What is the real reason that our Government is making gun laws stricter and stricter?

[Vandalshandle]

Well, now, let's see. Has my state (Arizona) passed stricter guns laws? You now can open carry without a license. You now can concealed carry without a license, or even a class on proficiency (you don't even need to show that you know where the safety switch is). You can buy any firearm from any private person without a background check. There are no limitations on magazine capacity, or bump stocks.

But wait! It is still illegal to own a fully automated weapon without a federal license, or to buy a firearm while under a restraining order (although it would not be illegal to sell a firearm to someone under a restraining order).

The OP must be talking about some other government.

 

[ThatDude30]

Half of American citizens are pushing for stricter gun laws. Strict to the point of what? No one can bear or keep firearms? You cant carry concealed guns anywhere? Keep all guns in house? What? To what point is going to be strict enough? What do they think stricter gun laws will accomplish? No violence? If you think stricter gun laws will decrease gun violence you are wrong. If a criminal or anyone for that matter wants to obtain a gun for whatever reason, a gun law isn't going to stop them. All it is doing is unarming innocent people to be able to defend themselves, and everyone will know that including criminals. Now criminals will no there is less of a chance that a victim, a law abiding citizen, will be armed to where they can prevent themselves. A law will not get guns off the streets. A law will not keep guns out of restricted areas. A law will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals or potential criminals.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Half of American citizens are pushing for stricter gun laws. Strict to the point of what? No one can bear or keep firearms? You cant carry concealed guns anywhere? Keep all guns in house? What? To what point is going to be strict enough? What do they think stricter gun laws will accomplish? No violence? If you think stricter gun laws will decrease gun violence you are wrong. If a criminal or anyone for that matter wants to obtain a gun for whatever reason, a gun law isn't going to stop them. All it is doing is unarming innocent people to be able to defend themselves, and everyone will know that including criminals. Now criminals will no there is less of a chance that a victim, a law abiding citizen, will be armed to where they can prevent themselves. A law will not get guns off the streets. A law will not keep guns out of restricted areas. A law will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals or potential criminals.

More ignorant nonsense.

In every state and jurisdiction in the United States persons have the right to possess a firearm, handguns in particular.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually the 2nd Amendment gives All citizens of the U.S. the irrevocable(not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final) right to obtain, keep and bear arms, and NOBODY can hinder, obstruct, impede, thwart, violate, or prevent ones 2nd Amendment. It means United States citizens have a God given right to keep and bear arms.

So honestly, according to the 2nd Amendment can the Government really prevent and/or deny or take the 2nd Amendment right away from convicts? No where does it say anything about loosing that right? It says that EVERYONE has that right and NOBODY can say otherwise.

We can discuss that if you want to, but you claimed the government made the laws more strict. Convicts not being allowed to have guns is a very old law. Please show how the laws have become stricter in the last couple of decades. If anything they have become less strict.

That all depends on what state (or city) you're talking about.

Over the years gun laws have got stricter all over. Some states now require background checks at gun shows, that once never required. Some states are making more gun restricted places. So on and so on. But we can discuss don't have time right this minute just wanted to respond fast to my alerts.

I would disagree. The desire for citizens to protect themselves has been growing. In our state, it was a liberal Governor that passed many of our gun laws. By fighting those laws would have been political suicide.

Sellers at gun shows are mostly gun vendors. As such, they were always required by law to do a background check.

There are a few liberal states that have additional regulations, but they are the anomaly and not the norm. Since the early 90's, more and more states have adopted CCW programs and laws that protect the shooter instead of the attacker.

 

[Esmeralda]

The Government already made the gun laws more strict. How much more strict can they get until they start to interfere with our constitutional rights. I mean it is the 2nd Amendment, obviously at the time the Amendments of The United States Constitution were first developed, the right to keep and bear arms must of been a pretty important belief to the Government officials responsible in creating them.

The 2nd Amendment declares;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed means that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives all citizens of the United States the irrevocable right to obtain, keep and bear arms, and this right shall NOT be infringed upon by ANYBODY. It means United States citizens have a God given right to keep and bear arms/guns.

Infringe- actively break terms of a law or agreement.

So what is the real reason behind the Government wanting to make stricter gun laws? I hope they know that its not going to stop the violence. If someone wants a gun they can get one off the streets cheaper than a gun store. Strict gun laws aren't preventing criminals or potential criminals from obtaining any firearm. All its doing is preventing innocent citizens from protecting themselves from criminals.

