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.
Your statement makes perfect, logical sense. The problem is, gun control advocates do not see the Second Amendment in terms of what it was actually drafted for, to protect against tyranny, so your logic is wasted on them.
Agreed, the sole real response talked about the constitution and democracy with no sense of irony, and failed to recognize that "The Constitution" is inherently un-democratic, and is a safeguard against the largesse of democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
They see that view as radical and extreme, and mainly view the 2A in the context of duck hunting.
Yes well, I've already come to terms with the fact that I'm probably on 25.5 watchlists already I guess I'll find out exactly how many some day.
Sorry but the courts just don't deal with those issues in the same way they deal with enumerated Constitutional Rights, and that's my point..
They deal with those issues every day whether it be profiling or discrimination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
As I said, I don;t agree with that either..
Maybe you are consistent but it was low level news until they wanted to use the TWL to ban guns, how many TWL threads have we seen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Actually it has always been an issue. Groups like the ACLU have been challenging it for years, with some success.
Yes the ACLU has challenged TWL as was the case with Guantanamo but I find it amusing how few cared on here were so interested in the constitution until it involves guns.
Maybe you are consistent but it was low level news until they wanted to use the TWL to ban guns, how many TWL threads have we seen?
I know that half a dozen or more people who have posted that are Pro-Gun and against the TWL/General Civil Liberties erosion. There are also half a dozen or more people who I probably get as frustrated as you about their one dimensional view of the world.
Also in response, how many people have we seen that are against the NFL and TWL, who now are looking at it more favorably since it's being tied towards use to restrict the ownership of guns? Just sayin' it's not one sided.
That all said, dropping the TWL which is a hot potato in certain circles into gun control which is a hot potato in other circles has produced an even hotter potato where some people are throwing off their previous concerns to accept it's proposed use in this area, and others who are expressing concerns where none were expressed when it was used against other rights and liberties previously.
This is a good point. I agree that the 2nd Amendment serves a good purpose, and the historically-rooted prevalence of guns in this country has benefits that probably out-weigh the costs. (I really don't know enough of the data or arguments to have a strong position, either way, on the cost/benefit balance of having lots of guns in our society, but at the moment I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you on this.)
Nevertheless, I still think that Obama's EOs do more good than harm, and I would hope that future presidents don't undo them. I think the basic goal is a good one: Ensure that responsible gun-owners can get guns, while finding ways to limit the easy access of guns to people who, by any reasonable standard, should not be allowed to have them. I think that tracking and registering guns is not unreasonable. Whenever an unregistered gun turns up, it should be registered and tracked, and all new guns manufactured should be registered and tracked. Buying, selling, or even owning an unregistered gun should be illegal. Military types of weapons capable of killing lots of people in a few seconds should be extra-carefully regulated. Guns at home need to be kept away from children, and if this means that local law enforcement needs to occasionally review your gun-safety procedures, then so be it.
I appreciate how you wrote this post. No name calling. No personal attacks, etc. therefore I will attempt to respond with the same respect.
"I think that tracking and registering guns is not unreasonable." In every country that has done this it has led to confiscation. I DON'T trust the dems who are on record for wanting to do just that.
"Whenever an unregistered gun turns up, it should be registered and tracked,"
ALL guns sold legally ALREADY have serial number on them which can be tracked from the manufacturer to each and every owner.
Criminals DESTROY the serial number so they CANNOT be tracked. NOTHING will change these 2 facts.
"Military types of weapons capable of killing lots of people in a few seconds should be extra-carefully regulated."
NONE of these guns are available to the general public
"Guns at home need to be kept away from children," Safety should ALWAYS come first.
Define "children"
There are cases where 11 year old's have grabbed dad's gun and shot intruders BECAUSE they were TAUGHT gun safety and HOW to use the gun properly.
Do most people "lockup" their knives, the Clorox, tools, hammers, chain saws, etc?
A gun is just a tool.
"Children" are taught what NOT to touch in the house and garage. Guns fall into this category.
" and if this means that local law enforcement needs to occasionally review your gun-safety procedures, then so be it"
I am truly surprised by this statement considering how civil and reasonable you have been on this subject.
