Time to stop supporting gun control laws that will not work and support one that will.

[soylentgreen]

No.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do people keep missing? Such laws would reduce the right to a government controlled privilege.

Registration does nothing but show the government who owns a gun, what kinds they have, and where they live. All the better to confiscate when/if gun restrictions on "registered owners" reduce the right to a sham.

I keep repeating I don't own any guns because I do not yet feel a need.

If I ever do choose to however, it will be because I fear my own government more than not, and I certainly would not obey any law that violates my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The part I keep missing is where it says that that particular part of a quote will be etched in stone. Just because it was proscribed as part of a right long ago does not make it a valid proscription today.

I agree with you that regulation will neither decrease nor do more than a feeble slowing of the sale of guns. However it will allow police to know if a gun is a legal property or not. It has little to no effect on purchase.

The only thing left is this so called need. And again i agree, the pro gun crowd is selling fear as a need for guns. There in is the problem. Give a scared man a gun and it will go bang.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The part I keep missing is where it says that that particular part of a quote will be etched in stone. Just because it was proscribed as part of a right long ago does not make it a valid proscription today.

I agree with you that regulation will neither decrease nor do more than a feeble slowing of the sale of guns. However it will allow police to know if a gun is a legal property or not. It has little to no effect on purchase.

The only thing left is this so called need. And again i agree, the pro gun crowd is selling fear as a need for guns. There in is the problem. Give a scared man a gun and it will go bang.

Ask yourself a simple question; do you have a self-enforceable right to defend yourself?

If the answer is yes, then the next question to ask yourself is this: If your enemy is bigger, stronger, more numerous, and/or has access to any weapons available, then are you required to limit yourself to the equivalent of "bare hands?"

If the answer to the second question is yes, then join the mass of those who accept the role of passive submission to anyone with no problem using force to ensure absolute obedience. History is replete with examples.

However, if the answer to the second question is no, then you have your answer as to why the right to keep and bear arms is and should be "etched in stone."

Many of our Founders recognized the inherent individual right to a well-armed self-defense against criminals, raiders, foreign invaders, and even one's own government if necessary. That if this right was not "written in stone," then the government could eventually evolve into one as oppressive as the one recently defeated, and citizens would be hard pressed to do anything about it.

Now no one is forcing YOU to "keep and bear arms." Nor are they forcing me or any other citizen here in the USA to do so. I don't currently own any.

But I recognize that there may come a time when I feel the need. That if so I will seek such weapons by any means necessary, legal or no, because MY answers to the above questions are respectively YES, and NO.

 

[Glitch]

The part I keep missing is where it says that that particular part of a quote will be etched in stone. Just because it was proscribed as part of a right long ago does not make it a valid proscription today.

I agree with you that regulation will neither decrease nor do more than a feeble slowing of the sale of guns. However it will allow police to know if a gun is a legal property or not. It has little to no effect on purchase.

The Second Amendment, like anything else in the US Constitution, can be changed through the process outlined in Article V. The last time the US Constitution was updated was in 1992 with the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. Just so you are aware, in the last 230 years since the Second Amendment was added to the US Constitution, there has not been a single proposed change ever made. That should demonstrate that the Second Amendment is current and up-to-date with the times. If it wasn't someone would have proposed altering it by now.

Police are not entitled to know diddly-squat. That would violate the Fourth Amendment. Everyone has the individual right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Only when law enforcement can articulate probable cause of a crime, or there has been a court-issued warrant, can law enforcement search and/or seize your property.

The only thing left is this so called need. And again i agree, the pro gun crowd is selling fear as a need for guns. There in is the problem. Give a scared man a gun and it will go bang.

You clearly know nothing of pro-gun crowd. The overwhelming majority of firearm owners consider firearms to be nothing more than tools, like a hammer or chainsaw. It is the irrational hoplophobe leftists spreading the fear. They pee their pants every time they see a civilian with a firearm.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Register gun owners federally similar to concealed carry. Only gun owners can buy or be in possession of guns. Must be 21 and take classes and pass all background checks. Anyone in possession of a firearm not a registered gun owner is guilty of a felony and subject to instant arrest and prosecution. Gun owners must post a $5000 dollar bond subject to forfeit if they fail to secure their guns from non-gunowners including theft. This will replace other existing gun laws.

This would have prevented many of the latest shooting. The shooters are young and will not go through the process of being registered and post a $5000 bond. It will also prevent many illegal street sales and reduce gun thefts because gun owners will have some liability and the penalty of having a gun and not be a registered gun owner will be significant and easily confirmed by law enforcement.

Great idea. Let's try it out on alcohol first. That'll save a lot more lives, for sure.

By the way, do you think all the people doing most of the gun violence with illegally-possessed guns (i.e., most of it) would care about this law any more than they care about the existing laws?

 

[Glitch]

Great idea. Let's try it out on alcohol first. That'll save a lot more lives, for sure.

By the way, do you think all the people doing most of the gun violence with illegally-possessed guns (i.e., most of it), would care about this law any more than they care about the existing laws?

I think we should try it out on our freedom of speech first. All those who wish to post their opinion online must obtain a federal background check, register the device they will be using, and obtain grammatical training before being allowed to give their opinion.

Or maybe we can use it to federally register all those who wish to exercise a religious belief, and then limit them to only very specific religious beliefs that have been government approved.

[/SARCASM]

Since when did reality ever concern a leftist? Their goal since they first took power in the US has always been to completely disarm the civilian populace, and they will use any means to accomplish that objective. Including sheer fantasy and intentional lies.

 

[craig]

Great idea. Let's try it out on alcohol first. That'll save a lot more lives, for sure.

By the way, do you think all the people doing most of the gun violence with illegally-possessed guns (i.e., most of it) would care about this law any more than they care about the existing laws?

Most are young, disturbed, have little stake in society, and little money. A few small hoops to jump through and they won't even try. And how do you determine they are illegally possessed now? As far as getting guns of the street held by hoodlums, making it plain that they are held illegally because they are not a registered gun owner and will be punished severely will be quick and useful.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Register gun owners federally similar to concealed carry. Only gun owners can buy or be in possession of guns. Must be 21 and take classes and pass all background checks. Anyone in possession of a firearm not a registered gun owner is guilty of a felony and subject to instant arrest and prosecution. Gun owners must post a $5000 dollar bond subject to forfeit if they fail to secure their guns from non-gunowners including theft. This will replace other existing gun laws.

This would have prevented many of the latest shooting. The shooters are young and will not go through the process of being registered and post a $5000 bond. It will also prevent many illegal street sales and reduce gun thefts because gun owners will have some liability and the penalty of having a gun and not be a registered gun owner will be significant and easily confirmed by law enforcement.

Nope, they will just steal the guns. The liberal governments of some cities will do what they do now and release people of color who defy the law and put them back on the street. Besides, you are infringing on all Americans 2nd amendment rights.
You are probably one of those who think having an I.D. to vote is an infringement on voting.

 

[Noodlegawd]

And how do you determine they are illegally possessed now?

Because most of them have felony records and/or carrying guns around without a permit.

 

[craig]

Nope, they will just steal the guns. The liberal governments of some cities will do what they do now and release people of color who defy the law and put them back on the street. Besides, you are infringing on all Americans 2nd amendment rights.
You are probably one of those who think having an I.D. to vote is an infringement on voting.

No. I think the same registration should also be used to vote.

 

[craig]

Because most of them have felony records and/or carrying guns around without a permit.

Then there should be no problem in arresting them and also those who supplied them including fining the legitimate owners who did not keep them secure.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Then there should be no problem in arresting them and also those who supplied them.

That would require efforts to ENFORCE the laws we already have. Democrats aren't into that.

 

[VanceMack]

You STILL really seem to struggle with that pesky thing called the Constition and still believe that it is appropriate to punish 150 million lawful gun owners to prevent a handful of violent criminal acts.

There are approx 3 mass shootings in any given year going back to 1982. There are some 120,000 rapes every year. SO...to prevent rapes, are you willing to chop off your own dick, assuming you have one?

 

[craig]

That would require efforts to ENFORCE the laws we already have. Democrats aren't into that.

Republican don't seem to do any better. Perhaps the existing laws are difficult to enforce and should be replaced with my proposal.

 

[soylentgreen]

Ask yourself a simple question; do you have a self-enforceable right to defend yourself?

If the answer is yes, then the next question to ask yourself is this: If your enemy is bigger, stronger, more numerous, and/or has access to any weapons available, then are you required to limit yourself to the equivalent of "bare hands?"

If the answer to the second question is yes, then join the mass of those who accept the role of passive submission to anyone with no problem using force to ensure absolute obedience. History is replete with examples.

However, if the answer to the second question is no, then you have your answer as to why the right to keep and bear arms is and should be "etched in stone."

Many of our Founders recognized the inherent individual right to a well-armed self-defense against criminals, raiders, foreign invaders, and even one's own government if necessary. That if this right was not "written in stone," then the government could eventually evolve into one as oppressive as the one recently defeated, and citizens would be hard pressed to do anything about it.

Now no one is forcing YOU to "keep and bear arms." Nor are they forcing me or any other citizen here in the USA to do so. I don't currently own any.

But I recognize that there may come a time when I feel the need. That if so I will seek such weapons by any means necessary, legal or no, because MY answers to the above questions are respectively YES, and NO.

Yes, I do have a right to defend myself.

I reject the premise of your statement . There is no need for me to feel any real fear of being attacked by such group as it is statistically unlikely. I would suspect that if I pointed out that america must be a crime ridden shithole if that is a legitimate example of normal criminal behaviour then you would be quick to point out how crime has decreased since gun owners increased. But as I said yours is an argument based on creating fear.

I would also point out that admitting to an attempt to break the law is grounds for a search warrant Not to mention that any future argument by you that gun owners are mostly law abiding is going to be seen as somewhat ironic considering how easily you admit to breaking a law.

 

[Captain Adverse]

That would require efforts to ENFORCE the laws we already have. Democrats aren't into that.

Meanwhile, even when law enforcement does try to enforce laws against "criminals," this results in either claims of police racism/brutality and/or public shootouts as perpetrators seek to evade arrest.

Law abiding citizens should be considered either criminals of a "threat to society" merely for the possession of firearms.

 

[craig]

You STILL really seem to struggle with that pesky thing called the Constition and still believe that it is appropriate to punish 150 million lawful gun owners to prevent a handful of violent criminal acts.

There are approx 3 mass shootings in any given year going back to 1982. There are some 120,000 rapes every year. SO...to prevent rapes, are you willing to chop off your own dick, assuming you have one?

No it should be chopped off after you rape someone. Do you support registering for concealed carry? How many crimes with guns are committed by those who are registered? I think few. I am proposing to extend it to possession of any firearm and hope for the same result.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Yes, I do have a right to defend myself.

I reject the premise of your statement . There is no need for me to feel any real fear of being attacked by such group as it is statistically unlikely. I would suspect that if I pointed out that america must be a crime ridden shithole if that is a legitimate example of normal criminal behaviour then you would be quick to point out how crime has decreased since gun owners increased. But as I said yours is an argument based on creating fear.

I would also point out that admitting to an attempt to break the law is grounds for a search warrant Not to mention that any future argument by you that gun owners are mostly law abiding is going to be seen as somewhat ironic considering how easily you admit to breaking a law.

You are "pointing out" your own confirmation biases. Nothing more.

We have tens, if not hundreds of millions of citizens who own firearms in this country, and do absolutely no wrong.

We also have a small segment of the population who engage in criminal exercises for fun and/or profit who are willing to use such weapons in the furtherance of those enterprises.

We also have a tinier fraction of citizens who, for whatever reasons, choose to abuse their rights and engage in deadly behaviors.

But society should not use the most extreme examples to act against the rights of other citizens who are doing no wrong.

That is changing the old homily "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" into a "ton of prevention is worth sacrificing inherent freedoms of self-defense."

Now you go ahead and stay in your allegedly "safe" little nation, happy that your country has made (some/all?) gun ownership a crime and has confiscated guns in the name of safety and security.

I, on the other hand, will fight to the end to preserve my inherent rights to self-defense and the defense of my (and other's) freedoms.

 

[soylentgreen]

The Second Amendment, like anything else in the US Constitution, can be changed through the process outlined in Article V. The last time the US Constitution was updated was in 1992 with the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. Just so you are aware, in the last 230 years since the Second Amendment was added to the US Constitution, there has not been a single proposed change ever made. That should demonstrate that the Second Amendment is current and up-to-date with the times. If it wasn't someone would have proposed altering it by now.

Police are not entitled to know diddly-squat. That would violate the Fourth Amendment. Everyone has the individual right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Only when law enforcement can articulate probable cause of a crime, or there has been a court-issued warrant, can law enforcement search and/or seize your property.


You clearly know nothing of pro-gun crowd. The overwhelming majority of firearm owners consider firearms to be nothing more than tools, like a hammer or chainsaw. It is the irrational hoplophobe leftists spreading the fear. They pee their pants every time they see a civilian with a firearm.

Not to me does it represent that it is current. If anything it is a good example of a lack of political will. Do not bother pointing to bidens effort. A change in power at any election will see your system of government cancel out any gains biden might make.

Amusing that you point to the fourth. Was there an actual point in doing so? You admit the police have a right to knowledge and also admit that police do not have right to knowledge.

I really could not care less about the majority of gun owners. It is not the ownership of guns or even what they are used for that is the issue. It is the weak argument that the 2nd is sacrosanct. Especially ironic when you point out that the constitution can change.

 

[soylentgreen]

You are "pointing out" your own confirmation biases. Nothing more.

We have tens, if not hundreds of millions of citizens who own firearms in this country, and do absolutely no wrong.

We also have a small segment of the population who engage in criminal exercises for fun and/or profit who are willing to use such weapons in the furtherance of those enterprises.

We also have a tinier fraction of citizens who, for whatever reasons, choose to abuse their rights and engage in deadly behaviors.

But society should not use the most extreme examples to act against the rights of other citizens who are doing no wrong.

That is changing the old homily "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" into a "ton of prevention is worth sacrificing a freedom of self-defense."

Now you go ahead and stay in your allegedly "safe" little nation, happy that your country has made (some/all?) gun ownership a crime and has confiscated guns in the name of safety and security.

I, on the other hand, will fight to the end to preserve my inherent rights to self-defense and the defense of my and other's freedoms.

A registration of guns would do those millions no harm then.

So without trying to say the words , what you are suggesting is that creating an image of mass attack by criminals is statically unlikely and therefor not that good reason to own a gun.

There are two branches to the pro gun crowd. You tried the crime argument and that failed. Now you are trying the patriot act. But both branches come from the same stem of fear. This time you are trying to argue that we should fear our government. I do agree, americans do have a need to fear their government. Your system of governance has proven itself to be corrupt. Otherwise why argue that you need to defend yourself from it.

 

[craig]

A registration of guns would do those millions no harm then.

So without trying to say the words , what you are suggesting is that creating an image of mass attack by criminals is statically unlikely and therefor not that good reason to own a gun.

There are two branches to the pro gun crowd. You tried the crime argument and that failed. Now you are trying the patriot act. But both branches come from the same stem of fear. This time you are trying to argue that we should fear our government. I do agree, americans do have a need to fear their government. Your system of governance has proven itself to be corrupt. Otherwise why argue that you need to defend yourself from it.

It makes no sense to register guns anymore than registering chainsaws or knifes. Register gunowners and severely punish those who are not registered. Registered gun owners will be a very strong political lobby and would help protect the 2nd amendment.

 

[soylentgreen]

It makes no sense to register guns anymore than registering chainsaws or knifes. Register gunowners and severely punish those who are not registered.

A register of guns should include the gun owner. And the unfortunate thinking behind punish those who are not registered is that has to be an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff approach in that the police have to wait till a crime is committed or suspected to act.

 

[VanceMack]

No it should be chopped off after you rape someone. Do you support registering for concealed carry? How many crimes with guns are committed by those who are registered? I think few. I am proposing to extend it to possession of any firearm and hope for the same result.

Woah...you dont think you should have your dick chopped off proactively to PREVENT you from raping someone???

 

[Court Jester]

Register gun owners federally similar to concealed carry. Only gun owners can buy or be in possession of guns. Must be 21 and take classes and pass all background checks. Anyone in possession of a firearm not a registered gun owner is guilty of a felony and subject to instant arrest and prosecution. Gun owners must post a $5000 dollar bond subject to forfeit if they fail to secure their guns from non-gunowners including theft. This will replace other existing gun laws.

This would have prevented many of the latest shooting. The shooters are young and will not go through the process of being registered and post a $5000 bond. It will also prevent many illegal street sales and reduce gun thefts because gun owners will have some liability and the penalty of having a gun and not be a registered gun owner will be significant and easily confirmed by law enforcement.

Not a good solution to make all of our laws only federal laws. Some are fine, and some obviously will be overlapping in with many state laws depending on the state. But it is important that the people of all states have the ability to vote for laws and continue to reserve rights which are not already excluded by Federal laws.

And that part about a 5K bond is EXACTLY the problem. You can only make gun owners liable for what they do. Sure, if they leave a loaded gun on a table around small children and something goes wrong, that is something to prosecute or sue for. Just like not having a locking gate around your swimming pool. But if someone breaks in and steals my guns and uses them in a crime, I am no more responsible for that as if someone stole my car and ran over a kid.

No gun is good for protection in your home that is unloaded, trigger locked, and inside a safe. When you need it you NEED IT. I don't have small children, and I am responsible. If there are guests my guns are secured. But I keep several loaded and ready weapons IN MY OWN CASTLE, and that is my business alone! 2nd amendment is not worth spit if all of my rights are being infringed down to nothing.

FWIW, if people don't like the gun laws in Florida, Kentucky, Montana etc..... then don't go there.

 

[Rich2018]

Woah...you dont think you should have your dick chopped off proactively to PREVENT you from raping someone???

Did it work for you ?

 

[craig]

Woah...you dont think you should have your dick chopped off proactively to PREVENT you from raping someone???

I am not saying you should cop off your dick before you date. I am saying you should meet the dad first.