There are different types of gun owners. - Page 6
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > There are different types of gun owners.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-29-2013, 04:19 PM   #51
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4790 Times on 2679 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

Clr8tr, It has become popular to quote lines from the Bill Of Rights. This is akin to those who know a few Bible verses trying to convince everyone they are Billy Graham. The continued focusing on the Bill Of Rights has allowed states and Urban governments to bend state constitutions.
States like California, New York etc have constitutional problems. Do you ever hear these Libertarians and Constitutionalist ever work to protect and change the source of their problems?

__________________
nitestalker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 04:37 PM   #52
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 5,667
Liked 6321 Times on 3154 Posts
Likes Given: 6789

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitestalker View Post
Clr8tr, It has become popular to quote lines from the Bill Of Rights. This is akin to those who know a few Bible verses trying to convince everyone they are Billy Graham. The continued focusing on the Bill Of Rights has allowed states and Urban governments to bend state constitutions.
States like California, New York etc have constitutional problems. Do you ever hear these Libertarians and Constitutionalist ever work to protect and change the source of their problems?
Sorry NS, I gotta cry foul here. There is no reason that these things have to be that complicated. 27 words say all you need to know about Firearm Rights in America, the word "Unfettered" is pretty obviously broad for a reason, they wanted no limitations on the ability of "We the People" to remain the owners of our country.

Fact, the Constitution and BOR's were purposely written at about a 6th grade education comprehension wise. Not even reading ability, comprehension cause lots of citizens just couldnt read in 1776! They could hear, listen and when read the way it was written- they could and did understand clearly what the Do's and Dont's, rights and wrongs of US citizenship were!

Just cause we got smarter over the 200+ years doesnt mean we have to make it so complex you need a gang of lawyers to understand it! Once was that "Ignorance of the law was no excuse", I can't think of a better excuse than I didnt know all 10,000 laws that I can be prosecuted under!

It really is that simple! Only Lawyers, Clergy, Politicians and PHD's want it to be so damn complicated that we need them to navigate the laws!
__________________
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 04:50 PM   #53
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4790 Times on 2679 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

Humm? If Constitutional law is as simple as 6th grade reading class why do we need the Supreme Court? Why are Constitutional lawyers needed to translate the cases. The understanding of constitutional law in America is of the most complicated.
As I posted ignoring your state laws because of the assumption that the Federal constitution is a Silver Bullet for all your freedoms needs more study.

__________________
nitestalker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 05:25 PM   #54
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Great North Woods
Posts: 2,574
Liked 2049 Times on 1072 Posts
Likes Given: 392

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe55 View Post
as much as i agree with you, i will take that commnet to a little different stance i have, and say this, that i believe a person who was in prison and has served their time after a certain period of time should have all their rights restored, even their right to own and possess firearms.

my reasoning is simple, if they are such a danger after they ae released and can't be trusted with a firearm or are such a danger, then why have they released this person back into society in the first place? if they are that dangerous then they have no place among LAC's in society in the first place and need to be kept locked up.
If only we could determine who the mentally ill really are. Or, which felons when released from jail will commit violent crimes again. Unfortunately, we can't.

It seems like the high-profile mass shootings are the ones that always drive new anti gun legislation as well as support among the mostly liberal crowd. Apparently, and we've seen this to be the case, neither the Liberals nor the media seem to care about the majority of firearms deaths, which occur in places like Chicago and other cesspools of gang activity. Because of this, it concerns me most that mentally ill people such as Adam Lanza are allowed access to firearms by of all people, his mother. Had she not been killed by him, I believe she should have faced serious charges for allowing him access to shooting. Just my opinion.

I'll add one additional proposed restriction in a perfect world. If there was ever a way to test for dumbasses, I would be in favor of them also being prohibited from firearms ownership and use. There should never be such a thing as a firearms accident. I have seen enough total dumbass folk at the range to convince me that many deaths could be prevented on an annual basis. But in the end, I do understand that we run some risks and pay a certain price for a free society. I do not wish to trade all of my freedom away to cover all the possibilities. That said, I remain a number 10 with an asterix
__________________
chloeshooter is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 05:35 PM   #55
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4790 Times on 2679 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

A very sound point. Their is no way to guarantee a safe healthy life. During the FDR years socialism promised health care secured retirements and wages etc. Bloomberg Mayor of NY a contemporary radical Socialist has promised a safe secured life by denying large Cokes?
Each one of the aforementioned leaders have one thing in common. In order to afford these protections you must surrender your personal liberties.

