Gun Control

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

let me add this little nugget..

 

 

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

 

We have this thing called the constitution, France doesn't have that.

As I stated earlier I'd we strictly follow that then we have to strictly follow that the constitution wasn't written for colored people or women. So own all the muskets you want white men!

 

 

 

Can you point to where in the constitution where it says it isn't for colored people?

 

 

EDIT: I will answer that! You can't, are you taking two separate issues and trying to relate them. Which is by far the dumbest argument I have seen to date.

 

Just for factual clarification - you're right, the constitution never explicitly denies its services to black people or any other race. However, because of that, our forefathers did interpret the Constitution in a way to ban voting rights/civil rights to women and black people. The Constitution had to later be amended to address these concerns.

 

The Constitution is a living, breathing piece of legislation.

 

 

Blacks were able to vote from the start.. it was slaves that were not allowed to vote.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1072053/posts

 

 

calling it a living document is nothing but a way to change what isn't liked.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/15/justice-scalia-constitution-is-not-living-organism.html

 

 

"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

 

https://www.myheritage.org/news/why-liberals-who-believe-in-a-living-constitution-are-wrong/

 

 

Federal judges have become collaborators with a liberal agenda that undermines the Constitution and tramples the rights of Americans, a panel of experts said at The Heritage Foundation this week.

Liberals often argue for a “living Constitution” whose meaning evolves with time. But this view undermines key limitations on government power that are written into the Constitution itself, said Clark Niely III, an attorney at the Institute for Justice:

 

Yet we as a nation have spent hundreds of years amending what we don't like in it.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

how well did gun control work in Paris? Everything used was outlawed, but they were still used.

Exactly. Somehow those who feel gun control is the answer to this issue seem to always overlook this reality. Perhaps its because the leaders they look up too (Obama and Hillary) are using the fun control issue to hide from their failures in fighting terrorism. For them its easy to use guns as a scapegoat for their failures. The FBI was tracking the Orlando killer and Hillary and Obama told them to stop as they feared a Muslim backlash.

Or maybe it's because we're smart enough and open minded enough to relize that you can not stop them all, but doing something is better than nothing. The status quo is not working.

So do you approve of stopping middle eastern migration as well as probing mosques as a way of preventing these situations. That would be doing something.

No I don't. I don't view immigrants as a problem or the muslim religion as a problem. If you want to investigate a mosque because it has members affiliated with terrorist organizations or ties with those hot bed regions ok, but probing every mosque is highly prejudice and not what this country should be about. It's also a resource waster.

 

Also why should law abiding Muslim, and Muslim immigrants suffer for the actions of a few?

[Redux]

 

 

 

I'm not a big fan of the frequent view parroted by the pro-gun crowd that tougher restrictions are going to make it harder for "law-abiding citizens" to get their guns. If you're qualified to have a gun, you'll go through the process, check the appropriate boxes, and get your gun.

It's also just intellectually lazy IMO to use "the bad guys are still going to get their guns from other places" as an excuse to do nothing.

 

I hate the argument that we'll make it too hard to get a gun. I have to jump through umpteen hoops, have inspections galore, get permits, and generally pull my hair out to rebuild my deck and add some wiring and gas lines. It'll take months. But you can get an AR-15 in seven minutes? C'mon.

It's the fact that harder gun laws will punish responsible gun owners. It's a necessary sacrifice though unfortunately.

And it's hardly lazy to say "bad guys will still get guns" because there is certainly truth in it. Just because you don't mnow how to illegally aquire a gun doesn't make it any harder for those that do and want to use them for evil.

In what way does it punish responsible gun owners? Longer wait times? Actual useful training? I'm sorry, if that's the drawback to responsible vetting, I just can't force myself to care.

 

I'm glad we're at a point where even some pro-gun advocates can get on board with it though.

 

I think there's truth to the last statement. I don't subscribe to the camp that thinks tougher regulations would lead to a boon in the black market/backdoor gun market. If anything, I'd suggest it would allow the government to more harshly target people who acquire their guns through such methods and prosecute the sellers. That's part and parcel with curbing gun violence, in my mind.

It punishes responsible owners in the ways you described, plus in several other ways we don't yet know without trial and error.

 

Just because someone owns and or supports gun rights doesn't mean they don't want things to change.

[knapplc]

 

In what way does it punish responsible gun owners? Longer wait times? Actual useful training? I'm sorry, if that's the drawback to responsible vetting, I just can't force myself to care.

 

I'm glad we're at a point where even some pro-gun advocates can get on board with it though.

 

I think there's truth to the last statement. I don't subscribe to the camp that thinks tougher regulations would lead to a boon in the black market/backdoor gun market. If anything, I'd suggest it would allow the government to more harshly target people who acquire their guns through such methods and prosecute the sellers. That's part and parcel with curbing gun violence, in my mind.

It punishes responsible owners in the ways you described, plus in several other ways we don't yet know without trial and error.

 

Just because someone owns and or supports gun rights doesn't mean they don't want things to change.

