CDZ Gun law proposals, I oppose all of them, tell me how they actually would work.

Darkwind

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
25,964
Reaction score
6,203
Points
290
I have no problem with law abiding citizens of sound mind owning rifles or pistols.

I can also accept private ownership of automatic weapons.

However I would want all gun owners to be properly trained and licensed.
Trained, licensed and insured.

It's what we require of people who drive automobiles in this country. Common sense.
Driving is NOT a right.
 

diver52

Active Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
707
Reaction score
37
Points
33
Scalia did not say all bearable arms were protected.
He did.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
There are any number of weapons bearable under that definition which are not protected.
Given Heller, what firearm "in common use at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes" is not protected by the 2nd?
Given Heller, how can the right to own and use any "bearable arm" - including the firearms specified, above - NOT be protected by the 2nd?
Why do people keep bringing up the AR-15?
They fear what they media tells them to fear.
Because the court has stated they are not, and the state and federal legislatures have stated they are not. That's how law works. I personally think a lot of prohibition laws are pointless and counter productive, but that does not make them go away or change their impact upon us.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,917
Reaction score
1,566
Points
195
Society has a right to protect itself. Hence gun laws make perfect sense.

Where we have a problem is that we have a patchwork system of gun laws where what is legal in one state is not legal in another; what is illegal in a municipality is perfectly legal outside of it.

Its like fireworks on the fourth of July. We had laws against them in the city limits yet, every Independence Day, you heard nothing but fireworks going off as soon as the sun went down. People would just drive out to the unincorporated areas and buy them and bring them back.

The rest of the world has proven gun laws work when it is done in the macro. Its time we do the same thing here. Meanwhile…if you’re in need of a means of aggressive defense—firearms—you should be able to purchase them. Do you need a gun on Wacker St. in Chicago? No. Do you need one in rural Nebraska? Yep. It would be, in my view, irresponsible not to have one. The nearest LEO may be 30 miles away.
Where we have a problem is that we have a patchwork system of gun laws

This is not true...not even in the slightest bit true.

It is a felony to use a gun to commit rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping in all 57 states. (using the obama number.) It is against the law in all 57 states for a convicted felon to buy, own or carry a gun......so you are just wrong.

The problem we have is the patchwork of democrat controlled voting districts, where they allow repeat, violent gun offenders out of jail over and over again. I have posted the articles on this from state after state, where democrat judges, prosecutors and politicians release gun offenders even after 2nd and 3rd gun possession arrests....and then, released on bail or their own recognizance, they go out and murder someone. I-bonds for gun offenses have released over 70% of those arrested for felony gun possession.

If we have a patchwork of anything, it is because of democrats allowing gun offenders out of jail and prison.

Please....explain to us why the democrats keep doing that?
We do not enforce the laws we have.
 

xband

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
4,293
Reaction score
426
Points
140
We hear from those opposed to gun ownership that 2nd Amendment supporters will not support "common sense" gun control. This is inaccurate in that those of us who support the 2nd Amendment support locking up criminals who use guns for crime for long periods of time, I say 30 years for rape, robbery or murder using a gun....on top of any other penalty for the rape, robbery or murder. Do that, and you will see how fast criminals stop using guns for crimes.....

The above would be actual gun control, rather than gun control aimed at creating new taxes, fees, regulations aimed at making it harder and more legally intimidating for normal people to own guns.

And now, here is a group of new gun control laws proposed after the Virginia Beach shooting....I oppose all of them, not to simply oppose them, but because they don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns....and more pointedly, would not have stopped the shooter ...... the alleged point in coming up with the new gun laws...

Please....if you can, explain how any of these new gun laws are "common sense" and how any of them would stop criminals or mass shooters, in particular, the shooter in Virginia....

ICYMI: Here Are The Virginia Democrats' Anti-Gun Proposals


Criminalization of the private transfer of firearms;

·A ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms;

·A ban on firearm suppressors;

·Firearms rationing (described by the governor’s office as “one-gun-a-month law,” as opposed to Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law that was repealed in 2012);

·Procedures to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding individuals without due process;

·Mandatory firearm storage requirements;

·Mandatory lost or stolen firearm reporting; and

·A weakened Virginia firearms preemption statute that would empower local governments to create a complicated patchwork of gun laws.

None of the above laws would have stopped the shooter in Virginia.....not one.......also, none of these laws would stop criminals....

