I envy gun owners (the responsible ones)

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I would love to own some guns. As you all know I can't so there's that little problem. Having said that I'm pretty tired of the accusation that I or others fear guns simply because we dont own them.
I have 0 peoblems with guns but common sense dictates that if I see someone openly carrying one and I DONT KNOW THEM that it would be wise to exercise caution NOT fear.

 

[DriftingSand]

I believe in a person's right to own or not own guns. I don't look down on anyone who chooses not to. I'm simply opposed to them who believe that I shouldn't because they don't like them.

I've owned more than 50 (estimated) guns in my life and currently own 14. The only reason I have this many right now is because I helped a couple of friends who were in a financial bind. I'm basically holding 5 guns until my friends can buy them back. If they never do -- then I'll either keep them or sell them for cash.

I'm sorry you aren't able to have them but it's my opinion that unless you are a violent felon that nothing should keep you from owning at least one for self protection.

 

[OKTexas]

You should be more concerned about the ones you can't see, criminals don't generally open carry.

 

[occupied]

I only envy the dead. Existence is such pain, just kidding, life is wonderful.

 

[Fishlore]

I believe in a person's right to own or not own guns. I don't look down on anyone who chooses not to. I'm simply opposed to them who believe that I shouldn't because they don't like them.

I've owned more than 50 (estimated) guns in my life and currently own 14. The only reason I have this many right now is because I helped a couple of friends who were in a financial bind. I'm basically holding 5 guns until my friends can buy them back. If they never do -- then I'll either keep them or sell them for cash.

I'm sorry you aren't able to have them but it's my opinion that unless you are a violent felon that nothing should keep you from owning at least one for self protection.

I should like to ask the millions of Americans who feel as this poster does if there should not be a similar benign tolerance for those of our fellow citizens who feel about hand grenades, mortars or RPGs the way he does about guns. These weapon systems are also essential to any effective militia and can come in quite handy for home defense. All are forms of "arms" as cited in the Second Amendment.

Strict constructionists who interpret the Constitution by the light of the Founders' Intent, claim that the Second Amendment grants members of a state militia the right to keep and bear a smooth bore flintlock musket. Most of us think that is an overly strict and narrow interpretation and that the II Amendment gives pretty much everyone the right to own a semi-automatic firearm for home defense. But why draw the line there? Why not fully automatic firearms? Why not grenades and mortars? There is too much fuzzy thinking about this right to bear arms thing.

 

[occupied]

I believe in a person's right to own or not own guns. I don't look down on anyone who chooses not to. I'm simply opposed to them who believe that I shouldn't because they don't like them.

I've owned more than 50 (estimated) guns in my life and currently own 14. The only reason I have this many right now is because I helped a couple of friends who were in a financial bind. I'm basically holding 5 guns until my friends can buy them back. If they never do -- then I'll either keep them or sell them for cash.

I'm sorry you aren't able to have them but it's my opinion that unless you are a violent felon that nothing should keep you from owning at least one for self protection.

I should like to ask the millions of Americans who feel as this poster does if there should not be a similar benign tolerance for those of our fellow citizens who feel about hand grenades, mortars or RPGs the way he does about guns. These weapon systems are also essential to any effective militia and can come in quite handy for home defense. All are forms of "arms" as cited in the Second Amendment.

Strict constructionists who interpret the Constitution by the light of the Founders' Intent, claim that the Second Amendment grants members of a state militia the right to keep and bear a smooth bore flintlock musket. Most of us think that is an overly strict and narrow interpretation and that the II Amendment gives pretty much everyone the right to own a semi-automatic firearm for home defense. But why draw the line there? Why not fully automatic firearms? Why not grenades and mortars? There is too much fuzzy thinking about this right to bear arms thing.

It's not that hard, The ready ability to commit mass murder is not exactly a constitutional right.

 

[DriftingSand]

I believe in a person's right to own or not own guns. I don't look down on anyone who chooses not to. I'm simply opposed to them who believe that I shouldn't because they don't like them.

I've owned more than 50 (estimated) guns in my life and currently own 14. The only reason I have this many right now is because I helped a couple of friends who were in a financial bind. I'm basically holding 5 guns until my friends can buy them back. If they never do -- then I'll either keep them or sell them for cash.

