United States & Gun Control discussion.
- Thread starter Diamondback 2/2
- Start date
Shape what dialogue? The ONLY direction things will go is further restrictions, removals, bannings, and requirements. There IS NO COMPROMISE when someone pro-2A is the one who loses everything. Compromise is when both sides give a little. This is right removal. It's already restricted enough, as is.
After reading the article and the backlash it caused, I am totally with Dick Metcalf. I own guns and was a concealed carry permit holder in the state of Washington for some time, a process which literally required me to only visit the county courthouse, pay a small fee, and wait six to eight weeks. That's it. Firearms possession and use is a given right in the constitution, but that does not necessarily apply to concealed carry (which is something the author addressed). As such, there likely should be some sort of restriction placed upon it by the states, within reason. There should be some sort of mandatory training involved (or at least a competence test to ensure you aren't going to shoot yourself in the foot).
A second issue that has been spawned by this author and his subsequent firing was the "all-or-nothing" approach that some gun owners have taken with regards to 2A rights. I believe that this is the "healthy exchange of ideas" that the publisher was attempting to spur by publishing the article. The reality is that while the guns rights are usually considered important to most Americans, the public image of gun owners has suffered because of this unwillingness to compromise. You can see numerous examples of gun owners being characterized as out-of-touch with reality because of these attitudes. And with that attitude will come continued alienation of your average voter who may or may not own a gun whenever an issue regarding firearms comes up. If you want the public to rationally consider the issues of your community, your community has to put its best face forward and show that you're reasonable and willing to talk. The gun community is not doing that right now. The reaction to this article makes that pretty apparent. This is part of the reason why I don't associate with so-called "gun people" any more. Recreational and sport shooters? Sure. SHTF or TEOTWAWKI types? Not so much.
And since the "slippery slope" argument has been brought up already, where have we gotten since the AWB sunset? Some states (such as California, New York, and Maryland) have banned assault weapons. But we also won a pair of landmark supreme court cases (DC vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago) that regained ground lost to gun control advocates years prior. Because of this, Illinois residents can now carry a concealed weapon, and states like Tennessee, Arkansas, and Alabama were able to expand gun rights. So really, it's been a wash.
I think the biggest gain, overall, has been the public's general weariness of gun control issues. Sure, after Sandy Hook it was all the rage to ban guns and whatnot. But we've had a series of high-profile shootings in the past few months, and there have been very few (if any) national calls for action. It seems as if the public just doesn't want to hear about gun control any more, and wants to focus on something more pressing (like mental health issues).
Anyway, that's my two cents on the topic.
Is this your idea of stricter control and do you agree with it?
And unfortunately, that day is finally here:
The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is sending out letters telling gun owners to turn over their rifles and shotguns — or else face the consequences.
New York City’s ban on rifles and shotguns that hold more than five rounds is now being enforced, according to a letter the NYPD is sending out to targeted city gun owners.
“It appears you are in possession of a rifle and/or Shotgun (listed below) that has an ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition. Rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition are unlawful to possess in New York City, as per NYC Administrative Code 10-306 (b).”
“You have the following options,” the letter explains.
1. Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. The firearm may be sold or permanently removed from the City of New York thereafter.
2. Permanently remove your Rifle and/or Shotgun from New York City and provide the following…Disposition Report/Registration Certificate…Notarized statement of permanent removal…Utility bill or other proof of residency regarding the address where the firearm will be stored outside the City of New York.
3. You may call to discuss the matter if you believe your firearm is in compliance…”
Departing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a major gun-control activist, with his coalition recently sponsoring an ad that depicts an Adam Lanza-type character entering a school full of children.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/#ixzz2n5sJBOz1
Now, does anyone wonder why a majority of gun owners are so adamantly opposed to gun registration? Don't comply with the NYC AC, and they will be at your door steps next with a warrant....first, to take any soda bottles you possess over 8oz and then your arsenal....
Hopefully, all the non law abiding thugs and criminals have received their letters as well and will comply to the letter of the law....:-"
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
Now, does anyone wonder why a majority of gun owners are so adamantly opposed to gun registration? Don't comply with the NYC AC, and they will be at your door steps next with a warrant....first, to take any soda bottles you possess over 8oz and then your arsenal....
It happened to myself before in New Zealand. First registration, then confiscation/hand in etc... due to the huge increase in compliance measures and cost to retain control of firearms.
