Second Amendment case headed to Court

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: DonVito
I endorse reasonable regulations of gun purchasing and ownership, including licensing, waiting periods and background checks.

I find all of those things thoroughly unreasonable. That's a lot of ways to deny someone their right to self defense.

And licensing is registration. And registration is confiscation.

PS, "black market" guns are usually stolen from law abiding gun owners. Real black market guns, like machine guns and such are simply brought across the borders, and the ATF has no record of it ever being in the country.

It'll be nice if the 1986 closing of the NFA registry to new machine guns is reversed, and we can buy new machine guns again. Simultaneously, my ~$50,000 worth of machine guns will all of a sudden be worth $3000 or so.

This is exactly the kind of lunatic-fringe claptrap that limits the credibility of the 2nd-Amendment lobby. Care to explain how "registration is confiscation"?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: DonVito
I endorse reasonable regulations of gun purchasing and ownership, including licensing, waiting periods and background checks.

I find all of those things thoroughly unreasonable. That's a lot of ways to deny someone their right to self defense.

And licensing is registration. And registration is confiscation.

PS, "black market" guns are usually stolen from law abiding gun owners. Real black market guns, like machine guns and such are simply brought across the borders, and the ATF has no record of it ever being in the country.

It'll be nice if the 1986 closing of the NFA registry to new machine guns is reversed, and we can buy new machine guns again. Simultaneously, my ~$50,000 worth of machine guns will all of a sudden be worth $3000 or so.

This is exactly the kind of lunatic-fringe claptrap that limits the credibility of the 2nd-Amendment lobby. Care to explain how "registration is confiscation"?

I think his use of 'is' was inappropriate, but I agree with the sentiment 100%. One of the main reasons why there is no chance at ever seeing widespread confiscation is that the government doesn't know which houses have guns. That makes it very difficult, time consuming, and costly to attempt raids. There is absolutely no reason the government needs to know. It wouldn't help very much with any crime issues any way, since most guns used in crimes are stolen or black market anyway. The only useful outcome of registration (from a government point of view) is to find out if someone is likely to have weapons before they come to infringe their rights...and even that is iffy since you can always just buy one illegally and keep it unregistered. Nope, I'm 100% against registration. I don't mind licensing IF it was a national concealed carry with absolutely no restrictions at all. I don't mind background checks for criminal and mental issues. I also don't mind very short waiting periods, but think they should be waived if you have the aforementioned national concealed carry card (which doesn't actually exist). I'd also support a training requirement. That's about it though.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is exactly the kind of lunatic-fringe claptrap that limits the credibility of the 2nd-Amendment lobby. Care to explain how "registration is confiscation"?

Please find me one instance in history where registration did not lead to confiscation. Forgive me if don't hold my breath waiting for your reply.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Interesting, I suspect they will hear the case, and that they all have strong feelings about it as they have to work in that shithole. And you know they sure as hell all fear for their personal safety.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The second amendment was created for a reason and according to what they believed when they put forth that amendment and keeping it up to date the citizens should have the right to own the most advanced weapons of their time.

Today it's just kept around because people love to play with guns and pretend they are safer with them than without them.

They even go so far as to pretend that if their weapon is stolen and the serials are filed off then it's an "illegal" gun and has nothing to do with legal purchases of guns, that is so silly.

BTW, i'm not against gun ownership, i own quite a few myself, some that would be illegal to buy in the US now.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is exactly the kind of lunatic-fringe claptrap that limits the credibility of the 2nd-Amendment lobby. Care to explain how "registration is confiscation"?

Please find me one instance in history where registration did not lead to confiscation. Forgive me if don't hold my breath waiting for your reply.

Several states require registration of statutorily-defined "assault weapons," and some states, including Hawaii, require registration of all guns.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: DonVito
I endorse reasonable regulations of gun purchasing and ownership, including licensing, waiting periods and background checks.

I find all of those things thoroughly unreasonable. That's a lot of ways to deny someone their right to self defense.

Self defense is a pretty weak argument. In most states you can buy a shotgun with no waiting period which works just fine for home defense. In most states it's very hard to get a CCW which makes self defense outside the home generally irrelevant to the gun control debate.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I am glad that i am not so scared about living in my society that i think a gun is needed for self defense.

Then again, most criminals are not armed with weapons they either have a license for or have stolen where i live.

