Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I used to be against guns UNTIL I REALISED WHAT THE CURRENT AGENDA IS!! (To disarm everyone so they cant fight back and then bring in the NWO as nothing will be able to stop it)
All rights in the Bill of rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.
Some of them certainly are.
Searches and seizures are banned... except for those that a judge finds "reasonable", and issues a warrant for.
Punishment for crimes, is forbidden... unless the punishment is not "cruel or unusual".
People cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property... except by due process of law.
Private property cannot be taken for public use... unless just compensation is given.
The right of the people to assemble cannot be interfered with... unless the assembly isn't peaceable.
And in every case, those "reasonable restrictions" are spelled out in the Constitution.
But, sorry, gun-rights-haters. There is no sign of any such "reasonable restrictions" in the part that talks about the right to keep and bear arms.
Most of the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, were lawyers. They knew well, the importance of certain words and phrases. And they were very careful about what they put in to each part... and just as careful about what they did NOT put in.
WHy do you suppose they so carefully put "reasonable restrictions" into some of the amendments in the Bill of Rights... and just as carefully left them out of others? Do you suppose they just forgot? Weren't paying attention?
I used to be against guns until i realised what the current agenda is!! (to disarm everyone so they cant fight back and then bring in the nwo as nothing will be able to stop it)
I voted to stay at current levels of law, simply, because, on the federal level, it works. We can be well and properly armed under the current system. Certain state and municipal rules, that's another story. I do NOT feel states and cities and county s have any power to usurp the Constitution. Handgun bans, "assault weapons" bans, ridiculous waiting periods, etc, should ALL be declared unconstitutional, and done away with.
What part of "shall not be infringed" does a state or local government feel they are immune from recognizing?
Restating the question I posed earlier in another thread..
Why don't gun owners want more strict guidelines in order to set the bar higher for gun ownership? It would only make being a gun owner a more privileged, honored position. Instead you have gun shows throwing out guns to any wacko and idiot which in the long run may end up undoing the 2nd amendment. You would think the NRA and gun supporters would be anxious to close some of these loopholes and to, at the very least, make gun ownership as onerous as getting a drivers license.
Tackle that, and you take away a huge platform from which strict anti-gun advocates can deliver their message.
Restating the question I posed earlier in another thread..
Why don't gun owners want more strict guidelines in order to set the bar higher for gun ownership? It would only make being a gun owner a more privileged, honored position. Instead you have gun shows throwing out guns to any wacko and idiot which in the long run may end up undoing the 2nd amendment. You would think the NRA and gun supporters would be anxious to close some of these loopholes and to, at the very least, make gun ownership as onerous as getting a drivers license.
Tackle that, and you take away a huge platform from which strict anti-gun advocates can deliver their message.
Exercising civil rights is not a privilege. Guns right are civil rights.
When you finally figure out that the 2nd amendment is just as important as the 1st or 5th or 14th amendment you'll understand.
Exactly!
When any moderately competent machinist, with a lathe and milling machine from a well-known retail supplier of Chinese made tools and other goods, can turn out a fully automatic weapon in a matter of a day or so, and sell it for a lot of money on the black market, how you gonna stop it? The money would be tax free, as well!
But then, I guess the "War On Drugs" has worked so well at all levels of government, that some folks think a similar "War On Guns" will also work.
Actually, come to think on it, the results would more than likely be EXACTLY the same!
Which is to say; TOTAL FAILURE!
Given that the US Government is the largest trafficker of small arms in the world, adding firearms to their already lucrative monopoly on black market heroin, cocaine and marijuana seems a logical progression.
It's astounding to witness the extent to which the Government works to provide the very weapons it wishes to deny it's own people, to everyone else around the globe. There is an underlying but very clear statement being made by doing so. Uncle Sam wants EVERYONE to have an M16 and AR15 ... yet he doesn't want YOU to have even a revolver. And he's been working overtime lately trying to convince you to give em' up willingly, since he knows what trouble it will be to take them by force.
Luckily, as the poll indicates, the intelligent folks outnumber the nitwits by a very large 85% majority.
Restating the question I posed earlier in another thread..
Why don't gun owners want more strict guidelines in order to set the bar higher for gun ownership? It would only make being a gun owner a more privileged, honored position. Instead you have gun shows throwing out guns to any wacko and idiot which in the long run may end up undoing the 2nd amendment. You would think the NRA and gun supporters would be anxious to close some of these loopholes and to, at the very least, make gun ownership as onerous as getting a drivers license.
Tackle that, and you take away a huge platform from which strict anti-gun advocates can deliver their message.