If I owned firearms in this country I would never register them.
Thankfully in NY State there is a strong law suit going on against the state by gun owners to repeal the illegal SAFE act.
FYI, the NRA was founded in New York City if you can believe that.
Why is it that people for some reason can't come to the understanding that owning, carrying, using a firearm is a right and not a privilege.
I've been in debates on the internet, in person and the one thing that I never understand is how gun control advocates (regardless to what level) fail to understand that it is my birth right as an American born citizen to own, carry and use a firearm. Its really irritating and like arguing with dumb & dumber when trying to clarify that one little stickler of a point.
Want to require this or that? Limit this or restrict that? What part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand.
The other side is personal responsibility, should a gun store owner sell a firearm to someone who has never been trained, or take some responsibility and say I'll sell it to you as soon as you demonstrate you won't shoot yourself in the foot with it.
We don't need laws, rules and restriction. We need people to start being fucking responsible. And you can't make stupid illegal, therefore people will always do stupid shit, regardless how many gun locks and limited capacity magazines they are required to have.
JAB,
I will disagree with you, owning a gun is a right, a privilege, and a huge responsibility - the privilege should only be granted to lawful and lawabidng citizens, but should be a State's Right within the bounds of the Constitution. Do you want every gang banger and convicted felon owning a firearm? Your argument above leads me to believe you do, and that you believe there should be no restrictions at all on firearms ownership... I don't believe those that commit a felony, or violent misdemeanor, nor those with a diagnosed mental or emotional illness that would cause uncontrolled violent outbursts or instability (I do not include PTSD in most cases here) should be allowed the privilege to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, as a way to protect the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of the law abiding majority of the country.
I am not for the depraved gun control that is rampant in our country, but a responsible and safe way to keep the law abiding majority armed (should they care to be) and safe from those who should not own firearms... Responsible ownership and control by community not the Fed.
An armed society is a polite society.
I will disagree with you, owning a gun is a right, a privilege, and a huge responsibility - the privilege should only be granted to lawful and lawabidng citizens, but should be a State's Right within the bounds of the Constitution. Do you want every gang banger and convicted felon owning a firearm? Your argument above leads me to believe you do, and that you believe there should be no restrictions at all on firearms ownership... I don't believe those that commit a felony, or violent misdemeanor, nor those with a diagnosed mental or emotional illness that would cause uncontrolled violent outbursts or instability (I do not include PTSD in most cases here) should be allowed the privilege to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, as a way to protect the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of the law abiding majority of the country.
I am not for the depraved gun control that is rampant in our country, but a responsible and safe way to keep the law abiding majority armed (should they care to be) and safe from those who should not own firearms... Responsible ownership and control by community not the Fed.
An armed society is a polite society.
Last edited:
@x SF med, its called the bill of "rights" not privileges.
The felon/gangbanger argument is silly, as if they want them, they will have them. No law, as in reaction or consequence to an action, will stop that. It only imposes more criminal charges/longer sentencing.
Mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or society, should be brought before a judge and institutionalized as the law allows. However when they are deemed fit to return to society, no law is going to stop them from possessing a weapon (be it a firearm, knife, club, etc).
States rights are very important and states should have the right to regulate (make laws) concerning the good order of the state. However, the US constitution clearly states in the 2nd amendment of the "bill of rights" that the "right" of the people to "keep" and "bear" arms "shall not be infringed". Id doesn't say "unless the state deems otherwise" or does it say anywhere that it is a privilege of any kind....it is purely a right of all American citizens...period.
Do I understand your POV on this? I sure do, but I strongly disagree with it, and see the argument of light restriction or state restrictions as no different than people who want to outright ban firearms, its infringement no matter how you want to cut it.
The felon/gangbanger argument is silly, as if they want them, they will have them. No law, as in reaction or consequence to an action, will stop that. It only imposes more criminal charges/longer sentencing.
Mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or society, should be brought before a judge and institutionalized as the law allows. However when they are deemed fit to return to society, no law is going to stop them from possessing a weapon (be it a firearm, knife, club, etc).
States rights are very important and states should have the right to regulate (make laws) concerning the good order of the state. However, the US constitution clearly states in the 2nd amendment of the "bill of rights" that the "right" of the people to "keep" and "bear" arms "shall not be infringed". Id doesn't say "unless the state deems otherwise" or does it say anywhere that it is a privilege of any kind....it is purely a right of all American citizens...period.
Do I understand your POV on this? I sure do, but I strongly disagree with it, and see the argument of light restriction or state restrictions as no different than people who want to outright ban firearms, its infringement no matter how you want to cut it.
So, you are a proponent of "if you can afford it or steal it you can own it" school of weaponry? There should be no rule of law other than the Bill of Rights? All people who were at one time diagnosed with any mental or emotional problems who are now back in the general population of the community are safe to own a weapon? Any state can and should promulgate and regulate its militia, as set forth in the Constitution and Articles of Confederation...
Again, community regulations - for the safety, and by the will of the citizens is also a right granted to the people by the Constitution and Articles of Confederation.
Reasonability of ownership is the question, not the mechanics - I took the fallacies in your arguments and asked pertinent, if leading, questions to get you to think about your construction and tone when arguing a point - be clear, be concise, have ammo to back up your theses.
Regulation for the safety of the people is not infringement if the vast majority of the eliglible citizenry actually exercise that right... voting is a good example, it is a guaranteed right, that has not been properly regulated and it has become a problem. selective community policing of responsible gun ownership has helped create the current state of afffairs, and reasonable people realize that not everybody should own a fire arm, be it because of lack of training, weakness of character, weakness of spirit, felony, or weakness of mind... by your argument, every citizen upon reaching majority should be issued a firearm whether they want one or not.
You are arguing that a right MUST be exercised... basic rights are and always have been controlled and legislated by the ruling elite... do you also propose to remove the laws governing the sale of tobacco and alcohol since it is a humanist right that the will of the individual is the greatest right of all?
I agree with the ownership and abilty to use or carry firearms, I exercise that right, responsibly - do I believe every lawful and law abiding citizen of this country should do the same, theoretically Yes, practically, no. It is a right, but it is also a huge responsibility and, yes, a privilege granted to those who choose to exercise the right - the safety of their families and neighbors and strangers is directly affected by the exercise of that right - and not everybody is up to the privilege and attendant responsibility inherent here... that is the key, responsibility in the exercise of a right.
I don't have the time to line-by-line response to your post right now (but I will when I do have time). But my thoughts have not changed since I started this thread, I do not support gun regulations of any kind as they are a violation of the 2A and my liberty/ability to defend myself, my family and my property.
I don't care who has a gun, if they have one or not, if they threaten me or mine, I take responsibility in putting them down, as should anyone else who believes in being a citizen of a free nation.
States do not have the right to violate its American citizens constitutional rights, regardless if it is for safety or order. You know that, and I am not understanding your position on that as it relates to the constitution and bill of rights.
I'll do a more in-depth response later, got to make dinner for the kids.
I don't care who has a gun, if they have one or not, if they threaten me or mine, I take responsibility in putting them down, as should anyone else who believes in being a citizen of a free nation.
States do not have the right to violate its American citizens constitutional rights, regardless if it is for safety or order. You know that, and I am not understanding your position on that as it relates to the constitution and bill of rights.
I'll do a more in-depth response later, got to make dinner for the kids.
This is the reasoning using logic and the interpretations you expressed - a strict Constituional and Confederational review of the points you are arguing, laid out with references (those being the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation)
In order of my numbering:
[1] - Any elected government has the authority and the obligation to ensure the safety of its citizens. Realizing that the Articles of Confederation were never repealed, and that the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation bolster and clarify each other, neither usurping full authority of the other, the point of regulation of gun ownership falls into a grey area - as is evidenced by recent regulations and a less free interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in recent years. The State's abilities to make laws are tempered by those rights given initially to the 3 Federal Branches of Government - the standing or regulation of militias fall to the States, yet the standing of an Army is a Federal mandate which is supposed to be limited to a 2 year stand with annual reviews by the Legislative branch - both houses- for a review of the need to stand an Army, the army to be called from first the militia and then the non militia general citizenry. Paupers, vagabonds and Fugitives from justice are explicitly denied any rights or protections by the States or the Federal Government under the articles of Confederation. Using a strict Constitutional stance as you are calling for - you are asking that a large portion of this country , its standing Army(ies) and yourself (as a recipient of Federal disability funds, making you a pauper under the definition at the time of the writing of the cited documents) to be excluded from the protections offered to full citizens of the Nation and their respective States...
