CharlesMorrison
Banned
Link Removed
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
Do You Support ANY Gun Control Laws?
- Thread starter Coyote Blue
- Start date
HK Shooter
HK Shooter
"Shall not be infringed"
Johnny Dollar
New member
Since the Bill of Rights in 1791, we have evolved into a complex world. 222 years has brought us from a mainly rural,largely homogeneous environment of 5 million people to a largely urban/suburban diversified population of 310 million.
Should there be exceptions to the 2nd Amendment in the society of America today?
All comments,critiques and observations are very much appreciated.
I envision a calm,cool,rational and civil discussion.
I don’t see the point, there are already laws against murder, robbery and just about anything else nefarious you could do with a gun
Kramer1113
New member
Law of the Land is not defined by constitutional or not.
Law of the Land is obeyed because the Bible tells us to do so.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Does a Christian missionary in a Muslim country have to follow sharia law?
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
whodat2710
New member
Try reading what he said, not what you wanted to read. wolf didn't say he would not obey the law, nor was the question ever whether or not he would. He said he would not support it, meaning that if it was a law that he agreed with he might be a vocal advocate of that law, but since he doesn't agree with it he will simply obey it, and try to change it.
-
Regarding the part in red above, what country are you from? In the America I live in, the Constitution is also known as the Supreme Law of the Land, that is used in determining whether any other law in this country is worthy of being enforced. Unfortunately the task of interpreting that comes from 9 old people that are biased in their opinions to start out with, who are appointed because of their bias by which ever party happens to run the white house when one croaks.
wolf_fire
New member
You may want to read your Bible over again... there is great evidence for civil disobedience when the law of the land contradicts the law of God. Please read the following link:
What does the Bible say about civil disobedience?
Also read Acts 12 when Peter was broken out of prison. I guess he was obeying the laws of the land. If he supported them like you do, he would have stayed in that prison.
Again, I mention WE are at an impasse (you do realize that means when opposing sides won't budge?) for you have admittedly (on more than one occasion) stated that you support our "gun control" laws. I have mentioned I abide by them but do not support them if they are UnConstitutional. We choose to disagree. No need to keep coming at me with your ideology. I don't buy it and will not buy it. I simply think you are wrong, and 80% of the people on this forum who voted think so too.
We have many rights. They are inalienable. We have them regardless of what law comes down the pike. The 2nd Amendment states our rights to keep and bear our arms shall never be infringed, in fact it's the only right we have that so strongly states to not mess with it. Any infringement is a violation of our rights and I will never support them. To keep out of jail, I will abide by them. You can state all your opposing reasons why you think there should be infringements. The fact of the matter is, I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with you.
Kramer1113
New member
Kramer1113
New member
... If you haven't noticed, 20.29% of us (Currently) have it right, Because its the law. :sarcastic:
wolf_fire
New member
excellent comebacks <-- -sarcasm. *shakes head*
And I'm through with you for these reasons:
The Supreme Law of the Land was established in 1789. I know what it states, and I know the Federal Statutes that you displayed here on this thread. I've given all the reasons why they don't follow the Supreme Law of the Land. You choose to ignore fact and reason. You seem to think that if any law comes into existence it must be Constitutional. I've shown time and time again where it is not. Your argument that gun control is ok is because it is the law. This makes no sense in the face of all the above I have mentioned. Just because something is law does not mean it does not go against the Constitution, you know, the Supreme Law of the Land. If it disagrees with the Constitution it has violated our rights and I cannot be a supporter of that. Yet you support it anyway, because (read this with full incredulity in my voice) it's law?????
Any more comment from you will not be returned by me, because your posts have become comical (more sad than funny) and with the last one extremely puerile.
And I'm through with you for these reasons:
The Supreme Law of the Land was established in 1789. I know what it states, and I know the Federal Statutes that you displayed here on this thread. I've given all the reasons why they don't follow the Supreme Law of the Land. You choose to ignore fact and reason. You seem to think that if any law comes into existence it must be Constitutional. I've shown time and time again where it is not. Your argument that gun control is ok is because it is the law. This makes no sense in the face of all the above I have mentioned. Just because something is law does not mean it does not go against the Constitution, you know, the Supreme Law of the Land. If it disagrees with the Constitution it has violated our rights and I cannot be a supporter of that. Yet you support it anyway, because (read this with full incredulity in my voice) it's law?????
Any more comment from you will not be returned by me, because your posts have become comical (more sad than funny) and with the last one extremely puerile.
whodat2710
New member
I got this one. On their face, most laws (if you ask a liberal) are supposed to be preventative. For example, if I ban a gun, I am preventing gun crime! This is ludicrous, and goes back to the law abiding citizen vs criminal argument. Lets say I carry concealed without a permit. I have broken the law, but guess what? Nothing happens and nothing has been prevented. Now when I get pulled over for speeding, and the cop finds that I am carrying instead of getting a ticket I get cuffed and stuffed and additional charges are brought.
-
IMHO, 99.999% of the time laws are punitive. They do nothing until they are broken, which is when the attorneys get involved and they try to use as many of them as they can to make a criminals sentence longer.
