I Need Permission?

[JoeB131]

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.

This is where you are deluded.

There are no "rights". Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942"

What you have are privileges that the rest of society agrees you should have.

Mostly they do this because most people consider them fair and reasonable. Freedom of religion. Fine. Believe in whatever Imaginary Friend in the Sky you want, unless they want to smoke dope like a Rastafarian or molest their kids like a Branch Davidian.

so you think you have "rights", but basically, the 78% of us who don't own guns tolerate the privilege of the 22% of you who do. A small slice of that 22% waiving their guns around threatening to shoot law enforcement officers because a bunch of slave rapists couldn't properly word a Militia Amendment when Militias were still a thing, isn't winning you any friends.

Maybe instead of getting all defensive every time a crazy person brings a machine gun to a theater or a pre-school, you guys should be working on ways to keep them from getting guns to start with.

 

[OldLady]

Dead Liberals,

The U.S. Constitution guarantees liberty. It does not guarantee you security. If liberty is just too scary for you, there are a host of authoritarian nations which have disarmed their citizens. Bonus: those same nations also offer the "universal healthcare" that you crave.

Sincerely,

The U.S. Constitution
(the piece of paper that isn't afraid of a little liberty like you liberals)

Why does it ensure your safety and security (your argument of self-protection, not mine) but not mine?

 

[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.

Why do you demand MORE violent crime in our country? Really, specifically, why do you want to INCREASE violent crime in our country?

I can only presume that you are well aware that most Western European countries, along with Australia, have significantly higher violent crime rates than we do here in the United States. Obviously, it is going from bad to worse due to the millions of refugees emigrating to Europe from the disaster created in the Middle East by Lame Duck President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I haven't seen a single study that shows what you posit here. Not even Gun Guy's. You know exactly what my point is, and you haven't an answer, because I am right about the ease with which one can use a gun to take another's life. A knife can do a great deal of damage in a crowd if you're one of those ninja types with a machete or a Samurai sword, but if that has happened here, I don't remember it. What I do remember here is the weekly report of another guy going out and shooting up innocent victims in some parking lot. Not to mention the horrific mass shootings like Aurora, Newtown, etc. Why do you say shopping plaza parking lots are "gun free zones?" I never saw a parking lot with such a sign. Why did none of these shootings end with an armed citizen responding and shooting the bad guy? It's always the cops. Your theory is full of holes.
Some of you completely discount the lives of many of our gun death victims because they have criminal records. That's up to you. I consider them lives, and so do their mothers, brothers, kids, etc. Did they ask for it? Maybe. Would a good deal of them be alive if their enemies had to get within striking distance to stab them? Betcha a lot of them would.
You know it and I know it.

 

[asaratis]

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.

This is where you are deluded.

There are no "rights". Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942"

What you have are privileges that the rest of society agrees you should have.

Mostly they do this because most people consider them fair and reasonable. Freedom of religion. Fine. Believe in whatever Imaginary Friend in the Sky you want, unless they want to smoke dope like a Rastafarian or molest their kids like a Branch Davidian.

so you think you have "rights", but basically, the 78% of us who don't own guns tolerate the privilege of the 22% of you who do. A small slice of that 22% waiving their guns around threatening to shoot law enforcement officers because a bunch of slave rapists couldn't properly word a Militia Amendment when Militias were still a thing, isn't winning you any friends.

Maybe instead of getting all defensive every time a crazy person brings a machine gun to a theater or a pre-school, you guys should be working on ways to keep them from getting guns to start with.

Horse shit!

No. 1: The Bill of RIGHTS consists of the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Your attempt to redefine rights as privileges is a lame excuse for "you have no viable argument".

No. 2: There is no way to keep guns from criminals. They do not obey laws.

No. 3: You are one naive, wet behind the ears and totally out of your league.

Bill of Rights

 

[TNHarley]

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?

we cant. IMO, the only two solutions are a WORLDWIDE gun ban(even governments) or people can get guns without getting a second mortgage.

 

[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 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.

Why do you demand MORE violent crime in our country? Really, specifically, why do you want to INCREASE violent crime in our country?

