The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Cazadores said:
My first bike was a YZ, first year with the monoshock. Fun bike, took a lot of work though. I am a Colt guy but the Kimber should hold up for you, and if you reload should be a lot less expensive to enjoy than the Yamaha, although I really miss my bikes....

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Kimber sold. Dental bills paid. Yamaha has a new home. Everyone is happy.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
You seem like the kind of person I have zero problem with owning a gun. Logical, rational, and able to get past the emotional "I like guns, so therefor they have to be a good thing in all circumstances."

Its not people with guns that scare me. Its emotional people with guns. Just like other things that are a big responsibility, I don't think gun ownership is for everyone. The same way that I don't believe some people should be pilots, drive fast cars, be parents, etc. I think everyone should have the same opportunity to have these responsibilities. But if you lack judgement...
Click to expand...

Exactly.

But, be prepared to get lectured by the Constitutional Scholars on here.
 
Seggy said:
I did, both of you are too dense to see what I said though.
Click to expand...

The dribble about "gun culture"?

Biden will be presenting his recommendations next week. How's that for a really in-depth, reasoned study looking at ALL aspects of mass shootings? I'm highly impressed! The focus was on guns, period. Nothing about psycho drugs. Nothing about "culture" in general, of which "gun culture" is a part. The focus was solely on guns, and creating a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy. And, why wasn't this important after the Aurora shooting? Well, Obama had an election to win at that point, so nothing was said or done. What will be recommended will be an Assault Weapons Ban (already proven to be a failure) as well as limiting high capacity magazines and enhanced registration. Chip away at the edges and don't do a full, thoughtful analysis - typical government response - that's why vast numbers of people favor smaller government, with power that is greater closer to the actual voter (States). But, everyone will "feel better" for having "done something" right up until the next mass shooting that happens with illegal guns, or guns that still remain legal (as in the Va Tech shooting). Again, another example where Obama had a chance to go big, but chooses to go small and ineffective. Bravo.
 
WacoFan said:
Biden will be presenting his recommendations next week. How's that for a really in-depth, reasoned study looking at ALL aspects of mass shootings? I'm highly impressed! The focus was on guns, period. Nothing about psycho drugs. Nothing about "culture" in general, of which "gun culture" is a part. The focus was solely on guns, and creating a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy. And, why wasn't this important after the Aurora shooting? Well, Obama had an election to win at that point, so nothing was said or done. What will be recommended will be an Assault Weapons Ban (already proven to be a failure) as well as limiting high capacity magazines and enhanced registration. Chip away at the edges and don't do a full, thoughtful analysis - typical government response - that's why vast numbers of people favor smaller government, with power that is greater closer to the actual voter (States). But, everyone will "feel better" for having "done something" right up until the next mass shooting that happens with illegal guns, or guns that still remain legal (as in the Va Tech shooting). Again, another example where Obama had a chance to go big, but chooses to go small and ineffective. Bravo.
Click to expand...

While you prediction may turn out to be right, for all we know the proposal next week may be to take time to learn about X, Y & Z before taking any permanent steps. As I said earlier, I am waiting to see what is actually proposed before burning too many brain cells on this.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Lots of people who own guns never intend to use them as a weapon. A friend of mine owns a hangun, but he keeps it locked in a safe, unloaded, with a trigger lock on it. Personally, I think that's ridiculous, but he has no desire to use the gun for self defense. For him, it's just a toy to go to the range with and have fun shooting at targets. It's not a weapon.
Click to expand...

Locked away or not, it is a weapon! My shotgun is currently locked up and unloaded, does that not make it a weapon still? I never bought my gun intending to kill someone. I hope I never ever have to point my gun at another human being, but it still makes it a weapon. There's a reason there's so many rules to gun ownership, and it's because in the wrong hands they can be lethal very quickly. I don't see people at the range pointing guns at each other, or misusing them because they weren't "purchased as a weapon". There's a reason we leave guns unloaded, facing down range, and finger off the trigger until we're ready to fire, and that's because they're dangerous in the hands of those who don't respect them.


YES!!!! Yes it is a violation of their first amendment rights! I absolutely despise those people, but they have just as much right to freedom of speech as anyone else.

