Gun Ownership / Laws Discussion & Debate

[bigrebnc1775]

If a Conservative doesn't like gun ownership then he/she will not own one. If a Liberal doesn't like gun ownership then they do not want anyone to own one.

It's a control thing. The liberal mind is uncomfortable with large numbers of people who cannot be controlled and/or taxed. Thus liberals oppose homeschooling. The oppose ending regulations about engaging in business. They oppose gun ownership and when they support it they make it conditional on everything under the sun.

Now see. We agree about the right to own guns but there ya go just being a plain ol' whackjob. You're like the Liberals who say the exact same things in reverse - that Conservs only care about children until they're born, or that Conservs need guns because they're cowardly and have inadequate manhood , and other nonsense.

Cmon now. Don't be such a butthead. Make intelligent arguments and you'll make the Libs look less intelligent when they do this sort of thing.

The parents should provide for there children. Who am I to tell them how to bring their child up? The parants not the village should raise their children.

 

[Full-Auto]

Actually, given some of your comments here, I'm kind of doubting your sanity, but never mind.

I'm all for focusing it on limiting gun ownership to the responsible only.

Owning a gun should be like owning a car. You only get to do it after you've been trained, licensed and insured. You must undergo a complete background check, and have a ID card with your picture on it.

I am doubting your understanding of what a right is.

Fair enough?

No where does it state in the second anything about back ground checks. You dont have to license your mouth, I dont have to license my guns.

I asked a friend from Texas what he had to do to get a gun in Texas, he said 'just a fingerprint.'

I said, they have to take your fingerprints?

"No, just when you put your fingerprint on the display case pointing out which one you want."

Nice and simple.
In NY, you have to follow the yellow brick road...a million steps. At some point, the number of steps should indicate a bar to ownership, no?

When I applied for FFL years ago I had to send them two sets of cards. I also had to give them again for concealed carry. I can reasonable. These things dont bother me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Charles Krauthammer Washington Post 1996

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Hello is anyone out there with a functioning brain?

 

[The T]

ANY gun law flies in the face of the Second. /Story.

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.

Simple.

I would largely agree.

It seems to me that the same arguments could be made for and against drivers' licenses as carry permits.

But, in full disclosure, my opinion might be based on the same motivation as a dieter peering into the window of a bakery....NY being Nanny-central.

Carry permits are a reaction due to the complaining of LE getting surprised when they do a stop. However? Since Government is dually authorized to post roads, subsequently force you to garner insurance to protect the public against careless drivers...force you to obey certain rules for thier use...I would submit that Carry laws inside a vehicle on public roadways is indeed an issue.

So which came first? Article 1, Section 8...the Second Amendment? 'Shall not be infringed' gives us a hint...

Would make for a good debate topic.

 

[JoeB131]

[I asked a friend from Texas what he had to do to get a gun in Texas, he said 'just a fingerprint.'

I said, they have to take your fingerprints?

"No, just when you put your fingerprint on the display case pointing out which one you want."

Nice and simple.
In NY, you have to follow the yellow brick road...a million steps. At some point, the number of steps should indicate a bar to ownership, no?

Well, uh, yeah, I guess the former would be a good step if you want maniacs like Jared Loughner running about with guns...

 

[JoeB131]

[I am doubting your understanding of what a right is.

Fair enough?

No where does it state in the second anything about back ground checks. You dont have to license your mouth, I dont have to license my guns.

There are no such things as "rights".

Any fool who thinks he has 'rights' should look up "Japanese Americans- 1942".

There are no rights. there are privilages granted to you by society and your fellow citizens. When they decide to take them away from you, you don't have them anymore. Doesn't matter what the constitution says. Just ask the Japanese Americans.

So there is no right to own a gun. There is a privilage the rest of us grant you as long as you don't abuse it.

SOOOOO happy to have cleared that up for you.

 

[Missourian]

Now here is my common sense approach.

License the individual.

