I've never gotten hate-mail, so here's my chance.

[NavyLCDR]

The "oh the criminals will do it regardless of a laws" is a hyperbole of no persuasive value.

We don't organize and socialize ourselves by what criminals do.

We enact laws fully expecting criminals to violate them and law abiding people to abide by them. And we don't refrain from enacting laws because criminals will violate them.

So then, why enact laws that serve no other purpose other than making it more difficult for the law abiding citizen to protect themselves from the criminals?

The Second Amendment, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," does not GRANT the right to keep and bear arms. It assumes the people already have that right and only promises to PROTECT that right.

The BAD GUYS are going to have guns no matter what the law says. They don't care about the law. That's why they're the BAD GUYS. It stands to reason (and could be reasonably inferred by the 2nd A, depending on your interpretation of what a "militia" is and what "the security of a free State" is) that the more GOOD GUYS that have guns, which the BAD GUYS will recognize as fact, the less likely they are to practice their vocation of BAD GUYness.

You also have to remember who wrote the second amendment, ratified it, and what they had accomplished. They 2nd amendment was written by a group of men who had just completed the violent overthrow of an oppressive government. Even US Military enlisted persons take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. The "well regulated militia" was and is the law abiding citizens of the "free state". The right to keep and bear arms by those law abiding citizens is not only necessary for their protection against criminals - it is also necessary for protection against their own government "necessary to the protection of a free state", should such need arise to overthrow that government. Our Declaration of Independence states that it is OUR (the Law Abiding Citizens') duty to ensure that the government that serves us does not become tyrannical.

One of the purposes of government disarming or regulating the possession of arms by the law abiding citizen is to ensure that they do not possess the means to rise up against the government. I mean, after all, we wouldn't a repeat of the Revolutionary War, now... would we?

 

[S&WM&P40]

I'm with you. Even the "Shall Not Be Infringed" literal interpreters of 2A are with you as well even though they won't admit it. When you ask them a simple question like "should somebody on trial (but not yet convicted) for murder be allowed to carry a gun into the courtroom?" or "should 1st-graders be allowed to carry at school?" or "should nukes be available to any private citizen who can afford one?", they'll dodge the question. They know that such things shouldn't happen but they're too afraid to answer "no" in public to any of those questions because it would mean they've just agreed to a restriction on 2A. IMO, I think many of the literal interpreters of 2A are angry because they've had their right denied because of a criminal record, habitual substance abuse, etc.

I'd like to see every state allow CC and OC....to anyone who passes a background check and passes a basic firearm safety instruction course.

Why should they have to pay to use their rights? Pay for a background check and pay for a training class? I have to ask why? A right is a RIGHT!

Vermont and New Hampshire have no training to get a permit. Nothing happens in those states when people carry firearms with no training. 90% of the time when I read something about firearms being used in Vermont or New Hampshire. It's some crack or meth head or other low life. I have yet to read a story about a citizen doing something wrong with a firearm they carried. Do you suffer from Hoplophobia when it comes to others with firearms?

 

[Deanimator]

The "oh the criminals will do it regardless of a laws" is a hyperbole of no persuasive value.

However "this legislation is a sham which affects ONLY non-criminals" is HIGHLY persuasive.

Most anti-gunners are FAR more interested in adversely affecting NON-criminal than criminal firearms ownership.

We don't organize and socialize ourselves by what criminals do.

That's PRECISELY what anti-gunners do... or are you saying that the Sullivan Law, the NFA '34, GCA '68, and D.C. and Chicago handgun bans were EXPRESSLY crafted to impede ONLY the ownership, possession and carrying of firearms by NON-criminals? If so, that's quite a startling... and damning admission on your part.

We enact laws fully expecting criminals to violate them and law abiding people to abide by them. And we don't refrain from enacting laws because criminals will violate them.

And with the INTENT of harming NON-criminals.

Emotional laden banners and slogan feel good but accomplish nothing.

Without those things, advocates of gun control would have NOTHING left to say or print.

The AHSA types are always stumbling in and out of firearms discussion forums. They get handed their heads and run away. It's like clockwork.

 

[B2Tall]

Why should they have to pay to use their rights? Pay for a background check and pay for a training class? I have to ask why? A right is a RIGHT!

