"common Sense Gun Laws"

[Asclepias]

All I have to do is call it "nuclear arms" and then its protected right?...Oh wait thats what it is called.

It has to be a common weapon deployed by a single soldier.

Try again.

Do you have a link to this? I may learn something here.

 

[RKMBrown]

It doesn't that's the point. The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the feds. Because it does not say arms or ordnance of any kind,... that left the hole for govco to add said restrictions not traditionally considered arms. That said the states were (prior to the 14th amendment) perfectly able to restrict arms.

But a nuclear warhead is called nuclear arms.

They could call them nuclear sex toys, either way it's ordnance.

But its also arms. You can call a gun a weapon and its still considered arms.

Correct. But it's not the arms covered by the 2nd amendment.

Says who?

The folks who wrote the constitution, and the SCOTUS in many cases since.

 

[2aguy]

So no other gun laws other than the 2nd Amendment?

I don't think anyone is saying that they just want laws that when they are broken, then you are punished. the laws we have now just need to be enforced...it is against the law for a felon to have a gun...check...it is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime...check...when someone does things like this...arrest them...no registration needed...

As to background checks...instant check...you go to the gun store, they run your social security number, and if no felonies pop up...you can buy a gun...no permanent record...

 

[NoNukes]

This is not true, and probably why you did not provide any proof.

It is true and I did provide proof.

I live in a country where all guns are registered and the government has not taken them away. You have no idea what you are talking about, or you just make things up.

Name a country that has not used registrations to confiscate weapons. I think that will go faster than me listing confiscations for each country on the planet.

Ireland. And they can come into your house to check if the guns are being stored properly. The gun owners i know have no problem with this. The gun laws are strict, too strict, but they do not come for your guns.

IRELAND ON THE BRINK

In 1973, the An Garda Síochána, or Irish police, used their gun registration lists and ordered all owners of handguns and centerfire rifles to submit the guns for ballistics testing. The police promised the guns would be returned a few weeks later, after the testing was complete.

Instead, the police simply confiscated all the guns.

In 1998, the signing of the Good Friday Accords finally ended the troubles in Northern Ireland. Over the next several years, PIRA surrendered their weapons, and former members and supporters now participate peacefully in the political process through the Sinn FeinParty. SF is a minor party in the Republic of Ireland, but it is the second-largest party in Northern Ireland.

The Good Friday Accords ended any plausible justification for the police to keep the confiscated guns. Notably, the gun confiscation had never been authorized by the legislature.

Any other countries?

Yes. it is illegal for most people to own handguns and some types of rifles. They do not take away legally registered guns. Part of what you posted was about the IRA. It is a terrorist organization and had to disarm in accordance with the peace agreement. Do you think that an illegal terrorist organization should be allowed to keep their weapons/ Are you really this thick?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But a nuclear warhead is called nuclear arms.

They could call them nuclear sex toys, either way it's ordnance.

Anyone arguing nuclear weapons with any regard to the 2nd argues from ignorance ans/or dishnonesty.

Perhaps... a lot of people really don't get the difference between commonly used definitions of terms and legal definitions of terms.

That would be "ignorance".
If the ignorance is willful, that's "dishonesty".

Agreed... I don't think it's willful in this case... but I'm willing to let him prove me wrong

I think its dishonesty. My time is far to precious to waste on such trolls.

 

[NoNukes]

This is not true, and probably why you did not provide any proof.

It is true and I did provide proof.

I live in a country where all guns are registered and the government has not taken them away. You have no idea what you are talking about, or you just make things up.

Name a country that has not used registrations to confiscate weapons. I think that will go faster than me listing confiscations for each country on the planet.

Ireland. And they can come into your house to check if the guns are being stored properly. The gun owners i know have no problem with this. The gun laws are strict, too strict, but they do not come for your guns.

I see no need to allow the police in my home sans warrant simply because I exercise a legally recognized and protected right.

When the mere exercise of a legally protected right becomes cause for government searches and seizures then that right ceases to exist.

If you are complying with the law, there is nothing to hide.

 

[Asclepias]

But a nuclear warhead is called nuclear arms.

They could call them nuclear sex toys, either way it's ordnance.

But its also arms. You can call a gun a weapon and its still considered arms.

Correct. But it's not the arms covered by the 2nd amendment.

Says who?

