Be Honest: There is only one real reason to need to carry a gun.

[uscitizen]

Be Honest: There is only one real reason to need to carry a gun.

To shoot your spouse if they cheat on you?

I know that stones are the biblical answer but this is the 21/st century.

 

[g5000]

Be Honest: There is only one real reason to need to carry a gun.

To shoot your spouse if they cheat on you?

Divorce: Many thousands of dollars.

Bullet: $1

 

[PredFan]

Wrong, there are two reasons to carry:

1. It pisses off lefties.

2. It is exercising my right to do so.

 

[The Rabbi]

I lock my door at night out of fear of someone opening it and coming in.

I lock my car when I leave it out of fear of someone opening the door and taking stuff.

I avoid bad parts of town at bad parts of the day out of fear someone may rob me.

I carry a gun daily out of fear someone may attack me.

Now, if Goose wants to say this is because of fear, fine. But what do you call someone who leaves his front door unlocked, his car unlocked and walks through bad parts of town for no reason? Right, a dumbass.

 

[Dr Grump]

The checks and balances are in place and most gun laws have proven ineffective in deterring crime. So using your own argument, placing more restrictive laws on law-abiding citizens, the VAST number of purchasers and users of firearms in this country, you negate a proven, strong deterrent against crime and some wackjob gets a hold of a gun and kills people then the laws have failed miserably without taking into account how many people it would have stopped. Warped logic and best...Insanity at worst. Take your pick.

So, you are saying you should no be subject to a background check?

Puleeeease...... stop with the bull shit assumptions and address the post.

Oh, 'please' yourself. Yours is a superfluous argument at best. So, some whackadoodle just out of the asylum gets a gun and goes on a spree because he had enough nous to fool the gun dealer and get his gun.

There is nothing restrictive about getting a background check as long as you have nothing to hide. And please don't give me this slippery slope clap trap. If legislators and the likes of the NRA got together and put the background check legislation together so as it wasn't too restrictive and gave definite parameters then it shouldn't be a problem.

You still don't know how many lives it will save because you can't gauge something that never happened.

 

[hjmick]

If I were to ever take the time to get my CCW, I can safely say that the decision would not be made because I am afraid, I am not. If I choose to get my CCW it is because it is my right to do so.

 

[Sallow]

Shithead....swallow has made threats before, my comment was in response to his bullshit about fighting people in the streets and his threats to me and others here long before you discovered the internet.

Run along, idiot.

You don't meet any standards. You were in your own class of species growing up....I believe they called it ape.

I'm an ape for believing that a person who threatened another person over a message board dispute is not a good candidate for a concealed carry permit? LOL

Holy shit some of you people are delusional.

What a lying sack of shit you are you little homo.

I don't "threaten" people. You homos start shit..and I respond.

Long before..many of you homos booked the "Okiefest" in Oklahoma..which I showed up too..by the way.

None of you fags were there..because one of the "events" was a defacto boxing ring to settle scores.

I got a nice tour of Oklahoma city, however, from the guy who set it up..

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is nothing restrictive about getting a background check as long as you have nothing to hide.

Equally, there is nothing restrictive about the NSA listening into your phone conversations w/o a warrant -- if you have nothing to hide.

 

[freedombecki]

Be Honest: There is only one real reason to need to carry a gun.

To shoot your spouse if they cheat on you?

Divorce: Many thousands of dollars.

Bullet: $1

Murder in the First: 30 years to life, assets dispersed among those who lost a daughter, mother, etc. Some people you love will never forgive you.

Divorce: Many thousands of dollars, no jail time if stalking is eschewed and support payments are timely. Children will forgive you in time if not right away.

You choose.

 

[Dr Grump]

The checks and balances are in place and most gun laws have proven ineffective in deterring crime. So using your own argument, placing more restrictive laws on law-abiding citizens, the VAST number of purchasers and users of firearms in this country, you negate a proven, strong deterrent against crime and some wackjob gets a hold of a gun and kills people then the laws have failed miserably without taking into account how many people it would have stopped. Warped logic and best...Insanity at worst. Take your pick.

So, you are saying you should no be subject to a background check?

Background checks are a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And so, no, he should not, because doing so infringes upon his rights, which violates the constitutional mandate against same.

Now, any right can be infringed w/o violating the constitution, should the state show that said infringement was enacted pursuant to and is effective in achieving a compelling state interest, and that the infringement is the least restrictive means to that end.

So, if you believe there is such an interest, please feel free to show it, remembering, of course, that "compelling state interest" has a specific meaning that far exceeds "a good idea".

I know you have case law that has decided some of this stuff, but NOT doing background checks is bordering on the insane.

You know, you Yanks crack me up about your freedoms. This is a country that calls corporations people so they can use unlimited funds to lobby politicians at the average American's expense, and somehow that is OK because you somehow believe if you stop that you are infringing on their first amendment rights. You don't want a society of equality and freedom for all. You want a society for the rich elite....hhhhmmm...now, what type of society did you guys break away from in the late 18th century again??

You would turn up your nose at common sense because you somehow think some pie in the sky individual freedom has been diminished.

The biggest kicker of all is you somehow think your country is the envy of the world. Sure, to some third-world shit holes it is. To us other western/first world countries, the opposite is true. You couldn't pay me to live there. It borders on one of the most corrupt/less free societies in the western world. Don't believe me? check out your own citizen's posts on these boards about what type of country you now have.

Your arguments don't counter that thought either, just reinforce it...

