Gun Control (1 Viewer)

[LeftyHenry]

I was just wondering what everyones opinion on gun control is. I personally believe that guns should not be controled. Besides the fact that it is a constitutional amendment, I think it is a necessary for self defence against criminals and rapists. Also it is the only means of protecting against an potential oppressive government. What's your views on this issue? Do you think the government has the right to ban guns?

 

[cherokee]

I was just wondering what everyones opinion on gun control is. I personally believe that guns should not be controled. Besides the fact that it is a constitutional amendment, I think it is a necessary for self defence against criminals and rapists. Also it is the only means of protecting against an potential oppressive government. What's your views on this issue? Do you think the government has the right to ban guns?

The laws we have on the book now are just fine.
You can own just about anything you want with a CLEAN background and with some a permit.
I will add that laws differ some what from state to state but you can find out what your laws are at the ATF's website.

AFT sets the min laws and a state can add on to them.

 

[jamesrage]

I was just wondering what everyones opinion on gun control is. I personally believe that guns should not be controled. Besides the fact that it is a constitutional amendment, I think it is a necessary for self defence against criminals and rapists. Also it is the only means of protecting against an potential oppressive government. What's your views on this issue? Do you think the government has the right to ban guns?

I totally agree.

I did a poll several months ago on the issue and was suprised by the poll results.I would think people would feel equally about one constitutional right as they would another,but apparently that is not so.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/7362-what-extent-you-support-1st-2nd-amendment.html


support the right to own firearms with out any restricitons

15​

Support the right to own firearms with some restrictions

55​

Firearms should be banned

5​

support the right of free speech with out any restrictions.

41​

support the right to free speech but with some restrictions.

29​

Free speech should be banned

1​

 

[LeftyHenry]

WTF?? Who is the idiot that said free speech should be banned?

 

[jamesrage]

WTF?? Who is the idiot that said free speech should be banned?

JUst click on the numbers in that poll and you will see.There is also 5 idiots who think guns should be banned.

 

[Goobieman]

The 2nd amendment was written so that the people (that is, you and me) woudl always have access to the means necessary to effectively exercise our right to self-defennse, individually and collectively.

As such, the 2nd protects "arms" and protects the right to keep and bear them from "infringement".

You can argue the outer reaches of "arms" all you want, but the term unquestionably encompasses any sort of handgun, rifle, automaic rifle, shotgun, automatic shotgun or machinegun you care to specify.

As for "infringement" - any condition placed on the exercise of a right that's not inherent to that right is kown as Prior Restraint; Prior Restraint is always an infringemnt of a right. Licenses, registration, permits, background checks, limits on the number of guns you can buy and (obviously) bans on guns are all Prior Restraint, and thus, infringements.

 

[LeftyHenry]

JUst click on the numbers in that poll and you will see.There is also 5 idiots who think guns should be banned.

haha that was a while ago when I was pro-control. Now I've had a complete change of heart.

 

[americanwoman]

haha that was a while ago when I was pro-control. Now I've had a complete change of heart.

Can I ask what changed your mind on the issue?

 

[::Major_Baker::]

some weapons should not be easily avialable to the ordinary citizen, IMO.
Banned, hell no. Regulated, I think so.

 

[jamesrage]

The 2nd amendment was written so that the people (that is, you and me) woudl always have access to the means necessary to effectively exercise our right to self-defennse, individually and collectively.

As such, the 2nd protects "arms" and protects the right to keep and bear them from "infringement".

You can argue the outer reaches of "arms" all you want, but the term unquestionably encompasses any sort of handgun, rifle, automaic rifle, shotgun, automatic shotgun or machinegun you care to specify.

As for "infringement" - any condition placed on the exercise of a right that's not inherent to that right is kown as Prior Restraint; Prior Restraint is always an infringemnt of a right. Licenses, registration, permits, background checks, limits on the number of guns you can buy and (obviously) bans on guns are all Prior Restraint, and thus, infringements.

I find it amusing how I do not need a permit or register just to open my mouth but I need to do those things just for my right to bear arms.

 

[jamesrage]

haha that was a while ago when I was pro-control. Now I've had a complete change of heart.

Did you finally realize the goverment is currupt and that it would foolish to surrender our right to bear arms and or did a crook break into your house?

 

[LeftyHenry]

Did you finally realize the goverment is currupt and that it would foolish to surrender our right to bear arms and or did a crook break into your house?

i realized the government is corrupt :lol:.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I'm suprised no pro-control people have showed up yet.

 

[americanwoman]

I'm suprised no pro-control people have showed up yet.

because they have no valid argument for this.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

because they have no valid argument for this.

Let's be clear that gun-control does not automatically mean an outright ban.
I don't think you should be able to own one of these that fires 6000 rounds a minute.