Also restricting places that you can carry a gun on your person isn't doing anything. The law abiding citizen will follow it when the criminal will still carry it.

All its really doing is making innocent citizens more vulnerable to be a victim or target for a criminal.
If gun laws get to strict to the point no one can carry a gun anywhere, strict where you can not purchase a gun, or a longer wait or process, or stricter requirements to legally own a firearm, its just preventing a law abiding citizen to be able to protect their life in a violent situation. It would be like opening season for fishing. Streams are fully stocked with innocent fish with no way to protect themselves from being caught by a fishermen. Criminals will know that there will be less innocent law abiding citizens that have protection on their person, so they will be an easier victim to a crime.

To me, stricter gun laws wont prevent crime it will increase crime.

What's wrong? You get one question and then weasel out to start another thread? I thought you might be more than the average coward RWNJ. I guess not.

He just proves the point that the average IQ for a gun nut is 70.

I'm just making the point that no where in the constitution does it say that you can loose your right to bear or keep arms. However it does say that everyone has the right to bear and keep arm and that this right shall not be infringed upon by anybody.

No one is trying to take guns away. What is wanted is that average citizens do not own military style weapons. Pro-gun people argue that they need to be able to fight back if the government tries to establish some kind of strong arm dictatorship and take away our rights. First, we know that is never going to happen. This is not a 3rd world country. Second, even it that did happen, the US military would be able to roll right over you all,no matter how much at home weapons you have. It's silly just to contemplate such a scenario.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The 2nd only says that you have a right to bear arms. It in no way specifies what those arms may be.

Yes, it does. According to US v Miller, (decision made in 1934) the ONLY weapons specifically protected by the 2nd are those which have a military purpose. You are factually wrong.

The U.S. vs. Miller is not the Second Amendment itself. The Second Amendment indeed does not specify which arms are covered, other than by implication that it means ALL arms.

It is notable that leading up to this ruling, the Supreme Court only heard arguments from one side; nobody was present to argue for Mr. Miller's side. I think it likely that had Miller's side been presented, the court would have been swayed away from the premise that only arms suitable for military use were covered. Certainly, any competent presentation of Miller's side would have pointed out that the short-barrelled shotgun for which the court reinstated Miller's conviction, was indeed exactly comparable to a weapon that was in common use by our military at the time, and thus, by the court's own reasoning, Mr. Miller's right to possess it was protected by the Second Amendment after all.

Interesting, in modern times, by the logic behind the U.S. vs. Miller ruling, the weapons most protected by the Second Amendment would be those that are most comparable to what we issue our own soldiers—most specifically true assault rifles such as the M-16 and M-4, capable of both semiautomatic and either fully-automatic or burst-fire modes. As federal laws currently stand, it is nearly impossible for a common citizen to “legally” possess such weapons; and the weapons that are most being attacked at this time are the so-called “assault weapons”, which are defined based on superficial cosmetic resemblances to genuine military-suitable weapons.

 

[ThatDude30]

The Government already made the gun laws more strict. How much more strict can they get until they start to interfere with our constitutional rights. I mean it is the 2nd Amendment, obviously at the time the Amendments of The United States Constitution were first developed, the right to keep and bear arms must of been a pretty important belief to the Government officials responsible in creating them.

The 2nd Amendment declares;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed means that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives all citizens of the United States the irrevocable right to obtain, keep and bear arms, and this right shall NOT be infringed upon by ANYBODY. It means United States citizens have a God given right to keep and bear arms/guns.

Infringe- actively break terms of a law or agreement.

So what is the real reason behind the Government wanting to make stricter gun laws? I hope they know that its not going to stop the violence. If someone wants a gun they can get one off the streets cheaper than a gun store. Strict gun laws aren't preventing criminals or potential criminals from obtaining any firearm. All its doing is preventing innocent citizens from protecting themselves from criminals.

Also restricting places that you can carry a gun on your person isn't doing anything. The law abiding citizen will follow it when the criminal will still carry it.

All its really doing is making innocent citizens more vulnerable to be a victim or target for a criminal.
If gun laws get to strict to the point no one can carry a gun anywhere, strict where you can not purchase a gun, or a longer wait or process, or stricter requirements to legally own a firearm, its just preventing a law abiding citizen to be able to protect their life in a violent situation. It would be like opening season for fishing. Streams are fully stocked with innocent fish with no way to protect themselves from being caught by a fishermen. Criminals will know that there will be less innocent law abiding citizens that have protection on their person, so they will be an easier victim to a crime.