As i said before, i have guns, locked inside a gun cabinet and you don't get inside that without the key and the code.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: amddude

Originally posted by: Triumph
I was just looking through Wikipedia and decided to look up some numbers. Many of the gun grabbers in DC argue that gun crime is still a problem in DC because of the lax gun laws in neighboring Virginia and Maryland (relatively speaking). Fairfax county borders DC on the western side of the Potomac, as of 2005 has a population of 1,041,200, and suffered from 20 murders in that same year (unknown if they were gun related). For DC, the population for 2005 was 550,521 (fully 1/2 of FFX county), yet DC suffered from 195 murders that same year. So per capita, a resident of DC is 20 times more likely to be murdered than a resident of the next county to the west. If the availability of guns was the reason for this, why aren't Fairfax County residents killing each other left and right?

Gun banning arguments are primarily emotional, not factual in nature.

So are pro-gun arguments, as far as I can tell. Debates involving reasonable, intelligent positions are hardly ever as explosive as the gun debate because reasonable people can differ. The gun control debate, by contrast, seems to consist mostly of lunatics (on both sides) screaming at each other. For what it's worth, I think there are a lot of good reasons to allow pretty much unrestricted gun ownership, I just don't think that the NRA and similar organizations are making those arguments. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the approach taken by the PRO-gun lobby is a big reason we're still having a gun debate at all. Rather than making a reasonable argument that does a good job of convincing people of their point of view, they seem to largely come off like paranoid survivalist nutjobs who even I don't want to have guns...and I'm generally pro-2nd amendment. I think the argument that people are afraid of guns is a valid one, and I think a big reason they ARE afraid of guns is that a lot of the more extreme pro-gun folks really DO seem dangerous. Not exactly good PR.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Rainsford, i'd argue that the second amendment doesn't even apply to guns but to the best weapons of our time and that is not handguns, IOW it applies to tanks, fighter jets, nukes, chemical weapons and biological weapons, of course assault weapons, mines, RPG's and mortars also belong in what a populace would need to figth the standing army.

The second amendment was NEVER created for self defense against criminals inside or outside of your home so that argument is just daft, it was created so that a "small well armed militia" could oppose the government with force, does ANYONE really believe that handguns could do that these days?

The US has less gun ownership per capita than most of Europeean countries have, yet you have a lot more gun violence, if someonen purchases a firearm legally and files off the serial then it is an illegal firearm and is not counted in those statistics and who besides a complete moron would leave the serials intact on a gun he leaves behind?

I am not against responsible handled an kept firearms, but that just isn't an issue in the US, you can store your glock on the kitchen room table without problems.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: DonVito
I endorse reasonable regulations of gun purchasing and ownership, including licensing, waiting periods and background checks.

I find all of those things thoroughly unreasonable. That's a lot of ways to deny someone their right to self defense.

Self defense is a pretty weak argument. In most states you can buy a shotgun with no waiting period which works just fine for home defense. In most states it's very hard to get a CCW which makes self defense outside the home generally irrelevant to the gun control debate.

38 states have "shall issue" concealed handgun licensing. Meaning you fill out a form, take a class, and they HAVE to give you a license.

Of course I'm against concealed handgun licensing all-together. Should be like Vermont, where there is no license required to excercise your rights. I've lived in Texas all my life, and while we were one of the last states to allow concealed handguns, I've carried one for pretty much my entire life.

I'm one of those dangerous "fringe" people you guys are talking about. And I am dangerous. That's the whole point.

 

[Taejin]

I've wanted to own and be proficient with a gun all my life. When I eventually do move out of my house, I will purchase a firearm and become proficient at it.

I don't understand the complaints against registration though. I think guns make killing people way too easy, and that innocent people are getting killed in the streets because guns are too easy to obtain illegal or be 'laundered' through a criminal organization.

If you're a law abiding citizen who owns a firearm, there should be no problems with having your weapons registered. If you're not, or you sell your guns to people you may consider shady characters, than yeah, you probably would start to get worried about gun registration.

What's the big deal anyways? You keep your guns, the cops know where the guns are coming from and can shut down more effectively how criminals obtain these weapons.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Taejin
I've wanted to own and be proficient with a gun all my life. When I eventually do move out of my house, I will purchase a firearm and become proficient at it.

I don't understand the complaints against registration though. I think guns make killing people way too easy, and that innocent people are getting killed in the streets because guns are too easy to obtain illegal or be 'laundered' through a criminal organization.

If you're a law abiding citizen who owns a firearm, there should be no problems with having your weapons registered. If you're not, or you sell your guns to people you may consider shady characters, than yeah, you probably would start to get worried about gun registration.

What's the big deal anyways? You keep your guns, the cops know where the guns are coming from and can shut down more effectively how criminals obtain these weapons.

It's no one's business who has guns. Every time there has been registration, it has lead to confiscation. The Brady Center even said it at one ponit, that before they can take them, they have to register them.

If you're a law abiding gun owner, no one should know any intimate details of your life or property. Why not register sex toys too?

