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.
You have no idea what you are talking about - the courts ruled that gun rights are protected. We have lots of gun regulations already. You talk about regulations and in the very same breath imply that we need to ban them. Criminals can get guns, even where they are essentially banned, because they do not care about the laws. We don't take away everyone's legal rights because a few are used for criminal activity. Just like we don't take away your right to drive because a few drive drunk. We punish those that break the law, not put a ban on everyone else for that law breaking of a few.
The anti gun groups seem to be desperate and are making stuff up, like the post I was responding to that said we had daily mass shootings and think "That's fine" in response. Or maybe like yours that think they can get a gun in a couple of hours by just breaking into cars. There are others that talk about assault weapon bans that really have no idea what they are, how they work, what constitutes an assault weapon or can explain why banning them will solve anything. I would guess most that are for all out bans have never shot a gun in their life.
" We have lots of gun regulations already". Over 20,00 I believe.
IMO, these have NOT been challenged due the the makeup the Supreme Court. People KNEW it was a waste of time.
NOW that the makeup has changed, I foresee MANY of these laws will NOW be challenged.
" We have lots of gun regulations already". Over 20,00 I believe.
IMO, these have NOT been challenged due the the makeup the Supreme Court. People KNEW it was a waste of time.
NOW that the makeup has changed, I foresee MANY of these laws will NOW be challenged.
It is very easy to show evidence that the Amendment has been altered...
Militia is forbidden as the police state has suppressed the free state, the privilege of citizens 21 years of age who are non-felons & mentally sane may keep but never bear the small arms government allows, this may be altered when government feels threatened.
All occurring after the Civil War and Lincoln killed, when the 2nd Amendment was presented as an actual endowed right.
1937 New London Texas natural gas explosion takes out a school. Legislation is passed ordering gas companies
to add an odor to their product to make it detectible.
1982 Tylenol was intentionally poisoned. Tamperproof packaging was implemented.
1995 Oklahoma City federal building bombed, sales and transfers of ammonium nitrate now regulated.
1996 ValuJet Flight 592 onboard fire caused by oxygen tanks stowed improperly onboard. Smoke detection
systems and restrictions on hazardous materials stowage now enforced.
Ted Kaczynski is captured, you now must legally declare hazardous materials shipped in mail, mail
can be searched, etc.
2001 Airplanes hijacked on Sept. 11th, box cutters used by terrorists to overtake crew. Passengers and
cargo must now pass thru x ray and human security to board aircraft.
Richard Reid "The Shoe Bomber" is caught. Shoes must now be removed prior to security check
at airports and x rayed for hazardous material screening.
2016 Caleb Schwab is decapitated on the Verruckt waterslide. Verruckt closed down immediately,
torn down and dismantled.
Those are just a few small examples I can think of. Changes that were enacted as a response to a clear and
present danger.
Your response is perhaps the best, and most accurate response ever given on this cd web site, and I commend you for it.
As I stated in my earlier post, I was looking for answers to why some gun enthusiast felt they needed these types of guns, and you have done a splendid job at explaining your personal reasons.
After reading the responses to my questions, and especially your response, I am ready to put forth what I feel is the correct response to once and for all, address this gun issue head on, and to be fair, while doing it.
Some will be in opposition to what I say, while some will agree.
If there is one thing in human nature that will never change, it is the fact that you can't please everyone.
Here is my solution:
First thing that needs to be addressed is the 2nd amendment to the constitution.
It needs to be repealed, and a new amendment written to take it's place.
I am well aware of what it takes for this action, and I would not rule it out, regardless of what political party is in office.
The new amendment would have many articles incorporated into it, unlike the two sentences of the current amendment.
In no particular order, except the first article,(Article numbers not included) I feel this is how a new 2nd amendment would read.
"Article 1. The right of adult citizens with in the United States to bear arms shall be the law of the land with some exceptions, those being, for persons other than military or law enforcement, a firearm that has the ability to fire more than two bullets consecutively will be illegal to own, manufacture, import, export, or otherwise be privately manufactured by any person.
The use of computer software in the manufacture of guns is unlawful.
Firearms manufactured, imported or exported, used for the military and law enforcement shall not be infringed in any way.
Gun sales will be administered by qualified, licensed dealers only.
All gun purchases are to be done in person.
It is illegal to purchase a gun through any electronic device, whatever that device may be.
A background check must be done before any and all gun purchases.
The time allotted for such a check would be within a period of ten days.
A longer time would mean the proposed sale would be null and void, and no purchase would take place.
No sale of guns will be made to anyone unless the person buying the gun has evidence that the person has passed a gun training course in a state approved facility, qualified and licensed by a state in the training and use of firearms.
A certificate will be issues by the facility upon successful completion of the course.
This certificate shall remain in the state records for a period of five years, and will stay in effect for that period of time.
Beyond that time, the gun owner will re-apply for a new certification, by attending another training course.
The states are required to forward all records of firearm sales once yearly to the federal government's ATF department.
