Treo
Bullet Proof
The sullivan act was geared towards Italian Imigrants
I've never gotten hate-mail, so here's my chance.
- Thread starter archangel1911a1
- Start date
The sullivan act was geared towards Italian Imigrants
OK, you got me there! I might add, "by corrupt politicians in bed with organized crime lords."
Punch
New member
Amen to this. I also cannot believe the level of stupidity of some of the reasoning justifying infringing upon the RTKBA. "So you believe a first grader should be allowed to carry a gun to school?" and other such idiocy. Give me a break. The Constitution never applied to minors (or for that matter, anything other than white male property owners at the time that it was written). I also believe that anyone above the age of majority who cannot be trusted to exercise ALL of their rights should be either permanently incarcerated or shot. As for those that don't mind giving up their rights, go ahead. You don't deserve them. Just leave mine alone.
HELL YES! Get some! I wish there was a "like +1000" option!
Treo
Bullet Proof
Sullivan Act's Racist (or more correctly ethnic) Roots
Link Removed
January 27, 1905 New York Times Editorial -
[The proposed gun control] measure would prove corrective and salutary in a city filled with immigrants and evil communications, floating from the shores of Italy and Austria-Hungary. New York police reports frequently testify to the fact that the Italian and other south Continental gentry here are acquainted with the pocket pistol, and while drunk or merrymaking will use it quite as handily as the stiletto, and with more deadly effect. It is hoped that this treacherous and distinctly outlandish mode of settling disputes may not spread to corrupt the native good manners of the community.
Link Removed
January 27, 1905 New York Times Editorial -
[The proposed gun control] measure would prove corrective and salutary in a city filled with immigrants and evil communications, floating from the shores of Italy and Austria-Hungary. New York police reports frequently testify to the fact that the Italian and other south Continental gentry here are acquainted with the pocket pistol, and while drunk or merrymaking will use it quite as handily as the stiletto, and with more deadly effect. It is hoped that this treacherous and distinctly outlandish mode of settling disputes may not spread to corrupt the native good manners of the community.
So if the constitution only applied to white male property owners when it was written, why would you ever, ever advocate changing it to apply to blacks, females, etc? I don't see any amendments altering that. So do you think blacks cannot own guns? Come on, tell me the truth
Also, if someone cannot be trusted to exercise ALL of their rights, who makes that determination? If you believe something is a right, why would you question whether or not someone can be "trusted" to exercise it? If it requires "trust" it is not a right. Are you saying the government must trust me with the right to carry my xd, or you must trust me, or any private citizen can determine my right to carry it by whether or not they trust me?
By the way, what is the "age of majority"?
I will try to respond with some rational thinking...
Oh, and I find it interesting that the states with the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest gun crime rates.... carzy huh? :nhl_checking:
I agree, the problem lies in who determines who the 'idiots' are? I also don't thin idiots should be able to drive, have kids, drink, or vote...amongst other things. But who gets to pick and chose who the idiots are? You? Me? A politician? None of these are good choices simply because t becomes a matter of opinion. Even if there was a certain I.Q. level that were to be set as a standard- Again, who get's to decide this?
Ummm...ZERO...DUH! But how many violent criminals attacking an innocent get shot by an unloaded gun? Same answer...ZERO!
There isn't one. But now YOU are taking it literally. They mean that in the way that training makes you a better marksman (i.e. fewer shots missed, more hit the target, and less shots need to be fired), well maintained guns perform better and without malfunction, and knowing federal, state, and local laws so as not to get into trouble themselves.
I'm curious as to what YOU 'think' the answer is...
Oh, and I find it interesting that the states with the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest gun crime rates.... carzy huh? :nhl_checking:
Ignoramus, NavyLT is not ignoring your question, He just does not want to believe that you are that ignorant.
I on the other hand have no problem pointing out just how ignorant your comments and question are.
You should do what people have been telling you to do show data that provides evidence for your point or opinion.
I am 100% in agreement with the FACT that gun control laws will not stop a criminal or anyone else from carrying a gun. For instance the laws against guns in schools did nothing to stop the Columbine shooting. Therefore if a law will not stop someone from doing something then why have the law. Every year I hear of multiple murders, rapes and robberies happening and there are laws against that so why not just do away with those laws. If a law against carrying a gun at a certain place or by a certain person will not stop them from doing it then the law only restricts innocent law-abiding people. The same way with laws againt robbery or murder, they only stop innocent law-abiding people from doing it.
