close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Do you support gun control?

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by IhRedrider, Dec 2, 2011.

  1. TheJ

    TheJ NRA Life Member Lifetime Member

    1,718
    104
    Jan 24, 2011
    GA
    The other common theme among the gun owning liberals is when they don't see a particular restriction on our freedoms as affecting them personally, they assume it is a reasonable restriction and that others shoud just get over it.
     
  2. John Rambo

    John Rambo Raven

    12,745
    822
    Feb 15, 2010
    Tampa, Fl.
    I support sensible gun control 100%.

    Background checks I support. No criminals owning firearms I support. No mentally deranged people owning firearms I support. Junk gun bans (REAL junk guns, not just guns that aren't Brady Campaign friendly) I support. Licensing to carry firearms on a shall-issue basis....I support, but not that strongly.

    I can't think of many other gun control measures I support.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2011

  3. HexHead

    HexHead

    4,815
    1
    Jul 16, 2009
    Objects shouldn't be controlled, just behavior. Punish the people using a gun in the commission of a crime, for the crime.
     
  4. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454

    12,129
    9
    Jun 20, 2002
    John Rambo
    So you support all those things - tell me where in the COTUS do you find those restrictions? What part of the 2nd allows them? Who are you to determine what is a "Junk Gun" is? By junk I assome you mean CHEAP? Why do you want to take cheap guns away from people who can't afford a Glock?:whistling:

    Think about it no other amendment has these words "Shall not be Infringed" !! Why cause our founders knew the courts and lawmakers would find any excuse to nolify the 2nd if they could! Those four words makes any and all laws that "Infringe UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2011
  5. NMPOPS

    NMPOPS

    791
    13
    Jun 11, 2002
    New Mexico & Michigan
    I would agree that if you are legal to own you should be able to carry anywhere. I would add that criminals who use firearms should be punished severely, no prea bargains!

    Sent from my Ally
     
  6. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    Here we go again with the emotional drivel. “People that do bad things with GUNS should be punished severely.” And what makes a GUN soooooo special. See Cambo’s post. #15. The idea that a crime committed with a firearms should be punished “more several” than one committed with any other inanimate object is moronic.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2011
  7. automan

    automan

    434
    0
    Jan 26, 2007
    NVA
    Not allowed to shoot a handgun using less than two hands, unless the second one is missing or incapacitated.:rofl:
     
  8. TheJ

    TheJ NRA Life Member Lifetime Member

    1,718
    104
    Jan 24, 2011
    GA
    Exactly.

    To me it's similar to punishing people differently because they committed a crime versus a hate crime. Is it really important that an offender murdered someone for their watch or because of a legally protected characteristic..
     
  9. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana


    Not to get off topic; But what I love about the hate crime law is that it is not enforced “equally” not to mention it does nothing to deter crime.
     
  10. IhRedrider

    IhRedrider Not a walker

    535
    3
    Mar 28, 2011
    I see we have see freedom/constitution supporters. That's great. Unfortunately, we also have some enemies of the of Constitution, that's bad. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and I never took that back. I guess that makes us at odds.
     
  11. CPatt44

    CPatt44

    174
    1
    Jul 5, 2007
    Wisconsin
    My idea of gun control is using two hands and hitting what you are aiming at. :)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  12. John Rambo

    John Rambo Raven

    12,745
    822
    Feb 15, 2010
    Tampa, Fl.
    The 10th, of course. But I'm not sute what you mean by 'restrictions'. Nothing I have posted in any way restricts a law abiding person from owning and carrying firearms.

    No part. The 2nd doesn't address it.

    Cheap and/or unsafe products are regulated in just about every industry. Why should guns be treated so special?

    I disagree. You're forgetting about SCOTUS, who's job it is to interpret and rule on constitutional matters. Like it or not, they don't see a problem with it. And since this country isn't a Democracy, neither your nor my opinion directly matters. If you have a problem, vote in presidents who will appoint more favorable SCOTUS members.



    The point of my post is that what I support are proactive measures to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns don't get them. There is nothing wrong with being proactive, so long as it doesn't infringe upon a law abiding citizen's right to purchase and carry them. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a decent explanation of how any of the things I mentioned infringe on your ability to buy and carry a gun.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2011
  13. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    Where you are going wrong with you’re logic is... The SCOTS ARE there to rule on if rulings by a lower courts fall within the limits set by the Constitution not to “interpret” the Constitution. What is truly amazing is how anyone can interpret “shall not be infringed” to mean sometimes the government can infringe.