Vermont and New Hampshire have no training to get a permit. Nothing happens in those states when people carry firearms with no training. 90% of the time when I read something about firearms being used in Vermont or New Hampshire. It's some crack or meth head or other low life. I have yet to read a story about a citizen doing something wrong with a firearm they carried. Do you suffer from Hoplophobia when it comes to others with firearms?

I don't think we should have to pay for it but that's not the world we live in. We'll have to pay for it one way or the other be it directly or with our taxes. Nothing is free. Convicted felons don't have the right to buy a firearm nor does a dealer have the right to sell them one. How do we find out who's who? A background check.

I have a fear of idiots with guns. How many people each year get shot by an "unloaded" gun?? A little training can go a long way. Try to find a pro-gun organization who doesn't agree that training makes us all safer.

 

[B2Tall]

Again, the only thing "reasonable regulation" of guns such as requiring training and a permit to carry does is to hinder the law abiding citizen. It does nothing to change the behavior of the criminal or make anyone safer. And if you think that is an argument based on emotion, than I would challenge you to refute it with facts.

A few weeks ago you dodged my questions because you knew that by answering them you'd be destroying your whole argument.

Hooray for violent criminals being allowed to carry!
Hooray for children bringing guns into schools!
Hooray for the mentally incompetent strapping on the iron!
Hooray for hand grenades, RPGs, and nukes in the hands of everyone!

Hooray for the blind, literal interpretaion of our "rights" even if it kills us!!!

Right, LT?? Isn't that your world???

 

[B2Tall]

In other words, if one does not fully agree with your perception of the 2nd amendment then they should not post on this web site because....?

Knowledge advances by discourse with that which makes one feel uncomfortable. Ignorance flourishes in the company of itself.

Give it up, nogods. You can't reason with mindless automatons who're incapable of any sort of common sense unless they read it on a piece of paper.

 

[S&WM&P40]

Give it up, nogods. You can't reason with mindless automatons who're incapable of any sort of common sense unless they read it on a piece of paper.

LOL, the name calling starts. Way to go! How does that go? Oh yeah 'If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all." What do you know it's even in the forum rules! If you have such a problem with so many members on this forum then why are you a member of a strongly pro RIGHTS forum? It seems every member who posts something that you don't like, out comes the name calling! Are we not all adults? Can you not have a debate with out the name calling? Is that really above you?

 

[S&WM&P40]

I don't think we should have to pay for it but that's not the world we live in. We'll have to pay for it one way or the other be it directly or with our taxes. Nothing is free. Convicted felons don't have the right to buy a firearm nor does a dealer have the right to sell them one. How do we find out who's who? A background check.

I have a fear of idiots with guns. How many people each year get shot by an "unloaded" gun?? A little training can go a long way. Try to find a pro-gun organization who doesn't agree that training makes us all safer.

Nothing is free? Tell that to the MILLIONS of people on FREE government handouts!! Medicaid,SS,Food stamps, section 8, tnf,welfare etc...

Tell that to the millions of street dealers who sell them firearms. The legal FFL dealers are not the problem, nor is the legal citizen.

Vermont allows anyone to carry a firearm open or concealed. Until they give them a reason why they should not be carrying the said weapon. Open carrying a firearm is not reason enough to stop someone. So for all the police know everyone carrying is a prohibited person. Yet strangely enough we have vary few reported incidents? Most of the people who carry in Vermont are not trained, yet they are not shooting each other? How can this be?

Do tell just how they would come up with a tax that would make us pay for training?

Paying someone money so I can use my rights will NEVER happen on my end.

Vermont also has no nudity laws, one could walk down the street in his/her birthday suit while carrying a firearm. The police could do nothing about that!

As long as there are FREE people, there will always be another group who wishes to take way that freedom and impose their will over those FREE people.

Debating with anti's is a waste of time! I wish you luck with your firearm control efforts. As for gun control, all I have to say is "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"

 

[NavyLCDR]

A few weeks ago you dodged my questions because you knew that by answering them you'd be destroying your whole argument.

Hooray for violent criminals being allowed to carry!
Hooray for children bringing guns into schools!
Hooray for the mentally incompetent strapping on the iron!
Hooray for hand grenades, RPGs, and nukes in the hands of everyone!

Hooray for the blind, literal interpretaion of our "rights" even if it kills us!!!

