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

[NavyLCDR]

The racist history of SOME gun control laws:

Gun Control: White Man's Law

 

[MADnMO]

Things sure didn't change much while I was gone. :biggrin:

 

[S&WM&P40]

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??

LOL, Holding hands with? Do you have a point on this forum other then trying to piss off as many people as you can? Again with the name calling, thanks for making my point for me. How old are you five?

 

[nogods]

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.


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.


And with the INTENT of harming NON-criminals.


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.

I can't discern any logic or reasoning in anything you posted - it is all rhetoric and slogan slinging.

And you attempt to label those of us who don't agree with your inane positions "anti-gunners" is childish.

Those of us working for a real expansion of the ability of law abiding citizens to own and possess guns understand the dynamics of the issue. We discuss, we debate, we engage, we think, and we examine. We aren't afraid to listen to the concerns of the opposition and address them instead of attack them. We aren't afraid to compromise to move forward.

We view the objective like a ladder to be climbed step-by-step. We keep climbing instead of stopping on a step and cursing the height of the ladder.

People who merely regurgitate empty ideals repeatedly and then declare themselves the "winner" haven't effectuate any real change. Bitterness and paranoia aren't conducive to making progress with the opposition. The opposition recognizes them for what they are - weaknesses they can exploit to distract the inflicted and dissuade the uncommitted.

 

[snatale42]

"Shall Issue" permits, for those who could not pass a simple background check for "crazy", "meth-addict" or " child-molester", must be a thing of the past.

Shall issue does NOT mean those people get permits. It means people who are NOT those people can't be refused because they wore a blue shirt on a Wednesday. Yes that crap happens, ask anyone from MA,NY or NJ

 

[NavyLCDR]

Shall issue does NOT mean those people get permits. It means people who are NOT those people can't be refused because they wore a blue shirt on a Wednesday. Yes that crap happens, ask anyone from MA,NY or NJ

What "shall issue" does is set a minimum standard by which the privilege of carrying a firearm is extended to only a certain elite group of people. It eliminates those that can't afford the permit or training that may or may not be attached to the permit. It eliminates those who value their privacy and wish to not be included in government tracking of gun carriers. It eliminates many law abiding citizens for various reasons who might just choose to carry a gun if the hassle/expense/government involvement in the permit was not required. It turns the right to bear arms into a mere privilege which one must ask AND PAY for the government's permission in order to engage in.

Meanwhile "shall issue" does nothing to prevent the criminal or insane from carrying their guns, but it does place one more roadblock or hurdle in the way of honest Americans who desire to defend themselves against the actions of the criminal or insane.

Oh... and it raises money for state budgets.

 

[Treo]

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.

But can you produce evidence that states that require traing have fewer accidents (I don't care how many gang bangers are offing each other) than states that don't.

IMO Very much IMO But the kind of idiot that is going to do stupid things w/ a gun isn't going to wait to get a permit to carry anyway.

IME people that lawfully carry guns get at least some training on their own any way


BTW I see Deanimator is here. Let me tell you somethin' Fudds, Y'all are screwed :biggrin:

 

[B2Tall]

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?

Please note my use of the words "violent criminal" in my post.

 

[Treo]

You are mistaken. The first major gun-control law in this country appeared in NY in 1911.

Please. Oh God, please tell me you're not talking about the Sullivan Act :biggrin:

 

[NavyLCDR]

Please note my use of the words "violent criminal" in my post.

So, are you for or against convicted felons being able to possess firearms?

If a person is of such dangerous and violent character that they cannot be trusted to own and carry a firearm for self protection, then they should be incarcerated. A mere law banning their possession or carry of a firearm isn't going to stop them anyway.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Please. Oh God, please tell me you're not talking about the Sullivan Act :biggrin:

And why not?

The Sullivan Act: Some History about Gun Control « Conservative Libertarian Outpost

Some years or decades ago I researched and reported on the Sullivan Act, one of America’s first gun control laws.

New York state senator Timothy Sullivan, a corrupt Tammany Hall politician, represented New York’s Red Hook district. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. In order to protect themselves and their property, travelers armed themselves. This raised the risk of, and reduced the profit from, robbery. Sullivan’s outlaw constituents demanded that Sullivan introduce a law that would prohibit concealed carry of pistols, blackjacks, and daggers, thus reducing the risk to robbers from armed victims.

The criminals, of course, were already breaking the law and had no intention of being deterred by the Sullivan Act from their business activity of armed robbery. Thus, the effect of the Sullivan Act was precisely what the criminals intended. It made their life of crime easier.

As the first successful gun control advocates were criminals, I have often wondered what agenda lies behind the well-organized and propagandistic gun control organizations and their donors and sponsors in the US today.

I will agree.... the Sullivan Act does not seem to be racially motivated.

 

[B2Tall]

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...

Why would we need more amendments?? Did the Founding Fathers forget something?? Did they make a mistake or two?? Were they negligent? Stop dodging the question and tell me why you think 17 more amendments have been added post-1791.

So if due process was followed and 2A was amended to require permits, specify what kinds of weapons could be owned, etc., you'd be OK with that?? After all....such restrictions would then be an official part of the Constitution.

