

Again, that one may use a firearm to harm someone or himself is not legal justification to preempt that right.

As with abortion, where the solution to the problem is not bans or restrictions, firearm violence is a social and cultural issue requiring difficult choices, not simple Band-Aide for a brain tumor remedies.

 

[CoolBreeze]

When I refer to our need for guns against the govt I am refering to "we the people". When we all decide that our govt has become tyranical and needs to be replaced then that requires an armed citizenry. Thats how our war for independence was won when the British became to tyranical. Govts fear armed citizens because then we have recourse when they become to overbearing. Thats why the govt wants to take them away.

I don't subscribe to the worship of the Founders a lot on the right do. They were a bunch of rich slaveholders who didn't want to pay for a war (The French and Indian War) that they provoked and they benefited from.

I credit them with establishing a good enough system that allowed something good to come about. Usually revolutions lead to things being a lot worse for everyone when all is said and done.

We won our war against Britian because France and Spain (no lovers of democracy there) decided they were going to get some payback on England for screwing them over in the last couple of wars. Not because there were a bunch of plucky guys with squirrel guns. We won because guys from Europe like Pulaski, Lafayette, Von Stueben (who was as ka-weer as a square donut) came over and showed our guys how to fight a war.

So, oddly, my fellow right wingers, we owe our freedom today to a Gay Prussian officer who showed the hillbillies how to march and stand in formation.

Here is another leftie with his own twist on history. All of the Founding Fathers were not slave holder and the French and Indian War was not provoked by the Founding Fathers. It was a war between the British and French that spilled over to the colonies and drew indian factions into the war on both sides. Get you history straight.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Charles Krauthammer Washington Post 1996

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

 

[CoolBreeze]

Waiting periods

Purchase restrictions (allowing only the purchase of a set number of handguns during a calendar month, for example).

Magazine capacity

Cosmetic configuration (pistol grips, detachable magazines, flash suppressors, etc)

Permits/licenses

Training requirements (exception to concealed carry)

Open carry restrictions

Gun registration

This is the way it is in the area of Pennsylvania where I live: 1). No waiting period, pass the instant background check you walk with the weapon the same day. 2). The pistol I bought in March as a compacity of 16+1. 3). Cosmetic changes no problem. 4). Need permit to carry concealed, PA. does not address open carry, therefore it is legal, but be prepaired to be stopped by police. 5). No training required in my county. 6). See #4. 5). No registration.

 

[Full-Auto]

NRA: "Assault Weapons", the Clinton Gun Ban Story - YouTube

I recall those moments. I had to buy a fixed stock that was made to fold. It then cost me another 8 dollars to make it fold.

But the real beauty of the story was I picked up a SKS 59 off the u fix em pile for 59 dollars, less then the price of the stock. What needed to be fixed, why the stock of course.