Virginia - This Is Only The Beginning

[Blues Man]

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

/—-/ Its intellectuality dishonestly and laziness to take an argument to the extreme example. That’s why you do it.

No, why I do it is to establish that there are boundaries in gun control at the extremes that we should all be able to agree should not be crossed. Once that is established a reasonable discussion can ensue.

My problem with many of the pro-gun people on this site is that they take the ideological stance that any gun control is a violation of their Constitutional rights. To me that is the extreme and, as you say, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

The extremes you speak of are behavioral and have nothing to do with what type or how many forearms a person owns.

We already have hundreds if not thousands of laws on the books that lay out what the legal uses of firearms are.

MAybe we should enforce those laws

"We already have hundreds if not thousands of laws on the books that lay out what the legal uses of firearms are.

MAybe we should enforce those laws"

I don't disagree. We may also agree that the discussion should not be about if there should be laws on the use firearms but what should those laws be.

It doesn't matter what firearms you own as long as you use them in a legal fashion

 

[alang1216]

Except when your rights infringe on the rights of others.

There is no right that anyone has, that is being infringed or otherwise violated, by someone else being in possession of a weapon.

Your right to carry a weapon to feel safe does not necessarily make me feel safe, my right. Now if there were strict carry rules that involved weapons training you had to take, seeing you carrying a gun might make me safe. If I thought you were at least as well trained as a cop, I'm be all for it.

There are a lot of cops that are not that good with weapons. The gun issue is a tough one. However the criminals drew first blood many decades ago while our government entities played and play political games on the people who follow the laws and rules.

We need train

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

How many times do you have to have it explained to you that the mere ownership of an object is not the problem.

We have laws that clearly state what the legal uses of firearms are.

It doesn't matter what firearms a person owns only that the laws regarding the use of those firearms are followed

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You must live in a world where all people are honest and responsible. The world I live in has criminals, gangs, political and religious extremists, children who shoot up their schools for notoriety and suicide, etc.

Once again

There is no justification for curbing the rights of law abiding people because some other people might break the law.

Would you consent to warrantless searches of your home because the cops tell you it will prevent someone else from committing a crime? Would you give up your fifth amendment rights because someone told you that it might prevent a person from committing a crime?

Your ideological purity is noted. Maybe we should remove all speed limits on our roads and trust people will act responsibly and not drive unsafely.

As for warrantless searches, if the people my community decided there was a valid reason that would make us all safer I'd say that is a democracy. I don't see that scenario playing out though.

Here you go again comparing things incorrectly

The speed limit is meant to tell you what is legal for the particular road you are driving on

It doesn't matter if you own a car that can do 140 MPH as long as you drive at the posted speed.

It's the use of the car that matters not what kind of car you own.

If you wanted your analogy to work you would be calling for a law that makes it illegal to own any car that is able to drive faster than the posted speed limit

Sorry, I don't buy your analogy. That 140 mph car still has to be 'street legal' to drive on public roads. I have a garage but not a private road so if I bought a car that was not 'street legal' it would have to remain in my garage. I think anyone would be tempted to take that car out some dark night and put other drivers in peril. I think you have more faith in people being responsible than I do.

 

[Blues Man]

There is no right that anyone has, that is being infringed or otherwise violated, by someone else being in possession of a weapon.

Your right to carry a weapon to feel safe does not necessarily make me feel safe, my right. Now if there were strict carry rules that involved weapons training you had to take, seeing you carrying a gun might make me safe. If I thought you were at least as well trained as a cop, I'm be all for it.

There are a lot of cops that are not that good with weapons. The gun issue is a tough one. However the criminals drew first blood many decades ago while our government entities played and play political games on the people who follow the laws and rules.

We need train

How many times do you have to have it explained to you that the mere ownership of an object is not the problem.

We have laws that clearly state what the legal uses of firearms are.

It doesn't matter what firearms a person owns only that the laws regarding the use of those firearms are followed

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You must live in a world where all people are honest and responsible. The world I live in has criminals, gangs, political and religious extremists, children who shoot up their schools for notoriety and suicide, etc.

Once again

There is no justification for curbing the rights of law abiding people because some other people might break the law.