So.....explain how my opposition to laws that do nothing, is simply opposing "common sense" gun control...
If Obama knocked on your door wanting your gun, what is the ethical thing to do?
Close the door in his face.
I would invite Obama into my house for Sunday Dinner. Sugar catches more flies than vinegar said the spider to the fly.
 
Last edited:

Darkwind

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
25,964
Reaction score
6,203
Points
290
We hear from those opposed to gun ownership that 2nd Amendment supporters will not support "common sense" gun control. This is inaccurate in that those of us who support the 2nd Amendment support locking up criminals who use guns for crime for long periods of time, I say 30 years for rape, robbery or murder using a gun....on top of any other penalty for the rape, robbery or murder. Do that, and you will see how fast criminals stop using guns for crimes.....

The above would be actual gun control, rather than gun control aimed at creating new taxes, fees, regulations aimed at making it harder and more legally intimidating for normal people to own guns.

And now, here is a group of new gun control laws proposed after the Virginia Beach shooting....I oppose all of them, not to simply oppose them, but because they don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns....and more pointedly, would not have stopped the shooter ...... the alleged point in coming up with the new gun laws...

Please....if you can, explain how any of these new gun laws are "common sense" and how any of them would stop criminals or mass shooters, in particular, the shooter in Virginia....

ICYMI: Here Are The Virginia Democrats' Anti-Gun Proposals


Criminalization of the private transfer of firearms;

·A ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms;

·A ban on firearm suppressors;

·Firearms rationing (described by the governor’s office as “one-gun-a-month law,” as opposed to Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law that was repealed in 2012);

·Procedures to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding individuals without due process;

·Mandatory firearm storage requirements;

·Mandatory lost or stolen firearm reporting; and

·A weakened Virginia firearms preemption statute that would empower local governments to create a complicated patchwork of gun laws.

None of the above laws would have stopped the shooter in Virginia.....not one.......also, none of these laws would stop criminals....

So.....explain how my opposition to laws that do nothing, is simply opposing "common sense" gun control...
If Obama knocked on your door wanting your gun, what is the ethical thing to do?
Close the door in his face.
I would invite Obama into my house for Sunday Dinner. Sugar catches more flies than vinegar.
I would not. If he came to My house, then he is there to either dissuade Me of My opinion or to remove My legal rights.

That anyone could believe they could do that is not open to friendly debate nor being softened with friendliness.

The answer is simple. Close the door and move on with your life.
 

diver52

Active Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
707
Reaction score
37
Points
33
I don't think so.
Because you do not want to go where this logically leads you.
Try buying military grade machine guns, grenade launchers, etc. All bearable arms
Can you demonstrate these weapons are firearms "in common use at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes"?
No?
Then, under Heller, they are not "bearable arms" and thus, the 2nd does not protect the right to own and use them.
We covered this already and I conceded the point. Let's not change the definition now. Bearable means able to carry. The other phrases are justifications for the limitation of the right. I'm not the one not wanting to go where logic leads.

At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that "urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’" Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)
 

xband

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
4,293
Reaction score
426
Points
140
We hear from those opposed to gun ownership that 2nd Amendment supporters will not support "common sense" gun control. This is inaccurate in that those of us who support the 2nd Amendment support locking up criminals who use guns for crime for long periods of time, I say 30 years for rape, robbery or murder using a gun....on top of any other penalty for the rape, robbery or murder. Do that, and you will see how fast criminals stop using guns for crimes.....

The above would be actual gun control, rather than gun control aimed at creating new taxes, fees, regulations aimed at making it harder and more legally intimidating for normal people to own guns.

And now, here is a group of new gun control laws proposed after the Virginia Beach shooting....I oppose all of them, not to simply oppose them, but because they don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns....and more pointedly, would not have stopped the shooter ...... the alleged point in coming up with the new gun laws...

Please....if you can, explain how any of these new gun laws are "common sense" and how any of them would stop criminals or mass shooters, in particular, the shooter in Virginia....

ICYMI: Here Are The Virginia Democrats' Anti-Gun Proposals


Criminalization of the private transfer of firearms;

·A ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms;

·A ban on firearm suppressors;

·Firearms rationing (described by the governor’s office as “one-gun-a-month law,” as opposed to Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law that was repealed in 2012);

·Procedures to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding individuals without due process;

·Mandatory firearm storage requirements;

·Mandatory lost or stolen firearm reporting; and

·A weakened Virginia firearms preemption statute that would empower local governments to create a complicated patchwork of gun laws.

None of the above laws would have stopped the shooter in Virginia.....not one.......also, none of these laws would stop criminals....

So.....explain how my opposition to laws that do nothing, is simply opposing "common sense" gun control...
If Obama knocked on your door wanting your gun, what is the ethical thing to do?
Close the door in his face.
I would invite Obama into my house for Sunday Dinner. Sugar catches more flies than vinegar.
I would not. If he came to My house, then he is there to either dissuade Me of My opinion or to remove My legal rights.

That anyone could believe they could do that is not open to friendly debate nor being softened with friendliness.

The answer is simple. Close the door and move on with your life.
Weird and I want my Geneva Convention Card given back!
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,772
Reaction score
2,474
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Scalia did not say all bearable arms were protected.
He did.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
There are any number of weapons bearable under that definition which are not protected.
Given Heller, what firearm "in common use at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes" is not protected by the 2nd?
Given Heller, how can the right to own and use any "bearable arm" - including the firearms specified, above - NOT be protected by the 2nd?
Why do people keep bringing up the AR-15?
The fear what they media tells them to fear.
Because the court has stated they are not, and the state and federal legislatures have stated they are not. That's how law works. I personally think a lot of prohibition laws are pointless and counter productive, but that does not make them go away or change their impact upon us.
I'm sorry -- I;m not sure how anything here addresses anything in my post.
Please go back and try again.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,772
Reaction score
2,474
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
I don't think so.
Because you do not want to go where this logically leads you.
Try buying military grade machine guns, grenade launchers, etc. All bearable arms
Can you demonstrate these weapons are firearms "in common use at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes"?
No?
Then, under Heller, they are not "bearable arms" and thus, the 2nd does not protect the right to own and use them.
We covered this already and I conceded the point. Let's not change the definition now. Bearable means able to carry.
As the term is used in Heller, "bearable arms" means firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
 

Darkwind

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
25,964
Reaction score
6,203
Points
290
We hear from those opposed to gun ownership that 2nd Amendment supporters will not support "common sense" gun control. This is inaccurate in that those of us who support the 2nd Amendment support locking up criminals who use guns for crime for long periods of time, I say 30 years for rape, robbery or murder using a gun....on top of any other penalty for the rape, robbery or murder. Do that, and you will see how fast criminals stop using guns for crimes.....

The above would be actual gun control, rather than gun control aimed at creating new taxes, fees, regulations aimed at making it harder and more legally intimidating for normal people to own guns.

And now, here is a group of new gun control laws proposed after the Virginia Beach shooting....I oppose all of them, not to simply oppose them, but because they don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns....and more pointedly, would not have stopped the shooter ...... the alleged point in coming up with the new gun laws...

Please....if you can, explain how any of these new gun laws are "common sense" and how any of them would stop criminals or mass shooters, in particular, the shooter in Virginia....

ICYMI: Here Are The Virginia Democrats' Anti-Gun Proposals


Criminalization of the private transfer of firearms;

·A ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms;

·A ban on firearm suppressors;

·Firearms rationing (described by the governor’s office as “one-gun-a-month law,” as opposed to Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law that was repealed in 2012);

·Procedures to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding individuals without due process;

·Mandatory firearm storage requirements;

·Mandatory lost or stolen firearm reporting; and

·A weakened Virginia firearms preemption statute that would empower local governments to create a complicated patchwork of gun laws.

None of the above laws would have stopped the shooter in Virginia.....not one.......also, none of these laws would stop criminals....

So.....explain how my opposition to laws that do nothing, is simply opposing "common sense" gun control...
If Obama knocked on your door wanting your gun, what is the ethical thing to do?
Close the door in his face.
I would invite Obama into my house for Sunday Dinner. Sugar catches more flies than vinegar.
I would not. If he came to My house, then he is there to either dissuade Me of My opinion or to remove My legal rights.

That anyone could believe they could do that is not open to friendly debate nor being softened with friendliness.

The answer is simple. Close the door and move on with your life.
Weird and I want my Geneva Convention Card given back!
Strange reply. Why would the Geneva Convention even be mentioned in a visit to My doorstep by Barak Obama?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top