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. Jerry

    Jerry
    Expand Collapse
    Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1998
    4,116
    0
    Location:
    Louisiana
    There is a fallacy in your thought process. The problem does not lie with the Second Amendment GUARANTEEING the right of a two times convicted serial rapist having a gun because regardless of the law he will. The problem lies with the two times convicted serial rapist being allowed to walk amongst us. What is the difference if he’s raping is facilitated with the use of a gun, knife, broken bottle, brick or a hammer? Say knife or brick or hammer along with the word rape and it oh my, she was raped. Say raped at gun point and it’s the gun that becomes the focal point. Why? Emotion and no other reason!

    Yes, I'm a 100% supporter of the 2nd. Amendment. Funny how they have picked and chosen which Amendments override “states rights(?)” and which one don't. Oh! And here’s another little tid-bit for you. The states have no rights. Only The People have rights. The Constitution doesn’t grant rights it acknowledges them and tells the government what it CAN and CAN NOT DO

    Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
    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.
    Notice it doesn’t say “rights” it says “POWERS”.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. HoldHard

    HoldHard
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    940
    4
    Location:
    Motor City 'burbs
    This!!

    HH
     

  3. WarCry

    WarCry
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    9,576
    1,075
    Location:
    IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
    Why do you believe the 2nd Amendment should be the only absolute right of the Bill of Rights? None of the others are.
     
  4. Jerry

    Jerry
    Expand Collapse
    Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1998
    4,116
    0
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Thanks for the advice but....

    My middle name is not a common one. I give them my middle name not just an initial and my SS#.

    I’ve had nothing but bad experiences when dealing with lawyers. Lawyers have lied to me on more than one occasion causing me grief. My daughter too! Divorce lawyer lied through her teeth. My daughter got screwed and since then the lawyer has hung her out to dry. I want nothing else to do with lawyers.

    I’ve said ever since NICS was rumored that honorable men and women would get screwed by it. I just never imagined I’d be one of them. :steamed:
     
    #64 Jerry, Dec 10, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2011
  5. TheJ

    TheJ
    Expand Collapse
    NRA Life Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    1,685
    77
    Location:
    GA
    Personally, I've never said it should be absolute. Why do you believe it deserves less protection then the others though?

    The pen IS mightier then the sword and yet we don't need to get a permit to exercise free speech.

    I believe the SCOTUS got this right and that is not absolute.
     
  6. Jerry

    Jerry
    Expand Collapse
    Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1998
    4,116
    0
    Location:
    Louisiana
    I’ll answer your question with two questions. What does ”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” mean? Does any other Amendments end in that phrase?

    Edited to add:

    The founder felt so strongly about the RIGHT of The People to KEEP and “BEAR” arms” that they made sure EVERYONE would know the right was ABSOLUTE. However the government and the socialists have dumbed so many of the people down they can’t read simple English and comprehend the meaning.

    A militia being necessary to a free state, (an armed citizenry of each state is necessary to protect the state from government tyranny), the RIGHT of The People SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (the gummeyment is not allowed to put restrictions on citizens owning and carrying firearms. Anyone that does not comprehend that is either out to control the rights of others or is a complete idiot.

    Does this sound like the founders wanted to allow restrictions or want the 2nd. to be ABSOLUTE?

    The RIGHT of The People to keep and bear was meant to be an is ABSOLUTE. Any law to the contrary is unconstitutional.
     
    #66 Jerry, Dec 10, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2011
  7. TheJ

    TheJ
    Expand Collapse
    NRA Life Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    1,685
    77
    Location:
    GA
    I suspect we are on the same page with this... However, I think I define absolute differently. As I see it, "absolute" means that something can't even be touched even with due process (trial). I don't see any rights as absolute.
     
  8. eracer

    eracer
    Expand Collapse
    Where's my EBT?

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    6,711
    2
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    I'm all up for building more prisons and restoring all the cancelled social programs that treated mentally deranged people so that we can allow them to exercise their 2A right.