Would you consent to warrantless searches of your home because the cops tell you it will prevent someone else from committing a crime? Would you give up your fifth amendment rights because someone told you that it might prevent a person from committing a crime?

Your ideological purity is noted. Maybe we should remove all speed limits on our roads and trust people will act responsibly and not drive unsafely.

As for warrantless searches, if the people my community decided there was a valid reason that would make us all safer I'd say that is a democracy. I don't see that scenario playing out though.

Here you go again comparing things incorrectly

The speed limit is meant to tell you what is legal for the particular road you are driving on

It doesn't matter if you own a car that can do 140 MPH as long as you drive at the posted speed.

It's the use of the car that matters not what kind of car you own.

If you wanted your analogy to work you would be calling for a law that makes it illegal to own any car that is able to drive faster than the posted speed limit

Sorry, I don't buy your analogy. That 140 mph car still has to be 'street legal' to drive on public roads. I have a garage but not a private road so if I bought a car that was not 'street legal' it would have to remain in my garage. I think anyone would be tempted to take that car out some dark night and put other drivers in peril. I think you have more faith in people being responsible than I do.

The fact is that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible.

You want to curb the rights of responsible people because a minuscule fraction of a percent of people might commit a crime with a gun.

You're all over the map here

Why don't we make alcohol illegal because some people will be tempted to drive after having one too many?

You want to live in some fantasy land where you can magically be safe from harm

 

[Cellblock2429]

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

/—-/ Its intellectuality dishonestly and laziness to take an argument to the extreme example. That’s why you do it.

No, why I do it is to establish that there are boundaries in gun control at the extremes that we should all be able to agree should not be crossed. Once that is established a reasonable discussion can ensue.

My problem with many of the pro-gun people on this site is that they take the ideological stance that any gun control is a violation of their Constitutional rights. To me that is the extreme and, as you say, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

/—-/ Only a hand full say that. I’m an NRA lifetime member. I own a 12 gauge in NY and a Walther PPK that’s in a different state.

 

[alang1216]

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

/—-/ Its intellectuality dishonestly and laziness to take an argument to the extreme example. That’s why you do it.

No, why I do it is to establish that there are boundaries in gun control at the extremes that we should all be able to agree should not be crossed. Once that is established a reasonable discussion can ensue.

My problem with many of the pro-gun people on this site is that they take the ideological stance that any gun control is a violation of their Constitutional rights. To me that is the extreme and, as you say, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

/—-/ Only a hand full say that. I’m an NRA lifetime member. I own a 12 gauge in NY and a Walther PPK that’s in a different state.

There are extremists on both sides, I'm not one of them. If you can pass a background check that verifies you don't have a criminal mental health history, and you've been through some training in the safe use of your weapons, I can't imagine any law I'd support that would take away your guns.

 

[Blues Man]

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

/—-/ Its intellectuality dishonestly and laziness to take an argument to the extreme example. That’s why you do it.

No, why I do it is to establish that there are boundaries in gun control at the extremes that we should all be able to agree should not be crossed. Once that is established a reasonable discussion can ensue.

My problem with many of the pro-gun people on this site is that they take the ideological stance that any gun control is a violation of their Constitutional rights. To me that is the extreme and, as you say, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

/—-/ Only a hand full say that. I’m an NRA lifetime member. I own a 12 gauge in NY and a Walther PPK that’s in a different state.

There are extremists on both sides, I'm not one of them. If you can pass a background check that verifies you don't have a criminal mental health history, and you've been through some training in the safe use of your weapons, I can't imagine any law I'd support that would take away your guns.

I was taught the safe use of firearms when I was a kid. I have been shooting for over 30 years. Never had an accidental discharge, never shot anyone accidentally or otherwise never committed any crime


But you still want to tell me what guns I can or can't own

 

[alang1216]

You want to live in some fantasy land where you can magically be safe from harm

I think there's a lot of room between being "magically be safe from harm" and taking no preventative measures to limit risks. I take a vitamin every day. I don't expect it to magically keep me safe but it may help a little and the downside is very small.

 

[Cellblock2429]

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

/—-/ Its intellectuality dishonestly and laziness to take an argument to the extreme example. That’s why you do it.