The folks who wrote the constitution, and the SCOTUS in many cases since.

I dont see anything in the constitution that restricts nuclear weapons. We were talking about restricting rights.

 

[RKMBrown]

All I have to do is call it "nuclear arms" and then its protected right?...Oh wait thats what it is called.

It has to be a common weapon deployed by a single soldier.

Try again.

Do you have a link to this? I may learn something here.

Guide to the Constitution

 

[Asclepias]

They could call them nuclear sex toys, either way it's ordnance.

Anyone arguing nuclear weapons with any regard to the 2nd argues from ignorance ans/or dishnonesty.

Perhaps... a lot of people really don't get the difference between commonly used definitions of terms and legal definitions of terms.

That would be "ignorance".
If the ignorance is willful, that's "dishonesty".

Agreed... I don't think it's willful in this case... but I'm willing to let him prove me wrong

I think its dishonesty. My time is far to precious to waste on such trolls.

IOW you cant prove your position but you want me to prove mine.

 

[Asclepias]

All I have to do is call it "nuclear arms" and then its protected right?...Oh wait thats what it is called.

It has to be a common weapon deployed by a single soldier.

Try again.

Do you have a link to this? I may learn something here.

Guide to the Constitution

I've seen that a million times. What or who decided that nuclear arms could be restricted vs "one man" arms as some are claiming?

 

[2aguy]

Simply raise the legal age limit where a male of any race can buy a gun up to the age of 30. Increase the penalties for using a gun to commit a crime or even the act of having a gun would cause jail time.

Considering that right now, the average age of the gang banger felon is under 18, and they get guns and use them to murder other people...how would raising the age to 30 achieve anything at all?

 

[RKMBrown]

They could call them nuclear sex toys, either way it's ordnance.

But its also arms. You can call a gun a weapon and its still considered arms.

Correct. But it's not the arms covered by the 2nd amendment.

Says who?

The folks who wrote the constitution, and the SCOTUS in many cases since.

I dont see anything in the constitution that restricts nuclear weapons. We were talking about restricting rights.

That's because most of the constitution is restrictions on government, including the 2nd amendment. The constitution was not written to restrict us, it was written to restrain government. The acts / laws passed by our federal, state, and local governments are what we are talking about, and whether said laws are constitutional.

 

[RKMBrown]

All I have to do is call it "nuclear arms" and then its protected right?...Oh wait thats what it is called.

It has to be a common weapon deployed by a single soldier.

Try again.

Do you have a link to this? I may learn something here.

Guide to the Constitution

I've seen that a million times. What or who decided that nuclear arms could be restricted vs "one man" arms as some are claiming?

Congress. Congress passes bills.... the bills that restrict the people are converted into laws. The people that write the laws based on the bills may be congress, or any organization congress cedes the writing work to. The link I provided you was specific to the 2nd amendment. Not the entire Constitution.

 

[Asclepias]

But its also arms. You can call a gun a weapon and its still considered arms.

Correct. But it's not the arms covered by the 2nd amendment.

Says who?

The folks who wrote the constitution, and the SCOTUS in many cases since.

I dont see anything in the constitution that restricts nuclear weapons. We were talking about restricting rights.

That's because most of the constitution is restrictions on government, including the 2nd amendment. The constitution was not written to restrict us, it was written to restrain government. The acts / laws passed by our federal, state, and local governments are what we are talking about, and whether said laws are constitutional.

I get that.

No we were talking about the erroneous comment that was made where M14 Shooter claimed our rights are not restricted in a free country. I used a way out example of a nuclear warhead. I used a saner comparion in a sawed off shotgun. So far all I have gotten is crickets and deflections.

 

[Asclepias]

All I have to do is call it "nuclear arms" and then its protected right?...Oh wait thats what it is called.

It has to be a common weapon deployed by a single soldier.

Try again.

Do you have a link to this? I may learn something here.

Guide to the Constitution

I've seen that a million times. What or who decided that nuclear arms could be restricted vs "one man" arms as some are claiming?

Congress.

So you agree that our right to own nuclear arms are restricted?

 

[RKMBrown]

It has to be a common weapon deployed by a single soldier.

Try again.

Do you have a link to this? I may learn something here.

Guide to the Constitution

I've seen that a million times. What or who decided that nuclear arms could be restricted vs "one man" arms as some are claiming?

Congress.