Wben you used the word "privileged" in conjunction with firearms ownership, I ceased any serious consideration of your post. It's NOT a privilege to own firearms. Honor, I will go with, because I feel honored my forefathers have entrusted our rights to us a understood the importance of personal arms to a free people. Good company to be considered a part of.
I voted for allowing [law-abiding] citizens to own any weapons they choose, even fully automatic ones. They should focus on banning criminals, not guns, and the only way they'll be able to keep violent criminals from getting weapons illegally is to lock them up and throw away the key.
Indeed you can because the Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on the government not the people. Depending on the type of property ownership you have (for the actual land), you have every right to do so, because the people are not bound by the Bill of Rights, of course if you're NOT the property owner, then you may not have the right to prevent anyone entering under any circumstances with any item.
The question isn't are rights subject to reasonable restrictions, it is are rights subject to reasonable restrictions as defined by the government (whichever level).
Depends on whether you're the actual property owner with all rights and privileges thereof, if you pay (or could be liable to pay) property tax (in any way) rent or other payment to keep the property or are restricted in any way as to its use, it's not so cut and dried. Only if the property is owned full and without liability or restriction do you own that property (however the actual owner may permit you to set rules of entry).
Because Laws by definition are created by government, people set rules for their owned property
Which means that you're licensing individuals to possess firearms, thus "the right of the people shall not be infringed" is being voided, its not the right of the people, its the right of certain people who meet a criteria as defined in law, a law that is written by the government who are bound by the terms in the Bill of Rights.
By the same measure suppose you want to speak at a public gathering, would you think it acceptable that you would need a background check, NICS check, form 1234, and not be able to speak until all of these are completed? No that's patently absurd.
Because if you do not do these things there are penalties. In the example above suppose that you speak at a public gathering without the "background check, NICS check, form 1234" you were then arrested convicted of felony illegal speaking and no longer able to speak in public to more than 2 other people at the same time again for the rest of your natural.
However what an individual does on his property only affects those who choose to enter, what a government does in law affects all those who fall under it's jurisdiction. Surely even the most obtuse can see there is a world of difference in those two scenarios.
The babble isn't specifically right wing, nor does it really touch on the government coming to take everyone's guns away, more denying people to own firearms without adequate grounds. While the argument may be getting old, it only takes one situation where the government does indeed try to "take everyone's guns away" for the argument to be proven true (and did this not happen during Hurricane Katrina?). The converse can only be argued that the government has never taken everyone's guns away YET.
Very refreshing to read the logical thoughts of someone who is grounded in reality for a change.
I would like to add something regarding the statement you responded to that said " All rights in the Bill of rights are subject to reasonable restrictions" by saying N O N S E N S E ..!!!! This is the product of endless left wing Orwellian Double Talk .... and particularly with regard to the 2nd Amendment which specifically declares that the government "shall not" impose any such "restrictions", reasonable or otherwise. That, gentlemen is the meaning of the word "infringe", according to both general and legal dictionary definitions .... infringe: to limit or restrict. So, in plain old English, simple enough for anyone to understand, the 2nd Amendment reads: " ...... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not belimited or restricted".
This couldn't be more clear, could it? That the framers used the word infringe, rather than limit or restrict doesn't change the meaning of the language. There are no caveats or qualifiers here suggesting that it would be alright to "restrict or limit" a little bit ... or a reasonable amount ... it says SHALL NOT RESTRICT OR LIMIT. No ifs, no ands, and no buts.
Of course, when ever this is pointed out, one of the diversions always comes in .... "Well, you can restrict free speech ..... you can't yell fire in a movie theater!!!" Well, actually, you can. You can yell anything you want to yell ... it's the result of that which determines whether or not harm has been caused, and it is the harm caused that may be a crime, not the word fire. You could yell Tire, Tire, Tire ... is yelling tire a crime? Of course not ... but, if people stampede, and people become injured and it is determined that the person yelling Tire did this purposely to cause harm, knowing that tire sounds a lot like fire, then a crime may have been committed. It's about intent and result.
The exact same principle is involved with firearms ... possessing a fire arm should not EVER be a crime. Only unjustified harm caused to innocents by that firearm can be legitimately deemed a crime, except in the anti-American police states whose populations have been convinced that "Shall Not" really means "Can DO, if we give you an excuse".
But there is no excuse for such a poor understanding of the English language .... "NO" which is just another way of saying "Shall Not" means the same thing today as it did in the 1700's .... for those who think otherwise ... they just aren't thinking at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.