The new face of the Second Amendment?

[haymarket]

We seem to be sliding into a period of general radicalized opinions. This appears to be happening for most topics.

I agree with you. I was born in 49 and came of age in the Sixties which were a terrible time for polarization and division. I was hoping those days were behind us as a nation and as a people.

Why do you think they are returning?

 

[joG]

Does the existence of people with your viewpoint show polarization of the issue? The very existence of gun free school zones shows polarization, gun free school zones accomplish literally nothng

Why should carry be forbidden in schools? I hear there are terrible things that happen in some schools nowadays.

 

[Jerry]

And how do you expect to protect every school in America with that plan?

I don't.

 

[IB daMann]

I think we saw the difference in polls a year ago which showed that a very big majority of Americans - over 80% and in some polls 90%, favored background checks on ALL firearms purchases when such proposals were poison to the right of the NRA crowd.

This is the cowardly underlying dishonesty of the gun cravens.

They say (with a wide-eyed, innocent facial expression) "All we want is COMMON SENSE. All we want are BACKGROUND CHECKS."

What they MEAN is that they want a bureaucratic government agency to have the legitimized power to decide who gets 2nd Amendment rights. Once that is established, that agency can deny more and more citizens with an ever-growing arsenal of restrictions and prohibitions. That same agency will be able to require a "permit" and can make obtaining that permit ever more difficult, and expensive, and time consuming. That same agency could suspend 2nd Amendment privileges should there be any outstanding traffic citations, alimony payments, unpaid taxes, parking fines, overdue library books, whatever. That same agency could require a court order to have privileges restored.

If the poll question were worded "Shall the government bureaucracy have the power to turn the 2nd Amendment right into an agency-regulated privilege?" I am willing to bet the responses would be VERY different.

 

[Jerry]

This is the cowardly underlying dishonesty of the gun cravens.

They say (with a wide-eyed, innocent facial expression) "All we want is COMMON SENSE. All we want are BACKGROUND CHECKS."

What they MEAN is that they want a bureaucratic government agency to have the legitimized power to decide who gets 2nd Amendment rights. Once that is established, that agency can deny more and more citizens with an ever-growing arsenal of restrictions and prohibitions. That same agency will be able to require a "permit" and can make obtaining that permit ever more difficult, and expensive, and time consuming. That same agency could suspend 2nd Amendment privileges should there be any outstanding traffic citations, alimony payments, unpaid taxes, parking fines, overdue library books, whatever. That same agency could require a court order to have privileges restored.

If the poll question were worded "Shall the government bureaucracy have the power to turn the 2nd Amendment right into an agency-regulated privilege?" I am willing to bet the responses would be VERY different.

If you have a permit, then you've passed the background check, and heymarket has nothing to complain about.

 

[haymarket]

This is the cowardly underlying dishonesty of the gun cravens.

They say (with a wide-eyed, innocent facial expression) "All we want is COMMON SENSE. All we want are BACKGROUND CHECKS."

What they MEAN is that they want a bureaucratic government agency to have the legitimized power to decide who gets 2nd Amendment rights. Once that is established, that agency can deny more and more citizens with an ever-growing arsenal of restrictions and prohibitions. That same agency will be able to require a "permit" and can make obtaining that permit ever more difficult, and expensive, and time consuming. That same agency could suspend 2nd Amendment privileges should there be any outstanding traffic citations, alimony payments, unpaid taxes, parking fines, overdue library books, whatever. That same agency could require a court order to have privileges restored.

If the poll question were worded "Shall the government bureaucracy have the power to turn the 2nd Amendment right into an agency-regulated privilege?" I am willing to bet the responses would be VERY different.

Is the next move mine to personally insult you and gun owners who have taken up residence at the intersection of Slippery Slope Street and Paranoia Place?

 

[haymarket]

If you have a permit, then you've passed the background check, and heymarket has nothing to complain about.

What is it exactly that you think I am complaining about?

 

[Crimefree]

Is the next move mine to personally insult you and gun owners who have taken up residence at the intersection of Slippery Slope Street and Paranoia Place?

You bet, you can start by explaining why you did not respond to the post in order to climb on your soapbox again. Are you so devoid of logical responses.

 

[Crimefree]

What is it exactly that you think I am complaining about?

I am willing to bet not many want to know.

 

[Crimefree]

Why should carry be forbidden in schools? I hear there are terrible things that happen in some schools nowadays.

Exactly the mandatory gun free schools has made schools a perfect target for nuts making a big splash to get attention. What we have one is give these nut safe shooting galleries with live targets. WTF are we surprised? Gun control LIED, yes LIED and will always LIE.

 

[haymarket]

You bet, you can start by explaining why you did not respond to the post in order to climb on your soapbox again. Are you so devoid of logical responses.

Oh but I did respond to the post - rather strongly. And my response was the height of logic that was well matched to the post in question. And apparently it succeeded wildly as is evidenced by your own negative response.

 

[Crimefree]

If you have a permit, then you've passed the background check, and heymarket has nothing to complain about.

Why not register as well since that is what has been done. We may as well announce gun control works we accept it. Why do we try to appease gun control? What is the reason for this?

 

[haymarket]

I am willing to bet not many want to know.

You confuse me with someone who cares about what others may want to know. I simply want to know for my own purposes. And that is enough to warrant the question to the poster.

 

[Crimefree]

Oh but I did respond to the post - rather strongly. And my response was the height of logic that was well matched to the post in question. And apparently it succeeded wildly as is evidenced by your own negative response.

My response was not negative and was wholly in line with your proven outburst instead of a logical response to the post. Besides you have proved you don't know what negative is.

So rubbish you responded to one line only in order to climb on your soapbox. How come you and the truth are such strangers?

 

[haymarket]

My response was not negative and was wholly in line with your proven outburst instead of a logical response to the post. Besides you you have proved you don't know what negative is.

So rubbish you responded to one line only in order to climb on your soapbox. How come you and the truth are such strangers?

Why do you show up here merely to continue your personal attacks upon me? Is the negativity so strong in you towards me that you simply cannot resist taking cheap shots and ignoring the actual point being made by me?

What TRUTH exactly are you referring to? Or is that just a vague and general charge that is meant only to attack and has no real substance?

 

[Crimefree]

You confuse me with someone who cares about what others may want to know. I simply want to know for my own purposes. And that is enough to warrant the question to the poster.

You are grandstanding I don't give a rats rear end why did you think I did? You posted rubbish and off topic.

 

[haymarket]

You are grandstanding I don't give a rats rear end why did you think I did? You posted rubbish and off topic.

No - it was on topic replying to what another poster said here. Did you chastise them as well?

I know. Silly question. :roll::doh:lamo

 

[Crimefree]

Why do you show up here merely to continue your personal attacks upon me? Is the negativity so strong in you towards me that you simply cannot resist taking cheap shots and ignoring the actual point being made by me?

What TRUTH exactly are you referring to? Or is that just a vague and general charge that is meant only to attack and has no real substance?

You are Grandstanding. You personally were not attacked I asked relevant questions I had good reason to.

Your initial response indicates you consider yourself a gun control craven which gave you some incentive to challenge on a personal basis rather than logical.

I have a right to question your involvement and motives since you have not disclosed why you ignored the reason gun control craven was used in the rest of the post, which justified it. Do you see yourself as a gun control craven you need to defend them?

 

[Jerry]

What is it exactly that you think I am complaining about?

I said you have nothing to complain about.

 

[Jerry]

Several people here in Michigan are testing their ability to openly carry weapons in school zones.

Gun rights tested at Madison Heights, Ann Arbor schools

The public reaction has not generally been too favorable to these folks.

Is this sort of "in your face - its my right and screw everybody else who does not like it" attitude the new face of the Second Amendment?

Does a man like Nixon (not the president but the man in the article) help or hurt the cause of the Second Amendment?

Does this story - and others like it around the nation - show an increasingly radicalization of some on the gun issue and an increasingly polarization on the entire issue?

Notice no one's being shot. All these guns on school grounds and no one's dead.

 

[haymarket]

You are Grandstanding. You personally were not attacked I asked relevant questions I had good reason to.

Your initial response indicates you consider yourself a gun control craven which gave you some incentive to challenge on a personal basis rather than logical.

I have a right to question your involvement and motives since you have not disclosed why you ignored the reason gun control craven was used in the rest of the post, which justified it. Do you see yourself as a gun control craven you need to defend them?

Do you have anything to say on the topic instead of merely attacking me?

 

[haymarket]

Notice no one's being shot. All these guns on school grounds and no one's dead.

Good point. And what about the mental state of the children who saw Sandy Hook unfold on their TV sets and now see armed men on their school grounds who are not police officers?

 

[haymarket]

I said you have nothing to complain about.

To be exact, what you did say in your post 55 was this

If you have a permit, then you've passed the background check, and heymarket has nothing to complain about.

So I ask again, what are you saying about a permit and a background check that then gives me nothing to complain about? What do you think I am complaining about that is canceled out by a permit and a background check?

 

[matchlight]

I guess we will see when this gets to court. Bit by bit, the Supreme Court will probably take up some of these issues, in order to make the boundaries of the states' authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms more clear.

 

[KevinKohler]

Eh, I would be perfectly comfortable, heck, MORE comforted, even, by the thought of allowing PARENTS of the kids at the school to openly carry on or around school grounds, if they are legally allowed to own and openly carry a gun in the first place. That might have saved a lot of lives at Sandy Hook, down the road from me.


The problem is keeping the people who are NOT legally allowed to own or openly carry a gun away. You see, many of you live in areas where there are no gangs, where crime and violence aren't GENERATIONAL. It might surprise you to know that there are areas, WITH schools operating in them, no less, that have generational crime "families"....IE, the son at school develops some beef with a rival, whose is, and who's parents are, involved in a rival gang or faction. Allowing those people to carry guns onto school, legal or not, would be utterly foolish.

This is one of those areas where, really, the parents of the kids going to that school should have a bit more say on the matter. Which skirts the failed concept of one size fits all.