    Please show me a law the does that. Laws will punish a criminal if caught, but laws only stop honest people. Criminals don’t follow the law. THAT’S WHY THEY ARE CALLED CRIMINALS.

    And I don’t know how many times I have to say this but here I go again. If a person is too dangerous to possess a firearm they are too dangerous to be walking the street.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2011
  14. John Rambo

    John Rambo Raven

    12,745
    822
    Feb 15, 2010
    Tampa, Fl.
    in·fringe/inˈfrinj/

    <table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" valign="top" width="80px">Verb:</td><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;" valign="top"><table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td>
    • Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
    • Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
    </td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
    Please show me how any of my stances fit either of those criteria? How do any of my stances infringe upon our right to buy, own, and carry a firearm? I can kinda see the shall issue carry permitting, but I said I'm on the fence on that one. The others? You've got no case for.



    So they're not foolproof. Okay. Does that mean any law we have that doesn't work 100% of the time should be abolished?

    Without laws like background checks, a criminal could stroll into a gun shop and buy a gun. I've been there, standing right there, when someone was denied because of their criminal past. That means the law works.

    Again, remember that the only gun control measures I support are those that work to proactively keep guns out of criminals' hands without infringing upon our rights.
     
  15. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    Did I say any of your stance infringe? I don&#8217;t believe I made any statement about your &#8220;stance&#8221;. I believe I stated that what you posted about the SCOTS being there to interpret the Constitution was/is incorrect and that people (that includes some of the SCOTS) cant seem to get it through their thick sculls what &#8220;shall not infringe means&#8221;.

    The SCOTS DO NOT/HAVE NOT BEEN GRANTED the power to CHANGE what is written in the Constitution. The only people that have that power are the congress and/or the states.

    <table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" valign="top" width="80px">Verb:</td><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;" valign="top"><table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td>
    • Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
    </td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

    That pretty much covers what is ment by "shall not be infringed" in the Second.

    But since you want to know which of your stances fit that criteria here you go&#8230; &#8220;I support. Licensing to carry firearms&#8221;. Having to pay for the &#8220;privilege&#8221; changes it from a right to a &#8221;PRIVILEGE&#8221;. It IS AN INFRINGEMENT!
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2011
  16. John Rambo

    John Rambo Raven

    12,745
    822
    Feb 15, 2010
    Tampa, Fl.
    SCOTUS rules on constitutional issues. By their very nature, then, they must interpret the constitution. Thats the only way to rule on things. So theres no way around that one unless you want to restructure the American form of government.

    And again, none of those stances fit the word 'infringe' so there is no problem here. The constitution has been respected.

    I guess you missed the shall issue part. Its also a right to marry, however people have to get a marriage license to marry, right?

    However, like I said, I'm kinda on the fence about that one. I've only ever known a shall issue licensing state, so I don't have much to compare it to. I will say I oppose may issue states.
     
  17. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    &#8220;Shall not be infringed&#8221; means exactly that, (read the definition that you posted) there is no &#8220;interpreting&#8221; it to mean anything else. The SCOTS cannot change what is written. :faint:

    Guess you must have missed the pay for part. I&#8217;m sorry to be the one to have to tell you&#8230; making people jump through hoops and having to pay for a license IS AND INFRINGEMENT in spite of your opinion that it is not. No pay, no license. Show me where the Constitution grants the power to charge to exercise a right.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2011
  18. John Rambo

    John Rambo Raven

    12,745
    822
    Feb 15, 2010
    Tampa, Fl.
    You're really hung up on this one single issue, which is the one of the bunch that I said I'm really not that dedicated to to begin with. Why do you keep returning to this one issue? Am I not making myself clear on it? Please address my other issues which I have firm support for.
     
  19. TheJ

    TheJ NRA Life Member Lifetime Member

    1,718
    104
    Jan 24, 2011
    GA
    I think he keeps returning to it because it seems empirically unconstitutional.

    As for other issues with your post...
    Please explain why you support junk gun bans? What is the logic behind that?

    What do you mean when you say you support "no criminals owning firearms" form of gun control?
     
  20. ScaryPerryDawsy

    ScaryPerryDawsy

    36
    0
    Oct 21, 2010
    Pretty damn simple in my eyes.....if the cops can carry it and/or use it so should I. They are civilians just like me after all regardless of the job or not.