Gun owner paranoia---
- Thread starter bill718
- Start date
noonereal
Gold Member
- Jan 16, 2009
- 3,268
- 1,467
- 200
lucky you
then another neighbor actually shoots his gun in the air in the middle of the night to complain and threaten because of a barking dog!
Mind you, my country place is only one hour from Manhattan. It is not like I am in the middle of Indiana or Alabama.
I got more stories. Only one from where you might expect it, from an inner city.
I live in the Rust Belt. City now. Ruralish suburbs when I was younger. Never seen shit like that.
Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"
Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!
Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.
Sounds good. So far the only plans Democrats have presented has been to keep guns from law abiding citizens. So what's your plan to keep them from criminals? I'd like to hear that
noonereal
Gold Member
- Jan 16, 2009
- 3,268
- 1,467
- 200
I was an inner city kid who was lucky enough to have spent summers on grandfathers working farm. So I got to see both worlds. Then, as I said, I spent high school years in upper middle class suburbs, later another 5 years in a suburban area when my kids were young.
Way more time in the cities, way way more experiences with guns in the country. Oh, and college in NH, saw the gun come out on a Friday night a couple times too.
As we all have different experiences AND different interpretations of these experiences hence we all have different opinions. Still, I was never anti gun, I still own 3, until the FL high school massacre. Interestingly enough, it was not the shooting itself that changed me, it was the posts of the pro gun people afterward that made me say, "we got a problem."
peace brother
So what about the endless violence and cancel culture posts coming from leftists. Does that make you say "we have a problem" too?
noonereal
Gold Member
- Jan 16, 2009
- 3,268
- 1,467
- 200
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 16,278
- 13,995
- 2,400
Your ignorance of history and gun stats are why many here think you are a galoot!
I like how you claimed to be more mature, then proved you're not. You know when someone says something like that you know it needs to be said because otherwise no one would be able to tell, LOL.
I couldn't pick a response to my question out of your drivel, but obviously you didn't say that Democrat fascism bothers you proving my point about your BS that your position is driven by some nuts. It's just an excuse for what you wanted anyway
Interesting if that were true how you cut the post history to hide the evidence
schmidlap
Platinum Member
- Oct 30, 2020
- 13,965
- 8,943
- 1,138
You may be laboring under the delusion that all Constitutional amendments are absolute. In fact, none is. All are circumscribed (including by those rights enumerated under other Amendments.)
A mentally-impaired fanatical ex-felon firearm fetishist may scream that he is entitled to flourish his Kalashnikov in a kindergarten class whilst drunk because it his his Constitutional right, as he flaunts his tattoo identifying him as a member in good standing of a well-regulated militia. His presumption of unbridled permissiveness is mistaken on on several scores.
The Supreme Court specifically stated that the Second Amendment does not limit prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the sales of guns. The Court has also noted that there was a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
E.g., Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’? No, of course not, and the Supreme Court has so ruled.
As Justice Antonin Scalia had clearly stated,"Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Scalia: ‘Limitations’ possible for gun control
In a rare interview Sunday morning, longtime conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke about big decisions the court has made on health care, gun control and abortion.
www.washingtontimes.com
Neither gun extremists nor anti-gun extremists may be satisfied, but reasonable restrictions, and not blanket prohibitions, will continue to be the accommodative, societal solutions, and will be acceptable to reasonable people.
- Banned
- #313
You may be laboring under the delusion that all Constitutional amendments are absolute. In fact, none is. All are circumscribed (including by those rights enumerated under other Amendments.)
A mentally-impaired fanatical ex-felon firearm fetishist may scream that he is entitled to flourish his Kalashnikov in a kindergarten class whilst drunk because it his his Constitutional right, as he flaunts his tattoo identifying him as a member in good standing of a well-regulated militia. His presumption of unbridled permissiveness is mistaken on on several scores.
The Supreme Court specifically stated that the Second Amendment does not limit prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the sales of guns. The Court has also noted that there was a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
E.g., Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’? No, of course not, and the Supreme Court has so ruled.
As Justice Antonin Scalia had clearly stated,"Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Scalia: ‘Limitations’ possible for gun control
In a rare interview Sunday morning, longtime conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke about big decisions the court has made on health care, gun control and abortion.
Neither gun extremists nor anti-gun extremists may be satisfied, but reasonable restrictions, and not blanket prohibitions, will continue to be the accommodative, societal solutions.
You are confused.
The Bill of Rights suppose to protect our individual rights. If it doesn't then BoR isn't worth the parchment it is written on.
The problem we have is that we can't depend upon the Executive, Legislative or Judcial branches of government to protect our Constitutional Rights. The branches are run by humans that have their own agenda and own pressure groups. Just look at Roberts refusing to grant Trump and the states standing in the ballot challenge because he didn't want to see riots if the election was overturned, as an example.
Just look at those four Liberal yahoos on the Supreme Court that wouldn't even agree that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right in the Heller case.
If your point is that the government can use our institutions to take away our rights then I will agree with you. If you are arguing that they are right to do so then I would disagree with you.
Men take Liberty away from other Men all the time and then claim it is legal to do it. History is full of examples.
The filthy ass government has no right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, even if some lawmakers pass laws to do so and an idiot court agrees with them.
schmidlap
Platinum Member
- Oct 30, 2020
- 13,965
- 8,943
- 1,138
As I have tried to explain to you, no Amendment grants absolute rights, as demonstrated by reasonable restrictions concerning firearms that have been upheld by the Supreme Court.You may be laboring under the delusion that all Constitutional amendments are absolute. In fact, none is. All are circumscribed (including by those rights enumerated under other Amendments.)
