I Need Permission?

[Little-Acorn]

Personally, I have run into quite a few people I hope to hell don't have a "right" any longer to a gun.

I've seen some people like that, too.

And I'm sure the Framers who wrote and ratified the Constitution, the 2nd amendment etc., knew some people they'd MUCH rather not have a gun.

But the Framers eventually decided that we were much less safe and free when government has ANY authority to decide who can own and carry a gun, than when govt had NO authority to do that and we had to deal with the occasional robber, rapist, and other nutcase.

History has proven the Framers grimly right. Again and again.

 

[2aguy]

Personally, I have run into quite a few people I hope to hell don't have a "right" any longer to a gun.

I've seen some people like that, too.

And I'm sure the Framers who wrote and ratified the Constitution, the 2nd amendment etc., knew some people they'd MUCH rather not have a gun.

But the Framers eventually decided that we were much less safe and free when government has ANY authority to decide who can own and carry a gun, than when govt had NO authority to do that and we had to deal with the occasional robber, rapist, and other nutcase.

History has proven the Framers grimly right. Again and again.

Oldlady fails to admit that we already have laws that deny the right to own a gun to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill...so that post is pointless.......

What oldlady wants is a Bureau of Pre-Crime....like in the Tom Cruise movie..."Minority Report." They want to be able to tell who is a criminal about to commit a crime.....and stop them before the crime happens...

Of course, we know that convicted felons are likely to reoffend...and so we already say they can't have guns...

But they don't really mean them.....they mean the normal people.....they believe that there is no such thing as a normal person, that we are all crazy sociopaths who are just waiting to get a gun in our hand to commit murder.....those are the people that post is targeted for.....

And it is nonsense......90% of murderers have long criminal histories...which means they have already been "registered" and singled out for not being able to own a gun.....

Everything oldlady wants....already exists......but like any gun grabber...as long as one normal person has a gun...they will never be able to stop trying to get that gun.

 

[koshergrl]

I love Minority Report.

 

[2aguy]

I love Minority Report.

I didn't ...... I saw a show about making it and they talked to Futurists......people who sit and think about the future while they suck up tax payer dollars teaching in universities.......the "Sick Stick" that they use....what cop in their right mind would want a criminal throwing up uncontrollably..........they have to transport the guys in their own squads....ever clean out a squad after a criminal throws up?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Framers knew that (a) it was impossible to stop all crimes and prevent them from happening; and (b) the way to stop the MOST crimes, was to let all responsible adults carry if they want to.

Most still won't bother, but a few will. And a criminal looking to do a mass shooting or robbery etc., will know that there are probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack... and he won't know which ones they are. So he can expect a bullet from an unknown direction, before he can rack up his wished-for gruesome body count, or make his getaway or whatever.

And so, maybe he will decide he doesn't want to commit his crime after all.

So in many cases, lives will be saved, without a shot being fired.

That's a better result than any liberals have ever achieved by making laws restricting the guns of people who obey laws.

 

[2aguy]

The Framers knew that (a) it was impossible to stop all crimes and prevent them from happening; and (b) the way to stop the MOST crimes, was to let all responsible adults carry if they want to.

Most still won't bother, but a few will. And a criminal looking to do a mass shooting or robbery etc., will know that there are probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack... and he won't know which ones they are. So he can expect a bullet from an unknown direction, before he can rack up his wished-for gruesome body count, or make his getaway or whatever.

And so, maybe he will decide he doesn't want to commit his crime after all.

So in many cases, lives will be saved, without a shot being fired.

That's a better result than any liberals have ever achieved by making laws restricting the guns of people who obey laws.

Yes...in the countries where they confiscated guns....the gun crime rate did not go down....it pretty much stayed the same.....or continued the trend that was already happening....and the criminals still use guns for crime.

 

[there4eyeM]

John Locke | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

"For contemporary Americans, one reason for studying Locke (together with Hobbes) is to understand the character of liberalism. A liberal system such as ours enshrines individual rights, but its health depends upon people exercising those rights responsibly. It depends on people taking seriously their duty to respect the rights of others. Many observers believe that, while Americans today are eager to claim their rights, too few are willing to shoulder the attendant responsibilities. Is a rights-based society doomed to degenerate into simple selfishness? Or is it possible to construct a rights philosophy with a robust element of responsibility built into it? Must such a philosophy place natural law above individual right? Must this law have a religious dimension? These are questions that should send us back to Hobbes, Locke, and the architects of the American Constitution."

I don't feel the stance of extreme 2A supporters is responsible or respects the rights of others.
Of course we made up our "right" to arm our citizenry without exception. It was an extension of the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, an INTERPRETATION which we are still arguing today. That's what happens when you get into philosophies--there can be no right or wrong answer, only endless arguments.

