The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Not a good analogy. I'm not a sex offender. But, if I was applying for a job that deals with kids, then absolutely I should be investigated and due diligence done to make sure my prior background is clean and that I'm not convicted (or even accused) of child crimes.

What is wrong with demanding someone be SANE (mentally fit) in order to legally purchase a gun?








That isn't what the 2nd amendment said.

And besides, since 9/11 have you even counted how many rights you have given away to the government? Or does none of that matter so as long as they leave 2A alone? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What's wrong with you having to prove you aren't a sex offender to live in my neighborhood next to my kids. Burden of proof is on you. I didn't buy my guns to shoot people, I bought my guns because my right to protection isn't superseded by your right to sit at home and fear the .0016% chance of being in a mass shooting. Same as my right to protect my children doesn't subject my neighbors from proving they are what they say they are.


Don't try and scream about the rights you lost out of one side of your mouth while trying to take away the ones you don't like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Lawman said:
What's wrong with you having to prove you aren't a sex offender to live in my neighborhood next to my kids. Burden of proof is on you. I didn't buy my guns to shoot people, I bought my guns because my right to protection isn't superseded by your right to sit at home and fear the .0016% chance of being in a mass shooting.


Don't try and scream about the rights you lost out of one side of your mouth while trying to take away the ones you don't like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's fair enough. I'd tell you I'm an airline pilot, show my ID, ask your son if he's been in a Turkish prison before, and then I'll have fish, not the lasagna. :D

The sex offenders have a registry. GASP, look at that term, registry! So if you are going to equate the gun topic to this sex offender analogy, then lets make a registry for all gun owners? Is that what you want? Because if you are a convicted sex offender, you're on the register, and all parents can see who moves into their neighborhood, or also research a new neighborhood for buying a house and seeing the nearby sex offenders.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
That's fair enough. I'd tell you I'm an airline pilot, show my ID, ask your son if he's been in a Turkish prison before, and then I'll have fish, not the lasagna. :D

The sex offenders have a registry. GASP, look at that term, registry! So if you are going to equate the gun topic to this sex offender analogy, then lets make a registry for all gun owners? Is that what you want? Because if you are a convicted sex offender, you're on the register, and all parents can see who moves into their neighborhood, or also research a new neighborhood for buying a house and seeing the nearby sex offenders.
Click to expand...

Sex offenders have a registry provided they are found guilty of a sex based crime under Megan's Law.

That's the part your apparently deliberately omitting or to dumb to understand (which is it).

You are not required to produce proof or register as NOT a sex offender. But you want to do exactly that for gun owners. Ignoring all the other rights you are entitled to under the same document insuring the right to bear arms that you don't want to infringe on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Lawman said:
Sex offenders have a registry provided they are found guilty of a sex based crime under Megan's Law.

That's the part your apparently deliberately omitting or to dumb to understand (which is it).

You are not required to produce proof or register as NOT a sex offender. But you want to do exactly that for gun owners. Ignoring all the other rights you are entitled to under the same document insuring the right to bear arms that you don't want to infringe on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This isn't related. The tool in question is used for target practice or for fun at the range, but other than that, it is meant to kill. Hunting animals, self defense, war, etc. The prime goal is to kill. And for that, we need something more on the books than just question 11f that is a yes/no checkbox. Your mental sanity should be checked before you can legally obtain a gun whose primary goal is to kill other people. (Don't use the cars it isn't the same, cars primarily transport people).
 
And btw, you do bring up a point with the sex offender thing.

Say you have a daughter. She's 10. You have no way of getting her dropped off at school. No car for you, no uber/taxi, no one else family/friends can take her. But a very nice gentleman who appears to be 35ish offers you that he can take your daughter and drop her off at school. You don't know him. But he's got a nice car, he is dressed nice and professional, is an easy talker, doesn't seem like a creep. But, you don't know him.

Do you let your daugther go?

99.9999% chance most parents would say no way in hell. We do not trust strangers. We even teach our kids that.

Why?

Why don't we trust strangers? The guy seemed nice, he had no bad intentions. It's not like he is gonna rape her and kill her and then bury her body in a ditch somehwere.


