Gun Rights

Ain't nothin' wrong with emotion, dearie. I hear your facts. In four "episodes" using AR 15's, 151 innocent people at school or out having a good time, were killed and how many injured, traumatized or maimed for life? To me, banning AR's is like banning the bump stock. Neither one of them should have been on the market to begin with.

There is a lot wrong with just relying on emotion to make arguments. The AR-15 did not cause one death. The perpetrator (person) caused the deaths, and violence. Focus on those that commit criminal acts, not the law abiding.

So, it is OK if a bomb, car, truck, handgun, or other tool is used BY A PERSON to kill? Isn't it ALREADY ILLEGAL to use them to commit violent crimes?

Oh yeah, forgot, Honey. :)
 
We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.
Easy to at least get started here.
Outlaw assault weapons. It would not interfere with what you believe is a God given right for every citizen to own killing machines. They could all still bear arms.

Make ERPO laws national.

Tighten up background checks and start stringently punishing those who transfer weapons illegally.

There. You still have your fucking guns and crazy maniacs who want to shoot up a church have a slightly slower gun to do it with.

Ooops. This is the Constitution forum. Sorry.
I'm not a lawyer.
You have to have a Class III permit to own an "assault" weapon. Which means an extensive and expensive process. Those types of firearms are not cheap and you have to find a dealer that is specifically licensed to sell them. The semi-automatic weapons that I can buy at any gun store such as an AR-15 ARE NOT FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.
FINE! WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM! No civilian needs them.
Why not ? Constitutionally speaking I should be able to own any type of firearm.
By an army vet talking about the AR-15, not long after the Parkland shooting. She explains pretty carefully why not. Of course, you won't read it.

I was this comfortable with that rifle because it was designed to kill human beings as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the Army trained me and every other soldier to use it proficiently. The US military has been using some variation of this weapon for generations because it is incredibly well suited to that purpose. This is the exact point that every horrified civilian saw immediately, and a lot of veterans, myself included, missed.
I'm An Army Vet Who Used To Think An AR-15 Was No Big Deal. Now, I Want It Banned.
I don't take anyone seriously that turns their back on the oath they took. To support and defend the Constitution.
 
We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.

I'm answering you before reading the other pages of posts. If I'm covering the same ground twice, my apologies:

1) The Declaration of Independence address unalienable Rights. The courts and the policies of the federal government make a distinction between unalienable Rights and Inalienable rights

2) The EARLIEST state court decisions AND the United States Supreme Court ruled in the FIRST rulings that the Right to keep and bear Arms meant that everyone (old, young, women, men and even children) had a Right to keep and bear Arms; that the Right is ABSOLUTE; that the Right isn't even dependent upon the Constitution for its existence

3) The government has the POWER to do anything they damn well please. What they DO NOT have is the AUTHORITY. Let me explain:

A man rushes into a bank with a gun. He demands everyone's money. If you don't have a gun, you will comply. He has the POWER to take your money. He still lacks the AUTHORITY. It's the same with gun control

4) America is a funny country. We lead the world in drug abuse. 70,000 plus people die from drug overdoses each year and we're legalizing drugs. 30,000 die from firearms and they are the only ones who get recognized by the news media - If ti bleeds, it leads. The irony: We keep watching the news and buying from their sponsors

5) Mass shootings, no matter what percentage of the people are killed, gets the most media play time. Yet, if gun Rights activists got off their lazy butts and worked at a grass roots level, they could stop over 90 percent of ALL mass shootings WITHOUT GUN CONTROL. They won't do it. They will proclaim their commitment, but they will not sit down in a think tank atmosphere, listen to the solutions to mass shootings and then act on it. They will complain about gun control and even donate to people that they know, for a fact, are selling them out... but DO something about it???? Perish the thought.
 
What is the attraction of guns? I remember entering an army barracks the first time and at least half of the new recruits ran over to the gun racks on the wall and began touching the carbines and trying to get them out of the racks. But in fairness the other half tried the bunks out. I think it was the John Wayne and other movies that created the adoration.
 
What is the attraction of guns? I remember entering an army barracks the first time and at least half of the new recruits ran over to the gun racks on the wall and began touching the carbines and trying to get them out of the racks. But in fairness the other half tried the bunks out. I think it was the John Wayne and other movies that created the adoration.

What fuels the aversion to guns?
 
What is the attraction of guns? I remember entering an army barracks the first time and at least half of the new recruits ran over to the gun racks on the wall and began touching the carbines and trying to get them out of the racks. But in fairness the other half tried the bunks out. I think it was the John Wayne and other movies that created the adoration.

Guns are tools to me, but I like a nice, quality, useful tool.
 
