Do You Support ANY Gun Control Laws?

[wolf_fire]

Just to add... If someone's so mentally ill as to be a danger to society, they're probably stuck in a mental care facility somewhere. If they aren't competent, their family has to take care of them and it is the family's responsibility to control their access to guns.

Sure, there are plenty of very intelligent sociopaths out there, but they are either too smart to go around committing crime, or they're smart enough to get a weapon even with restrictions. The "Dexters" out there blend well enough with society that there is no way to regulate gun control in any fairness.

Generally, you are correct, but there are some who fall through the cracks. Read up on the Virginia Tech shooting. Regardless, a doctor should not be releasing medical records about a patient to anyone, especially any governmental body.

 

[wolf_fire]

Do not fail to realize that it is all a matter of opinion.

My rights are not an opinion. My rights are inalienable from the government. In other words, I possess these rights regardless of the government. The Constitution has only listed down some of the most basic rights we have that keep the government limited in its powers. These are not opinions. These are actual statements by the creators of this document.

 

[wolf_fire]

I "Outed Myself after I Voted" I am not ashamed of how I feel about this.

There are some people who should not own guns. If you've never met one go check out a facility that "Houses" the mentally Ill. My experience is much more personal and is the reason I will never change my mind on this issue.
My opinion of this came into my life. If someone does not understand mental illness they need to educate themselves. Go to the facilities and see for yourself a small sampling of those you would not want to hand a loaded gun to.

I agree that parents should "Parent" their children, but not all do. My 11 year old has a passport if he needed identification and he has a few thousand dollars in savings if he wanted to access his cash.

& The Justice System will never be able to correctly rehabilitate many convicted Felons. Rehabilitation rarely, if ever happens in prison. So, Wolf_fire would then leave them in prison I guess.
As part of the judicial system they are prohibited from owning a firearm, its part of the deal.
You want to be a gun owner, don't commit a crime (Felony).

I agree, not ALL people should own guns. But NONE of those people should be held subject to that decision by our government. Our government, when giving power over rights has inexorably shown their wanton disregard for them.

 

[wolf_fire]

I "Outed Myself after I Voted" I am not ashamed of how I feel about this.

There are some people who should not own guns. If you've never met one go check out a facility that "Houses" the mentally Ill. My experience is much more personal and is the reason I will never change my mind on this issue.
My opinion of this came into my life. If someone does not understand mental illness they need to educate themselves. Go to the facilities and see for yourself a small sampling of those you would not want to hand a loaded gun to.

I agree that parents should "Parent" their children, but not all do. My 11 year old has a passport if he needed identification and he has a few thousand dollars in savings if he wanted to access his cash.

& The Justice System will never be able to correctly rehabilitate many convicted Felons. Rehabilitation rarely, if ever happens in prison. So, Wolf_fire would then leave them in prison I guess.
As part of the judicial system they are prohibited from owning a firearm, its part of the deal.
You want to be a gun owner, don't commit a crime (Felony).

If one is in prison, it is because they have violated someone elses rights to such a heinous extent that our system of justice has decided through its measures that this person shall be removed from the citizenry for a temporary to a permanent amount of time. While in prison, they have forfeited their rights because of what they did. If our system deems them adequate to go back to the citizenry then they should have their rights restored. If this scares some, then it is our judicial system that needs to be fixed. If one is not "rehabilitated" from their crimes or is deemed to still be a menace to society, then they should not be allowed out of prison. If their crime is so heinous that they will never be allowed out, then capital punishment is an option.

The point is, when one has paid their debt to society then should be fully restored to society.

 

[ezkl2230]

My rights are not an opinion. My rights are inalienable from the government. In other words, I possess these rights regardless of the government. The Constitution has only listed down some of the most basic rights we have that keep the government limited in its powers. These are not opinions. These are actual statements by the creators of this document.

As was noted by the Danbury Baptists in their letter to Jefferson, our rights do not originate from legislation or legislators - they are what belong to us as HUMANS. The Bill of Rights is the first statment of human rights in history.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual...

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man...

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference...
​

Thomas Jefferson

The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. James Madison​

 

[wolf_fire]

Here is the truth, it all comes down to the majority rule. That's what a republic is all about.