But we say NO!................


and we say NO *because* the.... "he is gonna rape her and kill her and then bury her body in a ditch" HAS happened to other kids before. Even though it is *extremely* rare, we are all raised this way. Say NO to strangers and move to a safer area.

It doesn't matter that this stranger is a nice guy and seems to be well intentioned. Once history established that there are a very small, select few individuals who just can't be trusted, parents started teaching their kids differently and now society in general ACCEPTS the fact that we do not trust strangers with our sons and daughters.

Which is why it isn't too much a stretch to want to have a mental health background check / evaluation before someone can purchase a gun legally. You are right.... it isn't people like you. But it's just enough legal gun owners who have farked it up for the rest of you. And the trust is gone.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
This isn't related. The tool in question is used for target practice or for fun at the range, but other than that, it is meant to kill. Hunting animals, self defense, war, etc. The prime goal is to kill. And for that, we need something more on the books than just question 11f that is a yes/no checkbox. Your mental sanity should be checked before you can legally obtain a gun whose primary goal is to kill other people. (Don't use the cars it isn't the same, cars primarily transport people).
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what a right is intended to do, it can only be removed after being found guilty of a crime.

What part of that don't you understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
It doesn't matter what a right is intended to do, it can only be removed after being found guilty of a crime.

What part of that don't you understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

By then, it's too late. What part of that do you not understand? I don't want dead bodies if it can be helped, and it certainly CAN be helped.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
By then, it's too late. What part of that do you not understand? I don't want dead bodies if it can be helped, and it certainly CAN be helped.
Click to expand...

No you don't get to take people's rights away out of strict fear. We are entitled to our rights by our creator. It's written in that same document that gives you the right to speech or the right to legal representation.

You don't get to suddenly change when and how rights are allowed

That's a dictatorship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
No you don't get to take people's rights away out of strict fear. We are entitled to our rights by our creator. It's written in that same document that gives you the right to speech or the right to legal representation.

You don't get to suddenly change when and how rights are allowed

That's a dictatorship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

False equivalency. First, regulations do exist that regulate purchasing firearms, including banning a felon and domestic abusers (examples). It's not like it's a free-for-all and the mental check is the first and only condition being suggested. Fact remains, we already have restrictions. Where's your issue with that? I would get you a lot more if you were for removing ALL restrictions from buying a gun. Then at least you'd be consistent with the 2A. Fact remains, we DO infringe the right to bear arms based on established criteria that EVERYONE accepts. And then second, we've already proven on the state level, different states can carry it further and restrict even more. Eg, a gun in Texas is not legal in New Jersey, and similarly a gun legal in Utah is not legal in California. This is also infringing the right to bear arms.

So yes, it exists. All we're asking for is one small addition to the already-existing restrictions/regulations/rules about gun purchasing and ownership.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
While the few on here argue for more legislation that they already have, I'm going to go pick up a BCM pistol lower, and a 9 inch .300 barrel. Maybe get a can for it too.
Click to expand...
Friday is Profit Sharing day. I got my eye on a whole mess of ammo, plus I'm thinking of picking up a Browning BAR Safari II. In 30-06. Just because.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
LOL @ implication that Bernie has solutions. Bernie says what it takes to get win primaries and win an election. Period. But at least he says something. That's vastly different than Trump who has LITERALLY presented nothing and yet just won the NH primary by a landslide.

Now, look, I never said the gun topic is SO big to rank as the #1 importance for a Presidential candidate. So no, I wouldn't see this being tied to the same level as health care or the economy.

Income inequality? Come on. Health care and the economy are problems. But it seems every R candidate talks about the first thing they'll do in the WH is repeal Obamacare. One can't just win when it comes to health care.


"They are tired of political distractions and divisive nonsense. The informed are growing very tired of lies."