 

[Goobieman]

Let's be clear that gun-control does not automatically mean an outright ban.

That's true.
But then, you can stop short of banning guns and still infringe on the right to arms.

I don't think you should be able to own one of these that fires 6000 rounds a minute.

Why not?
It certainly falls under the SCotUS definition of "arms".

 

[americanwoman]

Let's be clear that gun-control does not automatically mean an outright ban.
I don't think you should be able to own one of these that fires 6000 rounds a minute.

Now that is something I'd like to get my hands on! just kidding, when I shoot even a .45 I get kicked back. Once I shot a shotgun and I fell on my butt really hard. I think a .380 is good enough for me and thats why I got one. I do agree with some gun control- no felonies owning guns and no one owning guns that fire 600 rounds a minute. I was saying they have no argument in jest because even pro-gun people know there are certain limits to gun ownership.. at least I hope so. But everyone I met who owns a gun legally are very law abiding people.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Let's be clear that gun-control does not automatically mean an outright ban.
I don't think you should be able to own one of these that fires 6000 rounds a minute.

Why not? how are you supposed to fight back if let's say martial law is instated or something like that. If the army has it, we should be able to have it as long as we pass a training class on gun safety and use.

 

[jamesrage]

Let's be clear that gun-control does not automatically mean an outright ban.
I don't think you should be able to own one of these that fires 6000 rounds a minute.
http://www.airventure.de/legends2003/gatling1.jpg

That should be legal for Americans to obtain.As American citizens we may have to one day defend our selves against the goverment if it decided to turn on the people.Do you trust the goverment to not turn on the people?I hear almost every days the libs talk about how currupt the goverment is or how the goverment is taking away our civil liberties,do you really trust the goverment to not turn on the people?

On a seperate note 6000 rounds can get expensive and that gun would be too heavy to carry.Although this beauty it might be possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM214_minigun

 

[cherokee]

Let's be clear that gun-control does not automatically mean an outright ban.
I don't think you should be able to own one of these that fires 6000 rounds a minute.

Ahhh what a weapon!
The M61 Vulcan 20mm rotary cannon,

Maybe known best as "Puff the Magic Dragon"...
when you see one fired at night you'll understand...

I think it might be easier to transport a M134D minigun but nonetheless I don’t see a need for any civilian to own a minigun.


I think someone asked why no pro-gun people have posted here?
I did no one gave me a reply??….

 

[LeftyHenry]

The laws we have on the book now are just fine.
You can own just about anything you want with a CLEAN background and with some a permit.
I will add that laws differ some what from state to state but you can find out what your laws are at the ATF's website.

AFT sets the min laws and a state can add on to them.

Here in New York, guns are basically banned. It's as simple as that. I don't think that's fair. I can understand the idea of only being able to carry around hand pistols and concealing them but here it's like impossible to do that. Also, I think you should be able to have whatever gun you wish with a clean background as long as you don't carry it visibly.

 

[cherokee]

Here in New York, guns are basically banned. It's as simple as that. I don't think that's fair. I can understand the idea of only being able to carry around hand pistols and concealing them but here it's like impossible to do that. Also, I think you should be able to have whatever gun you wish with a clean background as long as you don't carry it visibly.

che try again...

I will say that you have more hoops to jump thru then someone living in FL, but people in NY city can own firearms.

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=56

 

[Goobieman]

che try again...

I will say that you have more hoops to jump thru then someone living in FL, but people in NY city can own firearms.

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=56

What all that doesnt tell you is that it is, um, difficult to get a permit -- so much so that Ruch Limbaugh could not get one for a flintlock musket given to him by the NRA.

 

[cherokee]

What all that doesnt tell you is that it is, um, difficult to get a permit -- so much so that Ruch Limbaugh could not get one for a flintlock musket given to him by the NRA.

Hmm I dont see how...Its in black and white right here.
You can own a flintlock with out any permit.

ANTIQUES AND REPLICAS

Exempt from permit and certificate of registration requirements are antique rifles and shotguns incapable of being fired or discharged or which do not fire fixed ammunition or those weapons manufactured prior to 1894 and replicas for which fixed ammunition is not commercially available.

Also exempt is any unloaded muzzle loading pistol or revolver with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system, or a pistol or revolver, which uses fixed cartridges, which are no longer available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade. This includes replicas. A license would be required to possess these handguns when the ammunition necessary to discharge them is possessed simultaneously.

 

[jamesrage]

What all that doesnt tell you is that it is, um, difficult to get a permit -- so much so that Ruch Limbaugh could not get one for a flintlock musket given to him by the NRA.

I find it amusing that people think speech should be something that should be totally unrestricted because is a constitutional right but at the same time they want to restrict the hell out of other rights such as the right to bear arms.