Observations regarding the anti-gun crowd

[JamesInFlorida]

They do. Federal Firearms License. All dealers need them.

All dealers yes-not all people who are private sellers-but sell to the general public. And while you certainly raised a good example of my argument about not being able to privately sell prescription-you didn't answer the same for alcohol. This is because for prescriptions you need have a need to take them, and have it certified by a doctor.

The government restricts who can sell alcohol, and you can't sell it privately to the general public without a license to do so (garage sales, flea markets for example). You can't do that with tobacco products either. So why should guns be an exception?

And nobody's who is against my argument for making it so everybody who sells has to be licensed, has told me why this shouldn't be in place. Can you tell me what rights this would infringe upon?

I agree with the "concept" of this but do not believe that everyone should be licensed. What I would support, is an individual being able to apply for and/or print a federal firearms buyers form off of the internet and have the potential buyer of the firearm fill it out before attempting to purchase the firearm privately. The seller could then phone the NICS background check (just as dealers do) with the buyer's information. If they are denied by the background check, then you can't sell it to them. If the buyer is approved, then he or she can take it to the nearest firearm dealer to turn it in for file.

This would piss many gun-owners off...especially those who attend and sell at gun-shows, but it wouldn't bother me. I would have no problem making sure I'm not selling a gun to someone with a criminal or mentally unstable background.

I do not agree with individuals having to be licensed. This would then allow individuals to stock up on all the firearms they want and start their own businesses. The bigger industry doesn't want that. And also, having to be licensed (to me) is no different than having to register your guns. People have also brought up that you have to be licensed to drive a car, so why don't you have to be licensed to own a gun. Simple explanation: Second Amendement. There is no amendment in the constitution that gives anyone the right to drive a car, so those two things are apples compared to oranges.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on that...not that they're worth much on the internet.

I think that's a reasonable, and fair idea.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is not at all true. Like most pro-gun people, I am willing to dicsuss any restriction that:
-Keeps guns from criminals
-Does not infringe on the right to arms.
Have any suggestions?

This from the guy who presumes to lecture on logic.

Your lack of effective response, and how said lack of effective response only serves to bolster the premise laid out on the OP, is noted.

 

[Joe Steel]

This is not at all true. Like most pro-gun people, I am willing to dicsuss any restriction that:
-Keeps guns from criminals
-Does not infringe on the right to arms.
Have any suggestions?

This from the guy who presumes to lecture on logic.

Your lack of effective response, and how said lack of effective response only serves to bolster the premise laid out on the OP, is noted.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

 

[Missourian]

They do. Federal Firearms License. All dealers need them.

All dealers yes-not all people who are private sellers-but sell to the general public. And while you certainly raised a good example of my argument about not being able to privately sell prescription-you didn't answer the same for alcohol. This is because for prescriptions you need have a need to take them, and have it certified by a doctor.

The government restricts who can sell alcohol, and you can't sell it privately to the general public without a license to do so (garage sales, flea markets for example). You can't do that with tobacco products either. So why should guns be an exception?

And nobody's who is against my argument for making it so everybody who sells has to be licensed, has told me why this shouldn't be in place. Can you tell me what rights this would infringe upon?

I agree with the "concept" of this but do not believe that everyone should be licensed. What I would support, is an individual being able to apply for and/or print a federal firearms buyers form off of the internet and have the potential buyer of the firearm fill it out before attempting to purchase the firearm privately. The seller could then phone the NICS background check (just as dealers do) with the buyer's information. If they are denied by the background check, then you can't sell it to them. If the buyer is approved, then he or she can take it to the nearest firearm dealer to turn it in for file.

This would piss many gun-owners off...especially those who attend and sell at gun-shows, but it wouldn't bother me. I would have no problem making sure I'm not selling a gun to someone with a criminal or mentally unstable background.

I do not agree with individuals having to be licensed. This would then allow individuals to stock up on all the firearms they want and start their own businesses. The bigger industry doesn't want that. And also, having to be licensed (to me) is no different than having to register your guns. People have also brought up that you have to be licensed to drive a car, so why don't you have to be licensed to own a gun. Simple explanation: Second Amendement. There is no amendment in the constitution that gives anyone the right to drive a car, so those two things are apples compared to oranges.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on that...not that they're worth much on the internet.

I agree 100%.

I never sell my firearms privately except to long time friends...there is just too much uncertainty when dealing with a stranger, not to mention liability.

Usually I sell to or trade with a local dealer.

 

[thanatos144]

The whole point of the amendment ti to hold GOVERNMENT to the understanding that the people can revolt if need be. The second amendment was crafted to protect us from the government not the government from us.

 

[liebuster]

​

The whole point of the amendment ti to hold GOVERNMENT to the understanding that the people can revolt if need be. The second amendment was crafted to protect us from the government not the government from us.

I had read somewhere that in some of the Founders writings that they wanted the citizens to be in possesion of the same firearms as an army would supply their troops.

So if the standard army weapon is a musket then they can be armed with a musket. If its a m16A2 then citizens can have a m16A2. They feared a standing army that is better armed than the citizens.

Anybody hear of this or know where it may have come from?

 

[M14 Shooter]

This from the guy who presumes to lecture on logic.

Your lack of effective response, and how said lack of effective response only serves to bolster the premise laid out on the OP, is noted.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

The part where you think your rersponse in any way addresses what I said.

 

[Joe Steel]

Your lack of effective response, and how said lack of effective response only serves to bolster the premise laid out on the OP, is noted.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

The part where you think your rersponse in any way addresses what I said.