Remember, this is under the strict Constitutional and Confederational reading and interpretation you expressed. If it were considered that you were under indenture to the Government for your injuries (using the broad term of indenture, your welfare and sustenance are provided by another due to the inability to work), you would have the as not being a normal 3/5 vote by proxy allowed to a working pauper or slave. the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation are both promulgated under the assumptions they were adopted to "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." (Preamble to the Constitution of the United States)
As a member of a standing Federal Army for a term of more than 2 years, you have already thumbed your nose at the document you are stating as the law of the land.
...and yes the States are charged with keeping Order and Safety within their borders, by the Constitution
[2] How as a good citizen who believes in the Constitution, can you state this? I thought you prescribed to the Constitution - isn't it your right and your obligation to follow the section of the Preamble to the Constitution quoted in section [1]? Promoting the general welfare and establishing justice both require you to care who has a gun if it might invade upon other's domestic tranquility or beat down the walls of the blessings of Liberty, or is that a part of the Constitution that is irrelevant? Justice means that the individuals who are a threat are not armed, or become disarmed if they are carrying a weapon.
You are a proponent of vigilante justice, not rule of law per your statement, that IS anti-Constitutional. A direct personal threat is one thing, more common now, but still not as rampant as a Mad Max movie.
You don't care who has a gun - as long as you are carrying one too, how many other s feel the opposite, or just plain choose not to carry - ownership is a right, openly carrying isn't, concealed carrying isn't... do you think every untrained idiot should have a gun just because it's a right stated in the Constitution - it's not just naïve, it's careless and dangerous and directly in violation of the stated precepts of the preamble to the Constitution.
[3] You don't support any Gun regulations of any kind in support of the 2nd amendment? But the amendment itself calls for a well regulated militia - it calls for regulation to responsible, trained citizens who are willing to defend not only themselves but those too weak or cowardly to defend themselves or others... because that's what a militia is... it's not a vigilante mob.
I respect your deep feeling on the subject matter - but emotion can be as dangerous as panic - especially if not tempered with logic, and a broader view than your front porch - there are dangerous people out there - with good as well as bad intentions - with firearms and without. Exercise your rights, I do; but temper them with reason and a watch for the safety of all others - which might mean that the community polices itself and the sheepdogs roam armed with guns to fight off the armed wolves... but allow the sheep to quietly munch grass, don't force them to be armed, because they might transform into wolves.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
Now that is very interesting! I had never thought of it in that way. Food for thought.
policemedic
Verified SWAT
Hello, Manhattan South 911?
911: Yes, Do you need Police, Fire or Medic?
I need police. I am currently located at West 42 Street and Fifth Ave. I'm being robbed and need an ammo resupply of my next 5 rounds please......:wall:
911: Yes, Do you need Police, Fire or Medic?
I need police. I am currently located at West 42 Street and Fifth Ave. I'm being robbed and need an ammo resupply of my next 5 rounds please......:wall:
IMO Yes, all of the amendments should be equally protected.
The last bit in bold, was and is the best and only part I agree with in your post. I don't say that disrespectful. You know what they say "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one".
Show me where in the constitution or the articles of confederation (being you brought them up) that the states have the authority to violate the bill of rights in any way outside of martial law…
It's not just people wearing the uniform/badge and merely following orders that are a threat to our traditions
US Army Colonel Wants to Literally Pry Your Guns from Your Cold, Dead Hands
- Proposes "400% Tax on Ammunition"
- Wants Fed to Nationalize All Private Gun Manufacturers
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-guns-120313
First thought when I saw this: "Step away from the french fries, sir."
Amazing:
US Army Colonel Wants to Literally Pry Your Guns from Your Cold, Dead Hands
- Proposes "400% Tax on Ammunition"
- Wants Fed to Nationalize All Private Gun Manufacturers
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-guns-120313
First thought when I saw this: "Step away from the french fries, sir."
Amazing:
And here's a response!
Lt. Colonel Robert Bateman is A Jackass for Wanting to Disarm Americans
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/lt-colonel-robert-bateman-jackass-wanting-disarm-americans/
Lt. Colonel Robert Bateman is A Jackass for Wanting to Disarm Americans
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/lt-colonel-robert-bateman-jackass-wanting-disarm-americans/
42nd and 5th is mid-town, right in the heart of Times Square - I know a fa great little Jazz Bar (Iridium) at 51st and 5th, downstairs.... I used to go see Les Paul Play there on Monday nights...