Well then they are in for a very rude awakening. Trump, Bernie, Clinton, Cruz, take your pick. It won't matter who's in office. It's going to be the same crap repeated this decade. R President, D takes over Congress, nothing gets done. Or D President, R takes over and nothing gets done. The only real solution is to do away with the corrupt two-party system. But as you gun nutters like to say, most people are sheeple and they are too scared of a change from the status quo. Our best chance of seeing any change would be a libertarian candidate like Ron Paul.... that's who I'm writing in my vote for. No way can I vote for any of these current clowns running.

But alas, it will be Cruz/Trump or Clinton/Sanders. And then we will pass the "worst President ever!" title this decade.... seems to be the trend. First it was George Bush WORST President ever! Now it's Obama worst President ever! Next 4 more years, and [C/T/C/S] worst President ever!

The only thing that surprises me is that people actually think something will change.
Click to expand...
Well, here's a toast to missing the point, but since a lot of your tirade is accurate I'll let it slide.

The point was there is change, and even misguided support for anything but Clinton or Jeb is an expression of what the active American voter cares about, and it's not guns.

The big issue you have is people like me, registered Democrats who generally side on the progressive will motivate and work against those I see as a threat to the 2nd ammendment, because frankly it's a lot more than an issue of private firearm ownership,
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
False equivalency. First, regulations do exist that regulate purchasing firearms, including banning a felon and domestic abusers (examples). It's not like it's a free-for-all and the mental check is the first and only condition being suggested. Fact remains, we already have restrictions. Where's your issue with that? I would get you a lot more if you were for removing ALL restrictions from buying a gun. Then at least you'd be consistent with the 2A. Fact remains, we DO infringe the right to bear arms based on established criteria that EVERYONE accepts. And then second, we've already proven on the state level, different states can carry it further and restrict even more. Eg, a gun in Texas is not legal in New Jersey, and similarly a gun legal in Utah is not legal in California. This is also infringing the right to bear arms.

So yes, it exists. All we're asking for is one small addition to the already-existing restrictions/regulations/rules about gun purchasing and ownership.
Click to expand...

Really you scream that a yes / no question backed with the threat of five years in jail isn't good enough but somehow we are going to have a qualitative review of a persons sanity based off absolutely no discernible standard of measurement where we pack the DSM5 into what?

You have no clue about anything in mental health (demonstrated in a previous thread where hacker destroyed you for talking out of your butt about autism). Doesn't stop you from being quick to parrot some gun grabber talking point about people needing to be evaluated to exercise their rights. Never mind how unconstitutional the idea is. It's not even measurable how we somehow evaluate a person for being "sane enough" to own a firearm.

"It won't be a burden.... You just need to see a psychiatrist for the next 6 months of intense observation and pass a review screening of state certified doctors and then you can get your gun permit."

I'm sure that's gonna be the last restriction you ask for having watched you parrot off lists of stupidity in every other gun thread.

Every restriction you just listed... Like the sex offender registry is based off being convicted of a crime. Not some Orwellian Precrime standard of maybe you'll do something so we have to protect you from yourself. Never mind all those states you mentioning being taken to the woodshed in the last decade over the unconstitutionally of their long standing bans or prohibitions on firearms. Remember it took 30 years of not stopping any crime for DC to finally have its law torn down for its unconstitutionally. Just because that backwards thinking in New Jersey and New York that you can somehow charge people money for and force some kind of demonstration of need to use a right exists today doesn't mean it's day in court isn't coming.
 
Hacker15e said:
Based on what I've read on JC, that pretty much means you are a criminal, just waiting for the chance to commit a crime or the opportunity to kill someone.
Click to expand...
Every Sunday I put all of my guns in the trunk and driver around for a few hours. Feeling that I have satisfied my civic duty, I put them back in the safe for another week.

(Hopefully thick sarcasm is clearly layered on thick)
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Every Sunday I put all of my guns in the trunk and driver around for a few hours. Feeling that I have satisfied my civic duty, I put them back in the safe for another week.

(Hopefully thick sarcasm is clearly layered on thick)
Click to expand...

Sadly, I'm sure more than a few here took you literary and extremely serious. Now, they must ponder whether or not you are psychology deranged and unstable and, if they should step foot outside tomorrow.

Your story strikes fear in the hearts of many. Shame on you. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top