OK.

I'll make it simple for you.

You said:

I am willing to dicsuss any restriction that:

-Keeps guns from criminals
-Does not infringe on the right to arms.

That's logically impossible. Keeping guns from anyone is an infringement on the right to arms.

Get the picture?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's logically impossible. Keeping guns anyone is an infringement on the right to arms.
Get the picture?

Thank you for making yourself more clear.
You are incorrect.
For instance, restricting convicted felons from having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because their right to arms was taken away thru due process; having no right to arms, it is logically impossible to infringe on their right.

 

[BrianH]

That's logically impossible. Keeping guns anyone is an infringement on the right to arms.
Get the picture?

Thank you for making yourself more clear.
You are incorrect.
For instance, restricting convicted felons from having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because their right to arms was taken away thru due process; having no right to arms, it is logically impossible to infringe on their right.

That's correct. Through breaking other laws, they are restricted from some of their rights. Simple as that.

 

[CMike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

Excellent video!

 

[CMike]

I think the main problem is a lack of understanding by the anti gun ownership crowd of the basics of how guns work.

 

[jillian]

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

That isn't what Heller says. Regulation isn't unacceptable. REASONABLE restrictions are anticipated. This is from Heller:

The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handgun

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[M14 Shooter]

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

That isn't what Heller says. Regulation isn't unacceptable. REASONABLE restrictions are anticipated. This is from Heller:

"Reasonable" necessitates that they do not otherwise violate the constitution.

 

[Chris]

State background checks have been shown to reduce gun deaths by 22-27%, and the assault weapons ban has saved lives as well. These are the two common sense things that we can be done to reduce gun deaths. The hysterical reaction by some gun owners to any common sense approach at reducing gun deaths is strange to say the least. There are 270 million guns in this country. No one is going to take away your guns.

 

[BlindBoo]

The purpose of the amendment was to allow the members of the militias' to take their weapons home. There was no standing Army. It has nothing to do with the founders fear of the government or to give the people the ability to mount an armed revolution whenever they feel it necessary. I don't think the citizens could mount a armed revolution with the type of guns we're allow to buy. Pretty tough to mount and attack on a 50 cal. mounted on an armor plated hummer with pop guns, you might get lucky but you'll probably get mowed down.

That being said, I've owned guns all my life. It will take a Constitutional Amendment to take the gun rights away from US citizens.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The purpose of the amendment was to allow the members of the militias' to take their weapons home.

No.
For the largest part, militamen did not take their militia-issue weapons home, militiamen supplied the weapons themselves.

I don't think the citizens could mount a armed revolution with the type of guns we're allow to buy

The right to try is not related to the possibility of success.
That said - if you;re right, how did we lose the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[M14 Shooter]

State background checks have been shown to reduce gun deaths by 22-27%

Show this to be true.

and the assault weapons ban has saved lives as well.

Show this to be true.

These are the two common sense things that we can be done to reduce gun deaths.

Except that there's absolutely no common sense found in violating the Constitutoin, as both of the above items do.

 

[Nosmo King]

What I find aggravating is the pro-gun crew seems unwilling to discuss reasonable restrictions.

This is not at all true. Like most pro-gun people, I am willing to dicsuss any restriction that:
-Keeps guns from criminals
-Does not infringe on the right to arms.
Have any suggestions?

Why must assault weapons be legal?

To ban them infringes on the right to arms, especially in that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of "arms" the 2nd was created to protect.

Why do you need to be allowed to carry guns in churches, schools, government buildings...

As we see, repeatedly, these places are not immune to violent crime. Thus, the need.

And I greatly fear the day they produce a plastic gun that does not show up on an x-ray, which seems inevitable to me

The pressures involved in the discharge of a firearm are rather dramatic, and so what you fear is quite far away.

I'm afraid you're reaching on your claim that assault weapons are the types of weapons those who drafted the second amendment had in mind. Considering they were not invented at the time of the amendment's writing.


I don't own a gun. But I have nothing against those who are sportsment and marksmen and use their weapons responsibly. I cna't conceive of a sportsman needing a 15 round clip. After 14 shots, you'd think a hunter would then consider stamp collecting because he obviously sucks at hunting.

Ban high capacity weapons. These weapons are not a sportsman's choice. They are designed to spread as much death and damage as possible, nothing NOTHING more.

And if you think you're going to hold off the American Army with a shot gun and a .22, you must never watch the news. That Army has predator drones, Abrams tanks and more killing technology than any other fighting force in the history of mankind. Saying Uzis and 15, 20, 30 round clips are your constitutional right is, on it's face, wrong and poorly reasoned.

 

[BlindBoo]

The purpose of the amendment was to allow the members of the militias' to take their weapons home.

No.
Militamen did not take their militia-issue weapons home, militiamen supplied their weapons themselves.

I don't think the citizens could mount a armed revolution with the type of guns we're allow to buy

The right to try is not related to the possibility of success.
That said - if you;re right, how did we lose the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?

I think you are correct. Militiamen did provide their own weapons. Since there was no standing army after the revolution, the founders felt it nessesary to protect the militiamens' rights to keep guns in their homes. So that when a threat arises the militia's could respond rapidly.

Vietnam: Lost the occupations. Vietnamese were being supplied with military hardware. Our army never lost a battle.

Iraq: Won the war. Occupation Not complete. We're being attacked with our own hardware and hardware from Iran but still it is military.

Afghanistan: Again no problem winning the war. It's that darn nation building that's causing the problem......