No, why I do it is to establish that there are boundaries in gun control at the extremes that we should all be able to agree should not be crossed. Once that is established a reasonable discussion can ensue.

My problem with many of the pro-gun people on this site is that they take the ideological stance that any gun control is a violation of their Constitutional rights. To me that is the extreme and, as you say, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

/—-/ Only a hand full say that. I’m an NRA lifetime member. I own a 12 gauge in NY and a Walther PPK that’s in a different state.

There are extremists on both sides, I'm not one of them. If you can pass a background check that verifies you don't have a criminal mental health history, and you've been through some training in the safe use of your weapons, I can't imagine any law I'd support that would take away your guns.

/—-/ It depends on who defines mental health, who administers the test and who grades it. Now let’s restrict the right to vote to those who pass a mental health test. You on board with that?

 

[Blues Man]

You want to live in some fantasy land where you can magically be safe from harm

I think there's a lot of room between being "magically be safe from harm" and taking no preventative measures to limit risks. I take a vitamin every day. I don't expect it to magically keep me safe but it may help a little and the downside is very small.

You have repeatedly said because you "feel" unsafe that people should not be able to have certain guns

I have no obligation to make you feel safe

 

[alang1216]

I was taught the safe use of firearms when I was a kid. I have been shooting for over 30 years. Never had an accidental discharge, never shot anyone accidentally or otherwise never committed any crime

But you still want to tell me what guns I can or can't own

Maybe. The more deadly the gun, the more restrictive should the regulations be. For example, semi-automatics should have one set of regulations, full-automatics should have another, more stringent set of regulations. If everyone were as responsible as you it wouldn't be necessary but, alas, they are not.

In the US last year there were 157 gun incidents and 40 gun deaths every day, not including the 22,000 gun suicides. Of the total fatalities, 548 were children, while 2,321 were teenagers.

 

[alang1216]

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

/—-/ Its intellectuality dishonestly and laziness to take an argument to the extreme example. That’s why you do it.

No, why I do it is to establish that there are boundaries in gun control at the extremes that we should all be able to agree should not be crossed. Once that is established a reasonable discussion can ensue.

My problem with many of the pro-gun people on this site is that they take the ideological stance that any gun control is a violation of their Constitutional rights. To me that is the extreme and, as you say, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

/—-/ Only a hand full say that. I’m an NRA lifetime member. I own a 12 gauge in NY and a Walther PPK that’s in a different state.

There are extremists on both sides, I'm not one of them. If you can pass a background check that verifies you don't have a criminal mental health history, and you've been through some training in the safe use of your weapons, I can't imagine any law I'd support that would take away your guns.

/—-/ It depends on who defines mental health, who administers the test and who grades it. Now let’s restrict the right to vote to those who pass a mental health test. You on board with that?

It depends on who defines mental health, who administers the test and who grades it.

 

[alang1216]

You want to live in some fantasy land where you can magically be safe from harm

I think there's a lot of room between being "magically be safe from harm" and taking no preventative measures to limit risks. I take a vitamin every day. I don't expect it to magically keep me safe but it may help a little and the downside is very small.

You have repeatedly said because you "feel" unsafe that people should not be able to have certain guns

I have no obligation to make you feel safe

It is not your obligation, it is mine.

 

[Blues Man]

I was taught the safe use of firearms when I was a kid. I have been shooting for over 30 years. Never had an accidental discharge, never shot anyone accidentally or otherwise never committed any crime

But you still want to tell me what guns I can or can't own

Maybe. The more deadly the gun, the more restrictive should the regulations be. For example, semi-automatics should have one set of regulations, full-automatics should have another, more stringent set of regulations. If everyone were as responsible as you it wouldn't be necessary but, alas, they are not.

In the US last year there were 157 gun incidents and 40 gun deaths every day, not including the 22,000 gun suicides. Of the total fatalities, 548 were children, while 2,321 were teenagers.

One gun is not more deadly than another since even the smallest caliber firearm can kill.

If you really want to pick nits on what weapons actually are used in the most murders then rifles wouldn't even be on the list as only about 2% of all murders are committed with rifles

 

[Blues Man]

You want to live in some fantasy land where you can magically be safe from harm

I think there's a lot of room between being "magically be safe from harm" and taking no preventative measures to limit risks. I take a vitamin every day. I don't expect it to magically keep me safe but it may help a little and the downside is very small.