 

Do you really think the bolded are "punishments?" It's hard to tell by the context of the rest of your posts.

 

If you do see them as "punishments," are they reasonable for gun owners to go through?

[TAKODA]

 

 

 

 

how well did gun control work in Paris? Everything used was outlawed, but they were still used.

Exactly. Somehow those who feel gun control is the answer to this issue seem to always overlook this reality. Perhaps its because the leaders they look up too (Obama and Hillary) are using the fun control issue to hide from their failures in fighting terrorism. For them its easy to use guns as a scapegoat for their failures. The FBI was tracking the Orlando killer and Hillary and Obama told them to stop as they feared a Muslim backlash.

Or maybe it's because we're smart enough and open minded enough to relize that you can not stop them all, but doing something is better than nothing. The status quo is not working.

So do you approve of stopping middle eastern migration as well as probing mosques as a way of preventing these situations. That would be doing something.

No I don't. I don't view immigrants as a problem or the muslim religion as a problem. If you want to investigate a mosque because it has members affiliated with terrorist organizations or ties with those hot bed regions ok, but probing every mosque is highly prejudice and not what this country should be about. It's also a resource waster.

 

Also why should law abiding Muslim immigrants suffer for the actions of a few?

 

 

While at heart, I would love to agree with one of your points here "not what this country should be about" (in a perfect world) but we may be risking the lives of our own, if we turn a blind eye to common sense and putting the "rights of a religious or secular groups" over the safety of US citizens. In that vein, I think we need to be careful to separate the difference between a Muslim and an extremist Muslim from abroad.

 

Yet as I say this, we have this Orlando shooter who was born in the US and a practicing Muslim and he got away with his heinous act because we apparently did not follow through with whatever process was initially being acted upon.

[huKSer]

 

 

 

 

how well did gun control work in Paris? Everything used was outlawed, but they were still used.

Exactly. Somehow those who feel gun control is the answer to this issue seem to always overlook this reality. Perhaps its because the leaders they look up too (Obama and Hillary) are using the fun control issue to hide from their failures in fighting terrorism. For them its easy to use guns as a scapegoat for their failures. The FBI was tracking the Orlando killer and Hillary and Obama told them to stop as they feared a Muslim backlash.

Or maybe it's because we're smart enough and open minded enough to relize that you can not stop them all, but doing something is better than nothing. The status quo is not working.

So do you approve of stopping middle eastern migration as well as probing mosques as a way of preventing these situations. That would be doing something.

No I don't. I don't view immigrants as a problem or the muslim religion as a problem. If you want to investigate a mosque because it has members affiliated with terrorist organizations or ties with those hot bed regions ok, but probing every mosque is highly prejudice and not what this country should be about. It's also a resource waster.

 

Also why should law abiding Muslim, and Muslim immigrants suffer for the actions of a few?

 

Trump said that Muslims are not doing enough to "self-police", then one of the news outlets said 28% of all leads on terrorism came from other Muslims, which I think is proportionally greater than that of the general population

 

On the other hand the idiot's current wife knew he bought the weapons and scouted the club and did not notify authorities.

[TAKODA]

 

 

In what way does it punish responsible gun owners? Longer wait times? Actual useful training? I'm sorry, if that's the drawback to responsible vetting, I just can't force myself to care.

 

I'm glad we're at a point where even some pro-gun advocates can get on board with it though.

 

I think there's truth to the last statement. I don't subscribe to the camp that thinks tougher regulations would lead to a boon in the black market/backdoor gun market. If anything, I'd suggest it would allow the government to more harshly target people who acquire their guns through such methods and prosecute the sellers. That's part and parcel with curbing gun violence, in my mind.

It punishes responsible owners in the ways you described, plus in several other ways we don't yet know without trial and error.

 

Just because someone owns and or supports gun rights doesn't mean they don't want things to change.

 

Do you really think the bolded are "punishments?" It's hard to tell by the context of the rest of your posts.

 

If you do see them as "punishments," are they reasonable for gun owners to go through?

 

 

Knapp, I for one do not feel waiting longer or jumping through a few more hoops to acquire a gun would be considered punishment. I look at owning and having my guns as a privilege as a US citizen. I know the constitution 2nd amendment states "right to bear arms" but nowhere does it say it can't be denied for just cause. "The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices".

[knapplc]

Knapp, I for one do not feel waiting longer or jumping through a few more hoops to acquire a gun would be considered punishment. I look at owning and having my guns as a privilege as a US citizen. I know the constitution 2nd amendment states "right to bear arms" but nowhere does it say it can't be denied for just cause. "The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices".

I would agree with that. And I would stipulate that making gun purchasers go through more government oversight than I have to go through to build an addition onto my house is a small price to pay.

[TAKODA]

 

Knapp, I for one do not feel waiting longer or jumping through a few more hoops to acquire a gun would be considered punishment. I look at owning and having my guns as a privilege as a US citizen. I know the constitution 2nd amendment states "right to bear arms" but nowhere does it say it can't be denied for just cause. "The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices".

