Draconian Gun Legislation Proposed (county, claim, gun owner, New York)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

The question you should be asking is when have I killed someone so that my inalienable rights, which have been endowed to me by my creator, must be taken away?

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Here is an exert from The Declaration of Independence, thankfully the views of our founders carry more weight than yours. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

Yet slavery existed for many years after the document was written. Women were unable to vote or own property, etc, etc. It was written as a living document, able to be changed.

"Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such isThe history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

Governmental tyranny over the states today? To answer your question, the below poster states it better than I possibly could.

Originally Posted by Gentoo

...do you really think civilians having guns would ever keep the government in check? If the US wanted to go tyrannical, they could do so at any moment regardless how many people have guns and how many they had. Some things the civilian population are missing are fighter jets, tanks, heavy artillary etc.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

I don't understand what you mean by this.

This means I have not done anything for my civil rights to be taken away.

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Yet slavery existed for many years after the document was written. Women were unable to vote or own property, etc, etc. It was written as a living document, able to be changed.

Article V describes how to change the Constitution, California needs to find 36 others states to make those changes. I don't really see that happening yet this state is still trying to violate my civil rights.

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Governmental tyranny over the states today? To answer your question, the below poster states it better than I possibly could.

I have already responded to this.

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Do you think those young men and women flying those jets and operating those tanks and heavy artillery would just fire into civilian cities destroying homes and killing civilians needlessly? Do you think that our volunteer military would actually go door to door killing US civilians?

Originally Posted by shooting4life

The 2nd amendment was enacted to stop an overreaching government as indicated by the founders. At the time of the American Revolution individuals owned cannon, the most devastating implement of war at the time. To think that now semi-automatic rifles would not be protected by the same right is silly. The only way that argument works is if you believe the 1st amendment doesn't cover the internet.
And for all the people who want to regulate firearms further. Just take out the word "gun" or "assault weapon" from any proposed legislation and replace it with "newspaper" and see if you think it should be still made illegal as guns rights are civil rights.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Article V describes how to change the Constitution, California needs to find 36 others states to make those changes. I don't really see that happening yet this state is still trying to violate my civil rights.

No one is trying to take your guns away; you already own them. You know that will never happen.
I'm with Antonin Scalia on this one. (Link previously posted on this thread.) This has to be viewed within the context of 18th century history.
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

No one is trying to take your guns away; you already own them. You know that will never happen.
I'm with Antonin Scalia on this one. (Link previously posted on this thread.) This has to be viewed within the context of 18th century history.
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com

I would sure like to know where people got the idea that "their guns would be taken away". Why don't they understand that a ban means against further sales? The only way a form of government in the USA can confiscate a persons firearms is if they were used in a crime. Hell they'll take your ball point pen if you stab someone with it.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

No one is trying to take your guns away; you already own them. You know that will never happen.
I'm with Antonin Scalia on this one. (Link previously posted on this thread.) This has to be viewed within the context of 18th century history.
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com

You might want to actually read the Heller, Miller and McDonald decisions before you start posting articles. In the Heller decision guns were found to protect if they are in common usage (like an ar-15 or handguns). He goes on to say that certain guns can be regulated that are "dangerous and unusual." Seeing as how an ar15 is not any more dangerous than any other gun nor unusual, it is protected by the 2nd amendment.
In Miller guns were protected if the were in "common usage at the time" and that was confirmed in Heller.
McDonald applied the 2nd amendment to the states.
In the next year the SCOTUS will take up another 2nd amendment case and hopefully they will rule on the level of scrutiny and this will all be settled.
Here are some of the bills being proposed in California so far this year.
AB174 - Removes the grandfather clause from state laws.
AB180 - An unspecified tax on ammo.
AB231 - Requires guns owners to buy liability insurance.
SB47 - Makes a "bullet button" illegal.
SB53 - Requires buyers of ammo to get a permit and undergo a background check.
SB108 - Requires all guns to be stored with a trigger lock.
Do you think any of these will actually prevent crimes?
AB174 - Taking guns away from law abiding citizens. I am sure those who registered their guns in 1999 are the ones committing all the crimes.
AB180 - That is really going stop someone from shooting someone.
AB231 - I am sure the criminals will be purchasing the appropriate insurance.
SB47 - Criminals don't even use a bullet button. They would use a regular magazine release (which is already illegal in CA)
SB53 - It must be a long drive to Nevada, Arizona or Oregon. Ammo will be sold on the black market just like guns. Again, only affecting law abiding citizens.
SB108 - I am sure a 6 dollar piece of plastic is going to stop someone from using a gun, look up youtube video on gun locks.
None of this is actually going to stop crime, you realize that right? Everything is feel good legislation aimed at people who do not commit crimes. But you can keep trying to turn me into a felon, I am sure you will sleep better at night.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I would sure like to know where people got the idea that "their guns would be taken away". Why don't they understand that a ban means against further sales? The only way a form of government in the USA can confiscate a persons firearms is if they were used in a crime. Hell they'll take your ball point pen if you stab someone with it.

But bills have been proposed to take peoples guns away. Guns were confiscated after Katrina.

Also, the rights of my children are just as important as my own.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Cases in point. People who can't figure out ways to build safe escapes in their homes, or a dozen other ways to secure themselves against invasion, without permits or spending even a fraction of $30K -- probably aren't intelligent enough that they should be trusted with firearms.

Certainly people who bristle to flash anger and name calling at any perception that someone else has an opposing point of view -- shouldn't be trusted with firearms. Background psychological checks, anyone?

And perhaps the two of you can put your heads together and find where I told you what to do, or have, or own.

Maybe we should have psychological checks to vote then? Perhaps when someone writes an column for a newspaper? Maybe we should all get a checked before we post even on this blog? Maybe we should have an IQ test prior to voting.

What you seem to miss that firearm ownership is a right, not a privilege, and it needs to be respected just like everything else listed in the Bill of Rights. Look, it's that word again, rights.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Now you believe God gave you the right to have firearms? God has discussed this with you perhaps. And you want people to be comfortable with you having guns.

That is what the founders wrote in The Declaration of Independence. Everyone is endowed rights upon birth that are acknowledged by the government. Unless you believe that we only have rights because the government has chosen to let us have them?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

[color=black][font=Verdana]Maybe we should have psychological checks to vote then? Perhaps when someone writes an column for a newspaper? Maybe we should all get a checked before we post even on this blog? Maybe we should have an IQ test prior to voting.

Makes sense to me. Of course, if that was the case, neither candidate would have been elected in November.

[.highnlite]

What you seem to miss that firearm ownership is a right, not a privilege, and it needs to be respected just like everything else listed in the Bill of Rights. Look, it's that word again, rights.

It like most of our rights is limited. The wording clearly states that the right is for the purpose of a well regulated militia. I find it curious that all the gun rights people only respect the subordinate clause.

The odds are indeed long, but for me to have a high capacity magazine is an inexpensive solution to it

No, an assault type rifle with a magazine of any capacity is not as good a self defense weapon as a shotgun. Besides, you don't need a safe room, all you need is a back door.

Or, you could change your paradigm from Conservative to Liberal, stop living in fear and understand that you have a greater chance of dying from a lightning strike than from some moron coming into your home, and you have a greater chance of dying (by 2 or 3 times) by a relative with one of your weapons than by a moron coming into your home.

I find it preposterous that the hairy chested manly sorts, these gun rights people claim to be are so darned afraid of the boogeyman, that they believe they need and arsenal to protect themselves.