T
theophilus777
Guest
What you're saying amounts to "lets throw away the Constitution because its inapplicable."
No thanks.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's ludicrous. Perhaps back in the Founders' day, that made some sense. Today, though, Grandpappy's squirrel rifle doesn't mean squat against a Cruise missile, any sort of armor division, airstrikes... oh hell, pretty much any part of the modern military.
What an armed populace can do, though, is hold off (or at least slow down) an invader long enough for the real military to arrive.
for a group of armed Americans to take on the massed might of the US military? Forget about it.
. While he thinks pistols ought to be banned, since their only purpose is to kill, I don't have a problem with handguns. My problem mostly comes from private citizens owning military-grade weaponry, which I think should be kept in the hands of trained professionals.
With respect, though: nobody is "taking away" your guns. Background checks and limits on carrying in certain places isn't taking away the right to own guns, but simply regulating your use of them.
That's a pretty steep slippery slope. Taxing ammunition is a far cry from banning all gun ownership outright. I'm not saying that making bullets cost more is necessarily the right solution; I haven't formed an opinion on the issue. But it's not "gun grabbing".
Well unfortunately, trying to implement such common sense measures into law like requiring gun safety classes or the like will probably cause the ire of the NRA.
The NRA - though not necessarily those who are members, mind you - is an extreme organization. It claims to be all for reasonable gun safety measures, but its actions belie its rhetoric.
What about when trained professionals retire from the service? Why do they need to forfeit their own property? To be consistent here, you'd just want sensible requirements for weapon ownership. (And for them to be sensibly enforced, of course)
If you can't carry and are in a "gun free zone," and find yourself at the mercy of a merciless mass murderer - your guns have effectively been "taken away."
Sheer and utter nonsense! This has been the EXACT method of prohibiting weapons deemed too dangerous for public consumption for almost 100 years now.
Don't make me use the word sheeple on you
There is not enough face palm for this. Somebody, please cite this guy something showing how much of the gun safety education in this Country is furnished or assisted by the NRA.
Licensed gun dealers have been performing background checks for decades, and there has never been a registry.
Ringo
The audit, the original audit report had a -- found an
error rate of about 18 percent, which is very high. And it
wasn't, I don't think it was expected to be that high. It was
very high. And after they looked at it they went back and
redefined what they called critical errors. And with a
different definition of critical errors, they were able to
lower the error rate to under five percent.
Which is what I've been advocating since I began this thread.
If I said that you can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater, am I "taking away" your right to free speech, or simply saying that there are sometimes inappropriate places in which to use that freedom?
[/url]
Funny you should reference the Schenk case. You're using a [later overturned] Supreme Court case that repressed a guy for urging people to stick up for their rights:
"If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain."
Oh, and by the way, the quote is, "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Perhaps a method to control the use of weapons, but not "banning" guns.
That sounds like laws that we already have on the books. Murder, assault, robbery. Those sorts of things.
And I commend the NRA for its efforts. Genuinely. That's one of the few things I like about the organization: its willingness to educate about guns.
Anti-gunners aren't even willing to do that.
However, that doesn't take away from the fact that nearly ANY legislation about guns is treated nowadays as burdensome on Second Amendment rights, as though even discussing plans to regulate guns or gun ownership in any way is a bridge too far. That's an extreme position.
Ringo
Because it is an infringement on the Second Amendment rights.
Don't make me beg dude, 'cause I will if I have too!
tulc(isn't above whining either!)
In order for a background check law to actually be enforceable, there has to be a registry, otherwise, the law is completely meaningless.
Is that a reference to recent events in Texas?
I believe that they are carrying rifles, because the open carry of pistols is illegal.
So, basically, it's because of anti-gun legislation.
Texas? Anti-gun? LOL!
Texas has a frontier tradition in which it has always been considered rude and uncouth to openly wear a gun into someone else's house or business establishment, unless invited to do so.
No. I had an extended background check to give me access to TOP SECRET/Compartmented classified information. It did not, however, require a registry of every piece of classified material I handled. Once cleared for access, classified material flowed through my hands like water. I only had to ensure that it was properly transferred to someone who also had the proper access when it left my hands. But there was no big registry of every piece of clasified material we had.
If a person is cleared for access, it does not matter how much he has.
Did you process classified information on government security systems? I'm willing to bet that you had to log your access to it.I logged on to the fact that I was using a government system. But I also had a desk chock full of classified information that was not registered anywhere. I also created classified information that was not registered anywhere.
If I have AR-15 #XYZ in my possession before the government passes a background check law, then the government passes a background check law, unless the government passes a gun registration law [which they've already shown that they cannot manage effectively] they have no way to know who owns AR-15 XYZ, and thus, it's a "ghost gun." I can sell it to guy B without a background check. He can then sell it to guy C without a background check. If the government doesn't know that I owned AR-15 #XYZ, then they can't prove that I sold it to guy B, and thus, they can't prove that he sold it to guy C.
So, they'd probably prosecute as many of those as they do people who lie on 4473s.
And I could have copied any amount of TOP SECRET material and sold it to unauthorized individuals, or, for that matter, walked out of the door with original TOP SECRET material.
The open carry of rifles in Texas is a political protest against legislation that prohibits the open carry of pistols.
And I could have copied any amount of TOP SECRET material and sold it to unauthorized individuals, or, for that matter, walked out of the door with original TOP SECRET material.
I understand what they're doing and why. But the Texas laws are not "anti gun." They are anti-rudeness.
Some of those guys walking around with rifles are complete toolbags.
But still...Texas.
Washington is an open carry state, and Texas isn't.
KatAutumn said:Just to sum up my opinions on this topic, because I'm not well versed on well regulated militias and all of that fun stuff. I'm a huge proponent of responsible carry conceal. I'm not a fan of open carry, especially rifles. To me, it's like seeing pictures of teachers in Israel having to carry sub machine guns to protect their class. Seeing a large group of people with rifles slung across their backs makes me feel like I'm in a war zone. It's unnecessarily intimidating. I'm not a fan of open carrying pistols, either, but it's not quite as shocking as seeing someone toting a rifle into a clothing boutique or Taco Bell.
Panzer said:Funny you should reference the Schenk case. You're using a [later overturned] Supreme Court case that repressed a guy for urging people to stick up for their rights:
Such laws don't control the dissemination of firearms to those who shouldn't have them, however, which is why we should better regulate guns.That sounds like laws that we already have on the books. Murder, assault, robbery. Those sorts of things.
That's them. I think that better education would help quite a bit.Anti-gunners aren't even willing to do that.
No more so than libel and slander laws are an infringement on First Amendment rights.Because it is an infringement on the Second Amendment rights.
I missed it the first time; thank you for the reminder.I'm waiting for Ringo's answer to my question.
1. Is a mosin nagant (looks like a 91/30).Pop quiz. Which of these rifles is "military grade hardware in your definition of the term:
The phrase "well regulated" has got to mean something doesn't it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?