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
Is it right b/c it's the law, or is it the law b/c it's right...? There are huge differences here, Kramer.
Was it right to disarm German Jews b/c it was the law...?
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Kramer is a willing slave. He's a slave to tyrants, a slave to unconstitutional law, a slave to his stubborn intransigence to even attempt to understand what someone is actually saying, and he's a slave to a wholly bastardized re-writing of Romans 13 which was re-written by the powers that be so that society would continually produce fully-controlled, castrated sheep who follow without question, not God's Word, but the prince of all tyrants, Satan's.
The King James Version of the Bible, and every version that flows from it, was mistranslated* for the express purpose of establishing king and pope as the sovereigns over the hearts and minds of men. To think that a spiritual manual, The Bible, would include such blasphemous support for the notion that thought and actions must be inspired and controlled by men instead of by the Spirit of God Almighty displays the utter oxymoron that is modern acceptance of, "Law of the Land is obeyed because the Bible tells us to do so." Tyranny was prophesied, and we're seeing it come to fruition sho' 'nuff, but Romans 13 (or whatever other mistranslations* of verses concerning governments of man) was never intended to mandate submission by Christians to it, for when Satan's spiritual warfare is complete, man's law will dictate that Christianity itself is against the law, and Christians had better be steeled against that certainty rather than casually opining that The Bible commands our submission to man's law!
Beware the "New" this or that version of The Bible. Listen to the link I gave above and understand that there is only one reason to make it "new" or edit a single punctuation mark, word or sentence in it, and that is to deceive its readers for some nefarious, blasphemous purpose other than that of God's.
Blues
*Edited "written" and "bastardized re-writing" to "mistranslated" for clarity's sake.
Last edited:
Sir Swiftus Funkellwerk
New member
SOME regulation is NEEDED!
When REGULATION becomes about $$$ is when it becomes about greed.
When REGULTION is about ThePeople, then it's alright.
When REGULATION becomes about $$$ is when it becomes about greed.
When REGULTION is about ThePeople, then it's alright.
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
Are you referring to regulations against The People? Government regulation has the sole purpose of controlling and thus profiting from whatever is to be regulated. There is zero need for the gov't to regulate (control) firearms in this country. If you want to reduce crime against the people, by the people...(?) then you need to make it easier for people to acquire firearms, not harder. Here's where people get confused, they think to themselves, "Hey! That means it will be easier for the criminals to get firearms, too! No way!". Here's the flaw in that line of thinking, it is already easy for criminals to get firearms. Is it hard to get illegal drugs? Hell no its not! Anti-drug laws are not preventing anything... Anti-gun laws aren't going to reduce firearms violence, they haven't worked yet... what makes you think another couple will help? Historically, firearms restrictions have been put into law for the sole purpose of weakening The People... not protecting them. "Why would the gov't want that?", you may ask yourself... so it's easier to impose their elitist, corrupt will on the people. Cut, dry... plain and simple. It's hard logic to wrap your head around b/c we've been brainwashed to believe our gov't actually cares about us, I get that. Once you realize you're nothing more than a profit producing, slave for the ruling class... everything falls into place.
How about this, in 50 years we all agree to come back to this forum and discuss whether or not tighter, more restrictive gun control stopped criminals from being criminals. I'll bet a quadrillion dollars I'm right. I say a quadrillion b/c by that time, the pace we're going... that will be what I use to buy the weekly groceries.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
We are all free, but we all wear chains.
It wasn't long ago, when someone said, "it's a means to an end." The question is, how many means are you willing to sacrifice to get to the end? If universal background checks on anything firearm related was law, if yearly testing and training was required by law, if a registry was required by law, if a permit was required by law, how many would submit to the government as a "means to an end?"
IMO, someone who defines their actions as a "means to an end," or follows laws, be it unconstitutional and or unjust, just because it's the law, are willful slaves.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
It wasn't long ago, when someone said, "it's a means to an end." The question is, how many means are you willing to sacrifice to get to the end? If universal background checks on anything firearm related was law, if yearly testing and training was required by law, if a registry was required by law, if a permit was required by law, how many would submit to the government as a "means to an end?"
IMO, someone who defines their actions as a "means to an end," or follows laws, be it unconstitutional and or unjust, just because it's the law, are willful slaves.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
Kramer1113
New member
Wow, What a Stone thrower.
Kramer1113
New member
Naa, I just said that to keep wolf_fire fired up!
We are not going to agree on this. We can keep going but its futile.
IF you have never met someone that you can look at and truly say they should not own a gun, your either blessed or sheltered.
The last two times I was at the range there is a really off the wall guy in his 60's. This guy is questionable with his rifles and I heard the range masters talking about the possibility of banning him from the range.
He is constantly sweeping the line with his weapons, Firing his weapons after the cease fire command is given, cross firing into other firing lanes and generally being a disruption to other shooters.
He talks to himself constantly about his weapons, ammo, and targets.
I'm not sure what he's practicing for, but he seems very intent on what ever the mission is.
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
Sooo, what are you guys at your range doing about this guy...? Nothing? Why?