I'm sorry you aren't able to have them but it's my opinion that unless you are a violent felon that nothing should keep you from owning at least one for self protection.

I should like to ask the millions of Americans who feel as this poster does if there should not be a similar benign tolerance for those of our fellow citizens who feel about hand grenades, mortars or RPGs the way he does about guns. These weapon systems are also essential to any effective militia and can come in quite handy for home defense. All are forms of "arms" as cited in the Second Amendment.

Strict constructionists who interpret the Constitution by the light of the Founders' Intent, claim that the Second Amendment grants members of a state militia the right to keep and bear a smooth bore flintlock musket. Most of us think that is an overly strict and narrow interpretation and that the II Amendment gives pretty much everyone the right to own a semi-automatic firearm for home defense. But why draw the line there? Why not fully automatic firearms? Why not grenades and mortars? There is too much fuzzy thinking about this right to bear arms thing.

You didn't write the Constitution and you likely don't understand why the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place. I have no desire to own bombs (big or small) but if I were a member of a militia I don't see why they might not be necessary should a town, city, county, or state is invaded or attacked by an enemy (foreign or domestic).

But since you likely aren't a Judge on the Supreme Court you're in no position to interpret what YOU think the 2nd Amendment is all about then foist your personal conclusions upon me or any other Constitutionally-protected citizen of the USA. If you prefer to live under a more oppressive government I can provide you a list of many that routinely stifle the rights of their citizens.

 

[DriftingSand]

I believe in a person's right to own or not own guns. I don't look down on anyone who chooses not to. I'm simply opposed to them who believe that I shouldn't because they don't like them.

I've owned more than 50 (estimated) guns in my life and currently own 14. The only reason I have this many right now is because I helped a couple of friends who were in a financial bind. I'm basically holding 5 guns until my friends can buy them back. If they never do -- then I'll either keep them or sell them for cash.

I'm sorry you aren't able to have them but it's my opinion that unless you are a violent felon that nothing should keep you from owning at least one for self protection.

I should like to ask the millions of Americans who feel as this poster does if there should not be a similar benign tolerance for those of our fellow citizens who feel about hand grenades, mortars or RPGs the way he does about guns. These weapon systems are also essential to any effective militia and can come in quite handy for home defense. All are forms of "arms" as cited in the Second Amendment.

Strict constructionists who interpret the Constitution by the light of the Founders' Intent, claim that the Second Amendment grants members of a state militia the right to keep and bear a smooth bore flintlock musket. Most of us think that is an overly strict and narrow interpretation and that the II Amendment gives pretty much everyone the right to own a semi-automatic firearm for home defense. But why draw the line there? Why not fully automatic firearms? Why not grenades and mortars? There is too much fuzzy thinking about this right to bear arms thing.

It's not that hard, The ready ability to commit mass murder is not exactly a constitutional right.

But the ready ability to keep from being a victim of a mass murder IS a Constitutional Right.

 

[OKTexas]

I believe in a person's right to own or not own guns. I don't look down on anyone who chooses not to. I'm simply opposed to them who believe that I shouldn't because they don't like them.

I've owned more than 50 (estimated) guns in my life and currently own 14. The only reason I have this many right now is because I helped a couple of friends who were in a financial bind. I'm basically holding 5 guns until my friends can buy them back. If they never do -- then I'll either keep them or sell them for cash.

I'm sorry you aren't able to have them but it's my opinion that unless you are a violent felon that nothing should keep you from owning at least one for self protection.

I should like to ask the millions of Americans who feel as this poster does if there should not be a similar benign tolerance for those of our fellow citizens who feel about hand grenades, mortars or RPGs the way he does about guns. These weapon systems are also essential to any effective militia and can come in quite handy for home defense. All are forms of "arms" as cited in the Second Amendment.

Strict constructionists who interpret the Constitution by the light of the Founders' Intent, claim that the Second Amendment grants members of a state militia the right to keep and bear a smooth bore flintlock musket. Most of us think that is an overly strict and narrow interpretation and that the II Amendment gives pretty much everyone the right to own a semi-automatic firearm for home defense. But why draw the line there? Why not fully automatic firearms? Why not grenades and mortars? There is too much fuzzy thinking about this right to bear arms thing.

It's not that hard, The ready ability to commit mass murder is not exactly a constitutional right.

You don't need a gun for that, just a little fertilizer and diesel fuel, just ask the folks in OKC.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would love to own some guns. As you all know I can't so there's that little problem. Having said that I'm pretty tired of the accusation that I or others fear guns simply because we dont own them.
I have 0 peoblems with guns but common sense dictates that if I see someone openly carrying one and I DONT KNOW THEM that it would be wise to exercise caution NOT fear.

You made the decision to be a convicted felon rather than a gun owner, and you must accept the consequences of that decision; given this post, it seems you’re having difficulty doing that.

 

[percysunshine]

I envy gun owners (the responsible ones)

I would love to own some guns. As you all know I can't so there's that little problem. Having said that I'm pretty tired of the accusation that I or others fear guns simply because we dont own them.
I have 0 peoblems with guns but common sense dictates that if I see someone openly carrying one and I DONT KNOW THEM that it would be wise to exercise caution NOT fear.

I missed the 'as you all know' part. I might have been busy with another thread or something. I don't want to derail anything, but why can't you?

 

[R.C. Christian]

I would love to own some guns. As you all know I can't so there's that little problem. Having said that I'm pretty tired of the accusation that I or others fear guns simply because we dont own them.
I have 0 peoblems with guns but common sense dictates that if I see someone openly carrying one and I DONT KNOW THEM that it would be wise to exercise caution NOT fear.

Why can't you own one? Felon? That's an easy problem to get around.

 

[Clementine]

You should be more concerned about the ones you can't see, criminals don't generally open carry.

I was going to say the same thing. Criminals are a crafty bunch.

I don't know anyone other than law enforcement who wants to openly carry a gun. Concealed carry is just smarter because no one knows whether you are armed or not. That way the alarmists won't get scared and criminals can wonder whether a place is an easy target or not.

I do wish the left would concede that designating places as gun-free zones is a really stupid idea.

 

[Howey]

I would love to own some guns. As you all know I can't so there's that little problem. Having said that I'm pretty tired of the accusation that I or others fear guns simply because we dont own them.
I have 0 peoblems with guns but common sense dictates that if I see someone openly carrying one and I DONT KNOW THEM that it would be wise to exercise caution NOT fear.

Convicted felon?

I'm not surprised.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would love to own some guns. As you all know I can't so there's that little problem. Having said that I'm pretty tired of the accusation that I or others fear guns simply because we dont own them.
I have 0 peoblems with guns but common sense dictates that if I see someone openly carrying one and I DONT KNOW THEM that it would be wise to exercise caution NOT fear.

Convicted felon?

I'm not surprised.

Howey, come here, look in my eyes: STFU.

Don't post if you lower yourself to the stooges.

I personally think Gramps would be a great gun owner, but the law is the law.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Build an AR lower with no serial number or import an AK and rebuild it. Gun grabbers will never know and if they do they'll be in your direct line of sight before they know it. No straw purchases or any of that crap.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I believe in a person's right to own or not own guns. I don't look down on anyone who chooses not to. I'm simply opposed to them who believe that I shouldn't because they don't like them.

I've owned more than 50 (estimated) guns in my life and currently own 14. The only reason I have this many right now is because I helped a couple of friends who were in a financial bind. I'm basically holding 5 guns until my friends can buy them back. If they never do -- then I'll either keep them or sell them for cash.

I'm sorry you aren't able to have them but it's my opinion that unless you are a violent felon that nothing should keep you from owning at least one for self protection.

I should like to ask the millions of Americans who feel as this poster does if there should not be a similar benign tolerance for those of our fellow citizens who feel about hand grenades, mortars or RPGs the way he does about guns. These weapon systems are also essential to any effective militia and can come in quite handy for home defense. All are forms of "arms" as cited in the Second Amendment.

