They don't want to take all your guns...

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by PaulS1950, Jan 3, 2013.

  1. PaulS1950
    Offline

    PaulS1950 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,353
    Thanks Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Littletown, USA
    Ratings:
    +238
    What do you think of this latest test of restrictions to the Second amendment from Illinois?

    ISRA Urgent Alert - Illinois Near Total Gun Ban January 2nd!

    So that leaves the bolt and lever action rifles and shotguns and revolver and single shot guns.
    Can you still believe that we are not being systematically disarmed?
     
  2. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,329
    Thanks Received:
    4,002
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,948
    Then the same should apply to the police as well. If we have to be disarmed, so should they.
     
  3. JustTheFacts
    Offline

    JustTheFacts BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    681
    Thanks Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +57

    I've been saying it for awhile. The Second Amendment is poorly written and doesn't even do what most think it does.

    Congress could pass a bill tomorrow defining "arms" as nothing larger than a single shot .22 and that would be that, they could outlaw all other weapons.

    We need a new clearer amendment. One that both protects gun rights AND yes provides for regulation and even the outright loss of rights under certain circumstances.

    Alas, this will never happen until a majority of people from both sides of the coin come together and say "okay you're right, we MUST find a middle ground that provides for the rights of gun owners while at the same time does as much as possible to keep guns away from those who ought not have guns"

    that day will probably never come because of one core group of people from each side

    1. The group who INSISTS on fighting against banning gun sales which don't include a back ground check

    2. The group who insists that anything that even remotely resembles an assault rifle should be outlawed

    oh, and don't get me started on the people who claim that assault rifle is a made up term LOL
     
  4. MikeK
    Online

    MikeK Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    13,156
    Thanks Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Brick, New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +3,713
    Whether by intentional strategy or by a process which comes naturally to the anti-gun mentality, I believe what you've said to be the direction the Second Amendment issue is taking.

    Little by little, inch by inch. One step at a time. And one day we will be permitted to keep one single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle, chambered for Short, and to bear it in a locked container to a federally supervised shooting range where we will be issued a prescribed amount of ammo, all of which must be expended there.

    And that, in the minds of the Brady Bunch, will satisfy the requirements of the Second Amendment.
     
  5. JustTheFacts
    Offline

    JustTheFacts BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    681
    Thanks Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +57
    That is just ridiculous.
     
  6. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,329
    Thanks Received:
    4,002
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,948
    The police are not the military, they are civilians just like we are.

    At a minimum they should only have disapproved weapons at work, which would be locked up in an armory at the end of shift. They could only take home weapons that are approved for the rest of us, and would have to follow the same rules are the rest of us.

    So if a non police officer has to lock his weapon unarmed in the trunk while driving, the officer should have to do the same while off duty returning home. They would also have to store thier weapons the same as non plice officer would.

    If we have to rely on the on duty police to protect us from others, they should too.

    To do otherwise would create a 2 class society, those with 2nd amendment rights, and those without.
     
  7. JustTheFacts
    Offline

    JustTheFacts BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    681
    Thanks Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +57
    That doesn't even make a little sense. Not even a little.

    Do you realize that police are on call even when they are not on duty? If some idiot is shooting up my kid's school I don't want to have to wait an extra 30 minutes for a response while the police rush back to the armory to get armed.

    I mean let's use a little common sense here. The police obviously face situations on a daily basis which require more firepower than I do as an auto technician , for example

    PS - you could join the police force and carry whatever weapons they issue .
     
  8. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,329
    Thanks Received:
    4,002
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,948
    I shouldnt have to join the police force, I should just be allowed to carry when off duty the same as they are allowed to carry. When on duty they can be armed as needed, but when off duty, they should return to the citizen they still are. They are not the military.

    I realize my argument is "reducto ad absurdum." My point is that we cannot let people take away our gun rights, but allow agents of the government to maintain thiers, even if not on duty. Again, what it creates is a two tier society. Those who are allowed to protect themselves, and those who are not.

    My main fear is that the police organziations would back harsh restrictive gun laws because they know it will not be applied to them.
     
  9. JustTheFacts
    Offline

    JustTheFacts BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    681
    Thanks Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +57
    But police never return to normal citizen is exactly what I'm saying to you. An officer is almost always on call. I have some friends who are police and they get called out at 3 am, they get called out of church, they get called out during dinner, etc etc, and sometimes they drive to scenes in their own private vehicles even, and the situation they responding to is nowhere near the police station so that would be a waste of time before they even respond.

    Hard to take you seriously to be honest. Maybe you should rethink your thoughts here re police.
     
  10. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,329
    Thanks Received:
    4,002
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,948
    All are valid points, and I would honestly never want to see my conditions put into place. However if it is decided that ordinary people should be disarmed for the "good of society" Then we either have to militarize the police, thus allowing them the mantle of a commission or an elistment, and thus the right to bear arms at all times, or we have to disarm the police when off duty the same way we want to disarm other people.

    You do not see the danger in a government where only government officals have the right to defend themselves or thier homes without having to wait for someone else to show up?
     

Share This Page