Guns laws are good for us???

[JMintzer]

It seems we have several antis on this forum. QUOTE]

Exactly. Just because someone owns/uses guns DOES NOT mean they are a friend to true gun rights....Some people just don't get it.

Now I'm not your friend... Aw shucks...

 

[novus collectus]

Okay, by your logic, anyone who's misused their right to own a gun should have their right revoked.

Unfortunately, there are those involved in this very discussion who will call you an idiot for saying that!

Nope, no one here has said otherwise that I have seen. They are all saying if you commit a violent crime with a gun it is ok for the state to take their right away.

AFA cars go, you do have to register said car once it's sold, right? Sol there are comparisons...


Jamie

As I said in my post....you do NOT have to register said car once it is bought or sold. There are plenty of race track cars, museum pieces, farm trucks, etc. which will never be driven on public roads and therefore do NOT have to be registered.

 

[smores]

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Any and all gun laws are unconstitutional. Luckily, we are part of the "law abiding citizen" portion of the population, so this right still applies to us. Doesn't take much to change that. From what I remember, even criminals (who are not in prison) still fall under every other amendment just fine.

 

[Markp]

If guns are legal for everyone to own, how do you prosecute a bad guy for having a gun?

You don't punish a "bad guy" for owning a gun anymore than you punish a drunk driver for owning a car!

Owning the gun shouldn't be a crime, misusing the weapon (regardless of what weapon is used.) is a crime.

Mark

 

[Markp]

But once he's been convicted of a crime w/a gun, should he be able to continue to own one?


Jamie

Once he has served his LONG sentence, yes. Remember parolees are not free men. Allowing them to serve their sentences in society makes them no less a prisoner.

Mark

 

[Markp]

Now I'm not your friend... Aw shucks...

Safe to say that you're probably not a friend to many of us. We view you with ire and skepticism, why, because you like others would prefer to take away the freedoms of the innocent rather than properly punish those who would violate the rights of others.

Mark

 

[Markp]

Sorry, I disagree. I'm as pro 2A as the next guy, but I do realize that that there needs to be some restrictions.

Jamie

Obviously, you are not.

 

[Gunner71]

It seems we have several antis on this forum. QUOTE]

Exactly. Just because someone owns/uses guns DOES NOT mean they are a friend to true gun rights....Some people just don't get it.

That is why I have several friends who own guns but I will not talk gun laws with them. As long as .gov is not going after their hunting rifles they don't see a problem with waiting forever and getting "not dissaproved" after filling out paperwork that shouldn't need to be filled out in the first place. They see people who want FA and EBR's as fringe gun nuts . They drink the kool-aid and say yes sir, I'll follow whatever rules you want as long as I can still hunt.
2A, its not about hunting dammit

 

[Matlack]

I love it when someone has a differing opinion. The insults fly! Now I'm an "anti" LOL!

NO LAWS regarding firearms ownership?

Sorry, I disagree. I'm as pro 2A as the next guy, but I do realize that that there needs to be some restrictions.

Now, some may say that any restriction at all is a victory for the "other side". I don't see it that way. If people would step back and act like rational human beings, reasonable, rational laws could be passed.

Unfortunately, after reading some of the comments, I doubt that will ever happen...


Jamie

So according to you it is ok to restrict your gun ownership? So if I decided that anyone who hasnt completed or done X should not be allowed to own a gun I can take yours away until you full fill my requirements? No matter how mundane or insignificant my requirements may be.

This brings up my point from before where everyone has a different opinion on what is "reasonable". You obviously feel it is ok if someone says you cannot own something for no fault of your own.

No one individual should be infringed based on previous acts, either by their own acts or the acts of others. If you yell fire in a crowd and someone is hurt are you no longer allowed to speak? Once your debt to society has been paid you are free. But the punishment should fit the crime.

If you commit a crime no matter how you did it you should got to jail and you should not have any of the luxuries of home. You should not have free health care and you should have to work to pay for your residence in jail and the food you are served. No free passes.