Right, LT?? Isn't that your world???

I didn't dodge anything. I provided answers.

Hooray for violent criminals being allowed to carry!

If they are so violent and dangerous, then why are the allowed to walk the streets in freedom? A gun law isn't going to make them any safer to society.

Hooray for children bringing guns into schools!

Put the responsibility where it belongs... on the parents. A gun law isn't going to stop a child from bringing a gun to school. Just ask the students at Columbine High School

Hooray for the mentally incompetent strapping on the iron!

Again, put the responsibility where it belongs.... on the person/organization who is responsible for the car of the mentally incompetent person. A gun law isn't going to stop them. Police: Hospital shooter mentally ill, had grudge - USATODAY.com

Hooray for hand grenades, RPGs, and nukes in the hands of everyone!

Funny... this country was founded by a group of men who overthrew their oppressive government through the use of force, with arms equal to what that government possessed...

Make the criminal act illegal. Make it illegal to recklessly discharge a firearm. Hell, even make the penalty for that criminal act stiffer if a gun was used. But regulating the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens does nothing to address the criminal behavior. Again, I ask you to show us facts that it does.

 

[S&WM&P40]

A few weeks ago you dodged my questions because you knew that by answering them you'd be destroying your whole argument.

Hooray for violent criminals being allowed to carry!
Hooray for children bringing guns into schools!
Hooray for the mentally incompetent strapping on the iron!
Hooray for hand grenades, RPGs, and nukes in the hands of everyone!

Hooray for the blind, literal interpretaion of our "rights" even if it kills us!!!

Right, LT?? Isn't that your world???

Please, all someone needs is a computer with internet access and they can have all the information needed to make their own. I mean come on youtube is a library of "how to" from bombs,pick locks, making homemade firearms,fire bombs,hot wiring cars,The Anarchist Cookbook etc..

How would adding even more laws to a book of laws that are selectively enforced now going to do anything?

Our own government is the BIGGEST ARMS DEALER IN THE WORLD!

Our own government has knowingly been allowing prohibited people to buy firearms for years. In the hopes of catching bigger fish. Only now after the cluster ******* of "Operation Gun Runner" is the truth going to come out.

 

[tcox4freedom]

So then, why enact laws that serve no other purpose other than making it more difficult for the law abiding citizen to protect themselves from the criminals?



You also have to remember who wrote the second amendment, ratified it, and what they had accomplished. They 2nd amendment was written by a group of men who had just completed the violent overthrow of an oppressive government. Even US Military enlisted persons take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. The "well regulated militia" was and is the law abiding citizens of the "free state". The right to keep and bear arms by those law abiding citizens is not only necessary for their protection against criminals - it is also necessary for protection against their own government "necessary to the protection of a free state", should such need arise to overthrow that government. Our Declaration of Independence states that it is OUR (the Law Abiding Citizens') duty to ensure that the government that serves us does not become tyrannical.

One of the purposes of government disarming or regulating the possession of arms by the law abiding citizen is to ensure that they do not possess the means to rise up against the government. I mean, after all, we wouldn't a repeat of the Revolutionary War, now... would we?

If I'm not mistaken, gun "control" laws were put in place because RACIST democrats did NOT want slaves that had been freed by REPUBLICANs to be able to buy guns and hunt their democrat oppressors down and take vengence out on them.

 

[Deanimator]

If I'm not mistaken, gun "control" laws were put in place because RACIST democrats did NOT want slaves that had been freed by REPUBLICANs to be able to buy guns and hunt their democrat oppressors down and take vengence out on them.

Racism continues to be a heavy motivator for gun control.

Some of the biggest racists I've seen have been gun control advocates. They're not afraid of guns. They're afraid of Black people and Hispanics with guns. The racist invective I saw and was subjected to in usenet talk.politics.guns was astonishing... especially coming from supposed "liberals". They felt perfectly at ease using any racial slur, and talking about Blacks and Jews in terms beloved by neo-Nazis. Of course some of them were on VERY cordial terms with the neo-Nazis.

I was once in a MacDonald's in Lakewood, Ohio to eat breakfast. The elderly cleaner there started giving me crap for wearing an NRA ball cap. He went so far as to declare that the NRA should be "banned". I noted that the last time organizations started getting banned, we somehow managed to misplace 6,000,000 Jews. He replied that he "wasn't sure that was such a bad thing".