To me, stricter gun laws wont prevent crime it will increase crime.

What's wrong? You get one question and then weasel out to start another thread? I thought you might be more than the average coward RWNJ. I guess not.

He just proves the point that the average IQ for a gun nut is 70.

I'm just making the point that no where in the constitution does it say that you can loose your right to bear or keep arms. However it does say that everyone has the right to bear and keep arm and that this right shall not be infringed upon by anybody.

You’re not making any ‘point’ at all – because you don’t have one.

All you’re doing is making a fool of yourself, exhibiting your ignorance, and your inane, wrongheaded opinion of the Second Amendment.

Again: the Supreme Court alone determines the meaning of the Second Amendment – what firearm regulatory measures are Constitutional, and what laws are not.

And the Supreme Court has held that individuals designated as prohibited persons is authorized under the Second Amendment:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER[/QUOT
Look the main question in my op is, what is the real reason that anyone wants gun laws to be more strict? What do they think to accomplish? Less gun violence? Prevent the wrong people from obtaining a firearm? So that they government can have more control?

I just added what the 2nd Amendment is and a little information with it, into the discussion, and that it says every American citizen has the right to bear arms, and it shall not be infringed by anyone. To me that's including the government. No where did I see that someone could loose this right in any information I saw. I understand they can do whatever they want. But no where did I read looking up the 2nd amendment anything like, Every American citizen has the right to bear arms, unless.....

 

[ThatDude30]

The Government already made the gun laws more strict. How much more strict can they get until they start to interfere with our constitutional rights. I mean it is the 2nd Amendment, obviously at the time the Amendments of The United States Constitution were first developed, the right to keep and bear arms must of been a pretty important belief to the Government officials responsible in creating them.

The 2nd Amendment declares;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed means that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives all citizens of the United States the irrevocable right to obtain, keep and bear arms, and this right shall NOT be infringed upon by ANYBODY. It means United States citizens have a God given right to keep and bear arms/guns.

Infringe- actively break terms of a law or agreement.

So what is the real reason behind the Government wanting to make stricter gun laws? I hope they know that its not going to stop the violence. If someone wants a gun they can get one off the streets cheaper than a gun store. Strict gun laws aren't preventing criminals or potential criminals from obtaining any firearm. All its doing is preventing innocent citizens from protecting themselves from criminals.

Also restricting places that you can carry a gun on your person isn't doing anything. The law abiding citizen will follow it when the criminal will still carry it.

All its really doing is making innocent citizens more vulnerable to be a victim or target for a criminal.
If gun laws get to strict to the point no one can carry a gun anywhere, strict where you can not purchase a gun, or a longer wait or process, or stricter requirements to legally own a firearm, its just preventing a law abiding citizen to be able to protect their life in a violent situation. It would be like opening season for fishing. Streams are fully stocked with innocent fish with no way to protect themselves from being caught by a fishermen. Criminals will know that there will be less innocent law abiding citizens that have protection on their person, so they will be an easier victim to a crime.

To me, stricter gun laws wont prevent crime it will increase crime.

What's wrong? You get one question and then weasel out to start another thread? I thought you might be more than the average coward RWNJ. I guess not.

He just proves the point that the average IQ for a gun nut is 70.

I'm just making the point that no where in the constitution does it say that you can loose your right to bear or keep arms. However it does say that everyone has the right to bear and keep arm and that this right shall not be infringed upon by anybody.

No one is trying to take guns away. What is wanted is that average citizens do not own military style weapons. Pro-gun people argue that they need to be able to fight back if the government tries to establish some kind of strong arm dictatorship and take away our rights. First, we know that is never going to happen. This is not a 3rd world country. Second, even it that did happen, the US military would be able to roll right over you all,no matter how much at home weapons you have. It's silly just to contemplate such a scenario.

Where did I say anything about anyone wanting to take guns away?

 

[Esmeralda]

The Government already made the gun laws more strict. How much more strict can they get until they start to interfere with our constitutional rights. I mean it is the 2nd Amendment, obviously at the time the Amendments of The United States Constitution were first developed, the right to keep and bear arms must of been a pretty important belief to the Government officials responsible in creating them.