Please retake a government lesson and learn what a republic really is. What you described is a democracy, which is not the form of government this country has. We do have a representative republic but it is not defined as you state it.

A republic is when elected officials represent the peoples that have elected them to do their bidding. They are to act in our best interest and have taken an oath to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

 

[Warbirds]

Please retake a government lesson and learn what a republic really is. What you described is a democracy, which is not the form of government this country has. We do have a representative republic but it is not defined as you state it.

A republic is when elected officials represent the peoples that have elected them to do their bidding. They are to act in our best interest and have taken an oath to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Please scroll up and read the clarification on what I meant then let me know where I am off base.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4

 

[wolf_fire]

This poll is really meaningless because of its use of the extremely broad (and emotionally charged) label, "gun control." That can include anything from mild and insignificant paperwork fixes to gun registration to limits or bans on purchase/possession/ownership. The only thing I support is a mechanism to afford additional scrutiny (a closer look, not a ban) of people with a history of mental institutionalization not pursuant to court order, and of other significant mental problems. This is one of those areas where we could and should have a dialogue about better defining the balancing of public safety and gun rights. Demonizing as ideologically impure those with different views from those held by the majority doesn't serve any useful purpose other than to identify those who favor emotional rather than reasoned responses and dialogue.

I wholeheartedly disagree. This poll shows that even within the gun community, there are those who are willing to have their rights trampled on by governmental elitists who think they know how to manage our lives better than we can. Within this community there are some who are willing to give up a bit of liberty in order to gain a little security and will deserve neither and lose both.

 

[telpinaro]

Generally, you are correct, but there are some who fall through the cracks. Read up on the Virginia Tech shooting. Regardless, a doctor should not be releasing medical records about a patient to anyone, especially any governmental body.

That's actually the kind of thing I was referring to... we can't catch the guys who pass as normal or the ones who fall through the cracks without creating unfair/unconstitutional regulations.

 

[Pir8fan]

I "Outed Myself after I Voted" I am not ashamed of how I feel about this.

There are some people who should not own guns. If you've never met one go check out a facility that "Houses" the mentally Ill. My experience is much more personal and is the reason I will never change my mind on this issue.
My opinion of this came into my life. If someone does not understand mental illness they need to educate themselves. Go to the facilities and see for yourself a small sampling of those you would not want to hand a loaded gun to.

I agree that parents should "Parent" their children, but not all do. My 11 year old has a passport if he needed identification and he has a few thousand dollars in savings if he wanted to access his cash.

& The Justice System will never be able to correctly rehabilitate many convicted Felons. Rehabilitation rarely, if ever happens in prison. So, Wolf_fire would then leave them in prison I guess.
As part of the judicial system they are prohibited from owning a firearm, its part of the deal.
You want to be a gun owner, don't commit a crime (Felony).

While I agree that some people shouldn't own firearms, I am absolutely opposed to any infringement or restriction on their rights to do so. It's a risk I'm willing to take. That's one reason I carry. I operate under the assumption that bad guys won't follow the law.

 

[nosreme]

As was noted by the Danbury Baptists in their letter to Jefferson, our rights do not originate from legislation or legislators - they are what belong to us as HUMANS. The Bill of Rights is the first statment of human rights in history.

The Danbury Baptist letter is hardly an authoritative reference about origination of rights. It's authoritative as to what they thought, but isn't much more than an advocacy statement.

As to the BOR being first, ever heard of the Magna Carta?

 

[Kramer1113]

The key issue of those of us who do not support "gun control" is that time and again, thoughout history, what seemed mild or appropriate (common sense) measures to deter/prevent crime eventually led to the removal/confiscation of The Peoples' very Right to self-defense. Well, the recognition of that Right by law... a Right is a Right no matter who says it isn't. When left to the devices of gov't, eventually, despite the best efforts to only inact Constitutionally adherent restrictions on the People (an oxymoron of glaringly, obvious proportions)... in time, all is lost.

I agree.
If we suppose for a moment the "Government" coming for our guns, do you really think in this day and age they could do it? I don't.
I'm not lining up to hand over my guns, ever.

I am not advocating for mental health testing prior to buying a gun either.
I have seen real mental illness. It is a painful and ugly truth that many people face.

