Why can some have guns and not others?

[roughdraft274]

sure it should because it proves the weapon is very suitable for protecting a civilian in a mostly civilian environment. and I see my local doctor, barber or shopkeeper's life being as valuable as that of any politician's

Silly argument. In one case you have highly trained secret service protecting arguably, the most powerful man in the world, who's death would affect our entire country. The other cases not so much. All of those people you listed have the right, if they want to, to hire highly trained armed security, to get a concealed carry permit, to own or possess a firearm with only a few restrictions. In my opinion, that's plenty enough.

 

[TurtleDude]

Silly argument. In one case you have highly trained secret service protecting arguably, the most powerful man in the world, who's death would affect our entire country. The other cases not so much. All of those people you listed have the right, if they want to, to hire highly trained armed security, to get a concealed carry permit, to own or possess a firearm with only a few restrictions. In my opinion, that's plenty enough.

why should any politician be entitled to be protected by more suitable weapons than the rest of us

I believe in a bright line test

if any civilian law enforcement agency has access to a firearm then the rest of the citizenry should to (assuming a clean record, suitable age etc)

it is disgusting for a governmental entity to claim that some weapons are "so dangerous that even the best trained citizen should not be able to even own them" and then issue those same weapons to often somewhat trained government agents

 

[blackjack50]

Who said I was for banning anything? In fact, I think I specifically said I wasn't.

Tell you what.....stop your 2nd Amendemnet buddies from selling to criminals and madmen with straw sales and gun shows that have a "wink wink/nudge nudge" policy.

Sometimes I think that's why some of you guys hated Toomey/Manchin....because some of you are either....

A. People with criminal records who can't get a gun any other way.

Or

B. People who make a lot of money by selling to criminals.

What the HELL are you talking about? We didn't support the bill because it would have required paying money to 3rd parties for us, while criminals continue on their merry way completely unhindered. I've never committed a felony in my life. I've never sold a gun or even traded one in. So there goes A.

Do you even know what a straw buyer is? By their very definition they are unhindered by background checks. The people who make money selling to criminals would make even MORE money when you restrict their flow.

But I like what you did. Accuse the law abiding citizens, who don't support your view, of being criminals so as to undermine their stance. Never mind providing evidence for the baseless claim. It is easier to just yell a catchy jingle to sell your "point" than to actually back up the position.

 

[roughdraft274]

why should any politician be entitled to be protected by more suitable weapons than the rest of us

I believe in a bright line test

if any civilian law enforcement agency has access to a firearm then the rest of the citizenry should to (assuming a clean record, suitable age etc)

it is disgusting for a governmental entity to claim that some weapons are "so dangerous that even the best trained citizen should not be able to even own them" and then issue those same weapons to often somewhat trained government agents

Oh, so you're saying they should get a back ground check before they get these weapons?

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh, so you're saying they should get a back ground check before they get these weapons?

I have never opposed federal firearms dealers running a background check on people who buy guns as long as the check is instant and the buyer is not charged a fee. Though I dispute the federal government having the proper authority to order such things there is no doubt that under the current mutated version of the Commerce Clause (given FFLs clearly engage in interstate commerce) that power exists.

 

[roughdraft274]

I have never opposed federal firearms dealers running a background check on people who buy guns as long as the check is instant and the buyer is not charged a fee. Though I dispute the federal government having the proper authority to order such things there is no doubt that under the current mutated version of the Commerce Clause (given FFLs clearly engage in interstate commerce) that power exists.

I'm not asking if you'v never opposed the idea, though that's some pretty sneaky lawyer talk you sneaked in there

You said, not me, but you, that they should be able to own these guns given that they are old enough and have a clean record. If you are saying that them having a clean record then I'm assuming you support some kind of method to actually verify this to be in place. Am I correct in this assumption?

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not asking if you'v never opposed the idea, though that's some pretty sneaky lawyer talk you sneaked in there

You said, not me, but you, that they should be able to own these guns given that they are old enough and have a clean record. If you are saying that them having a clean record then I'm assuming you support some kind of method to actually verify this to be in place. Am I correct in this assumption?

Nope, there are laws that criminalize possessing weapons if you are a felon. I oppose banning all felons permanently-especially felonies that don't involve violence or threats with weapons. armed robbers, drive by shooters etc-I have no problem with them being perma-banned from owning weapons


and if you get caught doing something wrong with a gun and you have a record, you will properly get even more time in prison for being a felon or fugitive in possession


lets get back to politicians wanting to prevent us from owning the same weapons used to protect them

 

[Mach]

What a simple question. Do the OP individuals appear to be obliviously, or calculatingly, hypocritical? Yes.
They use guns to protect themselves, their property, their family. Yet they oppose gun ownership.

They key here to remember is they likely only oppose gun ownership to enhance their own career. Entertainers who make a living siding with the common worker, or liberals, or a politican who may do a little more than an entertainer but is still clearly, entirely dependent on public "appeal" to a political base.People will say and do nearly anything to further their own power, influence, money, reputation. This is why individual liberty is so absurdly important, and was recognized to be fundamental. People will ALWAYS have a reason to take away your liberty as a mob. Always. Necessarily. And if you allow it, they will. It's that simple.

I hate guns from an idealistic perspective. I have multiple guns for self defense and want it no other way.

 

[TurtleDude]

What a simple question. Do the OP individuals appear to be obliviously, or calculatingly, hypocritical? Yes.
They use guns to protect themselves, their property, their family. Yet they oppose gun ownership.

They key here to remember is they likely only oppose gun ownership to enhance their own career. Entertainers who make a living siding with the common worker, or liberals, or a politican who may do a little more than an entertainer but is still clearly, entirely dependent on public "appeal" to a political base.People will say and do nearly anything to further their own power, influence, money, reputation. This is why individual liberty is so absurdly important, and was recognized to be fundamental. People will ALWAYS have a reason to take away your liberty as a mob. Always. Necessarily. And if you allow it, they will. It's that simple.

I hate guns from an idealistic perspective. I have multiple guns for self defense and want it no other way.

I don't hate or love objects. I choose a proper tool for a job. I don't hate a table tennis paddle because its a lousy self defense weapon. And I don't hate my Beretta shotgun because its worthless for fly fishing

 

[blackjack50]

What a simple question. Do the OP individuals appear to be obliviously, or calculatingly, hypocritical? Yes.
They use guns to protect themselves, their property, their family. Yet they oppose gun ownership.

They key here to remember is they likely only oppose gun ownership to enhance their own career. Entertainers who make a living siding with the common worker, or liberals, or a politican who may do a little more than an entertainer but is still clearly, entirely dependent on public "appeal" to a political base.People will say and do nearly anything to further their own power, influence, money, reputation. This is why individual liberty is so absurdly important, and was recognized to be fundamental. People will ALWAYS have a reason to take away your liberty as a mob. Always. Necessarily. And if you allow it, they will. It's that simple.

I hate guns from an idealistic perspective. I have multiple guns for self defense and want it no other way.

I agree with this position lol. I don't know if I "hate guns" from an idealistic perspective though. They freed the masses from the servitude of knights in armor after all. Some may debate that, but a peasant being able to "gun down" a man on horseback was kind of revolutionary lol.

 

[MACS-24]

He didn't read what I wrote. I said Dem leaders want to ban them. He must have been sleeping for months after Newtown.

He must have missed Diane Finetard admitting in the mid 1990s that if she had the votes she would have banned ALL SEMI AUTOS

I never said they were completely banned-

...and then read the invisibly printed "Obama" when I said 'So there was no ban in the 90's?'

 

[Mach]

I agree with this position lol. I don't know if I "hate guns" from an idealistic perspective though. They freed the masses from the servitude of knights in armor after all. Some may debate that, but a peasant being able to "gun down" a man on horseback was kind of revolutionary lol.

Yeah, I guess I mean the idealism that came from the innocence of childhood. I hate the idea of death and killing from that innocent perspective, but form a realistic, rational perspective, as Turtle notes, it's a means to an end. And the end can be anything from slavery to freedom and everything in between.

 

[blackjack50]

I take that as you saying you have no evidence. Thanks.

So you are suggesting that one could not infer from past action, and actions of others with similar views, that privately armed security would be provided for those with enough money?

 

[CalGun]

The cases you brought forward are spot on. However I would say some should have guns and others should not. Violent felons in my book should not have firearms. Criminal aliens who ignore our immigration laws should not enjoy the second or any other amendments civil liberties...they were not written for non citizens. Mentally unstable people should not be able to have firearms as long as that diagnosis illustrates the person can't be trusted to be safe with any gun.

So. What makes his life more valuable than mine? He can have armed security? I can't?

Journalist Accosted By Security Over Mayor Bloomberg Gun Control Question - YouTube

Mayor Bloomberg? Why does he get armed security and not me?

Rosie O'Donnell's hypocrisy finally caught up to her | Human Events

Rosie? You have armed security?

Get off Piers Morgan’s lawn!

Piers Morgan? You have Armed Security? WHAT?

Oprah Winfrey gets hardcore security Down Under - but would prefer your mum's house - CelebrityFIX

Oprah? You get a gun? Everyone gets a gun?

Well unless you are a "poor" American...aka you don't make as much as these people. You aren't valuable. You don't matter. You aren't important. Yet every single anti-gun sucker on this website and in this country will continue to exclaim that these people are more valuable or more important. Or "they get death threats." So? They get security? What do I do? I can't afford armed security. I can't afford an alarm system. It is sad how much hypocrisy goes into the "gun control" crowd.

 

[LaMidRighter]

For the most part I agree with you, but I have certain caviottes that are well known.

The cases you brought forward are spot on. However I would say some should have guns and others should not. Violent felons in my book should not have firearms.

I agree here, but only because the justice system has certain non violent offenses doing less time than some pretty hefty violent offenses. Ideally, the most violent should be in prison until they are no longer a threat to the public, whether that is through true rehabilitation or their natural death. If we don't fix that, there is a necessity that those who are prone to violence are not allowed firearms, I am more inclined to say a person convicted of a violent felony should have a period to where they should keep their nose absolutely clean before they can re qualify for their full rights, including voting and gun ownership

Criminal aliens who ignore our immigration laws should not enjoy the second or any other amendments civil liberties...they were not written for non citizens.

Goes without saying I agree here. One cannot break naturalization law and be treated like a citizen.

Mentally unstable people should not be able to have firearms as long as that diagnosis illustrates the person can't be trusted to be safe with any gun.

No argument here, should be adjudicated through the courts using both psychological and judicial processes and that must be specifically spelled out to conform to due process.

 

[American]

If any one of the aforementioned clowns dropped dead it would be a net positive on the world.

Indigestion for worms.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Indigestion for worms.

Small price to pay.