So you agree that our right to own nuclear arms are restricted?

Yes. Nuclear arms are restricted by the feds. Sawed off shotguns are restricted by state.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

No such thing as common sense gun laws. Your common sense may be different from your neighbors. Your neighbor may think its just common sense to have an arsenal complete with automatic assault rifles, LAWs, and hand grenades. Others would view that as a paranoid madman.

Tell me if the guy with the so called arsenal never breaks the law what's your issue with him?

The most sensible thing that can be done is to enforce draconian punishments on anyone breaking the law. THAT will be the best deterrent

My issue would be that he could snap and blow up my neighborhood. His first foray into lawbreaking could result in many lives lost. No one needs an arsenal unless they are in the military.

Any parent in your neighborhood could snap and kill their kids or yours so why not dent them the right to procreate?

And let's not get into the who needs what argument because I can come up with a list a mile long of shit people don't need.

If the guy never breaks the law what is your issue with him?

Mind your own business.

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

No such thing as common sense gun laws. Your common sense may be different from your neighbors. Your neighbor may think its just common sense to have an arsenal complete with automatic assault rifles, LAWs, and hand grenades. Others would view that as a paranoid madman.

Tell me if the guy with the so called arsenal never breaks the law what's your issue with him?

The most sensible thing that can be done is to enforce draconian punishments on anyone breaking the law. THAT will be the best deterrent

My issue would be that he could snap and blow up my neighborhood. His first foray into lawbreaking could result in many lives lost. No one needs an arsenal unless they are in the military.

Any parent in your neighborhood could snap and kill their kids or yours so why not dent them the right to procreate?

And let's not get into the who needs what argument because I can come up with a list a mile long of shit people don't need.

If the guy never breaks the law what is your issue with him? You can't deny a law abiding person his rights because you think he might maybe possible sometime in the near or distant future commit a crime. if you could then we would be confiscating drivers' licenses because people might drink before getting behind the wheel.

Mind your own business.

Bullshit and ad hominem..

Parents werent created for the purpose of killing their children.

I can come up with a list of things people dont need but again most or all of them were not created with the purpose of being able to kill another human.

I just told what my issue was. I dont think he should have that much firepower unless he is in the military and even the military doesnt allow a solider access to that much fire power on a whim. Using a license is not that same. People can and do get their licenses taken if they are a threat to the public.

I am minding my business.

So now it's the purpose?

Anyone can commit a crime at any time according to you right?

Just because a guy has a gun collection does not mean he is more prone to committing any crime than anyone else.

You cannot justify restricting a person's rights because you are afraid.

If he has done nothing wrong then what he does in none of your business. Period.

 

[Asclepias]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

No such thing as common sense gun laws. Your common sense may be different from your neighbors. Your neighbor may think its just common sense to have an arsenal complete with automatic assault rifles, LAWs, and hand grenades. Others would view that as a paranoid madman.

Tell me if the guy with the so called arsenal never breaks the law what's your issue with him?

The most sensible thing that can be done is to enforce draconian punishments on anyone breaking the law. THAT will be the best deterrent

My issue would be that he could snap and blow up my neighborhood. His first foray into lawbreaking could result in many lives lost. No one needs an arsenal unless they are in the military.

Any parent in your neighborhood could snap and kill their kids or yours so why not dent them the right to procreate?

And let's not get into the who needs what argument because I can come up with a list a mile long of shit people don't need.

If the guy never breaks the law what is your issue with him?

Mind your own business.

No such thing as common sense gun laws. Your common sense may be different from your neighbors. Your neighbor may think its just common sense to have an arsenal complete with automatic assault rifles, LAWs, and hand grenades. Others would view that as a paranoid madman.

Tell me if the guy with the so called arsenal never breaks the law what's your issue with him?

The most sensible thing that can be done is to enforce draconian punishments on anyone breaking the law. THAT will be the best deterrent

My issue would be that he could snap and blow up my neighborhood. His first foray into lawbreaking could result in many lives lost. No one needs an arsenal unless they are in the military.

Any parent in your neighborhood could snap and kill their kids or yours so why not dent them the right to procreate?

And let's not get into the who needs what argument because I can come up with a list a mile long of shit people don't need.

If the guy never breaks the law what is your issue with him? You can't deny a law abiding person his rights because you think he might maybe possible sometime in the near or distant future commit a crime. if you could then we would be confiscating drivers' licenses because people might drink before getting behind the wheel.