You've been sold on "common sense" gun control. Guns aren't bad. People are.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Taejin
I've wanted to own and be proficient with a gun all my life. When I eventually do move out of my house, I will purchase a firearm and become proficient at it.

I don't understand the complaints against registration though. I think guns make killing people way too easy, and that innocent people are getting killed in the streets because guns are too easy to obtain illegal or be 'laundered' through a criminal organization.

If you're a law abiding citizen who owns a firearm, there should be no problems with having your weapons registered. If you're not, or you sell your guns to people you may consider shady characters, than yeah, you probably would start to get worried about gun registration.

What's the big deal anyways? You keep your guns, the cops know where the guns are coming from and can shut down more effectively how criminals obtain these weapons.

It's no one's business who has guns. Every time there has been registration, it has lead to confiscation. The Brady Center even said it at one ponit, that before they can take them, they have to register them.

If you're a law abiding gun owner, no one should know any intimate details of your life or property. Why not register sex toys too?

You've been sold on "common sense" gun control. Guns aren't bad. People are.

And if you get your gun stolen with the serial number filed off, then it's suddenly an "illegal firearm" and you could even file it off yourself and it would be just that.

I agree that registration doesn't help much without storage regulations but to allow anyone to just go in and buy one when they are drunk, pissed and got their arses kicked isn't going to lead to something good.

Most probably it will lead to people like you getting your head blown apart.

 

[Vic]

The gun control battle is all but over, and the gun controllers lost.

This isn't about fear. It's not about crime. It's not about feeling safe.

It's about being innocent until proven guilty. Until the government has reasonable cause to deny an individual gun rights, then they have no right to do so.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Taejin
I've wanted to own and be proficient with a gun all my life. When I eventually do move out of my house, I will purchase a firearm and become proficient at it.

I don't understand the complaints against registration though. I think guns make killing people way too easy, and that innocent people are getting killed in the streets because guns are too easy to obtain illegal or be 'laundered' through a criminal organization.

If you're a law abiding citizen who owns a firearm, there should be no problems with having your weapons registered. If you're not, or you sell your guns to people you may consider shady characters, than yeah, you probably would start to get worried about gun registration.

What's the big deal anyways? You keep your guns, the cops know where the guns are coming from and can shut down more effectively how criminals obtain these weapons.

It's no one's business who has guns. Every time there has been registration, it has lead to confiscation. The Brady Center even said it at one ponit, that before they can take them, they have to register them.

If you're a law abiding gun owner, no one should know any intimate details of your life or property. Why not register sex toys too?

You've been sold on "common sense" gun control. Guns aren't bad. People are.

And if you get your gun stolen with the serial number filed off, then it's suddenly an "illegal firearm" and you could even file it off yourself and it would be just that.

I agree that registration doesn't help much without storage regulations but to allow anyone to just go in and buy one when they are drunk, pissed and got their arses kicked isn't going to lead to something good.

Most probably it will lead to people like you getting your head blown apart.

There is no "allowing" anyone to buy a gun. There's no way to deny that right. You don't get to decide, I don't get to decide, no one gets to decide, just like we don't get to decide who says what.

If someone told me, in all seriousness, "I'm going to fucking kill you." Obviously I'd try to get them thrown in the pokey for threatening me. But upon their release, I feel that they should have the full rights of anyone other free man, and that means the ability to buy whatever kind of gun they want.

I haven't gotten my head blown apart yet. They keep tryin' though.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Triumph
I was just looking through Wikipedia and decided to look up some numbers. Many of the gun grabbers in DC argue that gun crime is still a problem in DC because of the lax gun laws in neighboring Virginia and Maryland (relatively speaking). Fairfax county borders DC on the western side of the Potomac, as of 2005 has a population of 1,041,200, and suffered from 20 murders in that same year (unknown if they were gun related). For DC, the population for 2005 was 550,521 (fully 1/2 of FFX county), yet DC suffered from 195 murders that same year. So per capita, a resident of DC is 20 times more likely to be murdered than a resident of the next county to the west. If the availability of guns was the reason for this, why aren't Fairfax County residents killing each other left and right?

This is specious reasoning at best. It's clear DC would have significant violent crime in any event, but there is no question that Virginia guns are involved in many many DC shootings. I have read estimates that more than half of all shootings in New York, much further away, are done with guns originally purchased in Virginia. Crime rates in Virginia are irrelevant to this issue.

It isn't specious reasoning at all. It doesn't matter where the guns come from. It clearly proves that guns themselves are not the cause of violence, and an emotionally driven law to eliminate guns is treating a symptom rather than the cause. It isn't Virginia's fault that New York can't control its own violent crime (since crime is the problem and not gun ownership). If anything, blaming Virginia for New York's problems isn't even specious reasoning, it's downright stupid.