GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-06-2012, 11:39   #26
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by lethal tupperwa View Post
don't feed--------
Love it!

But I just have too do this.

greentriple, do you know how to use the search function? The examples you offer and the tripe you repeatedly post has been hashed out over and over again in this forum.

Other’s and myself have done our best to show you the folly of your progressive ways, however as with ALL progressives your emotional OPINION blinds you to some facts and you just plain ignore the rest. Actually I believe you are inelegant enough to realize that what you post is purely liberal progressive drivel but you enjoy TROLLING. I have know several people that enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing even when they know they are wrong.

I’ll give you one last example of your lack of logic. You state it should be illegal for felons to possess firearms. The law doesn’t stop VIOLENT criminals from possessing firearms. The hate crime law does not stop Blacks form raping, torturing and beating to death Whites nor does it stop Whites from raping, torturing and killing Blacks. They are both USELESS laws. Murder, rape and torture are already illegal.

The Bill of Right was written to protect All FREE MEN. If someone commits a white collar crime or that is caught with 'a' Joint serves their sentence they should not be denied the right to protect themselves and their family. Their serving a prison sentence paid their debt to society and their crime WAS NOT violent. And last but not lease (and I’ve posted this at least 100 times) If someone is too dangerous to possess a firearm they are too dangerous to be walking in public. Give them life in prison or better yet put them to death.

Quote:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 05-06-2012 at 12:13..
Jerry is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 11:43   #27
ancient_serpent
Senior Member
 
ancient_serpent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Excellent!

Thank you, I tried to ensure that my rational was very evident to the reader. I recognize that I'm not the best writer, so I try to be clear.

Question: if the original context was to assure sufficient arms and armed fighters to defend against a foreign invader. And in the historical context there was no standing army and the very real fear we might face more war on our soil and need every citizen to organize and fight. Does not our current standing military and national guard change the historical need for a citizen militia?

Not in my opinion. When you look at the overall numbers of able bodied adults that can participate in military service versus the number that actually do, we have a small, professional standing Army. The availability of a militia to supplement (and dwarf them in size) them was within the Founders intent.

If not, could not the need for a well armed militia to expel invaders be satisfied with each adult citizen having a single assault rifle and ammunition to use if called to defend our borders?

The role of the milita hasn't changed. There has been no need for any sort of call up in recent years, but the intent remains. If this is a equipment question, then yes, I feel that current restrictions on select fire rifles is not inaccordance with the Founders intent. A milita member that is expected to render militia service should be expect to carry arms and ammunition of a type consistant with standard military arms of their time. For us, that is the M16 family of weapons and semi automatic handguns.

Finally, I agree it is an individual right and you defend that argument well. But, even so, what of the difference in contextual and historical need between 1700's and 2000's?Important, unimportant? If so why?

Human nature remains the same, not matter the age. Our country still faces threats to it's existance. I feel that that alone justifies the need for individuals capable and equipped to perform militia service.
Insofar as the exercise of rights in the context of a certain time period... My feeling is that the general principals behind the Bill of Rights must be maintained. We need to remember that the Bill of Rights was not meant to limit us, it was made to specifically list some of the most important Rights of the population. Also remember that any rights not specifically given to the government remain in the hands of the People and that the Bill itself did not confer these Rights, it simply outlined them.
Further, as I state in my paper, we do not limit speech simply because of emerging technology. We have incorporated our expectations of privacy with new technology based on established law and precedence based off of the 4th Amendment. I also feel compelled to point out that the 2nd is the only Amendment to specify that no infringments could be placed upon it.
Did that answer the question? I feel that my answer went a little far afield, but it's not a simple question you asked.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

For clarities sake, I have underlined what I percieved as the question and colored my answers in red beneath.
__________________
"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
-Daniel Webster
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

Last edited by ancient_serpent; 05-06-2012 at 11:44..
ancient_serpent is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 13:01   #28
kirgi08
Silver Membership
Watcher.
 
kirgi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Acme proving grounds.
Posts: 26,676
Blog Entries: 1


Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Clearly felons and the mentally ill should not legally own guns. Violent misdemeanors also be prohibited during the course of their probation. I prefer a CCW to be "may", with a requirement that a person must "justify" the need.


As ta yer 1st point,there are a ton of non-violent "felons".The mentally ill is a different class.As ta ccw,the government has no right ta decide either way.




I don't think people should open carry. Not sure the need for high capacity magazine or fully auto weapons, but I don't think restricting them makes sense. I think all guns should be registered, at least with local law-enforcement. No restriction on the number of guns owned, although people with arsenals and stock piles of ammo seem odd to me. No registration on ammo. And unlike the city fathers of Laverken Utah, I don't think every person who want a gun must have on.

Why the heck not,I oc all over where I live and no issues.We have the right ta own any type firearm we choose.Where in the 2A says that we should "register" our firearms,that worked well in Germany before WWII.What folk buy is their business and theirs alone.

As for they being in the four corners of the constitution, I agree the direct wording is not. But I believe there are implied powers. I also read restrictions to voting rights that no longer apply. It's not a stagnant dogmatic document, at least not for me.


There are no "implied" powers,it is the law........



I agree, you don't have to accept or agree to any restrictions. If they were on a ballot I presume you'd vote "no" and depending on what they were I might vote "yes". We'd tally up the votes and presto..., "democracy" at work. Now in a representative government we "give/delegate" decision making. If the same issue comes up, well they vote and again, presto... "representative democracy" at work. We don't like the result, vote the bum out and start again, etc, etc, etc...

Does that answer the question?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
Not really,ya left a lot of gray on the table.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall View Post
No.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
- Mao Tse Tung

Just because you own a gun doesn't negate the fact that you are the enemy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
He's dead.

His "edicts" aren't.They are followed everyday.

But I'm unclear if u use the quote to assert you position about your political power, or what you believe mine is? I presume mine since Mao was a Communist and I think you assume I'm one too.

"Enemy"? Strong sentiment for a fellow American.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
Nope,just misguided.You consider the COTUS a "living" thing,it's not.It's the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall View Post
My closest enemies are either Americans, or in America.

My oath was to defend against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Your place of birth and your claim that you own a gun doesn't negate the fact that you are the enemy.

By his own words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Hansen View Post
x2

Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Excellent!

Question: if the original context was to assure sufficient arms and armed fighters to defend against a foreign invader. And in the historical context there was no standing army and the very real fear we might face more war on our soil and need every citizen to organize and fight. Does not our current standing military and national guard change the historical need for a citizen militia?

Nope the militia is in place ta prevent our government from turning on the people.

If not, could not the need for a well armed militia to expel invaders be satisfied with each adult citizen having a single assault rifle and ammunition to use if called to defend our borders?

That's interesting,while you claim the above,you discount various "charges" some folk might catch.A "charge" doesn't "=" guilty,the "charge" as you would imply automatically removes all 2A rights.

Finally, I agree it is an individual right and you defend that argument well. But, even so, what of the difference in contextual and historical need between 1700's and 2000's? Important, unimportant? If so why?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
None,as #s have proven,limiting the 2A just drives crime up.Check Australia/England ect..'08.
__________________
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

If you look like food,You will be eaten.

Rip Chad.You will be missed.
kirgi08 is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 13:19   #29
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,478
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Clearly felons and the mentally ill should not legally own guns...
That is a nice sound bite and it certainly is easy enough to demogogue people who may disagree with it... However, explain why you believe that people who may have been convicted of a felony and have served their sentence, should for ever be prohibited from the free exercise of their fundamental civil right to defend themselves and their family?
Given that the pen is far mightier then the sword (or gun) that would be on par with denying someone from practicing religion or free speech for ever, after they served their sentence. A rather extreme position, no?
Before you answer, please consider the fact that the law against felon firearm possesion can not actually stop a former felon from arming themselves and harming others. It can ONLY stop those who chose to abide by the law..

Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
... I prefer a CCW to be "may", with a requirement that a person must "justify" the need. I don't think people should open carry....
Life is an inalienable right... So is the right defend that life. The framers clearly thought mere existence was enough to justify a right of self defense. I agree with them.
How exactly is something a "right" if you have to ask permission from the government first?
Would people who were never attacked before have to be attacked/killed first before they would qualify as "needing" a permit to carry? How does that make any sense? Would you have to have stuff people want to take? So only the rich get guns? Would a female have to be of sufficient attractiveness that somebody may want to rape them before they get permission?
Something tells me you really haven't thought this through very well.
Please explain why you beleive people should not be allowed to open carry? Does this include LEO? Hunters? Military? Just people you don't like?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
...
I agree, you don't have to accept or agree to any restrictions. If they were on a ballot I presume you'd vote "no" and depending on what they were I might vote "yes". We'd tally up the votes and presto..., "democracy" at work. Now in a representative government we "give/delegate" decision making. If the same issue comes up, well they vote and again, presto... "representative democracy" at work. We don't like the result, vote the bum out and start again, etc, etc, etc...

Does that answer the question?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
We know that prohibitions on arms can not stop crimes or criminals from harming others. The empirical evidence is overwhelming. Given that, it seems obvious that prohibitions on firearms then, can only serve to deprive law abiding people of the ability to defend themselves.
So please explain why and how you would further restrict firearm ownership if given the chance to vote on it.
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 13:49   #30
mj9mm
Senior Member
 
mj9mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: WI, looking better since Walker
Posts: 2,561
this has been a long post and i probably missed a correction of the mis statement that our founding fathers were "racist", they actually believe that only "land owners" should have the right to vote, and i agree with that
mj9mm is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 14:49   #31
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by mj9mm View Post
this has been a long post and i probably missed a correction of the mis statement that our founding fathers were "racist", they actually believe that only "land owners" should have the right to vote, and i agree with that
Was covered very nicely by by 1gewehr in post # 15. Of course greentriple doesn’t agree.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 15:56   #32
NEOH212
Diesel Girl
 
NEOH212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North East Ohio
Posts: 8,820
I agree with all but #3 and 4. No restrictions. The Second Amendment doesn't say, "Except for."

It says, "Shall not be infringed."

I guess shall not be infringed means something different to progressives as does most of everything else.

No restrictions. Just the way the founding fathers meant it to be.

As for #4...

Extreme situations require extreme thinking and extreme actions. Otherwise, the extreme will overtake you.

Faith isn't blind when you are putting your faith in the truth. Namely, God himself.
__________________
Diesel pickup, lift kit, 10mm, loud exhaust, big dog.... You didn't get enough attention as kid did you?

Last edited by NEOH212; 05-06-2012 at 15:59..
NEOH212 is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 16:42   #33
janice6
Platinum Membership
NRA
 
janice6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: minnesota
Posts: 17,300


Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
1g, while I do appreciate you cogent and non-insulting response, it is not much more than opinion. If you could give citations to historical examples or academic articles that support you opinion I'd enjoy reading them. Other than that, while interesting, it's no more substantial than your claim of my opinion. In other words, I too can say you are wrong and write why I believe so.

Your position without support will be credited here by others because they share your opinion, but their cheer does not make you right.

Oh, and I'm not saying they "intentionally" excluded blacks, women and non-land owners to be racist, classist and sexist, it was just the socio-political context of the time. Yet, today in a different time, we do not intentionally or unintentionally preclude suffrage to these groups. And if it were inherent in our original document we would not have needed an amendment o guarantee those writes to previously disenfranchised groups. Again, my opinion, without citation.

Finally, I can't imagine the founders conceived the Constitution would apply to 50 states.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

This is really odd. I wonder which states should have the protection of the Constitution taken away from them...I'm sure you have a "list".