We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.
Easy to at least get started here.
Outlaw assault weapons. It would not interfere with what you believe is a God given right for every citizen to own killing machines. They could all still bear arms.

Tighten up background checks and start stringently punishing those who transfer weapons illegally.
QWYMheW.jpg
 
and just a comment about civilians made by another poster . I just want to state that Police are also Civilians though many think the police are not Civilians . Just a comment .
 
By an army vet talking about the AR-15, not long after the Parkland shooting. She explains pretty carefully why not. Of course, you won't read it.

I was this comfortable with that rifle because it was designed to kill human beings as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the Army trained me and every other soldier to use it proficiently. The US military has been using some variation of this weapon for generations because it is incredibly well suited to that purpose. This is the exact point that every horrified civilian saw immediately, and a lot of veterans, myself included, missed.
I'm An Army Vet Who Used To Think An AR-15 Was No Big Deal. Now, I Want It Banned.

Just because she is an "Army vet" doesn't make her an expert, especially on what "society needs". Her arguments are specious at best. Also, the statistics don't bare out the danger she implies.

Rifles, including the AR-15 comprise a few hundred deaths per year on average compared to over 6,000 per year where a handgun was used. Of course you'll just say, well ban handguns also. The fact remains the AR-15 is used in very few crimes, and very few murders. It is an extremely small number each year. Remember, the above number is FOR ALL RIFLES of which the AR-15 is a small subset.

You are acting out on pure uniformed EMOTION.
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
Ain't nothin' wrong with emotion, dearie. I hear your facts. In four "episodes" using AR 15's, 151 innocent people at school or out having a good time, were killed and how many injured, traumatized or maimed for life? To me, banning AR's is like banning the bump stock. Neither one of them should have been on the market to begin with.

America, even with these mass shootings added in are not in the top 85 nation per capita murders. Most of the crimes are occurring in Democrat dominated cities, since most mass shooters are Democrats.

Do you ever read WHO those people are who do these mass shootings? NOT a single NRA member involved, not a single mass shooting in RURAL areas where Republicans dominate. The ones doing these mass shootings are on drugs, or mentally ill.

Take away the AR's, they will just use something else, as they are messed up.

Pay attention to demographics!
 
What is the attraction of guns? I remember entering an army barracks the first time and at least half of the new recruits ran over to the gun racks on the wall and began touching the carbines and trying to get them out of the racks. But in fairness the other half tried the bunks out. I think it was the John Wayne and other movies that created the adoration.

What fuels the aversion to guns?
Deaths of innocent people including children.
 
What is the attraction of guns? I remember entering an army barracks the first time and at least half of the new recruits ran over to the gun racks on the wall and began touching the carbines and trying to get them out of the racks. But in fairness the other half tried the bunks out. I think it was the John Wayne and other movies that created the adoration.

What fuels the aversion to guns?
Deaths of innocent people including children.

70,000 + people die due to drug overdoses every year. Many are young people - fact is MOST are. We're legalizing drugs.

450,000 Americans die each year due to smoking. Not only is smoking legal, but society glamorizes it and encourages it. What made those deaths so much more acceptable?

As many people die in DUIs as do people by firearms each year. Alcohol is still sold - even in grocery stores. What makes those deaths more palatable?

A man can get fall down drunk, get in a car, mow down your family, go to jail for a few years, get let out, and immediately go into a bar, get sloppy fall down drunk and wreck another car. I hear NOTHING about alcohol bans, licenses to buy booze, waiting periods, or limits on the amount of alcoholic beverages one can buy in any given period of time.

The hatred of firearms doesn't make any sense. Of everything I listed, only the firearm is capable of protecting you and your family's life AND Freedom / Liberty.
 
Last edited:
The reason politicians want to disarm the law abiding is to further control them. It is not about reducing violence, or murders that criminals commit.
 
The hatred of firearms doesn't make any sense. Of everything I listed, only the firearm is capable of protecting you and your family's life AND Freedom / Liberty.
The Great American Delusion. Oh well, at least you’ll all be well armed when Putin finally manages to trigger then next civil war.
 
The hatred of firearms doesn't make any sense. Of everything I listed, only the firearm is capable of protecting you and your family's life AND Freedom / Liberty.
The Great American Delusion. Oh well, at least you’ll all be well armed when Putin finally manages to trigger then next civil war.

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know anyone who got into an armed confrontation with state or local LEOs and prevailed? And if you did know someone like that, would you then continue that insult and infer that some people are suffering a delusion?
 
The hatred of firearms doesn't make any sense. Of everything I listed, only the firearm is capable of protecting you and your family's life AND Freedom / Liberty.
The Great American Delusion. Oh well, at least you’ll all be well armed when Putin finally manages to trigger then next civil war.