Should someone be punished for a crime they did not commit? That is what gun control laws do. They punish law abiding citizens for something they did not do.

I dont know why this common sense logic is so difficult to understand.

 

[GNLaFrance]

Should someone be punished for a crime they did not commit? That is what gun control laws do. They punish law abiding citizens for something they did not do.

I dont know why this common sense logic is so difficult to understand.

It makes perfect sense to sheep.

 

[JMintzer]

So according to you it is ok to restrict your gun ownership? So if I decided that anyone who hasnt completed or done X should not be allowed to own a gun I can take yours away until you full fill my requirements? No matter how mundane or insignificant my requirements may be.

Yes, in certain cases it should be okay to restrict ownership.

What if a person has been judged mentally incompetent. Should they own a gun?

Should the Ft Hood lunatic (Hasan), after he's denounced the USA, or make terrorist threats be allowed to waltz into Gun Connection (sorry Dan, nothing personal, just using you as an example) and purchase a fully automatic weapon?

This brings up my point from before where everyone has a different opinion on what is "reasonable". You obviously feel it is ok if someone says you cannot own something for no fault of your own.

No fault of my own? I never said that. I've used specific instances where I thought that it was okay to restrict ownership. None of them were "no fault".

No one individual should be infringed based on previous acts, either by their own acts or the acts of others. If you yell fire in a crowd and someone is hurt are you no longer allowed to speak? Once your debt to society has been paid you are free. But the punishment should fit the crime.

What happens if it's decided that the "punishment" is to lose your right to bear arms?

If you commit a crime no matter how you did it you should got to jail and you should not have any of the luxuries of home. You should not have free health care and you should have to work to pay for your residence in jail and the food you are served. No free passes.

Agreed, but this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand...

Should someone be punished for a crime they did not commit? That is what gun control laws do. They punish law abiding citizens for something they did not do.

Punish? An immediate background check is a punishment? Sorry, I disagree with that logic.

I dont know why this common sense logic is so difficult to understand.

Funny, I can say the same thing...


Jamie

 

[JMintzer]

This -IS- a discussion board, right? I mean discussion is allowed, right?

I can't understand why there are those folks who insist on insulting, debasing and demeaning those who may disagree with them.

I was insulted by a business owner. Not very smart if you ever want to see a dime of my business.

Hell, I was even dissed by a "Constitutional Scholar" who was surprised to find out that there wasn't a law requiring you to be "a Christian" to hold the office of the Presidency. He even opined that it was "wishful thinking" that it was true. I guess the part about "The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion" escaped his attention. But he sure knows his 2A, though...

I've tried to hold my tongue and not respond in kind. I've tried to make my argument in an intelligent fashion. You may disagree, and that's fine, but I'm ashamed of those who stoop to such levels. With that attitude, no wonder so many folks have a negative opinion of gun owners. Just something to think about...

I've met more than a few folks here, either at the various gun shows, or at Cresap and AGC. I challenge you to find one person who has something negative thing to say about me.

I hope to meet more of you on Sunday. I hope that some of you have more manners in person than you've shown here...


Jamie

 

[rrrrrrkevin]

Yes, in certain cases it should be okay to restrict ownership.

What if a person has been judged mentally incompetent. Should they own a gun?

Should the Ft Hood lunatic (Hasan), after he's denounced the USA, or make terrorist threats be allowed to waltz into Gun Connection (sorry Dan, nothing personal, just using you as an example) and purchase a fully automatic weapon?

Thats so rediculous, if the people there hadnt been disarmed they wouldnt have been slaughtered like a bunch of sheep. Also there was no full auto used here so stop pushing on the stereotype that they are so evil.

 

[coinboy]

JMintzer,

Please tell me why you feel that a instant background check is "Reasonable." Do you really believe that an instant background check will prevent a criminal from getting a firearm? You have to understand that you are not just completing an "instant check." You also have laws saying which people are okay to own a firearm and which are not. You also have the government tracking and recording every puchase done with this intasnt check.

