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.
Inferring that the authors of the Constitution were including nukes and rockets as "arms" when penning the Second Amendment is what is dumb. It apparently went right over your head, too.
So then people should only be able to use muskets, single-ball pistols and cannons?
So then people should only be able to use muskets, single-ball pistols and cannons?
Should you only be able to use quill pens and manually operated presses?
Technology changes and it's for SCOTUS to decide how that fits into a modern society. A reasonable limitation IMO would be that if law enforcement can justify it so can the citizen.
Are some on the pro 2nd amendment side really over reacting? On the surface, sure. A majority of even Democrats don't want an outright gun ban. But the talk of a real outright gun ban has been increasing and it isn't even a fringe idea. I don't know, but I imagine let us say in the 70s, only the extreme liberals would vocally call for a gun ban(like a hippie artist in San Francisco). But now there are moderate Democrats in blue collar suburbia that want a gun ban. I don't know if the actual percentage of citizens who want a ban has increased, but the topic isn't a fringe element.
No data to support my claim I admit, but speaking with old timers in the firearms community, they don't recall this type of talk happening before the 1990s. They tell me even there most liberals friends simply were not concerned with gun control, it was way down on the list.
Sort of off topic but I hope you can see the relation. I am pro Trump but I am sort of glad to see some liberals get really scared of him and want to arm up. Why you ask? Because it shows that no matter who you are, you should be able to at least arm yourself if you really believe their is a literal Nazi Dictator in office, obviously I don't think Trump is but I get that some people do. I hope that as time passes, these liberals who were scared come to to realize that maybe the anti Obama crowd did over react, but better safe than sorry. Not that Trump is the evil dictator nor Obama was, or the next President will be. As far as I am concerned, with so many armed Americans, no one would dare even try. I mean who would sign up to be on the losing team of that battle?
I find it interesting how sensible gun control pushed by Democrats because gun violence is a serious issue in America and we should do what we can to save lives is seen by conservatives as an all-out assault on Constitutional rights in order for the government to become tyrannical. As apparently, Joe Blow from Kansas is going to be able to stop the strongest army in the world from vaporizing them and their hunting rifle off the face of the planet if that ever happened.
I'll just never understand the priorities of your average conservative gun owner. Free speech can go to hell, but god forbid anyone touch your death sticks.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,852 posts, read 3,275,497 times
Reputation: 9123
Its a small drip. Little by little take away certain rights. It will take years. Eventually after of years of whittling away the rights have been severely limited. My point is I want to be able to protect my family. If there is anyone who tries to hurt my family I want to stop the threat. If I want a Glock with a 30 round magazine then that's my right. I don't want some politician running around to try and take away my rights.
Yeah, but there are no crimes committed with guns in the....oh wait...
Why is it that the folks telling us that we shouldn't be allowed to have firearms always seem to have lots of people with firearms close by them?
Britain has significantly lower gun deaths than the United States. In terms of being killed or injured by guns, people are better off in just about every single Western nation than the US. 300+ million guns have not made people safer. Anyone with even the barest understanding of probability knows this.
The most ironic thing is that all the calls of "I have guns to protect myself and my family" is literally because the country is full of other people with guns. When you say this, you're basically admitting that gun culture has made you and your family less safe.
As a firm believer in the 2nd A, and as a Liberal, I will say that yes some would do exactly that, Hillary said she thought the Australian method was a good method and that did require that most had to turn in their firearms and those that did keep theirs had to jump through all kinds of stupid hoops to do so legally. As for banning certain kinds of Firearms, it is nonsense plain and simple, AR's are not the weapon of choice in most shootings, hence any affect would be extremely minimal, as it was when we had such bans. The Goal of the far left is to eventually ban all firearms except a few highly regulated hunting rifles, and that simply will not happen in the USA, and the main reason is Americans would not comply, make them all illegal and people will ignore the law completely and no the government does not have the ability to go house to house searching them out, one would not make it past the first home where I live before they would be in a major gunfight and with people that are as well armed if not better than those doing the searches. Simply a wet dream of those that actually cannot see that the problem is not guns, the problem is People. Oh, I have never belonged to the NRA, but while they may go a little too far in the rhetoric some times they also do a good job of fighting for the American People to support their right to bear arms.
I agree with you mostly, except in this case I don't think the anti-gun "far left" is the entire Democratic Party.
First of all, I don't think all or even most Democrats are anti-gun, not even Obama. Hillary was, being that she referenced the Australian policy which is every American gun owner's worst nightmare. The slippery slope argument that says background checks is the first step on the path to total confiscation holds about as much water as those who say gay marriage is the first step to legal pedophilia and bestiality.
You make a good point about assault rifles. I think the entire thing is political because AR-15 is a "scary looking" gun so banning it would make the anti-gun far left think that something is being done when it really would have minimal effect. AR-15s really weren't even that popular until they started talking about banning them, and then every gun enthusiast had to get one.
I really wish the Democrats would drop this as a political issue. It's one of those issues that energizes a certain segment of their base but overall hurts the image of the party with people whose votes they need.
A majority of even Democrats don't want an outright gun ban. .
The issue becomes if you give an inch they take a mile. Here in PA they passed background checks in the late 90's and included in that legislation was specific wording there would be no gun registry built. It would have never passed otherwise. Despite this the State Police used those checks to build a gun registry successfully arguing in court since it did not include all guns it was not a registry.
Forgive me for skeptical about "reasonable" gun legislation.... I'm willing to compromise and what that means is I'll give the gun grabbers something and they will give me something in return. Background checks seems to be a big ticket item for them, fine let's do it.
It must be instant and done at the gun store, shouldn't take more than 5 minutes.
Nominal fee to cover expenses, no more than $5 and can only be charged once annually.
The only records that can be retained is what gun store sold the gun, they will need a warrant to get those records from the gun store for who purchased it.
It will not apply to private sales.
In return for this background check I get concealed carry reciprocity nationwide.
Forgive me for skeptical about "reasonable" gun legislation.... I'm willing to compromise and what that means is I'll give the gun grabbers something and they will give me something in return. Background checks seems to be a big ticket item for them, fine let's do it.
It must be instant and done at the gun store, shouldn't take more than 5 minutes.
Nominal fee to cover expenses, no more than $5 and can only be charged once annually.
The only records that can be retained is what gun store sold the gun, they will need a warrant to get those records from the gun store for who purchased it.
It will not apply to private sales.
In return for this background check I get concealed carry reciprocity nationwide.
So then people should only be able to use muskets, single-ball pistols and cannons?
>>>>> No, they should be able to use what are the standard firearms of the day. 1700s meant muskets and rifles, today it means automatic weapons IF they pass a background check and get a license and permit.
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.