I can only presume that you are well aware that most Western European countries, along with Australia, have significantly higher violent crime rates than we do here in the United States. Obviously, it is going from bad to worse due to the millions of refugees emigrating to Europe from the disaster created in the Middle East by Lame Duck President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I haven't seen a single study that shows what you posit here. Not even Gun Guy's. You know exactly what my point is, and you haven't an answer, because I am right about the ease with which one can use a gun to take another's life. A knife can do a great deal of damage in a crowd if you're one of those ninja types with a machete or a Samurai sword, but if that has happened here, I don't remember it. What I do remember here is the weekly report of another guy going out and shooting up innocent victims in some parking lot. Not to mention the horrific mass shootings like Aurora, Newtown, etc. Why do you say shopping plaza parking lots are "gun free zones?" I never saw a parking lot with such a sign. Why did none of these shootings end with an armed citizen responding and shooting the bad guy? It's always the cops. Your theory is full of holes.
Some of you completely discount the lives of many of our gun death victims because they have criminal records. That's up to you. I consider them lives, and so do their mothers, brothers, kids, etc. Did they ask for it? Maybe. Would a good deal of them be alive if their enemies had to get within striking distance to stab them? Betcha a lot of them would.
You know it and I know it.

You are shown actual research...and deny it. You know the number of times people use guns to stop crimes is far more than to commit crimes....yet you ignore it.....the Colorado theater shooter picked a theater because it had a gun free policy.....the Sandy Hook Shooter picked the elementary school because the middle school and the high school had armed security, the elementary school was gun free.........

The studies show that immediate, armed resistance to mass public shooters save lives.....the research shows this...not pulling number out of our asses.......

 

[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 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.

Why do you demand MORE violent crime in our country? Really, specifically, why do you want to INCREASE violent crime in our country?

I can only presume that you are well aware that most Western European countries, along with Australia, have significantly higher violent crime rates than we do here in the United States. Obviously, it is going from bad to worse due to the millions of refugees emigrating to Europe from the disaster created in the Middle East by Lame Duck President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I haven't seen a single study that shows what you posit here. Not even Gun Guy's. You know exactly what my point is, and you haven't an answer, because I am right about the ease with which one can use a gun to take another's life. A knife can do a great deal of damage in a crowd if you're one of those ninja types with a machete or a Samurai sword, but if that has happened here, I don't remember it. What I do remember here is the weekly report of another guy going out and shooting up innocent victims in some parking lot. Not to mention the horrific mass shootings like Aurora, Newtown, etc. Why do you say shopping plaza parking lots are "gun free zones?" I never saw a parking lot with such a sign. Why did none of these shootings end with an armed citizen responding and shooting the bad guy? It's always the cops. Your theory is full of holes.
Some of you completely discount the lives of many of our gun death victims because they have criminal records. That's up to you. I consider them lives, and so do their mothers, brothers, kids, etc. Did they ask for it? Maybe. Would a good deal of them be alive if their enemies had to get within striking distance to stab them? Betcha a lot of them would.
You know it and I know it.

And here you go.....actual mass public shootings.....and the lives saved by armed people on the scene...not cops.....and note...the South Carolina Church shooter...picked the church because it was gun free......the Sikh temple shooting...another gun free zone....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)
**********
No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

 

[boevans]

If gun owners have to register their guns, then all have to register their guns, including illegals.

 

[2aguy]

If gun owners have to register their guns, then all have to register their guns, including illegals.

Haynes v. United States ruled that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns....due to a violation of their 5th amendment right against self incrimination......

 

[boevans]

If gun owners have to register their guns, then all have to register their guns, including illegals.

Haynes v. United States ruled that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns....due to a violation of their 5th amendment right against self incrimination......

That ruling is in line with the 5th. So if all have to register, then it is in line that illegals are part of the all.

 

[OldLady]

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.

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.

Why do you demand MORE violent crime in our country? Really, specifically, why do you want to INCREASE violent crime in our country?

I can only presume that you are well aware that most Western European countries, along with Australia, have significantly higher violent crime rates than we do here in the United States. Obviously, it is going from bad to worse due to the millions of refugees emigrating to Europe from the disaster created in the Middle East by Lame Duck President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I haven't seen a single study that shows what you posit here. Not even Gun Guy's. You know exactly what my point is, and you haven't an answer, because I am right about the ease with which one can use a gun to take another's life. A knife can do a great deal of damage in a crowd if you're one of those ninja types with a machete or a Samurai sword, but if that has happened here, I don't remember it. What I do remember here is the weekly report of another guy going out and shooting up innocent victims in some parking lot. Not to mention the horrific mass shootings like Aurora, Newtown, etc. Why do you say shopping plaza parking lots are "gun free zones?" I never saw a parking lot with such a sign. Why did none of these shootings end with an armed citizen responding and shooting the bad guy? It's always the cops. Your theory is full of holes.
Some of you completely discount the lives of many of our gun death victims because they have criminal records. That's up to you. I consider them lives, and so do their mothers, brothers, kids, etc. Did they ask for it? Maybe. Would a good deal of them be alive if their enemies had to get within striking distance to stab them? Betcha a lot of them would.
You know it and I know it.