The 2nd Amendment declares;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed means that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives all citizens of the United States the irrevocable right to obtain, keep and bear arms, and this right shall NOT be infringed upon by ANYBODY. It means United States citizens have a God given right to keep and bear arms/guns.

Infringe- actively break terms of a law or agreement.

So what is the real reason behind the Government wanting to make stricter gun laws? I hope they know that its not going to stop the violence. If someone wants a gun they can get one off the streets cheaper than a gun store. Strict gun laws aren't preventing criminals or potential criminals from obtaining any firearm. All its doing is preventing innocent citizens from protecting themselves from criminals.

Also restricting places that you can carry a gun on your person isn't doing anything. The law abiding citizen will follow it when the criminal will still carry it.

All its really doing is making innocent citizens more vulnerable to be a victim or target for a criminal.
If gun laws get to strict to the point no one can carry a gun anywhere, strict where you can not purchase a gun, or a longer wait or process, or stricter requirements to legally own a firearm, its just preventing a law abiding citizen to be able to protect their life in a violent situation. It would be like opening season for fishing. Streams are fully stocked with innocent fish with no way to protect themselves from being caught by a fishermen. Criminals will know that there will be less innocent law abiding citizens that have protection on their person, so they will be an easier victim to a crime.

To me, stricter gun laws wont prevent crime it will increase crime.

What's wrong? You get one question and then weasel out to start another thread? I thought you might be more than the average coward RWNJ. I guess not.

He just proves the point that the average IQ for a gun nut is 70.

I'm just making the point that no where in the constitution does it say that you can loose your right to bear or keep arms. However it does say that everyone has the right to bear and keep arm and that this right shall not be infringed upon by anybody.

No one is trying to take guns away. What is wanted is that average citizens do not own military style weapons. Pro-gun people argue that they need to be able to fight back if the government tries to establish some kind of strong arm dictatorship and take away our rights. First, we know that is never going to happen. This is not a 3rd world country. Second, even it that did happen, the US military would be able to roll right over you all,no matter how much at home weapons you have. It's silly just to contemplate such a scenario.

Where did I say anything about anyone wanting to take guns away?

Stop trying so hard to prove my point regarding low IQ levels for gun nuts. You mention it in the first sentence of your post. And BTW nowhere is one word and it is lose, not loose.

 

[jon_berzerk]

 

[Kosh]

The far left wants to get rid of the 2nd amendment and do away with all guns except for the criminals. They need to disarm the public in order to control the masses.

However the far left is allowing their protected classes to kill each other off in far left control cities like Chicago.

So the idiots keep voting the far left in power who does not care about them.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The 2nd only says that you have a right to bear arms. It in no way specifies what those arms may be.

Yes, it does. According to US v Miller, (decision made in 1934) the ONLY weapons specifically protected by the 2nd are those which have a military purpose. You are factually wrong.

The U.S. vs. Miller is not the Second Amendment itself. The Second Amendment indeed does not specify which arms are covered, other than by implication that it means ALL arms.

It is notable that leading up to this ruling, the Supreme Court only heard arguments from one side; nobody was present to argue for Mr. Miller's side. I think it likely that had Miller's side been presented, the court would have been swayed away from the premise that only arms suitable for military use were covered. Certainly, any competent presentation of Miller's side would have pointed out that the short-barrelled shotgun for which the court reinstated Miller's conviction, was indeed exactly comparable to a weapon that was in common use by our military at the time, and thus, by the court's own reasoning, Mr. Miller's right to possess it was protected by the Second Amendment after all.

Interesting, in modern times, by the logic behind the U.S. vs. Miller ruling, the weapons most protected by the Second Amendment would be those that are most comparable to what we issue our own soldiers—most specifically true assault rifles such as the M-16 and M-4, capable of both semiautomatic and either fully-automatic or burst-fire modes. As federal laws currently stand, it is nearly impossible for a common citizen to “legally” possess such weapons; and the weapons that are most being attacked at this time are the so-called “assault weapons”, which are defined based on superficial cosmetic resemblances to genuine military-suitable weapons.

indeed it was returned to the lower courts

with this question which as of yet has not been answered

"was Miller's shotgun useful to the military"

in other words was miller's shotgun a common military weapon

 

[DarkFury]

When only government has weapons only government will make laws.

 

[Vandalshandle]

When only government has weapons only government will make laws.

Damn! Once again, I have been embarrassed to admit that there is more crime in Democratic Chicago, than there is in Republican Ames Iowa!

