sourceninja
Diamond Member
- Mar 8, 2005
- 8,805
- 65
- 91
What is frustrating is that I ALREADY have a license to carry a firearm. So now I need ANOTHER license to own a firearm?
Owning is different then carrying. What does the government need to know who owns a firearm? You already have to pass a background check to buy a firearm. You already need a license to carry a firearm. This is pointless and could turn me into a criminal by simply waiting too long to approve this license.
But I doubt this will happen.
Owning is different then carrying. What does the government need to know who owns a firearm? You already have to pass a background check to buy a firearm. You already need a license to carry a firearm. This is pointless and could turn me into a criminal by simply waiting too long to approve this license.
But I doubt this will happen.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,791
- 6,350
- 126
sigh, ya, what if you said that? :shrug;
Everytime some kind of Gun related legislation is drawn up, certain types start wailing about the Constitution yadda yadda ya. They just seem to miss the "well regulated" part and assume the Government can't do a thing on the subject of Firearms. It is simply not true. The Constitution calls for it to be Regulated. Not just "Regulated", but regulated "well".
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
It's not a myth. If you know criminals you'd know where to get those guns cheap. Yes of course they are stolen and resold over and over until they get seized, usually during commission of a crime or a traffic stop. But you can't deny there are tons on the black market and not going anywhere soon. Not withstanding the right to bear, leaving everyone else non-protected for a couple decades it would take to get all those black market guns out of circulation is not a good argument. Never mind easy to make zip gun manufacture would explode replacing all those black market guns we were after in the first place.
Jesus emo much? Calm down. I'm all for gun rights but because 1 rep introduced a bill, doesn't mean anything. it does not show the (D) party's stance as a whole. If this goes to the floor and gets alot of support then you'll have a point.
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
You know they used to have similar taxes and licensing for marijuana. Had to buy a stamp to have it. Only problem was, they didn't sell stamps...
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
No reason to ignore it. Well regulated means well trained in todays language. Primary schools should have firearm training to comply with the constitution.
The gun grabbers can quibble over language but they can't ignore the federalist papers e.g. the meaning, intents and reasoning behind the constitution. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,804
- 46,632
- 136
I just have no use for more ineffective gun laws that do basically nothing but put legal gun owners at a disadvantage while creating a list that attempts to track every gun in the country. We can't keep drugs or illegal immigrants out of the US, what makes you think illegal firearms are any different?
You forget that this was a country founded on personal liberties and "we the people." How is "well regulated" going to fit into we the people?
Lets write out the line again so you can understand:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state the right to bare arms will not be infringed.
It says a militia shall be well regulated, nothing about regulating firearms. Think about it. It's saying we all need firearms so we can form well regulated militias.
Since "we the people of the United States" means the citizens plus the government, that means we all need to access to firearms.
Today we are eliminating citizens where only government has access to firearms. That is going against the nature of the consititution. How will the people form well regulated militias?
Government is not an entity above us, they are on the same level as us. That prevents corrupt government. Thats what this country was founded on, but it seems people forget that so easily. Much like they don't understand "well regulated".
So how are we going to keep this a free state if we have government enforcing who can form a militia or who can bare arms? This has nothing to do with hunting. Its giving power to the people to keep this a free state, in other words, give us the power to defend ourselves against the exact law bing passed in this bill. To fight the goverment which is trying to oppress us.
For like the third time, it's a House Resolution. Those things come up all the time, and for far stupider things than this. This is like saying that they aren't going to teach evolution in schools anymore because some idiot mom complained about it at a PTA meeting. Show me where this bill gets support from the Democratic leadership, show me where it actually stands a chance of passage by the House and Senate, and then we can all get up in arms about it.
This is just one of our usual suspect posters looking for something to be outraged about.
This is just one of our usual suspect posters looking for something to be outraged about.
http://1stam.umn.edu/main/hist...n%20correspondence.htm
His initial opposition to a BoR was predicated upon the idea that it might limit the rights by just what was included in a BoR. Provided that it was crafted correctly, he was in favor of one. When looking in context to the post quoted, in saying that rights were not outlined in the BoR, Jefferson's point was very valid, in that people are using the exclusion of rights in the BoR as evidence that only rights in the BoR were contextually valid. The very thing Jefferson warned against.
His ideas, as a whole (not in select quotations but in thoroughly researched positions) were outlined in a very good book called The Age of Reason, among other good holistic viewpoints of Jefferson. In those his concerns and initial opposition to a BoR are better understood. Even in the initial quotation of your page outlines the first thoughts.
My point wasn't that Jefferson really apposed a BoR in the end opposed it initially for the same reason that the guy above used. Perhaps you should read and think a bit more.
sourceninja
Diamond Member
- Mar 8, 2005
- 8,805
- 65
- 91
I'd actually be all for proper firearm training of children. They could use some nice 22 rifles and teach good firearm safety habits. Start young enough and you can even protect the children this way from picking up and playing with guns at home.
I've been shooting from the age of 6 years old. i started with a pellet rifle. Moved up to a 22 and 410. Today I own a few firearms and secure them safely and hold a carry permit. People like me are not the people we need to worry about owning firearms. And any government law will only stop people like me from owning them. This is like copy protection on video games. It does nothing to stop the criminals and everything to annoy people who would like to be good citizens.
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
Just because somebody wrote something down 200 years ago doesn't mean it was sent by god to be worshiped for all time - you are allowed to discuss this issue purely on moral grounds you know, without involking the existing law. The thing was intended to protect people anyway, not to excuse this ridiculous culture of killing where it's acceptable to shoot someone with an AK-47 if they step on your shoes. You have something like thirty thousand firearms deaths every year do you know that? That's a large town worth of people! The whole thing seems so completely out of control looking from the outside that it's almost impossible to understand how it could happen in a supposedly civilized country, until I see people like you, argueing for absolutely no licencing, registration, training, etc, as if it's completely sane... what on earth is wrong with you? Can't you see that hundreds of thousands of weapons are in the hands of complete and utter idiots with no idea how to use them and certainly no comprehension of when to use them - how could this possibly be a good thing? Would you want these fools in your 'well regulted militia' shooting their own cocks off because they don't know what a safety is? Bleh.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
You're confusing reason and right.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
purpose
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Right
It does not say they have to be in militia, only that the armed people should form one should need arise.
Furthermore, all 10 BoR deal with individual liberties. You really think #2 is alone and doesnt?
Gungrabbers like to ignore history, the federalist papers, dictionaries from 1776.. I don't get why you guys engage in this intellectual dishonesty instead of nullifying the 2nd altogether? Man up ...trying to find holes in what is meant by "arms", "well regulated", "militia" and so on just makes you look stupid and without conviction.
You do realize that for almost 70 years the prevailing US Supreme Court decision on the subject said exactly that it was a collective, not individual right... right? I mean you can disagree with that all you want, but to say that holding the same opinion as the highest court in the land did for the better part of a century is stupid and dishonest is pretty ridiculous.
Oh, and the 9th and 10th amendments aren't necessarily about individual liberties either.
Google search gives me 55%, but whatever, even if you discount those it's still a massive number. Far more than any other country which is not in a war zone.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter