The 2nd Amendment's rogue

[galenrox]

See how gun haters lie. I simple asked this gun hater ”Why would you want such a dangerous person out of prison?”
This question is to hard for gun haters to answer. Because without dangerous criminals out of prison gun haters cannot demand gun control laws.

Gun haters? I'm a gun owner!
I'm sorry about whatever tramatic head injury you've endured that made it so you no longer have the ability to read, but christ, don't take it out on me, it's not my fault.
You are putting a ridiculous standard on what it should require to not be in prison. When you commit a felony, you know that you surrender certain rights, such as your right to freedom for however long of a time that the judge deems neccisary, you surrender your right to vote, and you surrender your right to own a gun. This is because you have proven yourself not of the moral callibur to responsibly own a gun. Once you get out, there's a good chance you could own a gun and have it responsibly, but you've now shown yourself as irresponsible, and as a society we're not willing to take that risk with you anymore.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think that the government should have some oversight, I think it should be watched. If it's being watched, and felons don't have guns, and minors aren't buying guns on their own, I believe that anyone should be able to own just about anything, but definately at least the M16A2

Fair enough.

If you noticed, I was criticising DHard or whatever he's called. I've noticed him arguing against keeping guns away from felons, or at least he said something along the lines of "If they can't be trusted with guns, why are they allowed out of prison." It wasn't aimed at anything you said.

Be careful w/ DH3006.
He was kicked off AOL for stalking someone.

So what do you suggest? I mean, we both promote responsible gun ownership, and we both hate people who misuse guns because it's crap like that that makes it harder for us, and so we should be trying to find a way to make it easy to catch people who misuse guns without effecting responsible legal gun owners in any real way, so do you have any suggestions?

Thats the catch - not affecting responsible gun owners.
I dont think it can be done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I dunno, what do you think?

I think the idea wont work.
The best way to keep criminals from misusing guns is to punish them severly when they do. Triple their normal sentence, or more. Granted, you can only punish them so much, but knowing that he might go to prison for life may very well keep your basic mugger from using a gun to mug someone.

 

[DHard3006]

You are putting a ridiculous standard on what it should require to not be in prison.

What are you trying to say? I simple asked you why you want dangerous criminals out of prison.

Once you get out, there's a good chance you could own a gun and have it responsibly, but you've now shown yourself as irresponsible, and as a society we're not willing to take that risk with you anymore.

Cute line of crap.

but when it comes to selling a machine gun to a guy who just got out of prison and probably has some sort of a chip on his shoulder, it is just simple logic to say "no."

Here I went back and got what your posted. Don’t look like you are giving this person a chance to have their rights restored. Just spewing gun hater lies.

 

[galenrox]

What are you trying to say? I simple asked you why you want dangerous criminals out of prison.

And I answered, they're not particularly dangerous, but they're not trustworthy enough to be allowed to have guns.

Cute line of crap.

Right, and I'm supposed to just take your word for this?

Here I went back and got what your posted. Don’t look like you are giving this person a chance to have their rights restored. Just spewing gun hater lies.

How can you call me a gun hater when I'm a gun owner? You still haven't replied to that. It's true, certain rights can't be restored, because you commit a felony it's just about impossible to restore that trust.

 

[DHard3006]

And I answered, they're not particularly dangerous, but they're not trustworthy enough to be allowed to have guns.

Here is gun hater logic. Quote “they're not particularly dangerous, but they're not trustworthy enough to be allowed to have guns. “
Ok then why do the gun haters want these not dangerous but not trustworthy people out of prison?

How can you call me a gun hater when I'm a gun owner?

Right now the gun haters are all claiming to be gun owners because they got their backsides kicked in the last election.
If you have a problem wit hone gun you have a problem with all guns!

 

[swampkritter]

You may wish to do the same thing.

You keep spewing this militia crap. What did you post. The age requirements to be in a militia. Is that what you posted? Yes it is. Now you are spewing these age requirements are also for people not in the militia.

So I will ask you once again, what about the people that do not fall into the age requirements? Do they have a right to bear arms? So do you see how wrong you militia lie is?

Not to mention the well regulated crap. Regulated means what? A group of people can pass rules on what a militia can do.

See you so called pro right to bear arms person. You have just placed an infringement on the right to bear arms by spewing you militia crap.

Obviously you misread my post. I quoted relevant federal law which defines what a militia is and then stated that The 2nd ammendment IS NOT exclusively for people in the militia.
I further stated that my reasoning for this is that the words "The People" mean the same exact thing throughout the Bill of rights.
Considering that those two words mean the exact same thing throughout the bill of rights and the words "The People" mean all American citizens, it is obvious that the right to bear arms is not exclusively the militia's.