I would agree with that. And I would stipulate that making gun purchasers go through more government oversight than I have to go through to build an addition onto my house is a small price to pay.

 

 

LOL +1, been there and done that. I felt pretty good when I was all done only to have the inspector come back out and tell me I had to make a change, as I was extended 7" beyond boundary limit.

[Redux]

 

 

In what way does it punish responsible gun owners? Longer wait times? Actual useful training? I'm sorry, if that's the drawback to responsible vetting, I just can't force myself to care. I'm glad we're at a point where even some pro-gun advocates can get on board with it though. I think there's truth to the last statement. I don't subscribe to the camp that thinks tougher regulations would lead to a boon in the black market/backdoor gun market. If anything, I'd suggest it would allow the government to more harshly target people who acquire their guns through such methods and prosecute the sellers. That's part and parcel with curbing gun violence, in my mind.

It punishes responsible owners in the ways you described, plus in several other ways we don't yet know without trial and error.Just because someone owns and or supports gun rights doesn't mean they don't want things to change.

Do you really think the bolded are "punishments?" It's hard to tell by the context of the rest of your posts.If you do see them as "punishments," are they reasonable for gun owners to go through?

You seriously have to stop treating my posts like I'm trying to justify the current gun laws, or read the whole post without such a biased approach.

 

It's a very small price to pay as a gun owner to receive better training and waiting a bit longer. Better?

[knapplc]

You seriously have to stop treating my posts like I'm trying to justify the current gun laws, or read the whole post without such a biased approach.

 

It's a very small price to pay as a gun owner to receive better training and waiting a bit longer. Better?

I am not doing that. I'm clarifying, not accusing.

[Redux]

I'll be as clear as humanly possible:

 

Our current gun laws are sh#t. If we don't change them, mass shootings will continue to happen and grow in numbers. This exceeds muslim extremists and definitely includes loons who purchased firearms legally because it was so easy to do so.

 

Now, as for your second paragraph in post #304, I think that is easily answered by my second paragraph in post #303 that you quoted in post #304.

[84HuskerLaw]

 

 

Knapp, I for one do not feel waiting longer or jumping through a few more hoops to acquire a gun would be considered punishment. I look at owning and having my guns as a privilege as a US citizen. I know the constitution 2nd amendment states "right to bear arms" but nowhere does it say it can't be denied for just cause. "The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices".

I would agree with that. And I would stipulate that making gun purchasers go through more government oversight than I have to go through to build an addition onto my house is a small price to pay.

 

 

LOL +1, been there and done that. I felt pretty good when I was all done only to have the inspector come back out and tell me I had to make a change, as I was extended 7" beyond boundary limit.

 

No place in the Constitution (the greatest legal document ever drafted) does it say the rights granted to the people are subject to change, amendment, degradation, curtailment or the whims or changing views of the masses over time. The Constitution is NOT 'a living and breathing document evolving over time to suit the wishes of a few'! The right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and free speech, freedom of press, religion, etc etc. are all broad and all inclusive and may not be taken by governmental power or authority or action.

[knapplc]

No place in the Constitution (the greatest legal document ever drafted) does it say the rights granted to the people are subject to change, amendment, degradation, curtailment or the whims or changing views of the masses over time. The Constitution is NOT 'a living and breathing document evolving over time to suit the wishes of a few'! The right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and free speech, freedom of press, religion, etc etc. are all broad and all inclusive and may not be taken by governmental power or authority or action.

The Constitution doesn't say it can't be changed.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

Knapp, I for one do not feel waiting longer or jumping through a few more hoops to acquire a gun would be considered punishment. I look at owning and having my guns as a privilege as a US citizen. I know the constitution 2nd amendment states "right to bear arms" but nowhere does it say it can't be denied for just cause. "The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices".

I would agree with that. And I would stipulate that making gun purchasers go through more government oversight than I have to go through to build an addition onto my house is a small price to pay.

 

 

LOL +1, been there and done that. I felt pretty good when I was all done only to have the inspector come back out and tell me I had to make a change, as I was extended 7" beyond boundary limit.

 

No place in the Constitution (the greatest legal document ever drafted) does it say the rights granted to the people are subject to change, amendment, degradation, curtailment or the whims or changing views of the masses over time. The Constitution is NOT 'a living and breathing document evolving over time to suit the wishes of a few'! The right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and free speech, freedom of press, religion, etc etc. are all broad and all inclusive and may not be taken by governmental power or authority or action.

 

Forget that we're talking about gun control for a second. The Constitution itself says the Congress and Senate have the ability to make changes, or amendments, to the Constitution.

 

Now, back to gun control. Theoretically, it is possible to amend the 2nd Amendment, but it would set the precedent that any of the rights laid forth are subject to the whims of the majority.

 

Will it ever happen? I sincerely doubt it. That doesn't mean people can't hold the opinion that it is antiquated, though.