In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Gun Control and the Constitution?
RTKBA
Member Posts: 331 ✭✭✭
Okay I am going to keep this real short. I came across this and want to know what others think.
The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania
December 18, 1787
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."
1876 Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
(1831-1968??) Florida Constitution Article I, Section 8(a)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
Since there are a lot of Sate Constitutions like this I am going to just list the State.
Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, California: Nothing, Maryland: Nothing, Minnesota: Nothing, New York: Nothing.
The States with nothing have no provision for a right to keep and bear arms.
So looking at all of this would that infer a right of Government to regulate arms?
The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania
December 18, 1787
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."
1876 Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
(1831-1968??) Florida Constitution Article I, Section 8(a)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
Since there are a lot of Sate Constitutions like this I am going to just list the State.
Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, California: Nothing, Maryland: Nothing, Minnesota: Nothing, New York: Nothing.
The States with nothing have no provision for a right to keep and bear arms.
So looking at all of this would that infer a right of Government to regulate arms?
Comments
Okay I am going to keep this real short. I came across this and want to know what others think.
The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania
December 18, 1787
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."
1876 Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
(1831-1968??) Florida Constitution Article I, Section 8(a)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
Since there are a lot of Sate Constitutions like this I am going to just list the State.
Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, California: Nothing, Maryland: Nothing, Minnesota: Nothing, New York: Nothing.
The States with nothing have no provision for a right to keep and bear arms.
So looking at all of this would that infer a right of Government to regulate arms?
Yes. As long as all lawful, peaceful, sane citizens are not denied their rights. That way, convicted violent felons, illegal immigrants, small children could at least not LEGALLY possess firearms.
Also, "domestic" violence steals away your right to self defense.
The ONLY time a "criminal" should be able to be disarmed is when they are sitting in jail/prison.
To the OP:
No, the feds have no place to disarm the citizenry, nor do they have a place legislating arms.
Likewise, neither do the states have that power. If your "right" to bear arms can't be legislated on the federal level, how the hell could the state have that power? Your rights to religion, speech, search and siezure, extend to EVERY state. Why wouldn't your right to bear arms?
Let's be clear Larry, there is no provision for "violent" in the felon part.
Also, "domestic" violence steals away your right to self defense.
The ONLY time a "criminal" should be able to be disarmed is when they are sitting in jail/prison.
To the OP:
No, the feds have no place to disarm the citizenry, nor do they have a place legislating arms.
Likewise, neither do the states have that power. If your "right" to bear arms can't be legislated on the federal level, how the hell could the state have that power? Your rights to religion, speech, search and siezure, extend to EVERY state. Why wouldn't your right to bear arms?
Agreed.....The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania was the only thing I could find that had any type of restriction on the 2A in that time period, so far.
Let's be clear Larry, there is no provision for "violent" in the felon part. if the felony was non-violent, he should get all his constitution rights back after he has served his sentence.
Also, "domestic" violence steals away your right to self defense. see below.
The ONLY time a "criminal" should be able to be disarmed is when they are sitting in jail/prison. persently many violent felons serve their time and get out of prison. That is the reality we presently have to deal with. It is craziness to claim that the violent criminals, once out of prison, should have unrestricted rights especially involving guns
To the OP:
No, the feds have no place to disarm the citizenry, nor do they have a place legislating arms. To advance your position, you are referring to a general "citizenry." This has the effect of treating the lawful the same as the unlawful. Your position also has the effect of giving the rights lawful citizens have to the unlawful citizens. If you yourself, Freemind, are a lawful citizen, why would you care to defend the rights of the unlawful citizens?
Likewise, neither do the states have that power. If your "right" to bear arms can't be legislated on the federal level, how the hell could the state have that power? Your rights to religion, speech, search and siezure, extend to EVERY state. Why wouldn't your right to bear arms?
Clintons "domestic violence" rule disarming Americans for getting into an argument with their wives was an outrage. And even you probably don't understand just how much an outrage it was because it was made to apply retroactively!
Here is a copy of my statement at the start of this topic:
Yes. As long as all lawful, peaceful, sane citizens are not denied their rights
If someone is a lawful, peaceful, sane citizen, why would they have any quarrel to my above statement? And why would they want to defend the rights of the unlawful citizens?
quote:Originally posted by freemind tr fox in red.
Let's be clear Larry, there is no provision for "violent" in the felon part. if the felony was non-violent, he should get all his constitution rights back after he has served his sentence.