Let me get an endorsement on my license or a separate card, that identifies me as not crazy or a criminal to buy and sell as I wish.

The government doesn't get a record of every firearm purchased, I can still buy and sell my weapons privately and everyone is happy.

Questions, comments, and obscenities from both sides are welcome.

 

[JoeB131]

Now here is my common sense approach.

License the individual.

Let me get an endorsement on my license or a separate card, that identifies me as not crazy or a criminal to buy and sell as I wish.

The government doesn't get a record of every firearm purchased, I can still buy and sell my weapons privately and everyone is happy.

Questions, comments, and obscenities from both sides are welcome.

I wouldn't disagree with that... Although what happens if you sell your weapon to someone who isn't licensed?

 

[tonystewart1]

[I am doubting your understanding of what a right is.

Fair enough?

No where does it state in the second anything about back ground checks. You dont have to license your mouth, I dont have to license my guns.

There are no such things as "rights".

Any fool who thinks he has 'rights' should look up "Japanese Americans- 1942".

There are no rights. there are privilages granted to you by society and your fellow citizens. When they decide to take them away from you, you don't have them anymore. Doesn't matter what the constitution says. Just ask the Japanese Americans.

So there is no right to own a gun. There is a privilage the rest of us grant you as long as you don't abuse it.

SOOOOO happy to have cleared that up for you.

That has to be the single most ignorant thing I have read in a long time.

In your little communist socitalist utopia that may be true but not here. We have rights and have died and bled to protect them.

 

[The T]

Now here is my common sense approach.

License the individual.

Let me get an endorsement on my license or a separate card, that identifies me as not crazy or a criminal to buy and sell as I wish.

The government doesn't get a record of every firearm purchased, I can still buy and sell my weapons privately and everyone is happy.

Questions, comments, and obscenities from both sides are welcome.

The only way that will happen would be a Constitutional Convention. Making laws embellishing it to circumvent it doesn't cut it. Sorry.

 

[Missourian]

Now here is my common sense approach.

License the individual.

Let me get an endorsement on my license or a separate card, that identifies me as not crazy or a criminal to buy and sell as I wish.

The government doesn't get a record of every firearm purchased, I can still buy and sell my weapons privately and everyone is happy.

Questions, comments, and obscenities from both sides are welcome.

I wouldn't disagree with that... Although what happens if you sell your weapon to someone who isn't licensed?

And get caught? There would be a criminal penalty.

If you are saying someone could buy a firearm legally and sell it illegally, that could happen under any system.

I like this system...I never privately sell firearms because I cannot verify that the buyer can legally own a firearm.

This system would rectify that. I could ask to see his license and make a transaction with confidence.

 

[9thIDdoc]

We have the right to arms.
So we can laugh at those who say we have no rights.

 

[BoycottTheday]

That has to be the single most ignorant thing I have read in a long time.

.

And thats a high bar on the internet

Brains on liberalism -}

 

[Missourian]

Now here is my common sense approach.

License the individual.

Let me get an endorsement on my license or a separate card, that identifies me as not crazy or a criminal to buy and sell as I wish.

The government doesn't get a record of every firearm purchased, I can still buy and sell my weapons privately and everyone is happy.

Questions, comments, and obscenities from both sides are welcome.

The only way that will happen would be a Constitutional Convention. Making laws embellishing it to circumvent it doesn't cut it. Sorry.

How does this differ from an instant background check on every purchase?

 

[The T]

Now here is my common sense approach.

License the individual.

Let me get an endorsement on my license or a separate card, that identifies me as not crazy or a criminal to buy and sell as I wish.

The government doesn't get a record of every firearm purchased, I can still buy and sell my weapons privately and everyone is happy.

Questions, comments, and obscenities from both sides are welcome.

The only way that will happen would be a Constitutional Convention. Making laws embellishing it to circumvent it doesn't cut it. Sorry.

How does this differ from an instant background check on every purchase?

It's UnConstitutional. Period.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now here is my common sense approach.

