close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Progressive gun owner

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by greentriple, May 5, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheJ

    TheJ NRA Life Member Lifetime Member

    1,711
    102
    Jan 24, 2011
    GA
    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.
     
  2. kirgi08

    kirgi08 Watcher. Silver Member

    34,316
    3,504
    Jun 4, 2007
    Acme proving grounds.
    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. :burn:
     

    Last edited: May 7, 2012

  3. 1gewehr

    1gewehr

    900
    1
    Mar 22, 2006
    Mid TN
    "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.
     
  4. concretefuzzynuts

    concretefuzzynuts Brew Crew

    7,475
    13
    Dec 27, 2011
    PNW
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. 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: May 7, 2012
  6. RyanSBHF

    RyanSBHF Senior Member

    7,265
    624
    Jun 28, 2004
    USA

    :goodpost:

    It's a shame the message will fall on deaf ears.
     
  7. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist

    5,668
    0
    Jun 15, 2011
    Texas

    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.
     
  8. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    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! :upeyes:
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
  9. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist

    5,668
    0
    Jun 15, 2011
    Texas

    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.
     
  10. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    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.
     
  11. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    In an earlier post I wrote of the brilliance of Tomas Jefferson. I just receive this in an E-mail from a Canadian friend and though what better place or time to post it.

     
    Last edited: May 9, 2012
  12. Fred Hansen

    Fred Hansen Liberal Bane

    12,086
    2,995
    May 19, 2005
    I didn't see anything about Jefferson being a community organizer, or being able to "shoot hoops"...

    I'm surprised he could get elected with such gaps in his resume. :dunno:
     
  13. eracer

    eracer Where's my EBT?

    6,711
    2
    Apr 5, 2011
    Tampa, FL
    'The right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

    Define 'The People' in the above sentence.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2012
  14. greentriple

    greentriple

    923
    0
    Mar 11, 2010
    are you all still ranting and raving? Wow!!

    Well just to keep the spirits high, and give me an excuse to take a break from work.
    The definition of People can be confusing.... Do you mean people as in group? Do you mean people as in person thus as in corporation? Do you mean people as in person and as some crazies want to define it before conception? Is People only those in the magazine my wife loves so much?
     
  15. TheJ

    TheJ NRA Life Member Lifetime Member

    1,711
    102
    Jan 24, 2011
    GA
  16. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    I warned you about not following the rules. Trolling is against the rules and your last post proves beyond a reasonable doubt that, that is exactly what you’re doing. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

    Jerry
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.