I do love how it's called liberalism. Pretty ironic, hey?

Careful.....when you bring up Locke you should know what he says.....

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 19

Sec. 232. Whosoever uses force without right, as every one does in society, who does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

And right there he supports the right to self defense.....even with a gun....

Allow me to repeat.....

and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

So, the Americans assembled on 05/04/1970 when the they were gunned down made the mistake of not having brought firearms. Four people would not have died.

 

[OldLady]

John Locke | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

"For contemporary Americans, one reason for studying Locke (together with Hobbes) is to understand the character of liberalism. A liberal system such as ours enshrines individual rights, but its health depends upon people exercising those rights responsibly. It depends on people taking seriously their duty to respect the rights of others. Many observers believe that, while Americans today are eager to claim their rights, too few are willing to shoulder the attendant responsibilities. Is a rights-based society doomed to degenerate into simple selfishness? Or is it possible to construct a rights philosophy with a robust element of responsibility built into it? Must such a philosophy place natural law above individual right? Must this law have a religious dimension? These are questions that should send us back to Hobbes, Locke, and the architects of the American Constitution."

I don't feel the stance of extreme 2A supporters is responsible or respects the rights of others.
Of course we made up our "right" to arm our citizenry without exception. It was an extension of the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, an INTERPRETATION which we are still arguing today. That's what happens when you get into philosophies--there can be no right or wrong answer, only endless arguments.

I do love how it's called liberalism. Pretty ironic, hey?

Careful.....when you bring up Locke you should know what he says.....

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 19

Sec. 232. Whosoever uses force without right, as every one does in society, who does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

And right there he supports the right to self defense.....even with a gun....

Allow me to repeat.....

and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

I did not hear "gun" in there anywhere, Guy.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm granted a national right at birth and I need permission? If its a national right I don't need a damn thing. And they want you to register and pay for that national right. Nothing in that right says I have to register and there is nothing that says government can extort money to "allow" a right.

That argument came to the forefront the other day when one of this sites liberals INSISTED that states have the right to REMOVE national rights. How truly stupid can one get? As a state, any state joins the United States that state AGREES to ANY and ALL national rights. There is no question and there is no exception.

That is what prevents state leaders from becoming dictators. Now in most liberals cities you can't get one. So they are in fact trying to DENY your right. Yet in other liberal cities you can get one but it costs you money. So in fact your national right is being extorted for money. We don't have those issues here in Arizona. You DON'T beg for a right or buy it, it's yours.

If we were to look at the subject in total truth then Baltimore/Detroit and St. Louis ARE violating Federal LAW JUST as much if not more then Sanctuary Cities. Why are we fighting a modern day "civilized" government for a national right? Seems to me we would be throwing those traitors out of office as fast as we could find them.

Governments JOB is to protect our rights and our Sovereignty. Seems to me they are taking one illegally and NOT doing the other! Who is this government working for? It sure as hell does not seem like me. Lets see, you take guns and the rule of law out and put criminals in and you expect me to build and prosper?

What the hell am I building and what's it worth? Show me where the safety and Sovereignty is in that. The two base things ANY nation needs to survive and to grow. And you want me to build without either?

You folks better keep your guns because the ones WITH guns will be the SAME folks running the country.

Fury

 

[OldLady]

Personally, I have run into quite a few people I hope to hell don't have a "right" any longer to a gun.

I've seen some people like that, too.

And I'm sure the Framers who wrote and ratified the Constitution, the 2nd amendment etc., knew some people they'd MUCH rather not have a gun.

But the Framers eventually decided that we were much less safe and free when government has ANY authority to decide who can own and carry a gun, than when govt had NO authority to do that and we had to deal with the occasional robber, rapist, and other nutcase.

History has proven the Framers grimly right. Again and again.

Oldlady fails to admit that we already have laws that deny the right to own a gun to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill...so that post is pointless.......

What oldlady wants is a Bureau of Pre-Crime....like in the Tom Cruise movie..."Minority Report." They want to be able to tell who is a criminal about to commit a crime.....and stop them before the crime happens...

Of course, we know that convicted felons are likely to reoffend...and so we already say they can't have guns...

But they don't really mean them.....they mean the normal people.....they believe that there is no such thing as a normal person, that we are all crazy sociopaths who are just waiting to get a gun in our hand to commit murder.....those are the people that post is targeted for.....

And it is nonsense......90% of murderers have long criminal histories...which means they have already been "registered" and singled out for not being able to own a gun.....

Everything oldlady wants....already exists......but like any gun grabber...as long as one normal person has a gun...they will never be able to stop trying to get that gun.

