CIVIL discussion on Current Issues. If you can't stay CIVIL, then please just stay out of this thread.

[miketx]

Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.

The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also.

A private entity, a bank, can force you to obtain insurance on your own home, while you hold a mortgage on it, as well as insurance on the mortgage payment itself.

Which sets a clear precedent than you can be taxed to exercise your gun rights, as well as insurance companies requiring, or even denying you homeowners, or auto and boat insurance, if you store in the home, or transport a gun in the vehicle.

I’m interested to see how anyone thinks a court can force an insurance company to cover you, based on your gun rights.

Except that none of your examples are a civil right. You see why I mentioned lying. The left does it non stop.

 

[Winco]

I believe that the criminals will always be criminals and will never abide by new or old laws.

One thing you didn't take into account is that bad guys will get guns anyway.

I did take that into account.

 

[miketx]

I did take that into account.

Why is it none of the gun laws you want ever stop criminals from getting guns?

 

[Votto]

I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.

I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.

We license fishing, cars, trucks, boats, trailers, businesses, etc
Cars and trucks weren't even invented yet, so there is obviously nothing in the Constitution about cars and trucks.

I believe that the criminals will always be criminals and will never abide by new or old laws.

So making background checks so they contain ZERO loopholes would not be an infringement.
How is getting a background check infringing. You're a Law Abiding Citizen.

That said, how would we ever patrol private guns sales.
We can't, so quit trying.

Pandora's box is wide open, so nothing will ever really change, I just wish we could stop arguing about it.

Law Abiding Citizens aren't the problem.

That's a small start.
Feel free to discuss this and other current issues.
But be CIVIL.

Times certainly have changed. Politicians today want to defund the police, close the prisons, and make crimes not crimes anymore. Also, police are told to stand down during Left wing protests that turn violent in cities run by Left wing Mayors all over the US. People then try to Rittenhouse themselves to protect themselves, after which they are branded by the media as a white supremacist as death threats are thrown your way in addition to the full arm of the law coming against them. All of a sudden, arresting such people and putting them in jail for a very long time becomes popular for some reason.

But I understand why people say that "times have changed" It is an attempt to divorce ourselves of our past cuz it is all bad unless it was Marxism. So what is our past in the US? It is a country that had a revolution that was sparked by the British trying to seize all the gun ammo. It is a country whose identity comes from a people whose freedom came from being able to fight off tyranny with guns, so now we are expected to purge that out of our psyche and pretend history never repeats itself cuz we have cell phones now.

Yea, doesn't work that way.

 

[miketx]

Rittenhouse should never have been brought to trial. It was clearly self defense as shown.

 

[Flash]

So making background checks so they contain ZERO loopholes would not be an infringement.
How is getting a background check infringing. You're a Law Abiding Citizen.

I'm glad you asked that question so let me explain it to you even though I have explained it to you several times before.

There are three major things wrong with background checks, two of them Constitutional.

1. Background checks do not work to prevent crime. Past behavior is no guarantee of future behavior as we have seen in recent shooting where background checks were passed.

2. It is an assumption of being considered guilty until proven innocent, which is against the backbone of American jurisprudence.

3. It is having to get government permission for a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The very (and only) one that says that right cannot be infringed. If you have to get government permission for a right that is in the Bill of Rights then the Bill of Rights really isn't a Bill of Rights, is it?

 

[Winco]

Why is it none of the gun laws you want ever stop criminals from getting guns?

Here's what I'm saying.
I get it, criminals have guns and will always have guns.
American Citizens have guns and should be allowed to keep ALL their guns.
I've never said otherwise.

If the age of legally purchasing an AR-15 (the gun of major discourse) was raised to 21, IMO, the law abiding father or mother in the USA would still purchase one for his 18 year old child.
I'm willing to guess that many law abiding parents have purchased an AR-15 for their under 18 year old child. It's gonna happen anyway.
And I'm fine with that.
Take instruction (which I know most already do).

 

[Darkwind]

Humans can't exist without killing something thus the need for weapons.

Nature cannot exist without killing something.

 

[JGalt]

Here's what I'm saying.
I get it, criminals have guns and will always have guns.
American Citizens have guns and should be allowed to keep ALL their guns.
I've never said otherwise.

If the age of legally purchasing an AR-15 (the gun of major discourse) was raised to 21, IMO, the law abiding father or mother in the USA would still purchase one for his 18 year old child.
I'm willing to guess that many law abiding parents have purchased an AR-15 for their under 18 year old child. It's gonna happen anyway.
And I'm fine with that.
Take instruction (which I know most already do).

Ok then. So what's the beef?

 

[2aguy]

Nature cannot exist without killing something.

Even plants kill.

 

[Moonglow]

Nature cannot exist without killing something.

The entire cycle is one of life feeding off of death.

 

[miketx]

Here's what I'm saying.
I get it, criminals have guns and will always have guns.
American Citizens have guns and should be allowed to keep ALL their guns.
I've never said otherwise.