Hoe do you intend this to happen? A surprise search?
Are they going to look at the smoke detector, the knives, the Clorox , etc.?
I believe this suggestion would NEVER pass the Constitutionality test.
Ah, an age-old argument. Imagine what would happen, if we take out our high-crime areas from the statistics. The murder rate would be basically 0.
Pockets of our urban areas look like the third world. The vast vast majority of violent crimes occur there. This phenomenon doesn't exist in Western Europe (yet). Where I live my chances of being a victim of a violent crime is 1 in 774. The Illinois state average is 1 in 263. Does this mean that there is no need for me to have a firearm in my home just in case? Of course not. Most of the neighbors near my house have some type of firearm, be a shotgun, long rifle, or hand gun. I have all of the above I would rather have one and never need it, then need it one day, and not have it.
I appreciate how you wrote this post. No name calling. No personal attacks, etc.
This is virtually always my style in every post everywhere, and in real life conversations as well. For some reason I can almost always see both sides of an argument, and I rarely feel confident that I am 100% correct. This issue, for example, is one that I have not studied, so I frankly just don't know much about it. My primary purpose in these forums is to learn new ideas and perspectives, which would be pointless if I were completely unwilling to change my beliefs when exposed to new evidence and solid arguments. But I am, nevertheless, somewhat stubborn, as you will see.
Quote:
Criminals DESTROY the serial number so they CANNOT be tracked. NOTHING will change these 2 facts.
Obviously you are right about this. Legitimate guns will get stolen and become part of the black market. I assume there are sting operations wherein agents posing as criminals seek black market guns, arrest the sellers, and destroy the guns. (Can the agents also pose as sellers and arrest people who are trying to buy untrackable guns?) I don't know how much money is spent on these operations, but I'd say we should probably spend a lot more. Anyone wanting to buy or sell an unmarked gun should feel that there is an extremely high risk involved. I'd suggest that the ATF forget about trying to bust people for buying/selling pot, and divert all of these resources to black market guns.
Quote:
"Military types of weapons capable of killing lots of people in a few seconds should be extra-carefully regulated."
NONE of these guns are available to the general public
This is good to hear. Somehow I got the impression that there was some debate about this. If these types of weapons are always already illegal for private citizens to own, then I have nothing to complain about here.
Quote:
Define "children"
There are cases where 11 year old's have grabbed dad's gun and shot intruders BECAUSE they were TAUGHT gun safety and HOW to use the gun properly.
Do most people "lockup" their knives, the Clorox, tools, hammers, chain saws, etc?
This is another good point. If there are guns in the home, children should definitely be taught gun safety. I don't know where the age cut-off should be, but it seems to me that an 11 year old would be at far higher risk from gun accidents than from intruders in the home. But I don't really know what the statistics are on this.
Quote:
Are they going to look at the smoke detector, the knives, the Clorox , etc.?
I believe this suggestion would NEVER pass the Constitutionality test.
I wish that ALL parents would take classes related to child care and safety. Parenting is an important job in which children's lives are literally at risk Perhaps we can't legally force parents to take classes but we should offer incentives and make sure that all new parents have easy access to these classes.
Look you ignorant people.
The 2nd amendment only exists and language like, "Shall not be infringed", used to secure it for ever(cannot be amended), is because governments cannot be trusted to secure and maintain your freedom(See, federal government today). History proved they take and take and take. BAM... they right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Patriots, used the very weapons the British had, to wage war to free themselves from oppression.
The Southern states that would not ratify an amendment before the Civil War, were forced to use the very weapons the militias of the Northern States had, that Lincoln summoned to take rights.
Just think if the Indians, had the very weapons the white man had.
Just think if the Africans, had the very weapons used to place them in bondage.
Today, the federal government has said to the people, you will not have the weapons we have. We will have more power over the people, from now on.
The Federal Government could not afford another Civil War. They may have lost the next one, before they disarmed the people.
They had to disarm the people, after they took their booze and jacked with the banking and monetary system, confiscating gold.(Yes, Civil War was brewing)
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.
I guess I'll find out exactly how many some day.
I would rather have one and never need it, then need it one day, and not have it.
