Illegal gun control laws - Page 4
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Illegal gun control laws

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-08-2010, 04:34 AM   #31
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pandamonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,601
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpttango30 View Post
I also feel that there are plenty of people out there that don't need to carry in public no matter what there are people out there that are just not smart enough to do it. To allow them to do it would be doing everyone a disservice. .
So you are saying that some people should not share the same rights as you and I because they are stupid? I agree there are some REALLY stupid people walking around out there without thier helmets on, but WHO gets to decide the stupidity level cut off mark, what if YOU fall under that mark, or me, how can a right be unalienable if it is limited to just a certain "class" of people(the smart ones).

And like I stated earlier, we HAVE RULES! It is illeagal to rob someone with a gun, it is illeagal to kill someone with a gun etc. You cannot convict someone of a crime they have not comitted!


in·fringe   /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled [in-frinj] Show IPA verb, -fringed, -fring·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

I pick this definition. Actually, I believe the founders made the second a blanket statement for a reason. To my way of thinking these guys just threw off a tyranical government, they wanted to be sure that the future citizens had the means to protect thier Life, Liberty, and thier Pursuit of Happieness. Even if it meant protecting us from our own government, or from some jackass who would do us harm. Too many Quotes from the founders indicating the same, for me to think it coincidental. Just my opinion.
__________________
GUN CONTROL, I GOT THAT

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thomas Jefferson
pandamonium is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 04:47 AM   #32
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
So you are saying that some people should not share the same rights as you and I because they are stupid? I agree there are some REALLY stupid people walking around out there without thier helmets on, but WHO gets to decide the stupidity level cut off mark, what if YOU fall under that mark, or me, how can a right be unalienable if it is limited to just a certain "class" of people(the smart ones).

And like I stated earlier, we HAVE RULES! It is illeagal to rob someone with a gun, it is illeagal to kill someone with a gun etc. You cannot convict someone of a crime they have not comitted!


in·fringe   /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled [in-frinj] Show IPA verb, -fringed, -fring·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

I pick this definition. Actually, I believe the founders made the second a blanket statement for a reason. To my way of thinking these guys just threw off a tyranical government, they wanted to be sure that the future citizens had the means to protect thier Life, Liberty, and thier Pursuit of Happieness. Even if it meant protecting us from our own government, or from some jackass who would do us harm. Too many Quotes from the founders indicating the same, for me to think it coincidental. Just my opinion.
What if they consider "stupid" as not being a quantam physics expert or a neurosurgeon, guess I'd be screwed!
__________________
clip11 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 05:59 AM   #33
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DrumJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Here in the holler....
Posts: 4,823
Liked 1616 Times on 944 Posts
Likes Given: 1894

Default

THe issue of restrictions/rules making any real sense is moot as long as one "stupid" person makes it through the screening process and is allowed to legally do what said rules are supposed to keep from happening. When someone can show me that every person with a permit is of the highest caliber and is not a threat to himself and others I'll concede my stand on the issue. But I know more than one permit holder that is nothing but an idiot or some kind of mall ninja that got his permit so they can intimidate people be letting everyone know they have a weapon and will use it when THEY think they should. If every state and show that they do not have such a person running a muck then the rule has merit. If not it's moot.
The rules limiting someone's ability to exorcise their rights in my humble opinion are not doing anything but inhibiting free law abiding men & women from their right to defend themselves.

__________________

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

DrumJunkie is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 12:30 PM   #34
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 10,104
Liked 2767 Times on 1446 Posts
Likes Given: 241

Default

So, what you are saying is anyone who is not up to YOUR perfection standards should not carry a gun? Who among us is perfect? Are you the sole arbitor of such a standard? That sounds rather elitist to me.

__________________

In life, strive to take the high road....It offers a better field of fire.
"Robo is right" Fuzzball

robocop10mm is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 02:35 PM   #35
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

The problem with a subjective judgment call -- is someone "qualified" or "safe" enough to carry a firearm? -- is that the terminology can and will be modified and twisted ultimately to take power from people and give it to the government. We see it happening daily and our history is packed with it.

__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 07:13 PM   #36
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
k2000k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 53
Liked 48 Times on 21 Posts
Likes Given: 24

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clip11 View Post
In your examples, it violates the rights of others. If you decide to picket, why should I be inconvenienced? You didn't consult me or seek out my opinion before you picketed so I should not have to suffer because of it. But carrying a personally owned firearm under my personally owned clothing or in a personally owned vehicle isn't infringing upon the rights of anyone else. Most people won't even know the firearm is there!!!