If the age of legally purchasing an AR-15 (the gun of major discourse) was raised to 21, IMO, the law abiding father or mother in the USA would still purchase one for his 18 year old child.
I'm willing to guess that many law abiding parents have purchased an AR-15 for their under 18 year old child. It's gonna happen anyway.
And I'm fine with that.
Take instruction (which I know most already do).

But you didn't answer the question. Why do the laws never stop criminals from getting guns?

 

[Winco]

I'm glad you asked that question so let me explain it to you even though I have explained it to you several times before.

There are three major things wrong with background checks, two of them Constitutional.

1. Background checks do not work to prevent crime. Past behavior is no guarantee of future behavior as we have seen in recent shooting where background checks were passed.

2. It is an assumption of being considered guilty until proven innocent, which is against the backbone of American jurisprudence.

3. It is having to get government permission for a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The very (and only) one that says that right cannot be infringed. If you have to get government permission for a right that is in the Bill of Rights then the Bill of Rights really isn't a Bill of Rights, is it?

Fair Enough.
Thanks for the response.

In traffic, speed limits reduce accidents.
Without speed limits, most people would drive safely anyway.
With Speed limits, some people still drive at unsafe speeds.
But speed limits do reduce accidents, of course NOT ALL accidents, but it does help.

Can you agree on that ^^^^^ without saying "Well that has nothing to do with guns."

 

[2aguy]

But you didn't answer the question. Why do the laws never stop criminals from getting guns?

OOOOOOH, oooooooh..........pick me, pick me.......!!!!

Ahem.......would it be because the democrat party/leftists, don't care about criminals getting guns....and that their only focus is making it harder/impossible for normal citizens to own and carry guns?

 

[Darkwind]

I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.

I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.

We license fishing, cars, trucks, boats, trailers, businesses, etc
Cars and trucks weren't even invented yet, so there is obviously nothing in the Constitution about cars and trucks.

I believe that the criminals will always be criminals and will never abide by new or old laws.

So making background checks so they contain ZERO loopholes would not be an infringement.
How is getting a background check infringing. You're a Law Abiding Citizen.

That said, how would we ever patrol private guns sales.
We can't, so quit trying.

Pandora's box is wide open, so nothing will ever really change, I just wish we could stop arguing about it.

Law Abiding Citizens aren't the problem.

That's a small start.
Feel free to discuss this and other current issues.
But be CIVIL.

Muzzleloaders were the most modern weapon of that time. As one person already noted, we don't limit the freedom of the press to just single-page printing presses, do we?

Shall we then start requiring a license to vote? More harm, in My opinion, comes from uninformed voters than all the guns ever fired.

Criminals will never go through a background check, so loopholes or not, you are making law-abiding citizens justify the exercise of a natural right. The government exists to protect those rights, not hand them out or take them away.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It isn't that they think they understand the question better....they simply know that to implement their total control over the population, they have to get rid of guns....

See the Sullivan Laws in New York......

 

[marvin martian]

Here's what I'm saying.
I get it, criminals have guns and will always have guns.
American Citizens have guns and should be allowed to keep ALL their guns.
I've never said otherwise.

If the age of legally purchasing an AR-15 (the gun of major discourse) was raised to 21, IMO, the law abiding father or mother in the USA would still purchase one for his 18 year old child.
I'm willing to guess that many law abiding parents have purchased an AR-15 for their under 18 year old child. It's gonna happen anyway.
And I'm fine with that.
Take instruction (which I know most already do).

Buying a gun for someone who isn't old enough to own it is already illegal.

 

[Winco]

Ok then. So what's the beef?

My beef is that as a Nation, we hate each other more each and every day, due to issues.
I wish that would change.

I apologize for my past name calling and attacks.
I'm part of the problem.

I wish to be better.

 

[2aguy]

Fair Enough.
Thanks for the response.

In traffic, speed limits reduce accidents.
Without speed limits, most people would drive safely anyway.
With Speed limits, some people still drive at unsafe speeds.
But speed limits do reduce accidents, of course NOT ALL accidents, but it does help.

Can you agree on that ^^^^^ without saying "Well that has nothing to do with guns."

Your analogy is wrong...

The proper analogy is...

Some people will speed, no matter the law...therefore, we have to ban and confiscate cars.

(Then you can say, that someone who isn't a speeder will become a speeder if you let them drive a car...the typical response of anti-gun fanatics who argue that a criminal used to be a law abiding citizen until he used his gun for a crime......)

That is a more accurate depiction of what the democrats want.

 

[Flash]

Fair Enough.
Thanks for the response.

In traffic, speed limits reduce accidents.
Without speed limits, most people would drive safely anyway.
With Speed limits, some people still drive at unsafe speeds.
But speed limits do reduce accidents, of course NOT ALL accidents, but it does help.

Can you agree on that ^^^^^ without saying "Well that has nothing to do with guns."

Being able to drive on public road is a privileged granted to you by the state, that built the roads.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The one that says it shall not be infringed.

Big difference.