Do away with all laws as there is not one law on the books that can stop someone from breaking that law.
leasantry:
Do away with all laws as there is not one law on the books that can stop someone from breaking that law.
leasantry:
snatale42
New member
Because it's easier to shut up the anti-gun lobby buy putting ANY anti gun law in place regardless of whether it works or not, than standing up for the the constitutional rights of the law abiding citizens.
snatale42
New member
Your fighting the wrong fight, I'm FROM communist MA where as I said in the previous post the law changes by the minute because the people in power are above it plain and simple. I moved to VA where I CAN NOT be refused my right because of Shall Issue. Why would you bash the fact that it protects your right to carry. You may not agree with the fee's but thats a separate issue.
No it doesn't, nothing will ever stop criminals from getting guns. But I wouldn't call it a roadblock for us either. There does need to be a roadblock for the criminals, yes they'll get around it. but why help them out? And I don't consider filling out a form and $35 (VA) a roadblock. BUT I do consider a $100 safety class, $200-$300 mandatory and provable gun club membership, $100 permit application fee and letters of reference (which will almost defiantly be refused) to be an unconstitutional roadblock. (MA).
Having a Drivers license isn't free, you pay to drive YOUR car, you pay the city taxes on YOUR house, why would you think having your permit would be free? Thats just not reality. Don't bash a practice that removes a cops ability to use his personal judgement to override the law. I guess it's something you can't understand not being from a place where your rights are played with on a daily basis.
S&WM&P40
New member
Why should a first grader not be allowed to bring his 22 to school? They did it for decade's with no problems. School shootings did not really become a problem in the USA till the 1960's (1966,University of Texas Massacre.)
Where do the so called "Common sense" gun laws stop? Every time they get one of their so called "Common sense" gun laws passed, they say it's for the good of the people. They think this will be the bill that ends all firearm related deaths. Then are shocked when that does not happen. So they feel the need to turn the fear nob to high and try and hammer in just one more bill "For the good of the people." Then one more and one more etc....
Not sure about you but I fear drunk drivers more then some prohibited person with a firearm. I can easily avoid the areas of town that the crack/meth heads hang out in. You never know when a drunk driver will slam into you, killing yourself and your family. I fear them more then I will ever fear firearms. I have a fighting chance with a firearm, there is no chance with a drunk driver.
I see no purpose in allowing people to buy and consume alcohol and fully support bring back the the Volstead Act(prohibition). But I'm not about to try and force feed my views on to my fellow citizens.
We live in a country that has long up held that hate speech is a protected right of the people. Our own public servants protect them as they hold their rally's.
The government will never ban class three firearms because they make way to much money off all the fee's.
I am 100% in agreement with the FACT that gun control laws will not stop a criminal or anyone else from carrying a gun. For instance the laws against guns in schools did nothing to stop the Columbine shooting. Therefore if a law will not stop someone from doing something then why have the law. Every year I hear of multiple murders, rapes and robberies happening and there are laws against that so why not just do away with those laws. If a law against carrying a gun at a certain place or by a certain person will not stop them from doing it then the law only restricts innocent law-abiding people. The same way with laws againt robbery or murder, they only stop innocent law-abiding people from doing it.
Do away with all laws as there is not one law on the books that can stop someone from breaking that law.
Laws are made to create punishments for crimes. Murder, rapes and robberies are crimes because society, by an overwhelming majority, has decided that those behaviors are criminal acts.
Last time I read the Constitution, I found no protection offered for the right to murder, rape and rob. Society as a whole, by an overwhelming majority, has decided that murder, rape and robbery are NOT human rights that any human being is entitled to do (although I am sure you will find a few people scattered around this globe who probably do feel those activities are human rights).
Self-protection is recognized as a human right in America. Possessing AND carrying a firearm is a right that is protected by the US Constitution. A little bit different set of circumstances than murder, rape and robbery.
