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.
Where is a given limiting firearm ownership equates to punishment? Since when is "because I want to and I can't a punishment?
Limiting firearms ownership is a way of infringing on the rights that are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
You still driving without wearing your seat belt or have you succumbed to being "punished"?
Driving = privilege. Firearms ownership = right. Look up the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
People who make irresponsible choices will always be with us but perhaps limiting their ability to own a firearm might mean those irresponsible choices won't involve the use of a firearm.
If you can find a way to limit firearms ownership that only affects irresponsible people, I'm all in. However, I'm a responsible firearms owner who has never even been accused of being otherwise, and you're wanting to directly affect my ability to own a firearm.
Hey, Old Army Soldier, there are at least seven posts on this thread challenging your fallacious appeal to authority with the claim that this guy is somehow entitled to greater consideration of his opinion because of his military service.
I guess you don't have a response. You're all over getting in people's faces about what guns they own, if any, but you have utterly failed to respond to substantive posts with substantive responses.
For those of us who've also performed military service you are the very epitome of those we held in low regard within the military.
Your post is a veritable poster child for what's wrong with the military in that they spend hours changing your rationale for respect from the deeds of the man wearing the uniform to a priority placed on the uniform itself. FUBAR'D in the extreme.
You're what we used to call a "brownoser" or "bootlicker" in that you don't give a rat's patoot for the qualities imbued by the man wearing the uniform but for the uniform.
Military life teaches you many things and among them is that rank has obeyance first and foremost but for those of us who retain a bit of rationale individuality it also teaches you that "respect" is earned by the man and merely passing his grades to move up the rank does not a moral upstanding figure make.
By all means obey the rank when ordered to do something legal but reserve the right within yourself to independantly judge the character of the man and if he comes up wanting all the gold braid in the world does not warrant respecting him.
Hitler, Mussolinni, Albert Speer, Adolf Eichman, Dr Mengela, Lt Calley, Benedict Arnold, and indeed even IDI AMIN all wore uniforms with lot's and lot's of gold braid too.
Members of the military are merely employees of the government, civil servants if you will and do not sign a piece of paper stating anything about "a blank cheque" or "I knowingly, forthwith give up my life for my country and have sold all my worldly possessions and arranged my funeral for the first Thursday of October as a result of becoming a mechanic in a motor pool"
Limiting firearms ownership is a way of infringing on the rights that are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Driving = privilege. Firearms ownership = right. Look up the difference.
If you can find a way to limit firearms ownership that only affects irresponsible people, I'm all in. However, I'm a responsible firearms owner who has never even been accused of being otherwise, and you're wanting to directly affect my ability to own a firearm.
Nowhere did you address my query regarding you terming the registration and limiting the types as a punshment. You own a 105 howitzer? NOPE; but you want one and it's your right ~~ right?
I'm not and would never suggest you not being able to own a firearm. I do believe any fully automatic rifle should be limited. I don't give a rat's patoot if somone calls it an assualt weapon.
I do hwoever feel all of this angst over the NEED for a weapon has rotated 180 degrees from what the founding fathers intended as nowhere did they refer to protecting yourselves from your fellow neighbours and citizens.
All laws are formatted to encompass everyone so as to limit those irresponsible ones who'se behaviour necessitated the laws in the first place. There is no other way to form a law.
Nowhere did you address my query regarding you terming the registration and limiting the types as a punshment. You own a 105 howitzer? NOPE; but you want one and it's your right ~~ right?
A howitzer, by definition, is not a firearm. This discussion is about limiting the ownership of firearms, specifically those mentioned in Feinsteins' Folly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
I'm not and would never suggest you not being able to own a firearm. I do believe any fully automatic rifle should be limited. I don't give a rat's patoot if somone calls it an assualt weapon.