My owning or carrying a firearm isn't infringing upon anyone elses rights. Yeah it might make some uncomfortable, but that's a personal problem. It's not my job to make everyone else feel comfortable, especially at my own expense. I believe you should be able to carry your firearm however you want, as long as it is in a safe manner so no one else will be injured or killed.
I'm not disagreeing with you in the slightest. I carry where I legally can everyday, and you are absolutely right about not caring about whether or not it makes people uncomfortable, however, we also have to deal with the realities of the world and those are the arguments you will come up against. I personally do not care if there is some sort of requirement ensuring competency and understanding of the law of the state to be able to carry a weapon on your person, note I am referring to conceal carry only, provided that it isn't so prohibitively expensive or difficult as to effectively make carry unrealistic for the average person. I am probably in the minority opinion, but like I said, we have to deal with the realities in the world. It wasn't too long ago that the majority of Americans, at least through polling, felt that only government officials should own firearms; we have gained a lot in the last few decades. The Brady campaign is now barely treading water, no one takes them seriously anymore, but I don't want to inadvertently give them a piece of drift wood they could use to hold onto and look the slightest bit legitimate.
__________________
k2000k is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 07:28 PM   #37
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpttango30 View Post
Weather anyone wants to believe it or not. A gun has one purpose it is to destroy what ever it is aimed at. Cars are not planes are not people are not. I gun is designed to accelerate a projectile to a speed in which when it comes into contact with a foreign body it causes extreme damage no matter if that foreign body is a dirt mound or a person or a stinking deer.

If there are no rules then there is no way to punish the wrong use of something.
Can't there be rules against criminal or criminally-negligent use, just as there are with other dangerous devices, without having a bureaucrat stamp a piece of paper granting you permission to own it? I don't need a license for a knife, crowbar, hammer or any number of other devices, but they can all be used to kill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpttango30 View Post
I understand that we all have the right to protect ourself and our loved one what ever the cost. I also feel that there are plenty of people out there that don't need to carry in public no matter what there are people out there that are just not smart enough to do it. To allow them to do it would be doing everyone a disservice.
You "feel" that is the case? More subjective nonsense. How would you "feel" if some bureaucrat deemed you unfit to own any firearms?

Look, I get what you're saying. There are some people out there who are dumb as a bag of doorknobs and they just don't grasp basic firearms safety and they WILL hurt themselves or someone else by accident. I get that. But the moment you attempt to limit "stupid" or "inattentive" or whatever-adjective-you-want-to-use people from getting a firearm, you do two things: you create multiple classes of citizens (a breach of the 14th amendment) and you set a precedent that says the government gets to decide who may or may not have a gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpttango30 View Post
I think each state enforcing a carry law is stupid. I believe we should have one set of laws for carry in the entire USA. I should be able to CCW in jersey if I have a California permit.
We already do. But apparently 2A doesn't go into enough depth for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpttango30 View Post
How do I not understand that? Because I don't agree with you. Oh well, cry me a river.

I understand it perfectly well.
What I wrote was that natural human rights are not conditional and cannot be approved or denied by an elected or appointed official. You clearly don't get that, and that's too bad.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 07:56 PM   #38
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,170
Liked 5733 Times on 3359 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpttango30 View Post
...a stinking deer.

If there are no rules then there is no way to punish the wrong use of something.
First, "damn dirty deer"!

Second, you just said "punish the wrong USE" of something. I'm all for the punishing of the wrong USE of firearms, not so much on the punishing of the possession of firearms. I don't think the government should be able to restrict the possession of a firearm, just the misuse of it; i'll admit that in some cases the government would need to punish the possession and criminal intent to prevent misuse. Note that i said "criminal intent" not "criminal possession".

I think ole form 4473 is a crock and unconstitutional, personally.
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
RP 98.9% of crimes are committed with illegal guns, More gun control proposed AdAstra2009 Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 05-21-2009 10:06 AM
New laws being proposed to control you and your ammunition! sculker The Club House 2 12-22-2008 05:05 PM
What Now, Hillary? Bat Control Laws? gorknoids The Club House 9 09-22-2008 07:39 PM
New laws being proposed to control you and your ammunition! sculker Legal and Activism 0 02-22-2008 12:03 AM
Gun-control laws bkt Legal and Activism 2 05-03-2007 02:53 PM