You are shown actual research...and deny it. You know the number of times people use guns to stop crimes is far more than to commit crimes....yet you ignore it.....the Colorado theater shooter picked a theater because it had a gun free policy.....the Sandy Hook Shooter picked the elementary school because the middle school and the high school had armed security, the elementary school was gun free.........

The studies show that immediate, armed resistance to mass public shooters save lives.....the research shows this...not pulling number out of our asses.......

You argue the same points over and over and ignore my actual arguments. If guns were not available, would we have as many senseless deaths as the ones above? Using pitchforks or knives? I got a point, and you'd prefer to ignore that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please show me where, in the second amendment, the words "shall register" is? And as a follow up to that very question, do you not understand the words "shall not be infringed"?
.

The 1st Amendment says that freedom of speech cannot be abridged.

Where does it say except in cases of inciting riots, or yelling fire in a crowded theatre?

 

[2aguy]

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.

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.

Why do you demand MORE violent crime in our country? Really, specifically, why do you want to INCREASE violent crime in our country?

I can only presume that you are well aware that most Western European countries, along with Australia, have significantly higher violent crime rates than we do here in the United States. Obviously, it is going from bad to worse due to the millions of refugees emigrating to Europe from the disaster created in the Middle East by Lame Duck President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I haven't seen a single study that shows what you posit here. Not even Gun Guy's. You know exactly what my point is, and you haven't an answer, because I am right about the ease with which one can use a gun to take another's life. A knife can do a great deal of damage in a crowd if you're one of those ninja types with a machete or a Samurai sword, but if that has happened here, I don't remember it. What I do remember here is the weekly report of another guy going out and shooting up innocent victims in some parking lot. Not to mention the horrific mass shootings like Aurora, Newtown, etc. Why do you say shopping plaza parking lots are "gun free zones?" I never saw a parking lot with such a sign. Why did none of these shootings end with an armed citizen responding and shooting the bad guy? It's always the cops. Your theory is full of holes.
Some of you completely discount the lives of many of our gun death victims because they have criminal records. That's up to you. I consider them lives, and so do their mothers, brothers, kids, etc. Did they ask for it? Maybe. Would a good deal of them be alive if their enemies had to get within striking distance to stab them? Betcha a lot of them would.
You know it and I know it.

You are shown actual research...and deny it. You know the number of times people use guns to stop crimes is far more than to commit crimes....yet you ignore it.....the Colorado theater shooter picked a theater because it had a gun free policy.....the Sandy Hook Shooter picked the elementary school because the middle school and the high school had armed security, the elementary school was gun free.........

The studies show that immediate, armed resistance to mass public shooters save lives.....the research shows this...not pulling number out of our asses.......

You argue the same points over and over and ignore my actual arguments. If guns were not available, would we have as many senseless deaths as the ones above? Using pitchforks or knives? I got a point, and you'd prefer to ignore that.

Yes........our unarmed murder rate is higher than the murder rate of the European countries.....we have violent minorities, in inner cities that create our high murder rate.

And do you realize that the world had a period where there were absolutely no guns anywhere....in the entire world? And do you know what that world looked like? The strong made slaves of the weak.....whole cities were put to the sword.......look up the Siege of Merv and what the Mongols did there...and that is not the exception...but the rule.

Guns allowed the weak to stand up to the strong....the few to resist the many......you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to guns.

 

[2aguy]

Please show me where, in the second amendment, the words "shall register" is? And as a follow up to that very question, do you not understand the words "shall not be infringed"?
.

The 1st Amendment says that freedom of speech cannot be abridged.

Where does it say except in cases of inciting riots, or yelling fire in a crowded theatre?

And the 2nd Amendment does not allow you to use a gun to commit a crime, just as the 1st Amendment does not allow you to commit a crime.. ........so yes, the 2nd Amendment is already limited.......the rest of the limits you guys want are unConstitutional .....and only target non criminals........

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please show me where, in the second amendment, the words "shall register" is? And as a follow up to that very question, do you not understand the words "shall not be infringed"?
.

The 1st Amendment says that freedom of speech cannot be abridged.

Where does it say except in cases of inciting riots, or yelling fire in a crowded theatre?

And the 2nd Amendment does not allow you to use a gun to commit a crime, just as the 1st Amendment does not allow you to commit a crime.. ........so yes, the 2nd Amendment is already limited.......the rest of the limits you guys want are unConstitutional .....and only target non criminals........