And I'll take a page out of your book (and also reiterate what I've said in other threads), if 2A was being so blatantly violated decade after decade by states not allowing permitless/unrestricted carry along with various other restrictions, why have none of the many pro-2A presidents, congressmen, justices, etc. not done anything about it? Are they all Constitution trampling traitors as well??

 

[NavyLCDR]

Why would we need more amendments?? Did the Founding Fathers forget something?? Did they make a mistake or two?? Were they negligent? Stop dodging the question and tell me why you think 17 more amendments have been added post-1791.

Because 3/4 of the states agreed that something needed to be added or nullified.

So if due process was followed and 2A was amended to require permits, specify what kinds of weapons could be owned, etc., you'd be OK with that?? After all....such restrictions would then be an official part of the Constitution.

I would either be OK with it, or I would have to renounce my citizenship and move out of the US. That's what my oath that I took as an enlisted member of the US Military stated: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

And I'll take a page out of your book (and also reiterate what I've said in other threads), if 2A was being so blatantly violated decade after decade by states not allowing permitless/unrestricted carry along with various other restrictions, why have none of the many pro-2A presidents, congressmen, justices, etc. not done anything about it? Are they all Constitution trampling traitors as well??

Because a group of only nine men and women, nominated by the President and confirmed by whatever party is in control of the Senate at the time determines what the interpretation of the Constitution means. And if you think the current trend toward interpreting the 2nd Amendment is favorable towards regulation and gun control, I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with what recent decisions passed down by the Supreme nine say about the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[B2Tall]

So, are you for or against convicted felons being able to possess firearms?

If a person is of such dangerous and violent character that they cannot be trusted to own and carry a firearm for self protection, then they should be incarcerated. A mere law banning their possession or carry of a firearm isn't going to stop them anyway.

I'm against people who have been convicted of violent crimes (or the threat of violence) from being allowed to carry firearms. How 'bout you??

A law will absolutely prevent them from carrying. They can't carry while they're in jail. See if you can follow this.....I know it's difficult:

- Thug carries gun.
- Thug gets caught by police with gun.
- Law says thug is not allowed to carry gun.
- Thug goes straight to jail for several years (at least) for carrying gun.
- Thug can not carry a gun in jail.
- Thug is not a threat to you and me while in jail.
- Thug is in jail because of the "Thugs Not Allowed To Carry Law".
- Law is now preventing Thug from carrying.

Do you see?? Are you so spiteful that you turn your back on even the most rudimentary levels of common sense??

 

[B2Tall]

Because 3/4 of the states agreed that something needed to be added or nullified.

Wow! You must be working up quite a sweat dodging my question! I didn't ask "how" it happened......I asked "why" it happened. You know the answer but you can't bring yourself to say it. If you did your little house-of-cards argument would come tumbling down.

That's OK, LT. It'll just be our little secret. :biggrin:

 

[B2Tall]

I would either be OK with it, or I would have to renounce my citizenship and move out of the US. That's what my oath that I took as an enlisted member of the US Military stated: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So you'd completely change your POV just because of some writing on a piece of paper?? Geez....why don't you try coming up with your own opinion or interpretation instead of waiting for it to come out in paperback!

 

[NavyLCDR]

So you'd completely change your POV just because of some writing on a piece of paper?? Geez....why don't you try coming up with your own opinion or interpretation instead of waiting for it to come out in paperback!

True. I might just have to take up arms to forcibly overthrow the government as is my duty as a citizen, as expressed by the Declaration of Independence.

 

[B2Tall]

True. I might just have to take up arms to forcibly overthrow the government as is my duty as a citizen, as expressed by the Declaration of Independence.

You seem very unhappy now......why wait to start a revolution?? Why not start now?? Tonight?! It should be easy what with all the millions of gunowners who're just as unhappy as you, right??

Right???......................

 

[NavyLCDR]

I'm against people who have been convicted of violent crimes (or the threat of violence) from being allowed to carry firearms. How 'bout you??

A law will absolutely prevent them from carrying. They can't carry while they're in jail. See if you can follow this.....I know it's difficult:

- Thug carries gun.
- Thug gets caught by police with gun.
- Law says thug is not allowed to carry gun.
- Thug goes straight to jail for several years (at least) for carrying gun.
- Thug can not carry a gun in jail.
- Thug is not a threat to you and me while in jail.
- Thug is in jail because of the "Thugs Not Allowed To Carry Law".
- Law is now preventing Thug from carrying.

Do you see?? Are you so spiteful that you turn your back on even the most rudimentary levels of common sense??

"Thug" should be in jail for committing a crime. Not for exercising a right protected by the Constitution.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You seem very unhappy now......why wait to start a revolution?? Why not start now?? Tonight?! It should be easy what with all the millions of gunowners who're just as unhappy as you, right??

Right???......................

Because the current Judicial branch of the Federal government is consistently ruling in favor of the gun owners.

When the government comes knocking on my door to confiscate my firearms from me, then we have an entirely different situation.

I personally don't give a rat's a$$ if you give your guns to them.