Fact is that a criminal would not buy a firearm from a dealer. They will buy it of the street. Criminals will get their guns no matter what the laws and requirements are. You are only making it harder for law abiding citizens to get firearms and protect themselves. There are already penalities for commiting crimes. Maybe if we were tougher on harsh crimes such as rape, robbery, and murder we wouldn't need to make gun laws. I have always said if someone rapes a girl, chop off his wang. If someone kills somone, kill them. If someone robs someone, chop their hand off. Or justice system and lawmakers have become pussies. We need harsher penalties for major crimes and less laws on the books. It's time to clean up the law books for them to be understandable to everyone.

 

[DD214]

I've only read the last page of this thread, but from what I am seeing I don't want to read the rest as it appears that many of you are being unreasonably dickish. Can't we have a gun law related discussion/debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks and temper tantrums? Save those for the liberals suck/religion/45vs9 threads. Sheesh...

 

[Markp]

Yes, in certain cases it should be okay to restrict ownership.

What if a person has been judged mentally incompetent. Should they own a gun?

Should the Ft Hood lunatic (Hasan), after he's denounced the USA, or make terrorist threats be allowed to waltz into Gun Connection (sorry Dan, nothing personal, just using you as an example) and purchase a fully automatic weapon?

As a matter of fact, it's already illegal for those who have abandoned their US citizenship to own a gun.

18 USC 922 (d)
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

So if he had rejected his US citizenship, how did he get a gun... Oh, that's right, HE LIED on the paperwork. Why? Because he is a CRIMINAL. Well that solution didn't work too well now did it?

Mark

 

[xd40c]

Having viewed this entire thread and made several comments/observations, I'll through one more out there.

Look at the range of opinions we have just here on the board. We're supposed to be the enlightened ones when it comes to gun ownership. Yet even here, amongst our "brothers in arms", we are seeing a wide range of view points with some...shall I say "spirited" discussion.

I think it's fair to say there have always been a fair number of liberals here, though they may be a small minority.. Their view point will never match the conservatives. If it did,why would we have either? For them, how they get their weapons is not so important. If they have to have jump through a few hoops, well that 's OK "because I'm doing it for the greater good". The issue of big government is not an issue for that person. Consequently, he has no problem with a gov't that inserts itself in his life. He is happy with gov't. Others (myself included), view gov't as a necessary evil. We only want it to defend us and build roads.

And that's really what we're talking about. How much government intrusion are you willing to endure for your 2A rights? Me? NONE!

 

[xd40c]

Save those for the liberals suck/religion/45vs9 threads. Sheesh...

Damn liberals...

 

[Markp]

I do want to say in response to one post, that the more restrictive views of gun ownership are certainly not without merit, as I am sure you have thought through your positions. I understand how you feel about the crimes that occur at the hands of bad people with powerful weapons. You are welcome to disagree with me, vehemently if you feel that passionately about your view.

None the less, I am always willing to tilt back a beer with anyone and discuss this passionately and without malice. So if I have offended, please do accept my apology for offending you... this will not change my beliefs (or yours) but we'll still be able to enjoy a nice beer together.

Mark

 

[clandestine]

This -IS- a discussion board, right? I mean discussion is allowed, right?

I can't understand why there are those folks who insist on insulting, debasing and demeaning those who may disagree with them.

I was insulted by a business owner. Not very smart if you ever want to see a dime of my business.

Which business owner insulted you? Are you implying that I insulted you?

Hell, I was even dissed by a "Constitutional Scholar" who was surprised to find out that there wasn't a law requiring you to be "a Christian" to hold the office of the Presidency. He even opined that it was "wishful thinking" that it was true. I guess the part about "The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion" escaped his attention. But he sure knows his 2A, though...

Do you have something against Christians?

I've tried to hold my tongue and not respond in kind. I've tried to make my argument in an intelligent fashion. You may disagree, and that's fine, but I'm ashamed of those who stoop to such levels. With that attitude, no wonder so many folks have a negative opinion of gun owners. Just something to think about...

This paragraph makes you sound like you are no friend of freedom or the 2A.