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.
My son will be 13 next week, he has been shooting since he was big enough to hold a gun. He is starting Steel Challenge this year with handguns and has been competing in youth smallbore with rifles for two years already. his raw talent for the shooting sports borders on prodigy level. We have a LOT of fun and the older shooters at the matches are like favorite aunts and uncles to him. Hmmm, and fancy this...we aren't neo Nazis, or "white separatists" nor do we goose step around our house calling for the violent overthrow of the government. When we are not shooting we play music, ride horses, and go fishing. (He is not named after some leader of the Third Reich either). getting youngsters into the shooting sports is a good thing and is no more abnormal than little leauge baseball
See? Folks seem to think that lack of owning a handgun means one cannot defend the hearth and home. That just ain't so.
It seems to me that a lot of religious practices are banned, despite the First Amendment. So the second amendment concerning firearms is not sacrosanct and can involve prior restraint.
I dont know what you're talking about. America's gun policy has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the western world. I'v never heard of a major pro gun group getting involved in international lobbying.
The NRA has been involved with several efforts to prevent gun restrictions in international treaties and in foreign countries, like Brazil, under the auspices that they might tangengtially effect US gun ownership.
and here the NRA, as so many on CD have done with British pro-fox hunting demonstrations, takes an Austrialian rally for tougher crime laws and says "see Austrilians want guns for defense" When they aired this in Australia it pissed off the organizer and many of his supporters who are quite anti-gun.
You fail to note that this comes as a response to someone from the UK coming into a gun control debate to praise their country. It is used often as an example as what can happen here, rightfully so too since its a fact that millions of UK citizens had their rightfully owned & bought personal property confiscated by the Govt.
No it comes in response to someone from the US posting a video in The British called---they want their guns back thread. or something to that effect. Usually the argument I see is that gun nuts are telling Britons what their laws should be and that their government is opressing them and Britons responding we like our gun laws thank you very much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Theres a very big difference between Chicago & the UK. The citizens of Chicago are American & have the exact same rights subjected to the exact same limitations as those of South Dakota. If its ok to ban them in Chicago, then why not south Dakota?
Do you feel this way about the entire constitution & the other civil rights protected in it?
How about if New Orleans decided that black folks had to be indoors before dark? Or they passed a law banning Masques?
The idea that a single state or worse a municipality has the power to ignore civil rights is pretty disturbing, yet, it is at the center of most gun control. By allowing such incursions on our civil rights people are setting the stage for other atrocities.
I'm a person who thinks that CCW should be nationwide. A permit itself shouldn't even be required, if you can be trusted to own it you certainly should be trusted to carry it from place to place at will, it is yours. But if a permit must be required it should be like a drivers license in that every state needs to honor it.
Obama, having voiced that opinion & being from Illinois, which has no CCW, clearly lied when he swore to uphold the constitution a few weeks ago. He is entitled to his opinion, but as President, heck, as a Senator, he was & is bound by the constitution. His ability to ignore it at will, not in abstract ways but directly voting, lobbying & working against it & American freedom say alot about him, not good either.
But, I'm hoping that it was all rhetoric to ensnare the love & support of the clueless.
First restricting the rights of African Americans is a 14th amendment issue and gun rights are largely a 2nd amendment issue your example is like compairng and is apples to oranges. The only arguments I have heard for the 14th Amendement being for gun ownership was to gurentee blacks could own guns like whites did. Most interpretations of the 14th amendment say however, that if a law applies to everyone and is not set to target a specific gender, religion, ethnicity it is legitimate.
I consider my self to be a pragmatist. Shall issue CCW seems to be right for North Carolina, it is favored by most people here so over all I see it as a positive. However, I am not so deluded as to think all places are like North Carolina. Some places want May issue and No CCW and that should be respected. The problem is the NRA wants to go in and imposse their gun laws on places like DC, Illinois, California, Hawaii etc. that clearly do not want them. I do see it as an issue of rights, states rights and local rights for self determination and while the supreme could has struct down gun bans, they most certianly allow for states to decide their own laws as is a power reserved for them in the constitution. This is why Obama is upholding the constitution he is protecting states rights to set their own laws in areas not covered by the constitution in accordance with Scalia's opinion for the majority in Heller v. DC. It would be a massive invasion of federal power to have the federal government mandate CCW or ban CCW for every state.
There is no law higher than the constitution at least in the US. This is just nonsense.
Certainly there are higher laws. washington, where the Constitution is, is near sea level, so there are plenty of higher laws. I sit at around 360 feet above sea level, so all the laws in my building are higher than the Constitution.