Strict constructionists who interpret the Constitution by the light of the Founders' Intent, claim that the Second Amendment grants members of a state militia the right to keep and bear a smooth bore flintlock musket. Most of us think that is an overly strict and narrow interpretation and that the II Amendment gives pretty much everyone the right to own a semi-automatic firearm for home defense. But why draw the line there? Why not fully automatic firearms? Why not grenades and mortars? There is too much fuzzy thinking about this right to bear arms thing.

Actually not.

Although Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy compared to that of the First or Fourth Amendments, for example, there exist fundamental principles of law that that provide the courts guidance nonetheless:

We know as a fact of law that the Second Amendment is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including prohibiting felons from possessing firearms, such as the OP. (DC v. Heller (2008)).

We know that weapons considered to be ‘dangerous and unusual’ are not entitled to Second Amendment protections (US v. Miller (1939)).

We know that jurisdictions may ban certain firearms pursuant to public safety as a compelling governmental interest (NYSRPA v. Cuomo).

And we know that jurisdictions may not ban the carrying of concealed firearms by citizens (Shepard v. Madigan).

Consequently, the case law is clear that there is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to possess fully automatic firearms, grenades, and mortars – as they are all clearly ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons where their prohibition indeed constitutes a compelling governmental interest.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I would love to own some guns. As you all know I can't so there's that little problem. Having said that I'm pretty tired of the accusation that I or others fear guns simply because we dont own them.
I have 0 peoblems with guns but common sense dictates that if I see someone openly carrying one and I DONT KNOW THEM that it would be wise to exercise caution NOT fear.

Convicted felon?

I'm not surprised.

I'd trust gramps with a gun over you.

 

[jillian]

I would love to own some guns. As you all know I can't so there's that little problem. Having said that I'm pretty tired of the accusation that I or others fear guns simply because we dont own them.
I have 0 peoblems with guns but common sense dictates that if I see someone openly carrying one and I DONT KNOW THEM that it would be wise to exercise caution NOT fear.

normal people don't want strangers with guns sitting in the restaurant they're in... or the movies or any other public place.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I believe in a person's right to own or not own guns. I don't look down on anyone who chooses not to. I'm simply opposed to them who believe that I shouldn't because they don't like them.

I've owned more than 50 (estimated) guns in my life and currently own 14. The only reason I have this many right now is because I helped a couple of friends who were in a financial bind. I'm basically holding 5 guns until my friends can buy them back. If they never do -- then I'll either keep them or sell them for cash.

I'm sorry you aren't able to have them but it's my opinion that unless you are a violent felon that nothing should keep you from owning at least one for self protection.

I should like to ask the millions of Americans who feel as this poster does if there should not be a similar benign tolerance for those of our fellow citizens who feel about hand grenades, mortars or RPGs the way he does about guns. These weapon systems are also essential to any effective militia and can come in quite handy for home defense. All are forms of "arms" as cited in the Second Amendment.

Strict constructionists who interpret the Constitution by the light of the Founders' Intent, claim that the Second Amendment grants members of a state militia the right to keep and bear a smooth bore flintlock musket. Most of us think that is an overly strict and narrow interpretation and that the II Amendment gives pretty much everyone the right to own a semi-automatic firearm for home defense. But why draw the line there? Why not fully automatic firearms? Why not grenades and mortars? There is too much fuzzy thinking about this right to bear arms thing.

Actually not.

Although Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy compared to that of the First or Fourth Amendments, for example, there exist fundamental principles of law that that provide the courts guidance nonetheless:

We know as a fact of law that the Second Amendment is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including prohibiting felons from possessing firearms, such as the OP. (DC v. Heller (2008)).

We know that weapons considered to be ‘dangerous and unusual’ are not entitled to Second Amendment protections (US v. Miller (1939)).

We know that jurisdictions may ban certain firearms pursuant to public safety as a compelling governmental interest (NYSRPA v. Cuomo).

And we know that jurisdictions may not ban the carrying of concealed firearms by citizens (Shepard v. Madigan).

Consequently, the case law is clear that there is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to possess fully automatic firearms, grenades, and mortars – as they are all clearly ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons where their prohibition indeed constitutes a compelling governmental interest.

We also know as fact that the second has been subjugated to bizarre case law repeatedly and is continually being infringed upon. Look no further than new york.