All firearms held by citizens , must be kept in a secure location when not in use."
There are perhaps other articles that could be added, but I feel this "new" amendment covers most of what is needed in addressing this firearms issue.
If any reading this have additional points that were not addressed in this posting, please post them.
"Your response is perhaps the best, and most accurate response ever given on this cd web site, and I commend you for it."
And has been stated OVER AND OVER on ALL the many dozens of threads on guns over the years.
Yet, the SAME PEOPLE bring it up OVER AND OVER!
As they say, "You CAN'T reason with UN-reasonable people!"
Not my problem YOU have reading comprehension PROBLEM!
The words I used were in QUOTES, means the poster I responded to used them, not ME.
"There is indeed an assault weapon definition"
I SAID there is NO universal definitions and the ORIGINAL name was MADE UP BY A "JOURNALIST"
I SAID STATES have come with its OWN DEFINITION of the phrase.
Being you like to throw juvenile insults, I will lower myself your level. YOU are not as NEAR "educated' on the subject as you think you are!
"The public cannot tolerate forever the proliferation of firearms in conjunction with the proliferating numbers of criminals"
In REALITY if you look at the TOTAL number of guns Americans have and the TOTAL numb of gun crimes, you will find a much SMALLER % then you think and claim.
2nd vast MAJORITY of gun crimes are centralized in DEM CONTROLLED urban areas like Chicago, Balt, etc., so how does passing a law in, say Montana, do ANYTHING to "fix the problem" you claim exists in Montana, etc.?
To pass more restrictive gun laws, OVER 20,00 isn't enough, where gun crime is NOT a problem, is useless.
Lordy; a reminder is in order; this is your exact quote: "Let's start with there is NO SUCH THING as an "assault weapon". It is a MADE UP phrase BY A so-called "journalist"! Do you see the word "universal" in there anywhere???
I responded to your suggestion "there is no such thing as an assault weapon." with stating the FACT that a variety of legislators in an number of states have indeed defined them and that is what you're being tasked to deal with. I then went on to suggest those definitions were too all encompassing and covered everything from a plinker .22 to an anti-aircraft mount.
What part of any of that do you disagree with?
All of the nonsense regarding juvenile insults is just that. You're not lowering yourself to any level but your own.
I repeat: "The public cannot tolerate forever the proliferation of firearms in conjunction with the proliferating numbers of criminals." Doesn't matter whether it's confined to areas, doesn't matter if they're "Dem" controlled areas. You're tilting at windmills in your own mind and choosing me as your dart board.
Prove me wrong about the public perception. Prove me wrong that each and every one of these shooting events raises the level of public revulsion. How is it do you think all the press nonsense gets rebooted, rinsed, washed and repeated every couple of months?
Lastly; nowhere have I suggested the crafting of any new laws be agreed to. I have instead suggested firearms owners ignoring the tide with refusing any and all discussions and compromise will LOSE THE BATTLE.
Your response is perhaps the best, and most accurate response ever given on this cd web site, and I commend you for it.
As I stated in my earlier post, I was looking for answers to why some gun enthusiast felt they needed these types of guns, and you have done a splendid job at explaining your personal reasons.
After reading the responses to my questions, and especially your response, I am ready to put forth what I feel is the correct response to once and for all, address this gun issue head on, and to be fair, while doing it.
Some will be in opposition to what I say, while some will agree.
If there is one thing in human nature that will never change, it is the fact that you can't please everyone.
Here is my solution:
First thing that needs to be addressed is the 2nd amendment to the constitution.
It needs to be repealed, and a new amendment written to take it's place.
I am well aware of what it takes for this action, and I would not rule it out, regardless of what political party is in office.
The new amendment would have many articles incorporated into it, unlike the two sentences of the current amendment.
In no particular order, except the first article,(Article numbers not included) I feel this is how a new 2nd amendment would read.
"Article 1. The right of adult citizens with in the United States to bear arms shall be the law of the land with some exceptions, those being, for persons other than military or law enforcement, a firearm that has the ability to fire more than two bullets consecutively will be illegal to own, manufacture, import, export, or otherwise be privately manufactured by any person.
The use of computer software in the manufacture of guns is unlawful.
Firearms manufactured, imported or exported, used for the military and law enforcement shall not be infringed in any way.
Gun sales will be administered by qualified, licensed dealers only.
All gun purchases are to be done in person.
It is illegal to purchase a gun through any electronic device, whatever that device may be.
A background check must be done before any and all gun purchases.
The time allotted for such a check would be within a period of ten days.
A longer time would mean the proposed sale would be null and void, and no purchase would take place.
No sale of guns will be made to anyone unless the person buying the gun has evidence that the person has passed a gun training course in a state approved facility, qualified and licensed by a state in the training and use of firearms.
A certificate will be issues by the facility upon successful completion of the course.
This certificate shall remain in the state records for a period of five years, and will stay in effect for that period of time.
Beyond that time, the gun owner will re-apply for a new certification, by attending another training course.