This idea that you can modify basic human rights is reprehensible. It just leads to further and further violation of those rights, and eventually the right is all but gone. The Founders, Jefferson in particular, favored a Bill of Rights to prevent exactly this. While others argued that our rights were inherent, endowed by our creator, and didn't need government granting those rights in a document, people like Jefferson understood that governments are by their nature tyrannical, and rights will slowly be infringed over time to the point of being completely violated, if the Constitution did not prevent it. But apparently, even Jefferson's foresight wasn't good enough! Now we have people in this country that think it's ok to just ignore what the document says and chip away at it piece by piece. I think he would be flabbergasted if he read what you wrote.
Click to expand...

I agree 110% with you on this. The idea of modifying a basic human right is absolutely reprehensible. Owning a gun isn't a basic human right though. It's a right that we Americans all share as a nation thanks to our founding fathers. There's a big difference there.

I don't see the US stopping people from protesting/demonstrating. WBC is still allowed to spew their hateful garbage, but are limited to how close they can get to events/people. I'm sorry but I just don't see that as being a violation of the first amendment. Groups like Occupy Wall Street just recently in the past year or so showed what lawmakers believe the first amendment is all about. Taking over a public space and making it hostile for outsiders to use is not a first amendment right. The judges who ordered the protestors to be removed never said anything about them not protesting, he simply said that they weren't under the protection of the first amendment when they took over the park in NYC.

You have to understand that this is all a very slippery slope, and I'm not entirely disagreeing with you on some of these issues. It's a very sensitive issue that I don't think any one man (The President) should be able to make. People in a position of power like the VP ought to know better than to throw out threats like executive orders, knowing full well the President can't just come on the tube and ban an amendment. Real research and problem solving needs to be done. Simply banning guns isn't going to stop mass murders from happening, but simply allowing anyone who wants a gun shouldn't exist in our modern society. You didn't seem to answer my questions when it came to your view of 2nd amendment violations and a mentally unstable person, or a person with a history of violence wanting to own a gun. I don't believe for a second that if an unstable person is denied a gun, that it's a violation of the 2nd amendment. Hypothetically speaking here; If the guy that shot up the school in CT failed a mental health test, but was still allowed to purchase a weapon, do you not see a problem with that?
 
Mark815 said:
Locked away or not, it is a weapon! My shotgun is currently locked up and unloaded, does that not make it a weapon still?
Click to expand...

Of course it's not a weapon. An unloaded gun is as much a weapon as a rock or section of pipe is.

Owning a gun isn't a basic human right though.
Click to expand...

Well, that's where you and I are never going to see eye to eye. It is most certainly a basic human right, and the Founders believed it to be, as well.

I don't see the US stopping people from protesting/demonstrating. WBC is still allowed to spew their hateful garbage, but are limited to how close they can get to events/people.
Click to expand...

That's a violation of their freedom of speech rights. The government has no place in deciding where or how someone decides to speak their mind, no matter how grotesque their speech may be.

You didn't seem to answer my questions when it came to your view of 2nd amendment violations and a mentally unstable person, or a person with a history of violence wanting to own a gun.
Click to expand...

Common law has always provided that a person who breaks the law to a certain extent (a felon, in our justice system) voluntarily surrenders certain rights as a byproduct of committing the crime. So no, I don't see anything wrong with prohibiting felons from owning weapons. Not that you can really stop it, but you can certainly throw them in jail longer as an added penalty when you catch them with a gun again. As far as mentally unstable people, I have the same concerns as Boris. I don't have a problem with the idea of restricting gun ownership for mentally unstable people, but the problem is determining how you do that in a way that doesn't give the government too much power. In other words, it can't be the government that makes the determination that someone is mentally unstable. You can never allow "big brother" to decide who can and cannot own weapons. That's an opening for tyranny.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Of course it's not a weapon. An unloaded gun is as much a weapon as a rock or section of pipe is.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand this. A gun IS a weapon. That's like saying a car in storage is no longer a vehicle, because it's not being used for what it was designed for. I guess this laptop isn't a computer when it's off and closed, it's just a lap desk I use to put stuff on. In it's most basic definition, a gun is "a weapon designed to discharge a projectile". I don't get how someone can deny that a gun is a weapon.