(Rhetorical) I have read your posts.
__________________
janice6

"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". Anonymous

Earp: Not everyone who knows you hates you.
DOC: I know it ain't always easy bein' my friend....but I'll BE THERE when you need me.
janice6 is online now  
Old 05-06-2012, 16:50   #34
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by janice6 View Post
This is really odd. I wonder which states should have the protection of the Constitution taken away from them...I'm sure you have a "list".

(Rhetorical) I have read your posts.


New York, California and Illinois. Oh wait! Too late!
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 05-06-2012 at 17:09..
Jerry is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 17:16   #35
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” Winston Churchill
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 17:19   #36
kirgi08
Silver Membership
Watcher.
 
kirgi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Acme proving grounds.
Posts: 26,676
Blog Entries: 1


__________________
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

If you look like food,You will be eaten.

Rip Chad.You will be missed.
kirgi08 is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 17:48   #37
greentriple
Senior Member
 
greentriple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 901
Ok. Well hank you all, very educative.

As for the 50 states, my meaning is that could not have conceived of a nation this size with this type of factionalism.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
greentriple is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 18:09   #38
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Ok. Well hank you all, very educative.

As for the 50 states, my meaning is that could not have conceived of a nation this size with this type of factionalism.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
For someone that has constantly accused others of giving opinion rather than fact you sure offer a lot of opinions. You have no idea what the founding fathers envision. If you would actually research who they were, how they lived and were educated you MIGHT realize they weren't just a bunch of old guys. Some of them were brilliant and wise beyond their years. Tomas Jefferson had started and retired from a law practice before he was 30, he ran his own news paper and he spoke (I believe, can't remember right now) 7 languages I'm positive it was more than 4 and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 05-06-2012 at 19:46..
Jerry is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 19:23   #39
JK-linux
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Can "we" work together?
Based on the below quoted, no. We can't work together. I don't agree with what you find reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Clearly felons and the mentally ill should not legally own guns. Violent misdemeanors also be prohibited during the course of their probation. I prefer a CCW to be "may", with a requirement that a person must "justify" the need. I don't think people should open carry. Not sure the need for high capacity magazine or fully auto weapons, but I don't think restricting them makes sense. I think all guns should be registered, at least with local law-enforcement. No restriction on the number of guns owned, although people with arsenals and stock piles of ammo seem odd to me. No registration on ammo. And unlike the city fathers of Laverken Utah, I don't think every person who want a gun must have on.
JK-linux is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 21:34   #40
Fred Hansen
Liberal Bane
 
Fred Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 16,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Ok. Well hank you all, very educative.

As for the 50 states, my meaning is that could not have conceived of a nation this size with this type of factionalism.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
Did the NEA infested public indoctrination hive--a.k.a. "public school"--you attended forget to mention Jefferson and the "Louisiana Purchase"? Did they mention the "factionalism" behind the Burr vs. Hamilton duel?

Or did they just stick to the "progressive" script, and teach that DWEeMs r the suck?
__________________
When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. - George Santayana
Fred Hansen is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 05:04   #41
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,478
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Ok. Well hank you all, very educative.

As for the 50 states, my meaning is that could not have conceived of a nation this size with this type of factionalism.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
So you're not going to address the questions I asked?

I haven't been rude. I haven't insulted. I have merely explained where I see concerns with your stated positions and asked you some probing questions. I took the time to read your posts and respond and yet you will not extend me the same courtesy.
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 07:15   #42
kirgi08
Silver Membership
Watcher.
 
kirgi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Acme proving grounds.
Posts: 26,676
Blog Entries: 1


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Hansen View Post
Did the NEA infested public indoctrination hive--a.k.a. "public school"--you attended forget to mention Jefferson and the "Louisiana Purchase"? Did they mention the "factionalism" behind the Burr vs. Hamilton duel?

Or did they just stick to the "progressive" script, and teach that DWEeMs r the suck?
We decided years ago ta home school,ta avoid the very thing Fred describes above.The future relies on the children,program the kids,attain their future.'08.
__________________
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

If you look like food,You will be eaten.

Rip Chad.You will be missed.