Having an unregistered handgun in NY is a crime. You lose.

 

[NYcarbineer]

First of all, the 2nd Amendment gives you the permission. The Courts advise you of the limits of your permission.

 

[JoeB131]

Horse shit!

No. 1: The Bill of RIGHTS consists of the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Your attempt to redefine rights as privileges is a lame excuse for "you have no viable argument".

No. 2: There is no way to keep guns from criminals. They do not obey laws.

No. 3: You are one naive, wet behind the ears and totally out of your league.

Again, talk to Japanese Americans about the "Bill of Rights" some time. or African Americans today, for that matter. Of course, they are privileges, not rights. Once a majority is angry or scared enough, "rights" go right out the window.

If there is no way to keep guns from criminals, how is it that the UK, Germany, Japan, Italy, etc. have done just that? Japan has less than 11 gun homicides a year.

Guy, I mop the floor with you wingnuts, every day..

 

[bendog]

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

I agree. We should not have to pre-register to vote.

 

[Markle]

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

Gun ownership is no different than voting....the democrats used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from being able to vote....the calls for registration, licensing, and training requirements are simply Poll Taxes and Literacy tests for guns......

Felons are blocked from voting, voters also register, is that some sort of poll tax in your fucked up world?

Many felons are blocked from voting, but others run for office as democrats. Harold Washington ring a bell?

Lest we forget the late Ted Kennedy.

Was Kennedy convicted of what felony?

Really, we could go back and forth naming Republican and Democrats convicted of various crimes, what that has to do with comparing poll taxes to gun registration is an interesting stretch.

Either you have a morbid, sick sense of humor or you are working hard to prove my point. I do appreciate your help although it really isn't necessary.

As you know, the vast majority of times, when a Republican is indicted or convicted of a crime or misdoing, they have the decency to resign or not run for re-election.

With Democrats, criminal charges or convictions are considered a resume enhancement, a badge of courage. Better known as a lack of character.

Obviously, you are so proud!!

 

[Markle]

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

You also have the national right to own and operate a business but you still need permission for that. You have the right to marriage...but I'm also sure you need to register for that as well. Hey, wait...how about the right to vote...oh wait...you also need to register for that as well.

Keep trying.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The right to carry concealed weapons requires a permit. Those are the rules in many states. None that I know of require individual registration of weapons.

asaratis, did you really make this oxymoron post or did someone hack your account?

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The right to carry concealed weapons requires a permit."

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.

It says nothing in the constitution or bill of rights that they are forfeited when you make a mistake. That is made up by people that fear someone that has misused a weapon is more of a danger to actually use it against the government when the government misuses it's power. I agree. In in the name of fearful citizens EVERYONE must get a background check which is the same as registration of your firearm.

So as a result felons can and do acquire weapons easily without the government's knowledge and the stupid law abiding citizens submit to telling the government that they are armed and where to go to take away their weapons. Perfect!

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

You also have the national right to own and operate a business but you still need permission for that. You have the right to marriage...but I'm also sure you need to register for that as well. Hey, wait...how about the right to vote...oh wait...you also need to register for that as well.

Keep trying.

Just as an aside, I'm actually for gun rights (within reason). I've been to countries where it is mandatory to own a form of protection (AK being probably the most common) or you will lose your life and property to your opportunistic neighbor. While I don't think that civilized nations (like Japan) really need to allow their citizen base gun rights, I'd consider most Americans, OP included, as being far from civilized. Gun rights are needed for house owners to protect themselves from their neighbors...I mean if you look at almost every major city (Chicago is currently getting the highlight) crime rates are through the roof. With that said, me, as a law abiding citizen, has no issue with having to register for my firearm or having to be approved. Why? Well, I've got nothing to hide. It isn't a big deal. On the other hand, if crazy DarkFury went to register for a firearm, you better be damn sure I'd feel safer if that guy had a psyche eval, full criminal background check, and an extensive waiting period. It would simply make everybody safer (himself probably included).

Please show me where, in the second amendment, the words "shall register" is? And as a follow up to that very question, do you not understand the words "shall not be infringed"?

You see, the problem that arises when we begin to intrepert the wording to suit OUR needs - we bastardize those very words. Those words, as in ALL the words in the Bill of Rights and their Amendments are NOT open to either addition or subtraction.

A wise thing for you to do...MIGHT...be good for you to actually READ the entire constitution. I KNOW...that's a novel idea!

Kindly offered for your edification:

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 10
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

WHO KNEW?