Oldlady fails to admit that we already have laws that deny the right to own a gun to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill...so that post is pointless....
You didn't check what I was replying to. OP seems to feel no paperwork, licensing or checking should be involved in owning firearms--that's the only place where the fees come in. Unless I misunderstood him.
And I'm so glad to be of service as the Gun Grabber Poster Child for your rants. Where would you be without someone to pin your absolutely insane bullshit on? (Yes, I ended with a preposition, alert the press)

 

[asaratis]

If it's unconstitutional, why don't you take it to the Supreme Court? Probably someone has already tried. Personally, I have run into quite a few people I hope to hell don't have a "right" any longer to a gun. You may be born with that right, but some people's actions deserve taking that right away. How does that get monitored except by registration, which requires time and money, necessitating a fee?
It isn't the law abiding gun owners who screw things up for the rest of us, but screw it up they do. And we pay for it. I don't see any way around it.

If a state or city government can require that you buy a right. Which ones can you afford and for how long?

How do we make it harder for violent criminals and violently mentally ill people from buying guns otherwise? Okay, get the registration done by some centralized, independent bureau and have the cost of it absorbed in the cost of the weapon? So people just don't realize they're paying for it?

All of the stupid arguments you can make for gun registration can be just as easily made for knife registration.

 

[OldLady]

John Locke | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

"For contemporary Americans, one reason for studying Locke (together with Hobbes) is to understand the character of liberalism. A liberal system such as ours enshrines individual rights, but its health depends upon people exercising those rights responsibly. It depends on people taking seriously their duty to respect the rights of others. Many observers believe that, while Americans today are eager to claim their rights, too few are willing to shoulder the attendant responsibilities. Is a rights-based society doomed to degenerate into simple selfishness? Or is it possible to construct a rights philosophy with a robust element of responsibility built into it? Must such a philosophy place natural law above individual right? Must this law have a religious dimension? These are questions that should send us back to Hobbes, Locke, and the architects of the American Constitution."

I don't feel the stance of extreme 2A supporters is responsible or respects the rights of others.
Of course we made up our "right" to arm our citizenry without exception. It was an extension of the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, an INTERPRETATION which we are still arguing today. That's what happens when you get into philosophies--there can be no right or wrong answer, only endless arguments.

I do love how it's called liberalism. Pretty ironic, hey?

Careful.....when you bring up Locke you should know what he says.....

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 19

Sec. 232. Whosoever uses force without right, as every one does in society, who does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

And right there he supports the right to self defense.....even with a gun....

Allow me to repeat.....

and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

So, the Americans assembled on 05/04/1970 when the they were gunned down made the mistake of not having brought firearms. Four people would not have died.

If it's unconstitutional, why don't you take it to the Supreme Court? Probably someone has already tried. Personally, I have run into quite a few people I hope to hell don't have a "right" any longer to a gun. You may be born with that right, but some people's actions deserve taking that right away. How does that get monitored except by registration, which requires time and money, necessitating a fee?
It isn't the law abiding gun owners who screw things up for the rest of us, but screw it up they do. And we pay for it. I don't see any way around it.

If a state or city government can require that you buy a right. Which ones can you afford and for how long?

How do we make it harder for violent criminals and violently mentally ill people from buying guns otherwise? Okay, get the registration done by some centralized, independent bureau and have the cost of it absorbed in the cost of the weapon? So people just don't realize they're paying for it?

All of the stupid arguments you can make for gun registration can be just as easily made for knife registration.

Go kill some innocent shoppers in the mall parking lot with a knife. Then, with your knife, go kill a few teenagers on the sidewalk while riding in a moving vehicle. Try killing someone 50 yards away with your knife. See how far you get without being stopped or getting really tired. Guns = effortless killing.

 

[2aguy]

Personally, I have run into quite a few people I hope to hell don't have a "right" any longer to a gun.

I've seen some people like that, too.

And I'm sure the Framers who wrote and ratified the Constitution, the 2nd amendment etc., knew some people they'd MUCH rather not have a gun.

But the Framers eventually decided that we were much less safe and free when government has ANY authority to decide who can own and carry a gun, than when govt had NO authority to do that and we had to deal with the occasional robber, rapist, and other nutcase.

History has proven the Framers grimly right. Again and again.

Oldlady fails to admit that we already have laws that deny the right to own a gun to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill...so that post is pointless.......

What oldlady wants is a Bureau of Pre-Crime....like in the Tom Cruise movie..."Minority Report." They want to be able to tell who is a criminal about to commit a crime.....and stop them before the crime happens...

Of course, we know that convicted felons are likely to reoffend...and so we already say they can't have guns...