 

[jon_berzerk]

When only government has weapons only government will make laws.

Damn! Once again, I have been embarrassed to admit that there is more crime in Democratic Chicago, than there is in Republican Ames Iowa!

--LOL

story county went with Hillary

--LOL

 

[Esmeralda]

When only government has weapons only government will make laws.

Uh, news flash: only the government does make the laws. We vote for our representatives, who make the laws. Unless you want to run for office, and well you should if you want direct involvement in making laws, your vote is your participation in making laws. Or do you prefer anarchy?

 

[jon_berzerk]

When only government has weapons only government will make laws.

Uh, news flash: only the government does make the laws. We vote for our representatives, who make the laws. Unless you want to run for office, and well you should if you want direct involvement in making laws, your vote is your participation in making laws. Or do you prefer anarchy?

once you become marginalized by the officials

your voice does not matter anymore

 

[ThatDude30]

What's wrong? You get one question and then weasel out to start another thread? I thought you might be more than the average coward RWNJ. I guess not.

He just proves the point that the average IQ for a gun nut is 70.

I'm just making the point that no where in the constitution does it say that you can loose your right to bear or keep arms. However it does say that everyone has the right to bear and keep arm and that this right shall not be infringed upon by anybody.

No one is trying to take guns away. What is wanted is that average citizens do not own military style weapons. Pro-gun people argue that they need to be able to fight back if the government tries to establish some kind of strong arm dictatorship and take away our rights. First, we know that is never going to happen. This is not a 3rd world country. Second, even it that did happen, the US military would be able to roll right over you all,no matter how much at home weapons you have. It's silly just to contemplate such a scenario.

Where did I say anything about anyone wanting to take guns away?

Stop trying so hard to prove my point regarding low IQ levels for gun nuts. You mention it in the first sentence of your post. And BTW nowhere is one word and it is lose, not loose.

I said someone is trying to take away guns in the first line of my post? Ok well the first line of my post is, "The government already made gun laws more strict. How much more can they get until they start to interfere with our..." That is the first line. Where do I say anything about anyone wanting to take guns away? I think its your IQ that's the issue.

 

[ThatDude30]

He just proves the point that the average IQ for a gun nut is 70.

I'm just making the point that no where in the constitution does it say that you can loose your right to bear or keep arms. However it does say that everyone has the right to bear and keep arm and that this right shall not be infringed upon by anybody.

No one is trying to take guns away. What is wanted is that average citizens do not own military style weapons. Pro-gun people argue that they need to be able to fight back if the government tries to establish some kind of strong arm dictatorship and take away our rights. First, we know that is never going to happen. This is not a 3rd world country. Second, even it that did happen, the US military would be able to roll right over you all,no matter how much at home weapons you have. It's silly just to contemplate such a scenario.

Where did I say anything about anyone wanting to take guns away?

Stop trying so hard to prove my point regarding low IQ levels for gun nuts. You mention it in the first sentence of your post. And BTW nowhere is one word and it is lose, not loose.

And you do know A persons IQ has nothing to do with any information provided? My opinion on the gun laws isn't based off what my IQ is, you know that right? Whether a person has an IQ of 1 or 171 does not determine their beliefs on gun laws, and their opinion on what will happen if the gun laws do become more strict.

 

[ThatDude30]

He just proves the point that the average IQ for a gun nut is 70.

I'm just making the point that no where in the constitution does it say that you can loose your right to bear or keep arms. However it does say that everyone has the right to bear and keep arm and that this right shall not be infringed upon by anybody.

No one is trying to take guns away. What is wanted is that average citizens do not own military style weapons. Pro-gun people argue that they need to be able to fight back if the government tries to establish some kind of strong arm dictatorship and take away our rights. First, we know that is never going to happen. This is not a 3rd world country. Second, even it that did happen, the US military would be able to roll right over you all,no matter how much at home weapons you have. It's silly just to contemplate such a scenario.

Where did I say anything about anyone wanting to take guns away?

Stop trying so hard to prove my point regarding low IQ levels for gun nuts. You mention it in the first sentence of your post. And BTW nowhere is one word and it is lose, not loose.

I said someone is trying to take away guns in the first line of my post? Ok well the first line of my post is, "The government already made gun laws more strict. How much more can they get until they start to interfere with our..." That is the first line. Where do I say anything about anyone wanting to take guns away? I think its your IQ that's the issue.

Shit If that's what I'm really saying? My IQ must be lower then 70?