That's why it's acceptable to have laws against rape, murder and robbery. It's also acceptable to have laws against running red lights and other traffic laws - they establish rules necessary to ensure that a person can get into a car and drive across the country, without having to guess which direction the next car will be driving in, or whether the next car will stop at the red light and you can go through on green.
Gun control laws accomplish none of that. Make it a crime to use a gun in the commission of other crimes. Make a law against that. But a law that says I can't carry my gun into the school building to watch my daughter play volleyball is just stupid and does nothing to protect anyone except for the criminals. Make it a mandatory 10 year extra jail term for committing murder with a gun over a knife, car or poison, I don't care. Wouldn't that do the same thing as making it illegal for me to carry my gun in school? You will have the same result - you will have an additional charge to lay on someone committing murder with a gun, but you will leave my right to bear arms alone.
Deanimator
New member
Just saying it doesn't make it so.
Ad hominem attacks don't negate 300+ years of history.
There's a reason why you could hold an AHSA meeting in a phone booth.
Deanimator
New member
I wouldn't at all be surprised if Jews were considered a "threat" as well.
Deanimator
New member
The idea appears to be that since we can't imprison violent criminals or institutionalize the mentally ill, we'll just turn society into one huge jail/insane asylum. Hence the urge by gun control advocates to treat EVERYONE like violent felons.
All of this reflects a profound contempt for normal people who don't commit violent crimes or have shouting matches with garbage cans.
Stiofan
New member
A simple google search will turn up plenty of links.
Gun Control Timeline
If you want to read the actual laws, this link has them for for each state. Link Removed
Enjoy your new education.
Way over stated. As of today, the Second Amendment includes the right of an individual to possess a handgun or other common firearm in their home for self protection after complying with a licensing law that includes a background check.
That is the holding of Heller.
We can discuss whether that right should include more. But we can't have an intelligent discussion if you are going to start with a premise that is faulty.
Possessing a handgun in a federal courthouse is not presently protected by the 2nd and thus can be the subject of criminal punishment just like other crimes. Thus, the analogy is valid. If prohibiting people from possessing firearms in federal courthouses should be done away with because the criminals won't pay attention to such a law, then the same is true for other laws as well.
That is the why the "criminal's will do it anyway" reasoning is no reasoning at all. It is easily dismissed with simple common sense and logic.
We have to better to move 2nd amendment rights forward. We can't rely on arguments that evaporate with a few minutes of thinking.
Yes, I already know you what you WANT the 2nd Amendment to say, but we have to start our work from what it does say under exiting controlling law. If the world were the way I want it to be I'd have everything I desire and no reason to sweat and toil. But that is not what is.
JPKirkpatrick
Member
History of Gun Control?
You are wrong! The first attempt to control the possession of any firearm was in 1837 when the State of Georgia passed a law banning the ownership of any handgun; which was found to be unconstitutional.
In 1865, in reaction to emancipation, several of the southern states enacted the "Black Codes" which was an attempt to keep the former slaves from owning firearms. This and other abuses by the defeated south lead to the the "Reconstruction" where the Union kept the southern states in a period of martial law.
The KKK evolved because the south felt that they had to 'resist' this martial law, and terrorized the former slaves, Jews and Catholics. This is where the term WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) came from.
Philosopher George Santayana said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
It's true!
Here is a good timeline of gun control in America:
SORRY "STIOFAN", I POSTED THIS BEFORE SEEING YOUR COMMENTARY... What do they say about "Great minds..."
You are wrong! The first attempt to control the possession of any firearm was in 1837 when the State of Georgia passed a law banning the ownership of any handgun; which was found to be unconstitutional.
In 1865, in reaction to emancipation, several of the southern states enacted the "Black Codes" which was an attempt to keep the former slaves from owning firearms. This and other abuses by the defeated south lead to the the "Reconstruction" where the Union kept the southern states in a period of martial law.
The KKK evolved because the south felt that they had to 'resist' this martial law, and terrorized the former slaves, Jews and Catholics. This is where the term WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) came from.
Philosopher George Santayana said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
It's true!
Here is a good timeline of gun control in America:
HTML:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htmSORRY "STIOFAN", I POSTED THIS BEFORE SEEING YOUR COMMENTARY... What do they say about "Great minds..."
Last edited:
