Are there any restrictions we can agree with??

I think that sums it up... a few of us are willing to compromise a little... a little here... a little there... No my mind is made up... no restrictions... one leads to another... and another... Why I think our founders were much smarter than I ever will be by putting in the words shall not be infringed. Each of us thinks and believes differently. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? Me? you? The decision as to who can or can not have the means to defend their life is to important to trust to any individual or group of individuals.

Richard
 
perhaps I am just adding fuel to the fire but here it goes anyway
smile.gif


We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet if you commit certain crimes against society you are sentenced to die(no life), other crimes punishable by incarceration(no liberty), and if you derive enjoyment from theft(no happiness).

I have no qualms with frying a murderer, incarcerating a rapist, or taking thier right to own weapons away if they ever see the light of day. Likewise they can no longer vote/participate in the democratic process. They broke thier social contract in the most heinous fashion. &*%$# em'.

Background checks will help to keep the scum, who had their rights confiscated to begin with, from getting getting weapons legally.

As to training, why not? It could be argued that in case they ever needed to participate in a revolution they had better know how to shoot. In this case a little knowledge goes a long way.

Firearms are different than vehicles. I do agree that they are deadly weapons(cars), and to drive them on a populated road you do need training to operate them and also to be a certain age-good ideas in my book. Yes there are more deaths from vehicles, but if you look at the number of potentially deadly encounters(countless) with vehicles compared to the same with firearms- I believe firearms are deadlier.

OK- got my flame proof suit on so have at!
smile.gif


Olazul
 
"...shall not be infringed" says it just fine to me.

It is not the possession or lawful use of a firearm that is the problem. I was out shooting .22 rifles when I was fourteen. No problem to person or property.

The punishment should be in the harmful act rather than on possession of the item. The only exceptions I can think of would be:
- No weapons of mass destruction, e.g. nuclear, biological, chemical weapons, and
- It has to be light enough for ONE person to carry it. (That would restrict tanks, artillery, etc.)

Don't know how to restrict flame throwers, RPGs, bazookas (MY generation!), etc. Don't even know for sure if we should restrict them. Again, it is the USE that can be the problem.

Would THAT work?
 
Dennis...

I could cook up a wicked bio-brew in a heartbeat...3 heartbeats if ya want chemo.
So, do ya periodically search me to make sure I'm behaving?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
when a felon finishes his sentence, jail time, or is realseaed on parole, and finishes parole without committing nay more crimes, then does that mean he can NEVER defend himself or his family with a firearm?
 
How about this, i think if the possession age for a handgun or longguns is kicked up to 21 i think the old selective service act ought to become 21 as well, i sure wouldn't fight for this country if at 20 i am considered too simple to have a pistol.
I do to a certain extent wonder how wise giving blind people guns is though.
 
Since the gun-grabbers treat any concession as only the next step in their campaign to confiscate all the guns, my answer is no, there are no new restrictions that I find acceptable. Now, if you want to start from scratch, and come up with some restrictions that I find acceptable, that would be different, but that isn't a realistic approach. Besides, I can only think of one restriction that I find acceptable... violent felons shouldn't be permitted to have guns. Of course, I don't think they should be permitted on the streets, either.
Alternatively, I might agree to a compromise set of restrictions, provided that the gun-grabbers would live with compromise, and not use it merely as the starting point for the rest of their campaign. But that isn't realistic, either.

BTW, am I the only one who wonders why the liberals are so dead set on having a monopoly on the use of force? I wonder what they are planning to do with it if they ever get it?
------------------
TB., NC
rosie.acmecity.com/bebe/6/index.html


[This message has been edited by Tim Burke (edited June 19, 1999).]
 
Just for the record, I am all for youths being able to posess firearms, with the permission and supervision of their parent's. I don't think they should be going out and buying themselves firearms.

I just joined Gun Owners of America, it was pretty neat being able to join on-line http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoa.htm

After reading this http://www.gunowners.org/fs9301.htm I would have to agree with their reasons for not wanting an instant check system. The potential for abuse is the most persuasive argument for me.

From the responses so far maybe the reasonable thing is to have a Reaffirmation of the RKBA Act of 1999.

Basically saying the right to keep and bear arms is an individual liberty that shall not be restricted in any way, unless the right is abused by those using a firearm during the commission of a crime.

I'm still not convinced that making sure felons aren't easily able to purchase firearms would infringe our rights. Of course, the method of preventing them could (and probably is in some instances) be infringing an individuals right to purchase a firearm. And of course, if it is still true that 70% of firearms used in crimes are stolen, well the whole gun control issues it moot anyway.

One thing that concerned me a great deal during the debate is when one of the Senators, dont remember which, got up and said "I feel I was elected to make the world a better place to live." Clinton just said something similar in his speech yesterday. Am I missing something, or did they change the oath of office.

'I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'

Maybe it is time we reminded these congress critters and the public what these words really mean.
http://www.thefiringline.com/unite/form.htm

Peace...
Keith

Live Free or Die

[This message has been edited by KAM_Indianapolis (edited June 19, 1999).]
 
I think the supreme restriction of the land ought to be ...the Constitution of these United States, every law that is passed ought to be passed with the intent of the law as part of the law as well as the amendment of the constitution that supports said law....restrictions, there always made to sound so 'normal' or 'sensible' until you look at how there used to restrict freedom--so either we are going to be a free people or we are not going to be a free people.....so my question to you is do you want to be free?...
What most americans do not recognize is that the Constitution was designed not to limit our freedoms and inalinable rights, but to limit those intrusions upon our rights by our elected officials and our government---and by not teaching this and supporting compromises we have lost many of our freedoms...fubsy.

[This message has been edited by fubsy (edited June 19, 1999).]
 
DC,
For God's sake, child! Don't ask every male chauvanist pig like me if he wants to search you! Seesh!
biggrin.gif


Seriously, let me try to give an honest answer (at least a suggestion) to your tongue-in-cheek challenge.

A small percentage of our population CAN constitute a large number of people. So, folks with your knowledge and expertise have the ability to be a real threat to our nation. Therefore, I would be forced (by my lack of expertise in this area) to rely upon the morality of the majority in your profession. I believe such a group could come up with reasonable suggestions for appropriate controls. Those disagreeing with such a group should also be heard. Then controls should be created to prevent the creation or stockpiling of such a weapon of mass destruction.

Obviously, someone in your position could create the means of killing, injuring, etc. a relatively large number of people. But then, a single bomber can could do likewise at any large gathering (e.g. the Olympic bomber).

As a nation, we must keep the means of uniting the citizens and replacing a tyrannical government. With small arms, it would take a goodly number of people to bring a successful revolution to fruition. With means of mass destruction, a very few people could harm huge numbers of innocent people.

With NO knowledge of your field, let me ask this. Could the materials for such dangerous weapons be handled like classified documents? Control access to the materials and the knowledge necessary to create truly massive disasters? (That's a straight question, OK?)

That may not be possible. Perhaps the knowledge and materials are too readily accessible. If so, it matters not what laws we enact. But I feel it is necessary to preserve our right to small arms (I know you agree); and I would hope "the powers" would enlist the expertise of such people as you in a reasonable (I HATE that word now) attempt to prevent high school kids from generating anthrax, smallpox, nerve gas, etc. in their garages.

I'm open to all the help I can get on this one.
 
I have read the thought of all of you, and frankly, some of y'all miss the boat.
I can agree with with "NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND." I'm not talking about weapons of mass destruction here. I'm talking about your right to "keep and bear arms".
Felons able to buy firearms? Why not? So a person makes a mistake. Mabe an innocent mistake, in ignorance of the law. Can't happen. It did to my neighbor. He's now a convicted felon. He had to apply to the judge that convicted him in order to have his rights restore, including the right to possess firearms. BTW, it is my very carefully considered opinion that he was railroaded by the powers that be. Pima county AZ. has a very anti-gun county attorney system. My personal opinion.
While considered by many to be a bad decision, U.S. v Miller (1939)makes one interesting point.
In this case, the Court stated that,"The Militia comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...[and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME." (emphasis mine) Let's? What's in common use at the time? Certainly not Rosies muskets. AH HA! M-16s! But it is illegal to own one. NFA 34 sez you got to pay a federal tax, and be licensed. I guess that according to the above, NFA 34 is unconstitutional. Let's get rid of it. GCA is a major big time infringement of the Constitution. Let's get rid of that one too. How about FOPA 86? Gee. You can't buy any newly manufactured full auto firearms now. Get rid of that one too. They're all unconstitutional. Period!
I am more uncompromisingly pro-gun, than Slick (traitor) Willie, Sarah B., Slimeball Schumer,drunken Kennedy, dumba$$es Boxer and Feindstein combined are anti-gun.
NO GUN LAWS-NO COMPROMISE!
Paul B.
 
It's a dark day in Mudville, as I have to disagree with Dennis.
frown.gif


Nobody can control ideas. Even if gov't could control commodities (and we know they can't, the can create black markets, however) they still cannot stop the free flow of ideas. Using a match, a forest, a cow's refuse and some naturally occuring minerals I can make a bomb, once I know how. Using fertilizer and common stove oil, I can make a bomb. Using alcohol, which I can produce from most any fruit, a piece of cloth and a bottle, I can make a bomb. Using cigarettes, some water, and a screen I can make a deadly poison. Using bleach and ammonia cleanser, I can make a poisonous gas.

Why worry about controlling the people who don't break laws anyway? We're not going to blow up the neighbors for playing loud music, we're not even going to reduce the local politicos to subatomic particles for their treasonous votes; we are not a danger to anyone unless we are attacked. The criminals, OTOH, break laws. That's why they're criminals.

The words being used by those of us here who want restrictions of some kind are the same words used by people we all revile. "Reasonable restrictions" whose definition of reasonable? Not mine. "Stockpiling" WTF is a stockpile? Isn't that what happens when a herd of cattle stampedes off a cliff? Your idea of a stockpile, and mine are probably very different. "Mandatory training" by whom, consisting of what? I've taken many europeans out hunting, all of whom underwent mandatory gov't training, weeks of it, and the lot of them are the worst gun handlers I'ver ever seen. Any 5 year old, properly schooled in firearms, is safer.

If the founders thought there were reasonable restrictions, they would have put them in the Constitution. Oh, that's right, they did. It's called the Bill of Rights, and it restricts government from interfering with the people.

Sorry to rant, but I'm saddened to see my allies mouthing the words of my political enemy.

------------------
"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."



[This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited June 19, 1999).]
 
Can I live with ANY type of restriction? Sure I can, we all live with restrictions in some form or another now. I have to take a test if I want to drive a car, and if I speed and break the law while driving, eventually I will lose the PRIVILEDGE to drive. The same with hunting or fishing, you can lose the priviledge of doing these things if you abuse them. The difference is that the RKBA is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, not just a priviledge. Therefore it should be regulated with common sense and should not be revoked except under extreme circumstances. (Violent Felons, etc.)



What I mean by "regulated with common sense" is that there should be certain basic principles that guide the regulations in regard to firearms. For example, "Trigger locks" to be sold with all handguns. Makes sense, use 'em if you got 'em. "Don't sell to minors," they don't have the RKBA until they're of age anyway. "Instant Check," got to make sure the folks that aren't allowed to have firearms don't get them through legal means.



Also, the right to KEEP and BEAR, doesn't say anything about their USE. Should we "infringe" on the way they can be used? Absolutely, as someone above said "your rights end at my nose." I believe that every law-abiding adult American should be allowed to buy as many firearms as they would like at any time they like. They should also have the right to keep them and carry them. Their use should be restricted only when it infringes on someone elses rights. (i.e. damage to life, limb, personal property, etc.) Otherwise, if the gun owner uses his firearms and doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, let them be. If you abuse it though, you lose it. Three strikes and you're out.



BTW, if it doesn't seem to hypocritical:

I believe in a waiting period (cooling off), proficiency testing, licensing gun owners to own fully automatic guns and a ban on "cop killer" bullets



Whew, how do I live with myself and these contradictions?
 
OK, I'm still on the fence about some restrictions. People have made very persuasive arguments.

"We do not wish any restrictions because we do not have any faith that the government will not abuse their power"

Does that sum it up pretty well??

I've created a poll for anyone want to take part. Just follow the link http://www.gigapoll.com/KAMINDY /

Peace...
Keith
 
TheBluesMan,

Could you please define "Cop Killer Bullets"? (I hope you were being sarcastic, but as there is no UBB code for sarcasm, it can be difficult to detect at times.)

And why would you want full auto weapons registered? For many they are a financial liability! Ammo costs for such a gun would leave the children hungry (Do it for the children...
wink.gif
)

Why a waiting period?

Why a proficiency test? Who would you trust to create it and apply it?

I feel Darwin should win out on this one...

Restriction?

Nope. Not one. No way...

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com




[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited June 20, 1999).]
 
Ipecac,
You're scaring me! (Eeek!) First you agree with me (smelling salts used
smile.gif
). Then you list some spooky talents! Hmmm.
 
No restrictions on people over 18, this includes ex-felons. They would think twice about it a second time if everyone else was armed, too.
wink.gif
 
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Restrictions by definition are infringements and thus violations of the U.S.Constitution.
 
A "cooling off period" exposes the liberal mindset -- "You people are too stupid and emotional to have instant access to a firearm" (therefore you must be "guided" by
the more educated elite [we appointed ourselves]). Check out the stats on those battered women who were killed before the
waiting period was up -- it outweights those
killed in the heat of anger. To the question
"If it saves just one life" the counter is
"What if it COSTS just one life?".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top