License the individual.

Let me get an endorsement on my license or a separate card, that identifies me as not crazy or a criminal to buy and sell as I wish.

The government doesn't get a record of every firearm purchased, I can still buy and sell my weapons privately and everyone is happy.

Questions, comments, and obscenities from both sides are welcome.

License constitutes a privilege . Privileges are given by the government they are not rights. no deal

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Calling Joe I know you have posted since I posted these two replies come on Joe make your argument. You started this thread bring it on

Charles Krauthammer Washington Post 1996

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Hello is anyone out there with a functioning brain?

why is there a debate? the 2nd amendment is pretty fucking clear.

You're right it is.

Well Regulated Militia.

As in regulated by the government.

I'm reasonably sure that they did not mean, Jared Loughner can walk into a store despite being certifiably insane, and purchase a gun with an extra large clip of ammo.

I'm reasonably sure it doesn't mean the Virginia Tech shooter could walk in and buy two guns and then proceed to shoot up forty of his classmates.

Somewhere between the Sarah Brady Gun Grabbers and the NRA "let's arm the kids, too!" Gun huggers, there are sensible people who think that guns should be treated like any other potentially dangerous device- something that should be licensed and regulated.

The term Well Regulate does not mean today what it meant to the founders. Well Regulated to the founders meant in working order.


The founders did not say
A militia well regulated by Congress, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

They said

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.

Well regulated did not mean government over sight

 

[The T]

Now here is my common sense approach.

License the individual.

Let me get an endorsement on my license or a separate card, that identifies me as not crazy or a criminal to buy and sell as I wish.

The government doesn't get a record of every firearm purchased, I can still buy and sell my weapons privately and everyone is happy.

Questions, comments, and obscenities from both sides are welcome.

License constitutes a privilege . Privileges are given by the government they are not rights. no deal

*PRECISELY*

That battle was already fought when the battle was keeping the Articles of Confederation or adopting the Constitution. The Second Amendment was part of that battle.

From Federalist #46 (MADISON)

"...Americans, unlike the people of almost every other nation, have the advantage of being armed...Several European kingdoms have large military establishments. Yet they are afraid to trust the people with arms...Let’s not insult the free and gallant citizens of America. They can defend their rights more easily than the debased subjects of a tyrant can rescue their rights from their oppressors. And let’s not insult the American people with the supposition that they will ever allow the long series of insidious measures that would necessitate the use of armed force."

 

[tonystewart1]

Now here is my common sense approach.

License the individual.

Let me get an endorsement on my license or a separate card, that identifies me as not crazy or a criminal to buy and sell as I wish.

The government doesn't get a record of every firearm purchased, I can still buy and sell my weapons privately and everyone is happy.

Questions, comments, and obscenities from both sides are welcome.

License constitutes a privilege . Privileges are given by the government they are not rights. no deal

Exactly. Gun ownership is a right. Even when some say we have no rights. A privilege is driving. I have a God given right to defend myself from anyone who means me harm whether it be a crack head or the US govt.

We have a whole generation of Americans growing up and beileving that there are no rights just priviliges that big brother gives us.

 

[Missourian]

Now here is my common sense approach.

License the individual.

Let me get an endorsement on my license or a separate card, that identifies me as not crazy or a criminal to buy and sell as I wish.

The government doesn't get a record of every firearm purchased, I can still buy and sell my weapons privately and everyone is happy.

Questions, comments, and obscenities from both sides are welcome.

License constitutes a privilege . Privileges are given by the government they are not rights. no deal

Exactly. Gun ownership is a right. Even when some say we have no rights. A privilege is driving. I have a God given right to defend myself from anyone who means me harm whether it be a crack head or the US govt.

We have a whole generation of Americans growing up and beileving that there are no rights just priviliges that big brother gives us.

You have a Constitutionally protected right to vote, but you need a voter registration card to prove you are legally eligible to vote...i.e. a citizen, a resident, not a convicted felon.