__________________
nitestalker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 06:05 PM   #56
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
clr8ter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: South Central NH
Posts: 3,413
Liked 1028 Times on 685 Posts
Likes Given: 677

Default

Quote:
Humm? If Constitutional law is as simple as 6th grade reading class why do we need the Supreme Court? Why are Constitutional lawyers needed to translate the cases. The understanding of constitutional law in America is of the most complicated.
Hmm, WF38 could be on to something here. Just because it MADE to be complicated, doesn't mean it IS by definition. If they followed the Constitution, a 2 min review of the 2nd would reveal the answer to all the questions pretty quick.

As far as the convicts getting out and having their right restored, fine. BUT, I think we should make a lot better use of the death penalty. As in if you committed certain crimes, and we prove you did it, everything else is irrelevant, you DIE. Then we don't have to worry about it. Plus, is it not true that certain segments of these people are known to have very high relapse rates?
__________________
clr8ter is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 07:54 PM   #57
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 167
Liked 43 Times on 28 Posts

Default

Sensible Gun Control Efforts
We are all too painfully aware of the tragedy at the Short Hills Mall last Sunday evening. Something rational needs to be done to combat this trend in New Jersey. There is not a single proposal that I have seen over the past year that would have had any impact on this event or on armed carjacking in general. Given the plague of carjackings in our state this issue needs to be responsibly addressed.
Let me frame my comments by saying that I am not a fan or member of the National Rifle Association nor do I side with gun grabbers. I make my own decisions. I am not a hunter but I do enjoy target shooting and I am adamant about protecting my family and all that I have earned over a 40 year career. I believe in the Second Amendment but I also believe that background checks should be conducted for all purchases but that once the background check is completed the file should be destroyed so there is no fear of “lists” that could lead to confiscation . (This is the big wedge that the NRA uses to browbeat people.) Also people with deep psychological problems need to be more closely screened.
New Jersey’s laws on conceal carry permit issuance, in my opinion, deprives me and others of the right to protect our families and possessions against an unfortunately well-armed criminal element. The right to conceal carry carries with it an awesome responsibility and should not be taken lightly. In that regard I would like to suggest the following:
1. Restrictions should be made more rational (virtually every law enforcement person I have discussed this with, who is not politically motivated, agrees that qualified, armed, law-abiding citizens can be a significant factor in personal protection because the police simply can be everywhere at once.
o A candidate should pass a thorough background check (already the case in New Jersey)
o Show evidence of successful completion of an approved basis firearm safety course
o Show evidence of successfully completing a specific concealed carry course, approved and/or administered by the state or local police and covering: the law on use of deadly force, situational awareness, and the attendant liability implications of using a firearm. This course should also require hands on proficiency testing
2. The benefits would include
o A signal to the criminal element that they can no longer assume that a target is unarmed
o Better situational awareness of law abiding citizens who have chosen to carry in order more readily avoid potentially dangerous confrontations
o No one would be forced to carry but neither would those who choose to and qualify be unjustly prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights
o Most importantly, by adopting a rational approach you exponentially increase that chances of rational future gun control legislation that would decrease criminal actively but not infringe on rational gun ownership rights.

__________________
4sig is offline  
Balota Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 08:45 PM   #58
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
clr8ter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: South Central NH
Posts: 3,413
Liked 1028 Times on 685 Posts
Likes Given: 677

Default

That's ^^^ very similar to my views. I'd maybe add the following; If you do the courses, pass the BG check, etc., you get a card similar to a Driver's license. Then, all you need to do from then on is show that, and it's ANYTHING you want, no further inquiry or stalling. Obviously, this would need to be renewed every so often. And I think that the keeping no lists is important, although this specific thing makes that stickier, I know.