A mentally-impaired fanatical ex-felon firearm fetishist may scream that he is entitled to flourish his Kalashnikov in a kindergarten class whilst drunk because it his his Constitutional right, as he flaunts his tattoo identifying him as a member in good standing of a well-regulated militia. His presumption of unbridled permissiveness is mistaken on on several scores.
The Supreme Court specifically stated that the Second Amendment does not limit prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the sales of guns. The Court has also noted that there was a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
E.g., Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’? No, of course not, and the Supreme Court has so ruled.
As Justice Antonin Scalia had clearly stated,"Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Scalia: ‘Limitations’ possible for gun control
In a rare interview Sunday morning, longtime conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke about big decisions the court has made on health care, gun control and abortion.
Neither gun extremists nor anti-gun extremists may be satisfied, but reasonable restrictions, and not blanket prohibitions, will continue to be the accommodative, societal solutions.
You are confused.
The Bill of Rights suppose to protect our individual rights. If it doesn't then BoR isn't worth the parchment it is written on.
The problem we have is that we can't depend upon the Executive, Legislative or Judcial branches of government to protect our Constitutional Rights. The branches are run by humans that have their own agenda and own pressure groups. Just look at Roberts refusing to grant Trump and the states standing in the ballot challenge because he didn't want to see riots if the election was overturned, as an example.
Just look at those four Liberal yahoos on the Supreme Court that wouldn't even agree that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right in the Heller case.
If your point is that the government can use our institutions to take away our rights then I will agree with you. If you are arguing that they are right to do so then I would disagree with you.
Men take Liberty away from other Men all the time and then claim it is legal to do it. History is full of examples.
The filthy ass government has no right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, even if some lawmakers pass laws to do so and an idiot court agrees with them.
Neither the nut jobs who advocate for unbridled permissiveness, nor their opposite numbers that call for the total banning of private gun ownership, are going to get their way.
- Banned
- #316
As I have tried to explain to you, no Amendment grants absolute rights, as demonstrated by reasonable restrictions concerning firearms that have been upheld by the Supreme Court.You may be laboring under the delusion that all Constitutional amendments are absolute. In fact, none is. All are circumscribed (including by those rights enumerated under other Amendments.)
A mentally-impaired fanatical ex-felon firearm fetishist may scream that he is entitled to flourish his Kalashnikov in a kindergarten class whilst drunk because it his his Constitutional right, as he flaunts his tattoo identifying him as a member in good standing of a well-regulated militia. His presumption of unbridled permissiveness is mistaken on on several scores.
The Supreme Court specifically stated that the Second Amendment does not limit prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the sales of guns. The Court has also noted that there was a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
E.g., Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’? No, of course not, and the Supreme Court has so ruled.
As Justice Antonin Scalia had clearly stated,"Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Scalia: ‘Limitations’ possible for gun control
In a rare interview Sunday morning, longtime conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke about big decisions the court has made on health care, gun control and abortion.
Neither gun extremists nor anti-gun extremists may be satisfied, but reasonable restrictions, and not blanket prohibitions, will continue to be the accommodative, societal solutions.
You are confused.
The Bill of Rights suppose to protect our individual rights. If it doesn't then BoR isn't worth the parchment it is written on.
The problem we have is that we can't depend upon the Executive, Legislative or Judcial branches of government to protect our Constitutional Rights. The branches are run by humans that have their own agenda and own pressure groups. Just look at Roberts refusing to grant Trump and the states standing in the ballot challenge because he didn't want to see riots if the election was overturned, as an example.
Just look at those four Liberal yahoos on the Supreme Court that wouldn't even agree that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right in the Heller case.
If your point is that the government can use our institutions to take away our rights then I will agree with you. If you are arguing that they are right to do so then I would disagree with you.
Men take Liberty away from other Men all the time and then claim it is legal to do it. History is full of examples.
The filthy ass government has no right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, even if some lawmakers pass laws to do so and an idiot court agrees with them.
Neither the nut jobs who advocate for unbridled permissiveness, nor their opposite numbers that call for the total banning of private gun ownership, are going to get their way.
As I have tried to explain to you, assholes will take rights away from you if you let them. We shouldn't let them.
The problem we have is that we can't trust Liberals to define "reasonable gun control laws" because they are not reasonable. They are crazy and their agenda to do away with the right to keep and bear arms.
There are probably a couple of restrictions that most everybody would agree upon. However, once you agree that some restrictions are OK then you open the door for assholes to go bat shit crazy with unreasonable restrictions, like background checks, licenses, banning firearms, banning magazines, red flag laws, taxation, licensing and other onerous prohibitions.
The problem we have is that the Supreme Court has never ruled that the we should have Strict Scrutiny with the Second Amendment. That is why all the filthy ass Commie states have got away with taking away the Constitutional rights.
They have been waiting for a Conservative majority to review an appropriate case.
However, I think we all know that we can't depend upon the courts to protect our Liberty, can we?
- Dec 16, 2017
- 23,008
- 12,455
- 1,290
Really? I've never heard of anyone being held liable for leaving their vehicle running.
Any thoughts as to the rest of my post?
evenflow1969
Gold Member
No they really are not. There is the way left fringe but this is not a predominant worry among the party.
blackhawk
Diamond Member
No one is opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, children or the mentally ill. However the lefts goal especially the far left seems to go beyond that.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Wasn’t it really the left who made Trump fire Greg Bovino and now Kristi Noem?- Started by BrokeLoser
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