In some states they hunt deer with rifles. In many states, shotguns are required because of the density of the populace. [For the uninitiated, shotgun slugs travel far less than rifle bullets.]
So, think! Firing a handgun in an apartment building (and missing!) has far different consequences than firing a handgun at an intruder of a farmhouse. But some folks don't want to input the difference.
See? Folks seem to think that lack of owning a handgun means one cannot defend the hearth and home. That just ain't so.
It seems to me that a lot of religious practices are banned, despite the First Amendment. So the second amendment concerning firearms is not sacrosanct and can involve prior restraint.
Like I warned, the debate is getting nutty!
I don't see anyone but the anti-gun peeps getting "nutty" in this discussion. Methinks your seeing what you want to see and not what actually is. Nobody is yowling about marching on Washington brandishing weapons and I see no insinuations of violent tendencies from any firearms owners in here at all. What I do see are firearms enthusiasts who wish to practice our sport in peace. Also, despite the howls of protest to the contrary, the Constitution DOES gaurantee the right to do so. Just to clarify the Second Ammendment is NOT about hunting, target shooting or even home defense. It is about the citizens of this country having the means at their disposal, should the need arise, to band together in forebearance of tyranny and oppression. Read what the framers wrote, read what they thought about "gun control". There are limits as to the types of weapons the general citizenry can have, nobody is advocating that We the People need to have a stash of Claymore mines, LAW's, or heavy caliber automatic weapons just because. The Bill of Rights does, however, grant us the RIGHT to small arms, including non-military configured service rifles.When the Framers wrote the Bill of Rights these were the types of firearms they felt that our citizens NEEDED to have, and they also felt very strongly that our populace needed to have a level of proficiency with arms as well. Not just a right to own weapons of said type , but with that RIGHT comes a DUTY to be proficient and to hold a state of readiness. Oh my, such "revolutionary" ideas! Gasp...such "nuttyness". Lol lest we forget , our founding fathers were Revolutionaries, rebels against established authority. major GASP...without such "nuttyness" this country would not even exist as it does. We would no doubt not even be having debates such as this because we would not even have the right to speak freely and without fear of government retribution. Before words like "nuts" "radicals" and such get slung around by all the anti Second Ammendment folks , they should perhaps go back and refresh their memory with a 5th grade history book...and not a revisionist one either. What would all those "nutjobs" like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, John Hancock, and George Washington think, I wonder, of all the calls for the disarming of our citizens?
Last edited by NVplumber; 02-02-2009 at 10:45 AM..
Reason: spelling
The left simply feels that we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves if attacked by a criminal. That goes double if the criminal is a minority, triple if illegal and quadruple if the victim is white.
With the left, it's always the victims fault or racism caused the criminal to commit said crime. Therefore, in a liberals mind someone defending themselves against a criminal is always wrong.
Someone could break into your house, beat you black and blue, shoot your children, rape your wife and steal everything you own and some liberal wingnut would defend the scumbag.
Look at how many idiots tried to save that Tookie Williams guy in California. Pure nonsense. What about the victims?
My rights > you rights once you attack or threaten me or my family.
Somebody would defend the scumbag because all criminals have a right to be defended. Now who would defend me if I wasted the creep as soon as his intent became apparent?
What I do see are firearms enthusiasts who wish to practice our sport in peace.
Obama said he was leaving gun owners peace. It did not keep the NRA from filling its 'Depends' tho'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber
Just to clarify the Second Ammendment is NOT about hunting, target shooting or even home defense. It is about the citizens of this country having the means at their disposal, should the need arise, to band together in forebearance of tyranny and oppression.
Then it should not be applied to handguns. Or handgun bans ought to be constitutional. But Heller was decided, at least in part, on home protection grounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber
Read what the framers wrote, read what they thought about "gun control".
I read what they wrote about quartering soliders in my home.
The 'nuttiness' comes in the shrill volume used by the gun nuts. They will admit to very little middle ground: Either you agree with them completely or the NRA will lable a person a 'gun grabber'.
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.
Gun Effect Differences!!!
major GASP...without such "nuttyness" this country would not even exist as it does. We would no doubt not even be having debates such as this because we would not even have the right to speak freely and without fear of government retribution. Before words like "nuts" "radicals" and such get slung around by all the anti Second Ammendment folks , they should perhaps go back and refresh their memory with a 5th grade history book...and not a revisionist one either. What would all those "nutjobs" like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, John Hancock, and George Washington think, I wonder, of all the calls for the disarming of our citizens?