    The day that all criminals (as defined by society) and psychotics (as defined by society) can be safely locked away and/or treated medically in such a way that eliminates the danger to society forever is the day I'll agree to NOT put any restrictions on gun ownership.

    There are some people who should not be allowed to own guns. And if that statement along with my sigline causes you any confusion, well, I guess you'll just have to figure that out yourself...
     
    #68 eracer, Dec 12, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2011
  9. wheelman707

    wheelman707
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2010
    102
    0
    NO!!!!! "No free man shall ever be debarred from the use of arms" Thomas Jefferson
    The following is should how it should be.

    Felons still can't get firearms, drug related offenses must be over 10 yrs ago to purchase(no burst/full auto allowed), domestic violence must be over 8 years ago to purchase (no burst/full auto allowed).

    Handguns-18 y/o w/ safety class(like hunters safety course held at local gunstore) 21 w/o the class, Military personnel exempt from taking class

    Long guns- 16 y/o

    Suppressors- 18 y/o over the counter purchase

    No capacity limit on magazines

    Conceal carry- Military personnel will have a condensed course Held on base. This would fall under the same AR that the motorcycle safety course falls under. This would be required to conceal carry on gov installations(proof would be just easy as having a meal card made). If personnel convicted of field grade art.15's can not participate. Personnel on staff duty, leadership, and Courtesy patrol(cp) WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONCEAL CARRY.

    FBI instant check still in effect

    No wait time

    No limit on quantity

    I think I tapped everything I wanted to annndd LESS THAN TWO DAYS IM BACK HOME STATESIDE WAAAHOOOOO:rock::drink::rock:
     
    #69 wheelman707, Dec 12, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2011
  10. Jerry

    Jerry
    Expand Collapse
    Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1998
    4,116
    0
    Location:
    Louisiana
    We’re close but you’re not quite there yet. :winkie:

    I understand, however… Show me where the Constitution grants the government the power to deny any “FREE” man’s rights. The key word being FREE. After all, some crimes are punishable by death. However, the Gummyment has not been granted the power to punishing free men.


    The Amendments to the Constitution were written to PROTECT FREE MEN. The Constitution and particularly the Amendments are precisely to restrict the gummeyment. They don’t grant freedoms they ACKNOWLEDGE them and forbid gummyment intrusion on them.

    The ACLU and other socialists have dumbed people down so much they actually think there is such a thing as separation of church and state. They press the gummeyment into making laws restricting religious activity on public property. And what is the first thing stated in the First Amendment? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Again the MORONS have interoperated that to mean the gummeyment CAN make laws forbidding the expression of religion in and on public places.


    Sounds pretty much like they wanted at least those Amendments to be ABSOLUTE if not all.
     
    #70 Jerry, Dec 12, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2011
  11. Jerry

    Jerry
    Expand Collapse
    Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1998
    4,116
    0
    Location:
    Louisiana
    But then driving automobiles, having gasoline and matches, knives, bottles, bricks, fertilizer and diesel fuel is ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl:

    Perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to have firearms since it appears you may have a mental defect. :tongueout:
     
  12. 94stang

    94stang
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    98
    0
    Location:
    Communist Republic of Illinois
    I am not for any foreign (other than me or my family) control over my firearms. Firearms are a given right, set forth by our founding fathers who found the matter important enough to make an amendment over 200 years ago to protect our ability to keep and bear our firearms to this day and until the United States no longer exists.

    As for Our right to keep and bear arms, bear means obviously to me that we should all have the right to carry our arms it doesn't g. And to many in this Country the get any more clear. Now to many to carry (concealed or open) is given and recognized, however in my state (Illinois) we are still shackled and restrained from using our given rights because of one city. One city to control them all, Chicago.

    So I believe that a LAW regulating the sale of firearms to criminals is a necessity but as for a 'law' to restrict our (law abiding free America's) gun ownership or to register our firearms is completely UN-constitutional and UN-ethical and just plain wrong.
     