Once again, we're discussing Feinstein's Folly, not existing limitations. Fully automatic firearms are already regulated. Semi-automatic firearms, which make up the majority of the firearms in circulation today, should not be prohibited, nor do we need any more useless regulations on them. What needs to be done is the closing of a loophole or two and stricter background checks, as well as an overhaul of our Mental Health and Criminal Justice systems to keep them from allowing violent offenders or potential violent offenders to mix with the general public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
I do hwoever feel all of this angst over the NEED for a weapon has rotated 180 degrees from what the founding fathers intended as nowhere did they refer to protecting yourselves from your fellow neighbours and citizens.
The founding fathers made no distinction about what the firearms could be used for, they just said that our right to own them shall not be infringed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
All laws are formatted to encompass everyone so as to limit those irresponsible ones who'se behaviour necessitated the laws in the first place. There is no other way to form a law.
You're missing the point. It is not the government's job to mandate common sense. It is our responsibility to learn the correct way to handle something that is potentially dangerous so that we can exercise our rights in a responsible manner. This is why I refresh my training every year and practice firearms safety and use on a regular basis.
If you want to go after the irresponsible gun owners, do so. Legislate penalties for anyone who uses a firearm in an irresponsible manner, or allows their firearm to be used in an irresponsible manner. Don't base legislation on the fact that a miniscule percentage of legal firearms owners make a bad decision at some point.
It kind of reminds me of the marine, Gary Stein that was discharged several months ago, I guess we should also respect his message.
Still have to wonder about the ability of someone that was in 8 years and still a corporal.
Quote:
Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.
Sgt. Gary Stein was given an "other-than-honorable" discharge for using his Facebook page to criticize President Barack Obama, said Capt. Brian Block, a spokesman for the Marines. We received thousands of comments from our readers, with many of them saying that a soldier cannot criticize the president any more than an employee should publicly critique their boss or CEO
First off I agree with the spirit of the statement. Second I don't think that someone who served in the military has any more weight or their opinion is more important than anyone Else's. People who served in Vietnam did not keep any of us free, they fought at the behest of the Government and many died needlessly. That said I do take his point, I thought we as gun owners could maybe work with the other side to come together on common ground like the private sale no back ground check loop hole. But you give an inch and they take a mile. Her bill which she has learned a lot from her mistakes on the last two bills, 1994 crime bill and the California assault weapons ban, would affectively ban all semi autos and mags over 10 rounds.
Its sad but you can see her salivating at the momentum of the anger over the deaths of the kids. I now have reversed myself and say no new gun laws. None. Sorry but when you start to go over the top and try to ban all guns which is what she wants I am out. the other thing is that the house will not even put it up for a vote for at least two years from tomorrow.
A howitzer, by definition, is not a firearm. This discussion is about limiting the ownership of firearms, specifically those mentioned in Feinsteins' Folly.
Once again, we're discussing Feinstein's Folly, not existing limitations. Fully automatic firearms are already regulated. Semi-automatic firearms, which make up the majority of the firearms in circulation today, should not be prohibited, nor do we need any more useless regulations on them. What needs to be done is the closing of a loophole or two and stricter background checks, as well as an overhaul of our Mental Health and Criminal Justice systems to keep them from allowing violent offenders or potential violent offenders to mix with the general public.
The founding fathers made no distinction about what the firearms could be used for, they just said that our right to own them shall not be infringed.
You're missing the point. It is not the government's job to mandate common sense. It is our responsibility to learn the correct way to handle something that is potentially dangerous so that we can exercise our rights in a responsible manner. This is why I refresh my training every year and practice firearms safety and use on a regular basis.
If you want to go after the irresponsible gun owners, do so. Legislate penalties for anyone who uses a firearm in an irresponsible manner, or allows their firearm to be used in an irresponsible manner. Don't base legislation on the fact that a miniscule percentage of legal firearms owners make a bad decision at some point.
I agree with all of your very respectfull and reasonable responses.
When faced with your types of rejoinders that fairly force one to think about your points to do them justice, I find myself singling you out as representative of the people who I feel should NOT be impacted by Feinstein's proposal.
The very great pity with this though, is you undoubtedly will be "lumped in".
Knowing that any proposed legislation is in for a very intensive process of scrutiny as a result of a galvanized populace; I feel no one is going to force anything on anybody in the short term.
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.