__________________
clr8ter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 09:48 PM   #59
F4U
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
F4U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,323
Liked 1007 Times on 599 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe55 View Post
as much as i agree with you, i will take that commnet to a little different stance i have, and say this, that i believe a person who was in prison and has served their time after a certain period of time should have all their rights restored, even their right to own and possess firearms.

my reasoning is simple, if they are such a danger after they ae released and can't be trusted with a firearm or are such a danger, then why have they released this person back into society in the first place? if they are that dangerous then they have no place among LAC's in society in the first place and need to be kept locked up.
Axxe I agree with you in principle, once you pay your debt to society it should be paid, all rights and RESPONSIBILITIES restored. But in practice this would require open ended sentencing. Right now the judge gives you 10 years you get out in 10 years whether you are repentant or not. Parole boards would have to decide whether to keep you beyond your original sentence and I could see this causing all sorts of lawsuits and mayhem. Maybe a good compromise would be a period of years with no trouble after release would restore total rights .

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4sig View Post
Sensible Gun Control Efforts
We are all too painfully aware of the tragedy at the Short Hills Mall last Sunday evening. Something rational needs to be done to combat this trend in New Jersey. There is not a single proposal that I have seen over the past year that would have had any impact on this event or on armed carjacking in general. Given the plague of carjackings in our state this issue needs to be responsibly addressed.
Let me frame my comments by saying that I am not a fan or member of the National Rifle Association nor do I side with gun grabbers. I make my own decisions. I am not a hunter but I do enjoy target shooting and I am adamant about protecting my family and all that I have earned over a 40 year career. I believe in the Second Amendment but I also believe that background checks should be conducted for all purchases but that once the background check is completed the file should be destroyed so there is no fear of “lists” that could lead to confiscation . (This is the big wedge that the NRA uses to browbeat people.) Also people with deep psychological problems need to be more closely screened.
New Jersey’s laws on conceal carry permit issuance, in my opinion, deprives me and others of the right to protect our families and possessions against an unfortunately well-armed criminal element. The right to conceal carry carries with it an awesome responsibility and should not be taken lightly. In that regard I would like to suggest the following:
1. Restrictions should be made more rational (virtually every law enforcement person I have discussed this with, who is not politically motivated, agrees that qualified, armed, law-abiding citizens can be a significant factor in personal protection because the police simply can be everywhere at once.
o A candidate should pass a thorough background check (already the case in New Jersey)
o Show evidence of successful completion of an approved basis firearm safety course
o Show evidence of successfully completing a specific concealed carry course, approved and/or administered by the state or local police and covering: the law on use of deadly force, situational awareness, and the attendant liability implications of using a firearm. This course should also require hands on proficiency testing
2. The benefits would include
o A signal to the criminal element that they can no longer assume that a target is unarmed
o Better situational awareness of law abiding citizens who have chosen to carry in order more readily avoid potentially dangerous confrontations
o No one would be forced to carry but neither would those who choose to and qualify be unjustly prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights
o Most importantly, by adopting a rational approach you exponentially increase that chances of rational future gun control legislation that would decrease criminal actively but not infringe on rational gun ownership rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clr8ter View Post
That's ^^^ very similar to my views. I'd maybe add the following; If you do the courses, pass the BG check, etc., you get a card similar to a Driver's license. Then, all you need to do from then on is show that, and it's ANYTHING you want, no further inquiry or stalling. Obviously, this would need to be renewed every so often. And I think that the keeping no lists is important, although this specific thing makes that stickier, I know.
The biggest flaws I see here is that the card "similar to a drivers license" is by definition a list of gun owners. That and a total lack of understanding of the gun grabbers actual motivation. I you think your safety is their purpose you are very badly mistaken.
__________________
F4U is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 09:53 PM   #60
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
clr8ter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: South Central NH
Posts: 3,413
Liked 1028 Times on 685 Posts
Likes Given: 677

Default

Well, that's why I used the word "stickier", because I agree with you. With this type of Govt. we have, there's no chance it would work. (No, I don't think my safety is their main concern. Or that they care at all about me.) I am talking more from a theoretical standpoint, what would be acceptable, and/or better. As it stands, we will get NOTHING really, that truly benefits us.

__________________
clr8ter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Different Types Of Ammo TexasRed Ammunition & Reloading 11 03-23-2011 02:44 PM
Types of .22 ammo phoinixbird .22 Rifle/Rimfire Discussion 11 04-16-2010 12:14 AM
Powder Types Roger38 Ammunition & Reloading 11 09-30-2009 02:14 PM
For The DIY Types jeepcreep927 The Club House 3 11-29-2008 05:12 PM