Scratch a gun control advocate, find a Klansman... or a Nazi.

 

[B2Tall]

Funny... this country was founded by a group of men who overthrew their oppressive government through the use of force, with arms equal to what that government possessed...

Riddle me this, LT.......why are there 27 amendments to the Constitution instead of the original 10???

 

[B2Tall]

If I'm not mistaken, gun "control" laws were put in place because RACIST democrats did NOT want slaves that had been freed by REPUBLICANs to be able to buy guns and hunt their democrat oppressors down and take vengence out on them.

You are mistaken. The first major gun-control law in this country appeared in NY in 1911. That was 56 yrs after the slaves were freed. The first federal law was the National Firearms act of 1934. That's 69 yrs after. Feel free to make some more stuff up. It's kinda humorous.

 

[B2Tall]

LOL, the name calling starts. Way to go! How does that go? Oh yeah 'If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all." What do you know it's even in the forum rules! If you have such a problem with so many members on this forum then why are you a member of a strongly pro RIGHTS forum? It seems every member who posts something that you don't like, out comes the name calling! Are we not all adults? Can you not have a debate with out the name calling? Is that really above you?

Be careful who you call out for "name calling". By your standards, some of the people you're currently holding hands with on this forum are just as guilty as anyone. You wouldn't want to have to accuse one of your fellow Constitutional Chicken Littles for name-calling, now would you??

 

[Deanimator]

You are mistaken. The first major gun-control law in this country appeared in NY in 1911. That was 56 yrs after the slaves were freed. The first federal law was the National Firearms act of 1934. That's 69 yrs after. Feel free to make some more stuff up. It's kinda humorous.

No, YOU are mistaken. The first gun control laws in North America were intended to disarm Blacks and Indians.

The history of gun control in the United States is the history of White supremacism.

 

[B2Tall]

Make the criminal act illegal. Make it illegal to recklessly discharge a firearm. Hell, even make the penalty for that criminal act stiffer if a gun was used. But regulating the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens does nothing to address the criminal behavior. Again, I ask you to show us facts that it does.

LT.....I need some of your unbounded genius to help me understand something. How do we make something illegal without having a law against it??? How can something be a "criminal act" without a law governing it???

In your world if somebody with a violent criminal past gets pulled over and the cops find a gun in his car, nothing happens to the thug, so he and his gun get to go on their merry way.

In my world (thankfully the present), the thug goes to jail for a minimum of 3 yrs here in Florida. Why??? Because there's a law that <gasp!> that restricts his 2A rights! Bye-bye thug in my world.

Tell us, LT.....what's the name of your felon rights group?? You seem to be heavily on their side.

Lastly, I've never proposed anything that keeps guns out of the hands of law-abiding, adult American citizens.

 

[B2Tall]

No, YOU are mistaken. The first gun control laws in North America were intended to disarm Blacks and Indians.

The history of gun control in the United States is the history of White supremacism.

When and where?? I'm always interested in learning something new. Please let me know about any early laws on the books that restricted blacks or native Americans in particular. Oh, and wishful thinking or SHOUTING doesn't count as proof. As far as I know the first law that restricted firearms was the Sullivan act of 1911 in NY that required concealed weapons to be registered.

 

[NavyLCDR]

In your world if somebody with a violent criminal past gets pulled over and the cops find a gun in his car, nothing happens to the thug, so he and his gun get to go on their merry way.

In my world, if the person is such a danger to society, they would NOT be free to roam the streets and drive a car. They would be incarcerated.

A person that forges his wife's signature on the title to a vehicle in order to sell it before a divorce, if caught, becomes a felon... so we strip his right to own a firearm for life from him... how are the two even remotely related?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Riddle me this, LT.......why are there 27 amendments to the Constitution instead of the original 10???

What difference does it make? There are 27 amendments to the Constitution because at 27 different times in the history of the US, 3/4 of the states, either via legislature or amendment conventions agreed to the addition or nullification of part of the Constitution. If the 2nd Amendment is so outdated and inapplicable today, then surely it would be an easy matter to get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree to such, correct? Amendment 28 - Repeal of the 2nd Amendment...