 

[Dr Grump]

There is nothing restrictive about getting a background check as long as you have nothing to hide.

Equally, there is nothing restrictive about the NSA listening into your phone conversations w/o a warrant -- if you have nothing to hide.

Yeah because I know that I'll just go ballistic - with what?? - if the NSA do that, right? You're comparing apples with oranges...

 

[Ringel05]

So, you are saying you should no be subject to a background check?

Puleeeease...... stop with the bull shit assumptions and address the post.

Oh, 'please' yourself. Yours is a superfluous argument at best. So, some whackadoodle just out of the asylum gets a gun and goes on a spree because he had enough nous to fool the gun dealer and get his gun.

There is nothing restrictive about getting a background check as long as you have nothing to hide. And please don't give me this slippery slope clap trap. If legislators and the likes of the NRA got together and put the background check legislation together so as it wasn't too restrictive and gave definite parameters then it shouldn't be a problem.

You still don't know how many lives it will save because you can't gauge something that never happened.

I never mentioned background checks, you did and knowing your debating style I'm pretty sure why you did. I don't play that game.
It was the NRA that has helped write the background check laws to include people with mental illness in all of the states that include mental illness as a denying factor. It's the NRA who is trying to get the federal government to adopt that rule nationwide.

 

[jillian]

There is nothing restrictive about getting a background check as long as you have nothing to hide.

Equally, there is nothing restrictive about the NSA listening into your phone conversations w/o a warrant -- if you have nothing to hide.

apples oranges....

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is nothing restrictive about getting a background check as long as you have nothing to hide.

Equally, there is nothing restrictive about the NSA listening into your phone conversations w/o a warrant -- if you have nothing to hide.

apples oranges....

A statement that is impossible for you to soundly support.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Nope. When I first started on messageboards in 2001, I had my first run in with US 2nd amendment folk. Had discourse for about 6 months. Have hardly spoken about it since, but had my opinions about it pretty much summed up in the above paragraph. Have read and seen nothing since that changes my mind.

When these kids shoot, they are getting sexually aroused?

That's seriously fucked up thinking.

Nope. They would be in the 1 percent that aren't.

The only time I get sexually aroused while shooting is if my wife is with me on a hot day wearing shorts & a halter top.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is nothing restrictive about getting a background check as long as you have nothing to hide.

Equally, there is nothing restrictive about the NSA listening into your phone conversations w/o a warrant -- if you have nothing to hide.

...You're comparing apples with oranges...

A statement that is impossible for you to soundly support.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, you are saying you should no be subject to a background check?

Background checks are a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And so, no, he should not, because doing so infringes upon his rights, which violates the constitutional mandate against same.

Now, any right can be infringed w/o violating the constitution, should the state show that said infringement was enacted pursuant to and is effective in achieving a compelling state interest, and that the infringement is the least restrictive means to that end.

So, if you believe there is such an interest, please feel free to show it, remembering, of course, that "compelling state interest" has a specific meaning that far exceeds "a good idea".

I know you have case law that has decided some of this stuff, but NOT doing background checks is bordering on the insane.

So.... you admit you do not have a sound counter to my argument.
I therefore accept your concession of the point.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Only one reason? That's the only one you can think of?

How about Wisdom? You don't think it might be wise to be able to protect oneself?

Prepared people have no reason to fear. It's only the ones who are unprepared who need to be afraid.

I would ask, what are you protecting yourself from?

I've known a couple of families that have had to bury a member who killed themselves with that gun they bought for protecting their families. It seems like the cure is worse than the disease.

Ironically, we are the richest country in the world, and we live in fear of our fellow citizens because we think that grinding poverty for an underclass is not only acceptable, but somehow validates our system.

We lock up 2 million people when most other advanced industrialized countries lock up less than 100K. We have 300 million guns out there, home security systems, bullet proof backpacks for our kids to go to school, that is the level of fear we live in...

And we think this is an expression of "Freedom".

In my wife's case...thugs. It's that simple. She works late (out until midnight tonight), she finishes her shift carrying cash and sometimes as many as a couple dozen credit card numbers (not to mention the $100,000 truck she drives or the tools in it). So yes, she carries a gun. They have had two drivers robbed (one of them beaten to a pulp) since she started working there.

 

[JoeB131]

Say you're right....What the fuck is it to you?

You mean other than one of you guys goes around shooting people because the boss fired you or some scary black person looked at you funny.

Hmmm...Bigoted stereotype based upon irrational fear.

How apropos.

I think Trayvon Martin might have a different opinion, if he wasn't dead.

 

[jillian]

Equally, there is nothing restrictive about the NSA listening into your phone conversations w/o a warrant -- if you have nothing to hide.

apples oranges....

A statement that is impossible for you to soundly support.

there is a 4th amendment requirement that searches be reasonable. law has defined what reasonable means. generally, that would require a warrant except under exceptional circumstances.

however, there are exceptions... and those exceptions would, in fact permit warrantless search. so one would have every reason to object to a search done without a warrant where no such exceptions exist.

and while heller states there is a private right of gun ownership, as broad as it is, scalia specifically allowed for reasonable regulation.

in fact, just today, the supreme court refused to hear a case which allowed a municipality to pass a law prohibiting guns in church. that means the ruling will stand. so ... reasonable time, place and manner restriction on the right to carry a gun.

there would be nothing unreasonable in requiring the background checks to be tightened. it is the least restrictive means possible to alleviate a problem which falls in the governmental interest.