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.
got mine as gift from co workers-- one day do want to get a conceal but-- I am really just keeping it for the zombies - oh and I am buying a raffle ticket for a long gun-- what gun laws?
I do.
I am a veteran, a gun owner, and a Republican Trump supporter.
But I feel that there are many types of guns out there that simply should not be available to anyone but law enforcement.
If it ever comes up for a vote I will inform my Republican congressman and senator that I prefer to limit the types of firearms that are made available to the general public.
The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment were students of history and government. They spent decades studying many governments and many philosophies of armed citizens vs. citizens restricted from bearing arms. And they concluded that if govt were given the slightest authority to restrict its subjects from owning and carrying weapons such as guns, that government would invariably expand its authority, placing more and more restrictions upon its subjects "for their own good".
And they realized that those restrictions would do little more than disarm the law-abiding people who were not the ones causing problems. The criminals and despots who WERE causing the problems, would remain relatively unaffected, since they rarely obeyed such restrictions while everybody else did.
So the wrote a Constitution for the newly-formed country, with an explicit command flatly forbidding any government in it from restricting people's ownership and carrying of guns. They even provided a reason: Because an armed, disciplined population of ordinary citizens was necessary for freedom and security.
Today (and for many decades now), legislative do-gooders who haven't studied the history of such restrictions, keep assuming they know better than the legislators who instituted that flat ban on govt trying to control guns. And then they consistently prove themselves wrong, by making such "gun control" laws anyway... which merely enable the criminals and despots to do what they wanted without resistance from the law-abiding citizens.
Haven't we had enough? Isn't it time we gave back the rights of the law-abiding, to defend themselves and to sufficiently intimidate criminals that the criminals no longer even try to victimize us, knowing they are likely to get resisted, injured, or even killed?
Even if most law-abiding people don't bother carrying, it's likely that some of the people in a crowd would. And the criminals would know it. I suggest that this would result in far fewer (though not zero) crimes even being attempted.
And that would be a far better result than the "gun controllers" have ever achieved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Yea, I get this--an oppressive government with arms greater than you well necessarily take over whatever you do. This is a separate issue.
Plainly you missed my point.
The fact that a govt with even a little authority to decide who can and can't own or carry a gun, will always expand that authority and disarm more and more of its subjects, is EXACTLY the reason why a citizen today can choose a large-capacity magazine or a semi-automatic weapon.
It is hardly "a separate issue". It is THE issue.
Government cannot be allowed even the slightest say in who can carry or what weapon(s) its citizens choose. Because it will always abuse that authority, and society will become less well off as a direct result.
If govt has no such authority at all, and citizens could own and carry without limit, there will be some criminals who take advantage and use guns on citizens.
If govt DOES have such authority, it will restrict citizens more and more... but the criminals will not obey such restrictions, and will have far more chances to use guns on citizens.
The govt gun-controllers are imagining some pipe dreams where they can restrict the bad guys' guns. But even as they try again and again, it become obvious that their pipe dream is just that. Their restrictions never work. The only result is, criminals become more and more able to abuse the citizens.
Legislation cannot possibly reduce the crimes that criminals use guns to commit. The best govt can do, is get out of the way, let the citizens provide for their own defense, and settle for the lower numbers of crimes that will result. It's the best result they will ever get.
I do.
I am a veteran, a gun owner, and a Republican Trump supporter.
But I feel that there are many types of guns out there that simply should not be available to anyone but law enforcement.
If it ever comes up for a vote I will inform my Republican congressman and senator that I prefer to limit the types of firearms that are made available to the general public.
So you support the idea that government should have the authority to decide what guns we can and can't own and carry?
I've made several posts detailing why no govt should have any such authority.
I'm a gun owner with multiple guns. I like to shoot, I like this culture. It's something very unique in the world.
But, I want that the right to bear arms will be granted only to people who:
1. Pay income taxes.
2. Never had any issue with the law.
3. Only citizens.
4. Passed psychological tests.
5. Over 25 years old.
And those people will be allowed to have automatic, concealed, standard/high capacity in all USA, including CA and Chicago.
All "Gun free" zone should be canceled.
I'm a gun owner with multiple guns. I like to shoot, I like this culture. It's something very unique in the world.
But, I want that the right to bear arms will be granted only to people who:
1. Pay income taxes.
2. Never had any issue with the law.
3. Only citizens.
4. Passed psychological tests.
5. Over 25 years old.
And those people will be allowed to have automatic, concealed, standard/high capacity in all USA, including CA and Chicago.
All "Gun free" zone should be canceled.
I have two problems with this. The first is the 25 year old age limit. I'm sick and tired of 16yr olds getting charged as adults, but when an 18yr old adult wants to buy a handgun, they cannot. You're either an adult at age 18, or NOT. You can't have it both ways.
The second issue is the gun free zone. Yes, they are stupid, but we should respect the rights of property owners. If a store owner does not want firearms on the premises, that is their right, but it's also my right to shop elsewhere.
I'm a gun owner with multiple guns. I like to shoot, I like this culture. It's something very unique in the world.
But, I want that the right to bear arms will be granted only to people who:
1. Pay income taxes.
2. Never had any issue with the law.
3. Only citizens.
4. Passed psychological tests. 5. Over 25 years old.
And those people will be allowed to have automatic, concealed, standard/high capacity in all USA, including CA and Chicago.
All "Gun free" zone should be canceled.
Hell, most of our troops in the military that are killing our enemies are in the 17 to 25 age group.
The Laws are just fine to be and the only problem is criminals not respecting the law.
This whole thing is way over regulated and NY and Ca are actually impeding on peoples right and in violation of the Second Amendment.
It is almost impossible to get a CCW in Ca. and they do not even respect other states laws or permits.
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.
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.