But they don't really mean them.....they mean the normal people.....they believe that there is no such thing as a normal person, that we are all crazy sociopaths who are just waiting to get a gun in our hand to commit murder.....those are the people that post is targeted for.....

And it is nonsense......90% of murderers have long criminal histories...which means they have already been "registered" and singled out for not being able to own a gun.....

Everything oldlady wants....already exists......but like any gun grabber...as long as one normal person has a gun...they will never be able to stop trying to get that gun.

Oldlady fails to admit that we already have laws that deny the right to own a gun to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill...so that post is pointless....
You didn't check what I was replying to. OP seems to feel no paperwork, licensing or checking should be involved in owning firearms--that's the only place where the fees come in. Unless I misunderstood him.
And I'm so glad to be of service as the Gun Grabber Poster Child for your rants. Where would you be without someone to pin your absolutely insane bullshit on? (Yes, I ended with a preposition, alert the press)

Licensing...no.

Registration...no.

Using a drivers license for a quick, federal background check with no record keeping...yes.

 

[2aguy]

John Locke | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

"For contemporary Americans, one reason for studying Locke (together with Hobbes) is to understand the character of liberalism. A liberal system such as ours enshrines individual rights, but its health depends upon people exercising those rights responsibly. It depends on people taking seriously their duty to respect the rights of others. Many observers believe that, while Americans today are eager to claim their rights, too few are willing to shoulder the attendant responsibilities. Is a rights-based society doomed to degenerate into simple selfishness? Or is it possible to construct a rights philosophy with a robust element of responsibility built into it? Must such a philosophy place natural law above individual right? Must this law have a religious dimension? These are questions that should send us back to Hobbes, Locke, and the architects of the American Constitution."

I don't feel the stance of extreme 2A supporters is responsible or respects the rights of others.
Of course we made up our "right" to arm our citizenry without exception. It was an extension of the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, an INTERPRETATION which we are still arguing today. That's what happens when you get into philosophies--there can be no right or wrong answer, only endless arguments.

I do love how it's called liberalism. Pretty ironic, hey?

Careful.....when you bring up Locke you should know what he says.....

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 19

Sec. 232. Whosoever uses force without right, as every one does in society, who does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

And right there he supports the right to self defense.....even with a gun....

Allow me to repeat.....

and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

So, the Americans assembled on 05/04/1970 when the they were gunned down made the mistake of not having brought firearms. Four people would not have died.

If it's unconstitutional, why don't you take it to the Supreme Court? Probably someone has already tried. Personally, I have run into quite a few people I hope to hell don't have a "right" any longer to a gun. You may be born with that right, but some people's actions deserve taking that right away. How does that get monitored except by registration, which requires time and money, necessitating a fee?
It isn't the law abiding gun owners who screw things up for the rest of us, but screw it up they do. And we pay for it. I don't see any way around it.

If a state or city government can require that you buy a right. Which ones can you afford and for how long?

How do we make it harder for violent criminals and violently mentally ill people from buying guns otherwise? Okay, get the registration done by some centralized, independent bureau and have the cost of it absorbed in the cost of the weapon? So people just don't realize they're paying for it?

All of the stupid arguments you can make for gun registration can be just as easily made for knife registration.

Go kill some innocent shoppers in the mall parking lot with a knife. Then, with your knife, go kill a few teenagers on the sidewalk while riding in a moving vehicle. Try killing someone 50 yards away with your knife. See how far you get without being stopped or getting really tired. Guns = effortless killing.

And since mass shootings are rare....we don't have that problem....most gun murder happens between criminals.....and all mass shootings happen in already gun free zones.....

 

[koshergrl]

The mass shootings that take place.where someonw is armed end quickly.

 

[P@triot]

Just as the government of Obama and Company chooses to ignore whatever laws they see fit to ignore, I will ignore any law regarding the diminishing or removal of my right to own and carry firearms. I choose to be shot dead before giving up my gun rights.

Amen! "Out of my cold dead hands"

 

[P@triot]

The mass shootings that take place.where someonw is armed end quickly.

Actually - none of those have ever become "mass shootings". They are always stopped before getting to that point.

 

[P@triot]

Go kill some innocent shoppers in the mall parking lot with a knife.

Um....you were saying OldLady?

China: 29 murdered in mass stabbing, 130 more injured

China mass stabbing: Deadly knife attack in Kunming - BBC News

 

[P@triot]

Go kill some innocent shoppers in the mall parking lot with a knife.

Uh....you were saying OldLady???

China: man brutally stabs 22 children, 1 adults in elementary school

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/man-stabs-22-children-in-china.html

 

[2aguy]

Yes......mass killer with a knife...will be doubly likely to target small children........and he doesn't have to register a knife or go through a background check.......