Mind your own business.

Bullshit and ad hominem..

Parents werent created for the purpose of killing their children.

I can come up with a list of things people dont need but again most or all of them were not created with the purpose of being able to kill another human.

I just told what my issue was. I dont think he should have that much firepower unless he is in the military and even the military doesnt allow a solider access to that much fire power on a whim. Using a license is not that same. People can and do get their licenses taken if they are a threat to the public.

I am minding my business.

So now it's the purpose?

Anyone can commit a crime at any time according to you right?

Just because a guy has a gun collection does not mean he is more prone to committing any crime than anyone else.

You cannot justify restricting a person's rights because you are afraid.

If he has done nothing wrong then what he does in none of your business. Period.

Yes we can justify restricting your rights due to fear. Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or sawed off shotgun.

I never said a person with a gun collection is more prone to committing crime. Stop deflecting.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is true and I did provide proof.

I live in a country where all guns are registered and the government has not taken them away. You have no idea what you are talking about, or you just make things up.

Name a country that has not used registrations to confiscate weapons. I think that will go faster than me listing confiscations for each country on the planet.

Ireland. And they can come into your house to check if the guns are being stored properly. The gun owners i know have no problem with this. The gun laws are strict, too strict, but they do not come for your guns.

I see no need to allow the police in my home sans warrant simply because I exercise a legally recognized and protected right.

When the mere exercise of a legally protected right becomes cause for government searches and seizures then that right ceases to exist.

If you are complying with the law, there is nothing to hide.

The law also states the government must have cause to execute searches.

The act of legally owning a gun is not cause for a search nor should it be.

Tell me will you let the cops or the FBI search your house any time they want after all you've not broken any laws?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No such thing as common sense gun laws. Your common sense may be different from your neighbors. Your neighbor may think its just common sense to have an arsenal complete with automatic assault rifles, LAWs, and hand grenades. Others would view that as a paranoid madman.

Tell me if the guy with the so called arsenal never breaks the law what's your issue with him?

The most sensible thing that can be done is to enforce draconian punishments on anyone breaking the law. THAT will be the best deterrent

My issue would be that he could snap and blow up my neighborhood. His first foray into lawbreaking could result in many lives lost. No one needs an arsenal unless they are in the military.

Any parent in your neighborhood could snap and kill their kids or yours so why not dent them the right to procreate?

And let's not get into the who needs what argument because I can come up with a list a mile long of shit people don't need.

If the guy never breaks the law what is your issue with him?

Mind your own business.

Tell me if the guy with the so called arsenal never breaks the law what's your issue with him?

The most sensible thing that can be done is to enforce draconian punishments on anyone breaking the law. THAT will be the best deterrent

My issue would be that he could snap and blow up my neighborhood. His first foray into lawbreaking could result in many lives lost. No one needs an arsenal unless they are in the military.

Any parent in your neighborhood could snap and kill their kids or yours so why not dent them the right to procreate?

And let's not get into the who needs what argument because I can come up with a list a mile long of shit people don't need.

If the guy never breaks the law what is your issue with him? You can't deny a law abiding person his rights because you think he might maybe possible sometime in the near or distant future commit a crime. if you could then we would be confiscating drivers' licenses because people might drink before getting behind the wheel.

Mind your own business.

Bullshit and ad hominem..

Parents werent created for the purpose of killing their children.

I can come up with a list of things people dont need but again most or all of them were not created with the purpose of being able to kill another human.

I just told what my issue was. I dont think he should have that much firepower unless he is in the military and even the military doesnt allow a solider access to that much fire power on a whim. Using a license is not that same. People can and do get their licenses taken if they are a threat to the public.

I am minding my business.

So now it's the purpose?

Anyone can commit a crime at any time according to you right?

Just because a guy has a gun collection does not mean he is more prone to committing any crime than anyone else.

You cannot justify restricting a person's rights because you are afraid.

If he has done nothing wrong then what he does in none of your business. Period.

Yes we can justify restricting your rights due to fear. Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or sawed off shotgun.

I never said a person with a gun collection is more prone to committing crime. Stop deflecting.

That's exactly what you're saying.

If a guy owns too many guns in your opinion you think he's going to kill everyone in your neighborhood.

It seems you not the gun owner are the paranoid one.