imthegrumpyone
New member
Yes, all that keeps them out of the hands of criminals and unstable people.
are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?
- Thread starter gaseousclay
- Start date
mrlizzzard
Inactive
No and here's why.The second amendment gives me the right to own what the military or the police have.If I can afford it I should be able to own it with the exception of full auto unless one is licensed.This is not about trap or skeet or rabbits.It is about not living in tyranny,ever.Enforce current laws and get a mental health program.
While I agree that far too many things are felonies, kiting checks is theft/fraud. Chronic offenders just can't be trusted, in that they are either completely irresponsible (in which case they probably should not be armed) or are cool with stealing, in which case they ought not be armed.
Felon = Bad Person.
Bad People Steal.
Even if it's 20 years ago? My wife used to write checks on the float from time to time when money was tight. She was once threatened with prosecution for writing a bad check at the grocery store. Nowadays she's raising 4 children and the committee chair for my sons' cub scout pack. Hardly the person you'd call "completely irresponsible".
A friend of mine is in his 50's and has a felony on his record when he was in his early 20's for pot. Can't buy a gun. And you think he shouldn't even be able to buy a muzzleloader?
Last edited:
If we are going to change or add to gun laws, I suggest we begin with taking all guns away from the Presidential detail who are charged with his safety and then take the guns from the security guards at the Presidents school who are charged with protecting the children there....only if and after that is done and tested for a year to see how that works out for us....then we talk about changing or adding more gun laws.
Alabama Shooter
New member
I would be in favor of taking away the guns of those secret service agents involved in human trafficking. The rest if they have broken no laws should be allowed to posses just like everyone else.
Alabama Shooter
New member
So was I.
The fact the president's security detail routinely participated in human trafficking outside the US and the left seems ok with that and they are ok with them still walking around armed seems bizarre to me.
The lack of outrage is pretty stunning in silence.
The fact the president's security detail routinely participated in human trafficking outside the US and the left seems ok with that and they are ok with them still walking around armed seems bizarre to me.
The lack of outrage is pretty stunning in silence.
gaseousclay said:
- As long as the definition of "reasonable" only comes from the anti-gun forces, I am not willing to consider further restrictions on firearms.
- As long as the major anti-gun spokespeople state their ultimate goal is to remove firearms from the public, they negotiate in bad faith and again, I am not willing to consider further restrictions on firearms.
The best summary I've seen is at The LawDog Files. The entire post is excellent, and his reference to the "Gun Rights cake" (toward the bottom of the post) sums up my attitude very well.
Not A Bill of Needs - A Bill of RIGHTS
The problem with this discussion herein is the issue is that we have a Bill of Rights - NOT a Bill of Needs.
Our founders gave us specific enumerated rights – there is no provision in the constitution to allow government to limit your rights to what they think you need.
The fatal flaw of conservatives is the first compromise only sets the door for future erosion of our rights. The once a fundamental right (such as the 2A) is allowed to be limited in any way… the liberals use the tact that the right can be limited for more limits and we agree to allow it to happen.
We now see the code words – “Reasonable Limits” “Common sense controls” they only mean one thing you no longer have a right – it has been taken from you.
Stop negotiating with these liberal terrorists – they have a bigger end game … the next stop on this train is – that an assault weapon ban is not enough to insure everyone’s safety.
The problem with this discussion herein is the issue is that we have a Bill of Rights - NOT a Bill of Needs.
Our founders gave us specific enumerated rights – there is no provision in the constitution to allow government to limit your rights to what they think you need.
The fatal flaw of conservatives is the first compromise only sets the door for future erosion of our rights. The once a fundamental right (such as the 2A) is allowed to be limited in any way… the liberals use the tact that the right can be limited for more limits and we agree to allow it to happen.
We now see the code words – “Reasonable Limits” “Common sense controls” they only mean one thing you no longer have a right – it has been taken from you.
Stop negotiating with these liberal terrorists – they have a bigger end game … the next stop on this train is – that an assault weapon ban is not enough to insure everyone’s safety.
I will admit I did not read all 10 pages of the thread . Please forgive me if this has been talked about .
Let me start by saying I don't want any new gun regulations and most of the ones we have should be repealed .
That being said how do we as a society and human beings let 20 children be killed and do nothing about it ?
If new gun laws will not stop these types of crimes then what does ? Armed gaurds/police/teachers at every school ? nope No money for that .
What about being able to weed out the mentally ill. What about the right to privacy . ? Are we going to expand the patriot act so the goverment can tap your phone , read your emails , search your house to see what you have been writng in your diary/journal .Who's the one that gets to say who is crazy and who is just a bit eccentric . Sure that may keep a few from getting guns but it will not stop this from happening again .
So I ask this again , how do we as a society and human beings let 20 children be killed and do nothing about it ?
Let me start by saying I don't want any new gun regulations and most of the ones we have should be repealed .
That being said how do we as a society and human beings let 20 children be killed and do nothing about it ?
If new gun laws will not stop these types of crimes then what does ? Armed gaurds/police/teachers at every school ? nope No money for that .
What about being able to weed out the mentally ill. What about the right to privacy . ? Are we going to expand the patriot act so the goverment can tap your phone , read your emails , search your house to see what you have been writng in your diary/journal .Who's the one that gets to say who is crazy and who is just a bit eccentric . Sure that may keep a few from getting guns but it will not stop this from happening again .
So I ask this again , how do we as a society and human beings let 20 children be killed and do nothing about it ?
armoredman
New member
Unreasonable - driving on state paid roads is a privilege that can be revoked, while traveling is not. My right to bear arms is not a privilege, and 100 years of open carry without permit, registration or other illegal restrictions here in AZ proves it works well.
Unreasonable, as it is not your business what they do with lawfully held private property. If they are transferring firearms to criminals to commit criminal acts, well, we DO have laws covering those acts already. If I am not transferring a firearm to a criminal to commit a criminal act, exactly what need do you have to investigate what I am doing? Why should I be automatically assumed to be either incompetent or criminally minded with the mere possession of certain items of private property?
Unreasonable - safes are expensive and heavy. That single mother working a diner late night only had $50 to buy a Raven .25ACP, and no where to find the money to buy a safe or put it in her apartment. However, this story, (which did happen), would have had a far worse ending if she had - as while she was being attacked in her own home, her minor child was able to retrieve the gun and use it to end the attack. If it had been in a safe, both mother and child would be dead. I encourage law abiding owners to buy a means of locking up unsused firearms, and have even given away small safes and gunlocks to people who said they needed them, but I would NEVER make it mandatory. Not to mention, the safest place in the world for my sidearm is right there - on my side.
Sensible gun regulations? Sure, we'll use the ones that work - Constitutional Carry nationwide, elimination of GCA '68 and NFA '34, as they have both proven to be failures to stopping or even slowing down crime. Anything that purports to restrict my rights for the criminal actions of others is unreasonable on the face of it.
Did you petition to ban box cutters after 9/11?
Here's one, over 500 children die every year due to misuse of firearms, and that is a terrible number. However, well over 4000 die of accidental drownings - I see no rush to ban swimming pools or "high capacity" bathtubs!
YES, it is a tragedy, NO, it's not my fault. Yes, the individual needs to be held responsible, but he's safely dead, beyond our reach. Do NOT presume to reach out from the grave and pluck at my rights and private property simply because madmen misuse their property, whether stolen or not. Whatever options you may wish to utilize to "make sure this never happens again", (I'm sure the parents in Bath in 1927 were of the same bent), the option of outlawing the possession of lawful Constitutionally protected personal property is off the table.
Last edited:
Edit: response to Metal God.
Sometimes, the best thing to do is nothing.
For instance, if I showed grief by punching people I do not like, I think we can all agree that would not be helpful.
Solutions should be about actually fixing problems, not about making us feel better about things for a fleeting instant. (Hence, no punching, except where necessary.)
Antis are suggesting things that have proven ineffective, either in furtherance of unrelated goals, or because they want a temporary feel-good fix, even if that fix actually harms instead of helping.
Sometimes, the best thing to do is nothing.
For instance, if I showed grief by punching people I do not like, I think we can all agree that would not be helpful.
Solutions should be about actually fixing problems, not about making us feel better about things for a fleeting instant. (Hence, no punching, except where necessary.)
Antis are suggesting things that have proven ineffective, either in furtherance of unrelated goals, or because they want a temporary feel-good fix, even if that fix actually harms instead of helping.
Metal God
The answer is not to punish the son for the sins of the father.
Why should my rights be reduced because you feel something must be done?
It was tragedy. But - There will always be soft targets.
Address the real problems drug use and mental health. The common tread in all of this.
The guns used were no more at fault that the cars they drove to get to the school or movie theater.
The answer is not to punish the son for the sins of the father.
Why should my rights be reduced because you feel something must be done?
It was tragedy. But - There will always be soft targets.
Address the real problems drug use and mental health. The common tread in all of this.
The guns used were no more at fault that the cars they drove to get to the school or movie theater.