    #72 94stang, Dec 12, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2011
  13. eracer

    eracer
    Expand Collapse
    Where's my EBT?

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    6,711
    2
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    Stating that deranged and/or habitually violent individuals shouldn't have access to bottles, and equating that to controlling their access to guns sounds to me like the ravings of someone living in their own little fantasy world. :wavey:

    I don't want to take your guns away. Really. Unless you are a deranged and/or habitually violent person. Then I most certainly do.:supergrin:
     
    #73 eracer, Dec 12, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2011
  14. TexasFats

    TexasFats
    Expand Collapse
    NRA, TSRA, SAF

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    1,002
    1
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Mandatory training opens the door to take away the gun rights of most of us by back-door methods. All that the gun grabbers have to do is to get training requirements that are too expensive and inconvenient for the average person to meet. That is exactly what DC is doing right now.
     
  15. eracer

    eracer
    Expand Collapse
    Where's my EBT?

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    6,711
    2
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    So we don't let them do that. But we accept that training in necessary.
     
  16. Jerry

    Jerry
    Expand Collapse
    Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1998
    4,116
    0
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Are you that slow? Bottle + gasoline + fire = arsonist. Do you know how many people are killed yearly in arson fires? Probably not!

    So let me see… Because habitual “violent” offenders will have guns if our right is not restricted we should be OK with having our right infringed. Right? Here's a little clue for you. They have guns anyway. So you want to restrict a right because YOU have irrational fears. Name me a case where a law has stopped a criminal from committing a criminal offense. :upeyes:
     
    #76 Jerry, Dec 12, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2011
  17. WarCry

    WarCry
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    9,576
    1,075
    Location:
    IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
    Average of around 2960 per year from 2002 - 2010
    http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t31662010.pdf

    Firearms homicides are in the range of 7-9,000 a year.


    You cannot keep flammable materials out of the hands of arsonists. You cannot keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

    But restricting access give the police one more tool to use to put the animals in the cages where they belong.

    Laws saying you can't own a firearm with a violent felony record shouldn't concern you unless you're a violent felon.
     
  18. Jerry

    Jerry
    Expand Collapse
    Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1998
    4,116
    0
    Location:
    Louisiana
    I love people that want to rewrite the Constitution to fit their particular idea of what is best for everyone else. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That’s why the first ten amendments were written.

     
  19. Jerry

    Jerry
    Expand Collapse
    Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1998
    4,116
    0
    Location:
    Louisiana

    Good Google search. However, firstly, your firearms homicide numbers are bogus. They include self defense and accidental (non criminal) shootings. They also include homicides committed with illegal firearms. You know the ones that the criminals don’t have because of gun control laws. :upeyes: Second, your idea that restrictions help law enforcement is bogus. A cop can’t tell if a felon has a weapon unless he has a reason to stop him in the first place. Then he actually has to catch him in possession of the firearm. (“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson). Thirdly, denying a “free man” one right is bogus. And last but not least, allowing someone that is to dangerous to walk the street to partake of every “privilege” a free man does while trying to deny one “Constitutionally protected RIGHT that truely dangerous criminals do anyway is not only ludicrous, but if one actually believes it works he/she is plainly MORONIC.


    Any Constitutionally guaranteed right that is denied to a "free man" should be a concern to any and every honorable man. :brickwall:

    Edited to add:


    WarCry I’m still awaiting your answers to my questions.

    Another heads up for you. “Congress shall make no law”. Do you know what amendment starts with that? I’d say that’s pretty absolute also. But you wouldn't know it by the unconstitutional laws.
     
    #79 Jerry, Dec 12, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2011
  20. IhRedrider

    IhRedrider
    Expand Collapse
    Not a walker

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    535
    3
    Jerry,

    I'm glad to see that we are not at odds. Keep up the good fight. To anyone who hasn't thought about it, what are you going to do to protect your freedoms. That is actually just a question for you to think about and requires no response here. If you haven't given it some serious thought, when the time comes to act, you will not act and you will lose whatever they have come to take.