Most of the people on this forum consider themselves "Doers" those able to get the job done.
What I am asking all the "Doers" to do, is take an hour out of your life and visit a facility where the mentally ill are being "treated".
Tell the people at the door why you are there. If they permit you to experience mental illness you will come away knowing those people should not own a gun. For our protection and their own.

Mental Illness is not the Funny Face of "Howlin Mad Merdock" of the A-Team.
The Mentally Ill do not know its wrong to shoot someone, thus the Insanity plea.
How can it be advocated that these people should be allowed to own a gun?

 

[gunnerbob]

Warning: There's a rant coming that at times my go off topic and then swing back around...

Gunnerbob I sometimes struggle to put in writing what I'm thinking. So please clarify my mistakes.

A constitutional republic is supposed to protect the rights of an individual by rule of law according to what is set by the constitution. The laws are set by elected officials who are put in office by majority vote of the people. The laws are supposed to protect the individual but since they are created by the majority the laws are to be judged as constitutional or not by the judicial system. The judges are either elected by majority vote of the people or selected by and confirmed by elected officials. The decisions of the supreme court are by majority decision. Also the constitution can by changes by super majority of the people in the form of ratification of said amendment by the states.

Any issues there?

What our government is supposed too do and what it really does are in direct competition with each other.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4

Our original form of gov't was a true Republic. However, the passage of the 17th Amendment killed that. Originally, the People elected the HoR who was then to select the members of the Senate... sadly, the 17A set up direct election of Senators and made the HoR irrelevant on all fronts, aside from a few publicity stunts (like now) in an attempt to convince We The People that we still control anything. The HoR was to hear from its constituents, determine Constitutionality and then put a vote on the floor. If it passed, it would then go to the Senate for further review of Constitutionality (not whether people wanted it) and then to the POTUS's desk for signature. Sadly, the 17A created direct, majority vote of the highest body of Congress... see: Mob Rule. Now, you have Senators voting/passing legislation simply for job security and NOT Constitutionality. The insurance policy given to The People was the ability to vote in/out Reps every two years, and with it... Senators who had forgotten their oath. Without a direct vote for Senators, The People could never vote Mob Rule... and Congressmen could never ensure job security unless they kept their oath to the Constitution. Keeping the true power at the lowest level, and with the most votes... kept the representation as true as possible.

Additionally, the expansive powers granted/taken to & by the POTUS has seriously removed The People's power... We The People, have become ineffective. By giving themselves the ability, to allow The People, to vote themselves other people's money... through the FED and the IRS enforcement arm... the expanded gov't ensured careers, wealth, corruption and ignorant slaves working their lives away for meaningless paper in exchange for elitist domination. The gov't figured out how to fool the people into giving every bit of Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness away b/c of false fears and promises of New Deals and Great Societies. Each step along the way, decade after decade... We The People could have stepped in and prevented every instance of gov't power grabs. We didn't, we liked the ideas of responsibility for our lives being taken off our shoulders alone and dispersed amongst the rest of society. We created an environment that lent itself to ever growing desires for other people's riches and the government couldn't have been any happier to oblige our requests.

Majority rule has always and will always lend itself to robbing individuals of their Rights, property and fruits of their labor for the benefit of society as a whole. America, present day... has nothing to do with Liberty or Freedom and everything to do with elitist power and wealth, a fooled and submissive people toiling away in a meaningless life filled with hyperinflated money, cheap entertainment, fleeting common sense and an inferiority complex that is only nurtured by hugging up next to the Nanny State. Completely oblivious as to the real reason that they aren't moving up the status ladder of life is that the guy next to him is taking his wealth, just like he's taking the wealth of the man next to him... all in an attempt to become somebody.

The soul crushing depression of such a revelation of this magnitude can only be over come with hope of rebuilding a truly better, more Liberty filled world for those who come after us... b/c our lives have already been set to be wasted in servitude or drowned in conflict. The world you think you know, has nothing to do with the one you're actually spinning through the universe on.

Red pill? Blue pill?

 

[ezkl2230]

Warning: There's a rant coming that at times my go off topic and then swing back around...