Well, that's where you and I are never going to see eye to eye. It is most certainly a basic human right, and the Founders believed it to be, as well.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree!

As far as mentally unstable people, I have the same concerns as Boris. I don't have a problem with the idea of restricting gun ownership for mentally unstable people, but the problem is determining how you do that in a way that doesn't give the government too much power. In other words, it can't be the government that makes the determination that someone is mentally unstable. You can never allow "big brother" to decide who can and cannot own weapons. That's an opening for tyranny.
Click to expand...

Good points, and this is where I agree. The idea of restricting gun ownership for the mentally unstable needs to be turned into a realistic plan that would work in the real world. I hate the idea of giving the govt more power than it already has. I don't think the government should be the one telling us who is mentally stable or not, this needs to be done by an outside source. How it will work? That I can't say. We already have big brother deciding who can and can't own weapons all over the country though, so that's nothing new. We just can't let it get worse than it already is.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
As far as mentally unstable people, I have the same concerns as Boris. I don't have a problem with the idea of restricting gun ownership for mentally unstable people, but the problem is determining how you do that in a way that doesn't give the government too much power. In other words, it can't be the government that makes the determination that someone is mentally unstable. You can never allow "big brother" to decide who can and cannot own weapons. That's an opening for tyranny.
Click to expand...

Personally I have never been against requiring a new gun owner to take lessens before buying. I don't see an increase in education as a bad thing. Complete the course and you get a certificate similar to a SCUBA Cert and buy anything you want from there. The government would set minimum standards like with flight training and that would be the end of government involvement.

I mention this because the instructor may be someone that can tell if someone is mentally ill. Obviously it isn't full proof as they aren't exactly psychiatrists but it would be a start.
 
Maurus said:
You going to be his body double? Interesting career choice.
Click to expand...

RAAAAAAAANDY.

But jokes apart, I got an email from the Indian community/organization in Michigan, back in 2010. Aziz was shooting a movie in the Grand Rapids area and they needed a body double/stand-in for some scenes that they were shooting. Apparently, somebody thought I would be a good body double. Too bad I was in graduate in school in Minnesota, else my career would be up and running by now.
 
Maurus said:
Personally I have never been against requiring a new gun owner to take lessens before buying. I don't see an increase in education as a bad thing. Complete the course and you get a certificate similar to a SCUBA Cert and buy anything you want from there. The government would set minimum standards like with flight training and that would be the end of government involvement.

I mention this because the instructor may be someone that can tell if someone is mentally ill. Obviously it isn't full proof as they aren't exactly psychiatrists but it would be a start.
Click to expand...

I think encouraging firearm safety lessons is a great idea. But requiring it is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Maurus said:
Figure it likely would be a violation. At least with the concealed carry stuff something good is happening there.
Click to expand...

On CCW value, I guess it depends on the state. I am doing it right now and I would call it a pathetically minimal hurdle: A few night classes and one range session shooting 50 rounds. If you are coming into it with plenty of experience it is probably fine, but most of these folks have never held or fired a handgun until this class.
 
Mark815 said:
I just don't understand this. A gun IS a weapon. That's like saying a car in storage is no longer a vehicle, because it's not being used for what it was designed for. I guess this laptop isn't a computer when it's off and closed, it's just a lap desk I use to put stuff on. In it's most basic definition, a gun is "a weapon designed to discharge a projectile". I don't get how someone can deny that a gun is a weapon.
Click to expand...
You did notice he said UNLOADED weapon? Yes, you have it right, when your laptop is off and closed it is not being used. Therefore, while it does indeed continue to be a computer it is not being used as a computer. To go a step further, your closed laptop is no better than the broken laptop laying in the corner since neither are currently being used for their intended purpose.

The same applies to an unloaded gun; it remains a gun but it is not being used to discharge a projectile. Functionally, an unloaded gun is equivalent to a rock or section of pipe. The best I could use an unloaded gun as a defensive weapon is to hurl it at the aggressor. Sure I could brandish it as a ploy while hoping no one calls my bluff but this is tangential to the issue at hand.

A bad choice of words there where you mention a car in storage. A car in storage is not a vehicle because the word 'vehicle' is defined as a means of transport and while in storage it certainly is not a "vehicle". A motor carriage, yes, but not a vehicle. RNS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top