If it is such a delusion why are government, the politicians and elite rich guys like Bloomberg so Hell bent on just taking them away from Law Abiding Citizens? The criminals are allowed to run wild.
 
The hatred of firearms doesn't make any sense. Of everything I listed, only the firearm is capable of protecting you and your family's life AND Freedom / Liberty.
The Great American Delusion. Oh well, at least you’ll all be well armed when Putin finally manages to trigger then next civil war.

If it is such a delusion why are government, the politicians and elite rich guys like Bloomberg so Hell bent on just taking them away from Law Abiding Citizens? The criminals are allowed to run wild.
There’s little point in attempting meaninful discussion with American gun lovers.
As I live a long way from the Land of The Brave and The Free I’m quite happy to sit back and watch you slaughter each other. Have fun boys,
 
The hatred of firearms doesn't make any sense. Of everything I listed, only the firearm is capable of protecting you and your family's life AND Freedom / Liberty.
The Great American Delusion. Oh well, at least you’ll all be well armed when Putin finally manages to trigger then next civil war.

If it is such a delusion why are government, the politicians and elite rich guys like Bloomberg so Hell bent on just taking them away from Law Abiding Citizens? The criminals are allowed to run wild.
There’s little point in attempting meaninful discussion with American gun lovers.
As I live a long way from the Land of The Brave and The Free I’m quite happy to sit back and watch you slaughter each other. Have fun boys,

No law abiding citizens that own guns are slaughtering each other. STOP LYING.
 
The hatred of firearms doesn't make any sense. Of everything I listed, only the firearm is capable of protecting you and your family's life AND Freedom / Liberty.
The Great American Delusion. Oh well, at least you’ll all be well armed when Putin finally manages to trigger then next civil war.

If it is such a delusion why are government, the politicians and elite rich guys like Bloomberg so Hell bent on just taking them away from Law Abiding Citizens? The criminals are allowed to run wild.
There’s little point in attempting meaninful discussion with American gun lovers.
As I live a long way from the Land of The Brave and The Free I’m quite happy to sit back and watch you slaughter each other. Have fun boys,

No law abiding citizens that own guns are slaughtering each other. STOP LYING.
Stop simplifying the issue with irrelevant asides and start thinking how those who use arms ‘illegally’ so easily get their hands on them. I know I’m wasting my time trying to get anything like common sense into an American gun lobbyist’s head so I’m outa here.
 
Easy to at least get started here.
Outlaw assault weapons. It would not interfere with what you believe is a God given right for every citizen to own killing machines. They could all still bear arms.

Make ERPO laws national.

Tighten up background checks and start stringently punishing those who transfer weapons illegally.

There. You still have your fucking guns and crazy maniacs who want to shoot up a church have a slightly slower gun to do it with.

Ooops. This is the Constitution forum. Sorry.
I'm not a lawyer.
You have to have a Class III permit to own an "assault" weapon. Which means an extensive and expensive process. Those types of firearms are not cheap and you have to find a dealer that is specifically licensed to sell them. The semi-automatic weapons that I can buy at any gun store such as an AR-15 ARE NOT FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.
FINE! WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM! No civilian needs them.
Why not ? Constitutionally speaking I should be able to own any type of firearm.
By an army vet talking about the AR-15, not long after the Parkland shooting. She explains pretty carefully why not. Of course, you won't read it.

I was this comfortable with that rifle because it was designed to kill human beings as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the Army trained me and every other soldier to use it proficiently. The US military has been using some variation of this weapon for generations because it is incredibly well suited to that purpose. This is the exact point that every horrified civilian saw immediately, and a lot of veterans, myself included, missed.
I'm An Army Vet Who Used To Think An AR-15 Was No Big Deal. Now, I Want It Banned.
I don't take anyone seriously that turns their back on the oath they took. To support and defend the Constitution.

How about defending ALL of the Constitution instead of just the parts that you like.
 
The hatred of firearms doesn't make any sense. Of everything I listed, only the firearm is capable of protecting you and your family's life AND Freedom / Liberty.
The Great American Delusion. Oh well, at least you’ll all be well armed when Putin finally manages to trigger then next civil war.

If it is such a delusion why are government, the politicians and elite rich guys like Bloomberg so Hell bent on just taking them away from Law Abiding Citizens? The criminals are allowed to run wild.
There’s little point in attempting meaninful discussion with American gun lovers.
As I live a long way from the Land of The Brave and The Free I’m quite happy to sit back and watch you slaughter each other. Have fun boys,

I love Liberty. Firearms are only a tool to protect Liberty just as the press is a tool for the dissemination for ideal. As the old maxim goes, the Second Amendment guarantees your First Amendment Rights.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top