 

[swampkritter]

could someone explain to me why M14 and DHard are having a pssing contest when they both are on the right/correct side of this argument:doh

I don't understand it myself, I agree with DHard too, and he still want's to argue with me as well. Either he has poor reading comprehension or has anger issues. I am not sure which.:duel

 

[swampkritter]

I don't want to jack up the price in bullets, cause I wouldn't be able to afford them, at least jack them up much, so let's not try to put false justifications for why I suggest what I've suggested and actually talk about what I've suggested. Let's just say that we set up an internet site that only police forces have access to, but Walmart and KMart can post on, and just have it required upon a bullet purchase you fill out a form with your name and SSN, that's it. It's not a perfect plan, but it's with minimal inconvinience and it would serve a purpose, and it would make buying bullets to commit crimes more expensive and thus less attractive, because if you were going to purchase bullets outside of the system, you'd have to buy them black market, and thus more expensive, while if you're buying them for legal purposes, then there's no problem.

Personally, I don't see what this will solve at all. At the least, you are providing another person with information you shouldn't be sharing without it being absolutely necessary, which opens you up to identity theft. At the most, you are clogging up law enforcement with unneccessary bureaucracy, therefore hindering their law enforcement capability AND opening yourself up to identity theft.

 

[swampkritter]

If we know who owns what type of bullet, then identifying the type of bullet would then knock off a large portion of the gun owning community from suspect, plus you could then have a list of people, from which you could check who was in the general area, and in general just make it easier for the police to solve crimes. Also, if you were intending to commit a crime when you purchased the bullets you'd have to buy them black market, and thus creating a system where you raise the cost of bullets for criminals without really increasing the price of bullets for legal gun owners.
It's an idea.

No, it wouldn't. Obviously, bullets are mass produced.
In a city of 2 million people, half of them probably gun owners with half of them probably target practicing at least once a month, you could be looking at law enforcement going through at least 250,000 or more pieces of paper or a database with 250,000 names, possibly more, just for as an example, one 9mm bullet found in a body at a crime scene. Especially since the 9mm round is a very popular one.

 

[DHard3006]

Obviously you misread my post. I quoted relevant federal law which defines what a militia is and then stated that The 2nd ammendment IS NOT exclusively for people in the militia.
I further stated that my reasoning for this is that the words "The People" mean the same exact thing throughout the Bill of rights.
Considering that those two words mean the exact same thing throughout the bill of rights and the words "The People" mean all American citizens, it is obvious that the right to bear arms is not exclusively the militia's.

Apparently you lack reading comprehension. These post #63 #66 are where I posted what the 2nd amend states. Basically the same thing as what you claim to be posting. You do not start posting your bs until post #75 . After my post. So see you lack reading comprehenson.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I don't understand it myself, I agree with DHard too, and he still want's to argue with me as well. Either he has poor reading comprehension or has anger issues. I am not sure which.:duel

Yes, I experienced that phenomenon too. Weird.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Not to mention many people like myself manufacutre our own ammunition. I've even been known to cast my own bullets.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Not to mention many people like myself manufacutre our own ammunition. I've even been known to cast my own bullets.

Reminds me of years ago when my then much younger husband and his buddy were going quail hunting. The buddy was stationed at Cannon AFB and had access to a few barrels of shot that was reasonable (free) so they decided to load their own shells. After several beers they were loading the shells using a bathroom scale to set the plug. The next day they weren't out very long before they came home with two wrecked shotguns, the side of their faces all bunged up and no quail. Needless to say, I have not found much reason to allow them to live that down. :smile:

 

[swampkritter]

Apparently you lack reading comprehension. These post #63 #66 are where I posted what the 2nd amend states. Basically the same thing as what you claim to be posting. You do not start posting your bs until post #75 . After my post. So see you lack reading comprehenson.

I don't know what youe problem is, but the entire time you have been attempting to debate this issue with me and others, you fail to understand that most of us, me included, have been agreeing with you on your statements 100%. :agree
What I posted in this thread actually supports your argument. The only thing I can see is that you must have a chip on your shoulder and just want to argue with anyone.

Everyone else who has posted in this thread sees the same thing.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Reminds me of years ago when my then much younger husband and his buddy were going quail hunting. The buddy was stationed at Cannon AFB and had access to a few barrels of shot that was reasonable (free) so they decided to load their own shells. After several beers they were loading the shells using a bathroom scale to set the plug. The next day they weren't out very long before they came home with two wrecked shotguns, the side of their faces all bunged up and no quail. Needless to say, I have not found much reason to allow them to live that down. :smile:

ROFL, well why on earth would you. That is one I'd use to the grave. :rofl

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't know what youe problem is, but the entire time you have been attempting to debate this issue with me and others, you fail to understand that most of us, me included, have been agreeing with you on your statements 100%. :agree
What I posted in this thread actually supports your argument. The only thing I can see is that you must have a chip on your shoulder and just want to argue with anyone.

Everyone else who has posted in this thread sees the same thing.

I concur-other than Galen (sort of) it seems that all the posters are pretty much on the same page