Our original form of gov't was a true Republic. However, the passage of the 17th Amendment killed that. Originally, the People elected the HoR who was then to select the members of the Senate... sadly, the 17A set up direct election of Senators and made the HoR irrelevant on all fronts, aside from a few publicity stunts (like now) in an attempt to convince We The People that we still control anything. The HoR was to hear from its constituents, determine Constitutionality and then put a vote on the floor. If it passed, it would then go to the Senate for further review of Constitutionality (not whether people wanted it) and then to the POTUS's desk for signature. Sadly, the 17A created direct, majority vote of the highest body of Congress... see: Mob Rule. Now, you have Senators voting/passing legislation simply for job security and NOT Constitutionality. The insurance policy given to The People was the ability to vote in/out Reps every two years, and with it... Senators who had forgotten their oath. Without a direct vote for Senators, The People could never vote Mob Rule... and Congressmen could never ensure job security unless they kept their oath to the Constitution. Keeping the true power at the lowest level, and with the most votes... kept the representation as true as possible.

Additionally, the expansive powers granted/taken to & by the POTUS has seriously removed The People's power... We The People, have become ineffective. By giving themselves the ability, to allow The People, to vote themselves other people's money... through the FED and the IRS enforcement arm... the expanded gov't ensured careers, wealth, corruption and ignorant slaves working their lives away for meaningless paper in exchange for elitist domination. The gov't figured out how to fool the people into giving every bit of Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness away b/c of false fears and promises of New Deals and Great Societies. Each step along the way, decade after decade... We The People could have stepped in and prevented every instance of gov't power grabs. We didn't, we liked the ideas of responsibility for our lives being taken off our shoulders alone and dispersed amongst the rest of society. We created an environment that lent itself to ever growing desires for other people's riches and the government couldn't have been any happier to oblige our requests.

Majority rule has always and will always lend itself to robbing individuals of their Rights, property and fruits of their labor for the benefit of society as a whole. America, present day... has nothing to do with Liberty or Freedom and everything to do with elitist power and wealth, a fooled and submissive people toiling away in a meaningless life filled with hyperinflated money, cheap entertainment, fleeting common sense and an inferiority complex that is only nurtured by hugging up next to the Nanny State. Completely oblivious as to the real reason that they aren't moving up the status ladder of life is that the guy next to him is taking his wealth, just like he's taking the wealth of the man next to him... all in an attempt to become somebody.

The soul crushing depression of such a revelation of this magnitude can only be over come with hope of rebuilding a truly better, more Liberty filled world for those who come after us... b/c our lives have already been set to be wasted in servitude or drowned in conflict. The world you think you know, has nothing to do with the one you're actually spinning through the universe on.

Red pill? Blue pill?

And as I have posted before, the big problem is that the government we have today is founded upon a federalist understanding of the Constitution. Federalism, beginning with George Washington himself, elevates the supremacy, commerce, and necessary and proper clauses above the explicit protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, meaning that the government also reserves the right to interpret the Constitution in the manner that benefits it - or to even increase the powers enumerated to them at the expense of those explicitly enumerated to the People and the States. In fact, George Washington explicitly stated in his farewell circular letter to the governors of the States that it is the obligation of the People and the States to relinquish more of their enumerated rights any time Congress felt it necessary to demand it. It was his stated belief that anyone or any entity that resisted such demands or "conspired" to limit the powers of the federal government was deserving of being treated as a traitor.

Here are excerpts from his circular letter to the governors of the States:

There are four things which I humbly conceive are essential to the well being, I may even venture tosay, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:
1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head...
4thly. The prevalence of that pacific [peaceful] and friendly Disposition among the People of theUnited States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to makethose mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instancesto sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.

These are the pillars on which the glorious Fabric of our Independence and National Character mustbe supported. Liberty is the Basis, and whoever would dare to sap the foundation or overturn the Structure⎯ under whatever specious pretexts he may attempt it ⎯ will merit the bitterest execration and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country.

On the three first Articles I will make a few observations, leaving the last to the good sense andserious consideration of those immediately concerned.