Last edited by kirgi08; 05-07-2012 at 07:16..
kirgi08 is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 10:09   #43
1gewehr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mid TN
Posts: 1,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
1g, while I do appreciate you cogent and non-insulting response, it is not much more than opinion. If you could give citations to historical examples or academic articles that support you opinion I'd enjoy reading them. Other than that, while interesting, it's no more substantial than your claim of my opinion. In other words, I too can say you are wrong and write why I believe so.
"Look up Crispus Attucks, Salem Poor, Prince Esterbrooks, and Peter Salem."

"The Federalist Papers are very clear on this point."

"Once again referring to the Federalist Papers,..."

I'm assuming that you are an adult capable of doing your own reading. I pointed you in the right direction. The 'Federalist Papers' are a series of essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay explaining the proposed constitution and why it was written as it was. Considering that those are the men who actually wrote the Constitution, they should show you the mindset of those men, and the purposes for which they wrote the Constitution. And interesting counter-point is the 'Anti-federalist Papers'. this is a series of essay written in response to the Federalist essays and opposing ratification of the Constitution.

For source documentation on the arguments leading up to the Declaration of Independence, the Charles Jenkins book on Button Gwinnett covers some of the debate over slaves. Likewise the James Haw biography of Edward Rutledge provides some insight. A third source is the excellent book by Marty Matthews on Charles Pinckney "The Forgotten Founder". It provides a lot of insight into the thoughts and beliefs of some of the wealthiest men in America as well as being an excellent view of the impact of the Revolution on the lives of the people. You should also join jstor.org, as it is an excellent resource and store of source documents. If you are truly interested in what the writers and signers of the Declaration and Constitution thought, you will find a great wealth of information there.
1gewehr is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 10:22   #44
concretefuzzynuts
Brew Crew
 
concretefuzzynuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: VB, VA
Posts: 6,095
greentriple, I've read your many posts on other threads. They seem to be mostly hostile and combative. Left leaning and full of disinformation and misinformation.

Gun-Control Issues
__________________
GTDS Member #7
GOTOD Member #757
Snub Club Member #757
NRA Member
Member
concretefuzzynuts is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 14:15   #45
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 18,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
What I'm interested in is this:

1) I'm a gun owner
2) I am a strict Bill of Rights Advocate. (my problem with the ACLU for one is their blind eye to the 2nd)
3) I believe in the right to CCW. (with restrictions)
4) I think extreme thinking and blind faith will get you killed.
5) Any government is corrupt. But we need to protect the vulnerable.

Can "we" work together?
1. It is nice that you are a gun owner.
2. So far from this thread, it does not appear that you favor the 2nd Ammendment. You do not appear to agree with "shall not be infringed."
3. Because you do not favor the 2nd Ammendment, you are willing to accept restrictions. What restrictions, and why do we need them?
4. Free thinking is nice.
5. A government is a collection of people. All, some, or none of those people may be corrupt.

What is it that you want?

Do you want the people who participate on GT to favor restrictions on the right to have and carry guns?

I'm fairly left leaning. I might be called progressive. I might be so far left leaning I come all the way back around to the right.

But let me spell out my views on the 2nd Ammendment. If someone is not in jail or otherwise under adult supervision, then they should be able to buy and carry guns. Children and the mentally retarded and mentally ill should be under adult supervision. Criminals should either be in jail or under adult supervision.

If a guy goes to prison and gets out legally, and is not on parole (not under supervision of someone else), then he should be able to buy and carry guns.

Those are my views. Just as FYI.

Now, why do you want to restrict the ownership and carrying of guns?

Oh, I should also mention that I believe people should be able to carry guns anywhere. If a place is too sensitive, such as a courtroom, then they should be required to provide security and a place for you to lock your gun up at the door. They need security checks to keep out guns, if they are going to say "no guns". Otherwise, criminals are going to carry guns there anyway.

If you restrict a law abiding citizen from owning or carrying a gun, the problem is that you are not restricting a criminal. Criminals do not follow the law, by definition. If someone is dangerous to society, they should be put in jail (or put under supervision).

What is it about guns that makes you want special permission required for obtaining them? The law abiding citizen would be made to jump through hoops and probably still be restricted as to things such as where to carry, and how many bullets can be carried, while the criminal follows no such rules. What is gained by making the law abiding citizen jump through hoops or restricting the number rounds held in a magazine?

What possible logical gain is there for society that is worth violating the Constitutional rights? In my opinion, the anti-gun laws show no gain in safety. They save no lives. And, most importantly, even if they did, they still do not justify violating Constitutional rights.

Certainly, lock up the murderers. Lock up people who accidentally shoot someone. But don't violate Constitutional rights just because you are afraid of guns, and afraid to trust your law abiding neighbor with guns

Last edited by ithaca_deerslayer; 05-07-2012 at 20:21..
ithaca_deerslayer is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 19:28   #46
RyanSBHF
Senior Member
 
RyanSBHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 19,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
I'll give you that IF, you put similar restrictions on:

Procreating

Voting

Free speech on the net, TV, or radio

So you must have a NEED to procreate, Vote, or speak freely to the masses, and then register to do so to obtain licenses for those acts.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde



It's a shame the message will fall on deaf ears.
__________________
An Emperor leads an Empire.

A Monarch leads a Monarchy.

Hillary Clinton leads a Country.
RyanSBHF is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 06:45   #47
OctoberRust
Anti-Federalist
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
So, some of you my hate me already, and that vitriol has inspired this post. I suspect our commonalities are more than our differences, however the divergences are chasms.

What I'm interested in is this:

1) I'm a gun owner
2) I am a strict Bill of Rights Advocate. (my problem with the ACLU for one is their blind eye to the 2nd)
3) I believe in the right to CCW. (with restrictions)
4) I think extreme thinking and blind faith will get you killed.
5) Any government is corrupt. But we need to protect the vulnerable.

Can "we" work together?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Didn't you say you endorsed restrictions on those scary sawed-off shotguns, because it scares liberals like yourself?

You never answered my question previously too, what makes you think a criminal is going to not saw off their shotgun, if they're already breaking plenty more laws?

What makes you think you have the right to restrict a law abiding citizen who wants to defend his house, and believes it may be easier to do so with a shorter shotgun?

Again, you show that you live in fairy tale land thinking criminals follow laws.
OctoberRust is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 10:27   #48
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Scary? I'd like for him, or anyone for that matter, to show me, in the Constitution, (And no it's covered by the 9th.), where people have a "right" to not to be scared. Far too often I hear people say there should be a law or people shouldn’t be allowed to do something because it scares people. Dudes on motorcycles are scary. Big dogs are scary. Big Black men are scary. There should be a law!
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 05-08-2012 at 14:27..
Jerry is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 19:07   #49
OctoberRust
Anti-Federalist
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Scary? I'd like for him, or anyone for that matter, to show me, in the Constitution, (And no it's covered by the 9th.), where people have a "right" to not to be scared. Far too often I hear people say there should be a law or people shouldn’t be allowed to do something because it scares people. Dudes on motorcycles are scary. Big dogs are scary. Big Black men are scary. There should be a law!

I used "scary" to describe his emotions of an inanimate object.

If it's one right we DON'T have in a free society, it's the right NOT to be offended or scared.

I understand "shall not be infringed" very well, and argue the 2nd amendment with anyone who doesn't, until I'm blue in the face.
OctoberRust is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 22:44   #50
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by OctoberRust View Post
I used "scary" to describe his emotions of an inanimate object.

If it's one right we DON'T have in a free society, it's the right NOT to be offended or scared.

I understand "shall not be infringed" very well, and argue the 2nd amendment with anyone who doesn't, until I'm blue in the face.
I didn't post that because you used the word scary. I wrote that because you spoke of greentriple using it and the fact that it's a favorite with liberal progressives and FUDS. People with guns are scary (to the sheepely) so no one should be allowed to open carry or have guns out in the open where they "might" scare someone.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:39.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,561
483 Members
1,078 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42