The states are required to forward all records of firearm sales once yearly to the federal government's ATF department.
All firearms held by citizens , must be kept in a secure location when not in use."
There are perhaps other articles that could be added, but I feel this "new" amendment covers most of what is needed in addressing this firearms issue.
If any reading this have additional points that were not addressed in this posting, please post them.
Think on this for while. Apply EVER gun law to the 1st Amendment.
In order to buy a computer, etc. you have to PAY for a license, go through a background check, to see if you have ever acted in a "strange"(the definition is changed daily) way, to see if you can be trusted to used it and NOT HARM someone with what you say.
You have to wait 3 to 10 days BEFORE you can take possession.
If you want to buy a phone you can "conceal carry", there are all sorts of other things you must go through and PAY FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM.
And oh, your license is only good for 3 years. After that you have to APPLY for a renewal, and PAY AGAIN.
Etc., etc., etc.!
"First thing that needs to be addressed is the 2nd amendment to the constitution. It needs to be repealed, and a new amendment written to take it's place."
Why do think after all these DECADES it ha NEVER been tried?
If so many believe as you do, it should be a piece of cake.
It has NOT been tried because most KNOW it will NEVER happen.
Look at want happened after the clinton biden so called "assault weapon ban" was passed.
The repubs TOOK CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.
"All firearms held by citizens , must be kept in a secure location when not in use."
To REPEAT for the umpteenth time. It is 3:00 AM and you hear a window being broken. You don't DARE tune on a light, so you fumble with the keys to unlock the box the gun is in.
Some states REQUIRE the ammo be kept in a SEPARATE box under lock and key.
You stuff is in a closet on a shelf so the kids can't reach them.
NOW in the dark, while hearing footsteps coming down the hall, all in the DARK you have to find the gun, find the ammo, find the right key to the gun, the key to the ammo and load it BEFORE the bad guy gets to you or your kids.
I almost forgot, some states REQUIRE a trigger LOCK. Something else to think about in the dark under extreme pressure.
Things like this is why we CANNOT have "reasonable" "common sense" conversations about guns.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 03-26-2021 at 07:39 AM..
Say what? The mere existence of that list mentioned whereby a citizen of the U.S. can be prohibited from owing a firearm indicates that 2nd Amendment thingy is of no more import/force/effect than a PRIVILEGE to be modified from EVERYONE in the U.S. allowed to own a firearm to only those described by law.
In that respect the Constitution of The U.S. is no more sanctified than any other constitution or bill of rights in any other country if it can be altered from time to time by another elected or "appointed" body of legislators.
The "anti firearm" crowd are NOT anti-firearm to the extent they want all firearms, regardless of design intention of use eradicated from public hands.
Stop the "shotgunning" (pardon the pun) of all of those people desiring "reasonable restrictions" as altogether "anti-firearm".
The discussions that are reasonable and imperative are those such as defining exactly what constitutes the silly "assault weapon" moniker so often misused to describe everything from your grand-dad's Cooey tube fed semi-auto .22 that he used to keep the rats controlled in his grain bins, to a 40 MM Bofors anti-aircraft mount.
Reasonable discussions. The key to sensible restrictions.
The "anti-firearm crowd" includes people who want to "come for your AR-15s and AK47s" and people who do favor the elimination of the Second Amendment.
There may be people within the "anti-firearm crowd" who doesn't really want all guns to be banned, but a lot of these are the mom-and-pop, next-door-neighbor type who are otherwise harmless. They're everyday people, family-oriented, who wouldn't harm a fly. They probably mean well but they're oftentimes uninformed.
The policymakers, EveryTown, the Democrats in office who push gun control - they aren't unaware, but they aren't harmless.
The problem is that however nice it sounds when anyone speaking on anything wants "reasonable discussions," in pragmatic terms in this country, an "assault weapon" has been defined, in practical terms insofar legislation's effects on what the public can and cannot buy and own, as whatever legislators want an assault weapons ban to cover. Whether it was the 1994 version which did essentially nothing in terms of reducing gun violence or the ridiculous, on-steroids version we're seeing this year, an "assault weapon" is anything whoever is writing the bill which they hope will be signed into law is.
And that is basically any weapon which has certain features which to the ignorant citizen look terrifying, scary, and "military," but which in a real shooting scenario do nothing to increase its lethality. This is why rifles which are brown, with wood construction, and which one would immediately think of as a hunting rifle or a long gun owned by the pioneers who braved the west in generations past, don't evoke that kind of fear, and that's why the 2021 bill "exempts by name more than 2,200 guns for hunting, household defense or recreational purposes."
Given that these "non-military rifle" are exempted, but they too carry magazines, can fire the same ammunition as the "scary black military rifles" that Dianne Feinstein names by the hundreds in her bill, and given there are hunting rifles which use ammunition that is larger and which carry therefore greater destructive power, what's to say that a person of evil intent who wants to do a mass shooting won't simply pick up a "hunting rifle" which carries a magazine and use it?
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.