Under the first head, altho’ it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated [this is a shot at Jefferson and Madison - added] ⎯ whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress or not ⎯ yet it will be a part of my duty and that of every true Patriot to assert without reserve and to insist upon the following positions:

* That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives [that] they areundoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, everything must veryrapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion;
* That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States that there should be lodgedsomewhere a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of theConfederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration.
* That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue;
* That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen theSovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independence ofAmerica, and the Authors of them treated accordingly [again, shots at Jefferson and Madison, as well as a declaration of his disregard for the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution - added], and lastly;
* That unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States to participate of the fruits of theRevolution and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society under a form of Government so freeand uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression as has been devised andadopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret that so much blood andtreasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encounteredwithout a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain.

Many other considerations might here be adduced to prove that without an entire conformity to theSpirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an Independent Power. It will be sufficient for my purpose tomention but one or two which seem to me of the greatest importance. It is only in our united Character asan Empire that our Independence is acknowledged, that our power can be regarded, or our Credit supported among Foreign Nations. The Treaties of the European Powers with the United States ofAmerica will have no validity on a dissolution of the Union. We shall be left nearly in a state of Nature[i.e., anarchy] or we may find by our own unhappy experience that there is a natural and necessaryprogression from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny, and that arbitrary power is mosteasily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.

Constructionism will always lead to smaller, limited government and recognition of the supremacy of the People and the States as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (which, by design, places limits on the supremacy, commerce, and necessary and proper clauses).

Federalism always leads to an all powerful, centralized government and always, eventually, concentrates all power in the hands of the supreme leader. Federalism always leads to tyranny. A Constitutional republican government jealously guards the enumerated rights protected by the Constitution. Obama is a federalist tyrant.

 

[nosreme]

No social, legal, or political issue is so complex that the types of people who hang in in gun forums in their roles as Infallible and Highly Vocal Protectors of the American Way (IHVPAWs) can't explain or solve with simplistic slogans, aided and abetted by out-of context (or even fabricated) quotes supposedly from "founding fathers."

 

[Warbirds]

Warning: There's a rant coming that at times my go off topic and then swing back around...

Red pill? Blue pill?

Ok gunnerbob I know when I am out of my league, I'm done.

But just you wait, the next thread asking is it better to OC a 1911 or CC a glock I may just have to let you have it. Or I may just keep my mouth shut.

 

[gunnerbob]

Ok gunnerbob I know when I am out of my league, I'm done.

But just you wait, the next thread asking is it better to OC a 1911 or CC a glock I may just have to let you have it. Or I may just keep my mouth shut.

My bad... I told you it may go off topic.

 

[gunnerbob]

No social, legal, or political issue is so complex that the types of people who hang in in gun forums in their roles as Infallible and Highly Vocal Protectors of the American Way (IHVPAWs) can't explain or solve with simplistic slogans, aided and abetted by out-of context (or even fabricated) quotes supposedly from "founding fathers."

So what the hell are you still doing here, brah? Trying to strengthen your supposed superiority over us rednecks?

Piss off, Admiral...

 

[gunnerbob]

I agree.
If we suppose for a moment the "Government" coming for our guns, do you really think in this day and age they could do it? I don't.
I'm not lining up to hand over my guns, ever.

I am not advocating for mental health testing prior to buying a gun either.
I have seen real mental illness. It is a painful and ugly truth that many people face.

Most of the people on this forum consider themselves "Doers" those able to get the job done.
What I am asking all the "Doers" to do, is take an hour out of your life and visit a facility where the mentally ill are being "treated".
Tell the people at the door why you are there. If they permit you to experience mental illness you will come away knowing those people should not own a gun. For our protection and their own.

Mental Illness is not the Funny Face of "Howlin Mad Merdock" of the A-Team.
The Mentally Ill do not know its wrong to shoot someone, thus the Insanity plea.
How can it be advocated that these people should be allowed to own a gun?

I appreciate your heart-felt response but, no responsible firearms dealer would sell someone such as you hint towards, a weapon. Perhaps a criminal would, at which point the entire 'law preventing acts' thing has already failed b/c I just said a criminal was selling the firearms to begin with...

You smell my stink?

 

[XD40scinNC]

Criminals, mental patients, mentally impaired do not need to have guns.

Probably a good idea to not allow these guys to buy guns.

Link Removed Link Removed