You have repeatedly said because you "feel" unsafe that people should not be able to have certain guns

I have no obligation to make you feel safe

It is not your obligation, it is mine.

Yet you want to tell me what gun I can carry because you don't feel safe with people carrying guns

 

[Blues Man]

I was taught the safe use of firearms when I was a kid. I have been shooting for over 30 years. Never had an accidental discharge, never shot anyone accidentally or otherwise never committed any crime

But you still want to tell me what guns I can or can't own

Maybe. The more deadly the gun, the more restrictive should the regulations be. For example, semi-automatics should have one set of regulations, full-automatics should have another, more stringent set of regulations. If everyone were as responsible as you it wouldn't be necessary but, alas, they are not.

In the US last year there were 157 gun incidents and 40 gun deaths every day, not including the 22,000 gun suicides. Of the total fatalities, 548 were children, while 2,321 were teenagers.

FYI the 40 "gun deaths" a day include suicides.

People who commit suicide with a firearm are not dying because of firearms they chose to end their own lives and that is their choice not yours.

Nearly 40,000 People Died From Guns in U.S. Last Year, Highest in 50 Years

There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017, up by more than 1,000 from the year before. Nearly two-thirds were suicides.

 

[alang1216]

I was taught the safe use of firearms when I was a kid. I have been shooting for over 30 years. Never had an accidental discharge, never shot anyone accidentally or otherwise never committed any crime

But you still want to tell me what guns I can or can't own

Maybe. The more deadly the gun, the more restrictive should the regulations be. For example, semi-automatics should have one set of regulations, full-automatics should have another, more stringent set of regulations. If everyone were as responsible as you it wouldn't be necessary but, alas, they are not.

In the US last year there were 157 gun incidents and 40 gun deaths every day, not including the 22,000 gun suicides. Of the total fatalities, 548 were children, while 2,321 were teenagers.

One gun id not more deadly than another since even the smallest caliber firearm can kill

I don't know a lot about guns but I'd bet the M134 GAU-17 Gatling Gun is more deadly than a flintlock. If I was going to defend my home from the zombie apocalypse I know which one I'd want to have.

 

[alang1216]

In the US last year there were 157 gun incidents and 40 gun deaths every day, not including the 22,000 gun suicides.

FYI the 40 "gun deaths" a day include suicides.

Nope.

 

[alang1216]

Yet you want to tell me what gun I can carry because you don't feel safe with people carrying guns

I consider my safety to be my right. If your 2nd A right conflicts with that right, guess which side I'm on?

 

[Blues Man]

I was taught the safe use of firearms when I was a kid. I have been shooting for over 30 years. Never had an accidental discharge, never shot anyone accidentally or otherwise never committed any crime

But you still want to tell me what guns I can or can't own

Maybe. The more deadly the gun, the more restrictive should the regulations be. For example, semi-automatics should have one set of regulations, full-automatics should have another, more stringent set of regulations. If everyone were as responsible as you it wouldn't be necessary but, alas, they are not.

In the US last year there were 157 gun incidents and 40 gun deaths every day, not including the 22,000 gun suicides. Of the total fatalities, 548 were children, while 2,321 were teenagers.

One gun id not more deadly than another since even the smallest caliber firearm can kill

I don't know a lot about guns but I'd bet the M134 GAU-17 Gatling Gun is more deadly than a flintlock. If I was going to defend my home from the zombie apocalypse I know which one I'd want to have.

Ah the desperate reduction to the ridiculous.

It is your default strategy.

I can kill you just as easily with a .22 pistol as I can with a Ar 15 with a 50 round magazine.

DO you realize that you have a 99.997% chance of not being murdered by a person with a gun?\

You really are obsessing over nothing

 

[Blues Man]

Yet you want to tell me what gun I can carry because you don't feel safe with people carrying guns

I consider my safety to be my right. If your 2nd A right conflicts with that right, guess which side I'm on?

Well it doesn't matter what you consider there is no written or implied right to safety in the Constitution.