Also, "domestic" violence steals away your right to self defense. see below.
The ONLY time a "criminal" should be able to be disarmed is when they are sitting in jail/prison. persently many violent felons serve their time and get out of prison. That is the reality we presently have to deal with. It is craziness to claim that the violent criminals, once out of prison, should have unrestricted rights especially involving guns
To the OP:
No, the feds have no place to disarm the citizenry, nor do they have a place legislating arms. To advance your position, you are referring to a general "citizenry." This has the effect of treating the lawful the same as the unlawful. Your position also has the effect of giving the rights lawful citizens have to the unlawful citizens. If you yourself, Freemind, are a lawful citizen, why would you care to defend the rights of the unlawful citizens?
Likewise, neither do the states have that power. If your "right" to bear arms can't be legislated on the federal level, how the hell could the state have that power? Your rights to religion, speech, search and siezure, extend to EVERY state. Why wouldn't your right to bear arms?
Clintons "domestic violence" rule disarming Americans for getting into an argument with their wives was an outrage. And even you probably don't understand just how much an outrage it was because it was made to apply retroactively!
Here is a copy of my statement at the start of this topic:
Yes. As long as all lawful, peaceful, sane citizens are not denied their rights
If someone is a lawful, peaceful, sane citizen, why would they have any quarrel to my above statement? And why would they want to defend the rights of the unlawful citizens?
The Lautenberg Ex Post Facto law, how is that constitutional, since Ex Post Facto laws are expressly prohibited?
What is an 'unlawful citizen'?
Who defines what a 'peaceful' citizen is, you?
Who defines sanity, you?
Who defines 'lawful', the collectivists infesting government and society? One is not 'lawful' if one doesn't wear a seatbelt, or one spits on the sidewalk, or one does any number of individual acts that are only 'unlawful' because someone says that they are.
Amendment II is clear. If you are not locked up, your RKBA is intact.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by freemind tr fox in red.
Let's be clear Larry, there is no provision for "violent" in the felon part. if the felony was non-violent, he should get all his constitution rights back after he has served his sentence.
Also, "domestic" violence steals away your right to self defense. see below.
The ONLY time a "criminal" should be able to be disarmed is when they are sitting in jail/prison. persently many violent felons serve their time and get out of prison. That is the reality we presently have to deal with. It is craziness to claim that the violent criminals, once out of prison, should have unrestricted rights especially involving guns
To the OP:
No, the feds have no place to disarm the citizenry, nor do they have a place legislating arms. To advance your position, you are referring to a general "citizenry." This has the effect of treating the lawful the same as the unlawful. Your position also has the effect of giving the rights lawful citizens have to the unlawful citizens. If you yourself, Freemind, are a lawful citizen, why would you care to defend the rights of the unlawful citizens?
Likewise, neither do the states have that power. If your "right" to bear arms can't be legislated on the federal level, how the hell could the state have that power? Your rights to religion, speech, search and siezure, extend to EVERY state. Why wouldn't your right to bear arms?
Clintons "domestic violence" rule disarming Americans for getting into an argument with their wives was an outrage. And even you probably don't understand just how much an outrage it was because it was made to apply retroactively!
Here is a copy of my statement at the start of this topic:
Yes. As long as all lawful, peaceful, sane citizens are not denied their rights
If someone is a lawful, peaceful, sane citizen, why would they have any quarrel to my above statement? And why would they want to defend the rights of the unlawful citizens?
The Lautenberg Ex Post Facto law, how is that constitutional, since Ex Post Facto laws are expressly prohibited?
What is an 'unlawful citizen'?
Who defines what a 'peaceful' citizen is, you?
Who defines sanity, you?
Who defines 'lawful', the collectivists infesting government and society? One is not 'lawful' if one doesn't wear a seatbelt, or one spits on the sidewalk, or one does any number of individual acts that are only 'unlawful' because someone says that they are.
Amendment II is clear. If you are not locked up, your RKBA is intact.
X-ring Captain!
I don't expect Larry to have the least bit of understanding. You either belive in the constitution, or you don't. It isn't a complicated concept.
Freedom is not something for the weak.
There are already penalties for the commission of crimes regardless of the tools used so gun control is simply that...gun control. It serves no other purpose except to control and/or disarm the law abiding public since those that abide by the law are the only ones affected. There are too many examples of draconian gun control laws that did nothing to reduce crime rates, in fact numerous DOJ and FBI studies have shown just the opposite occurs.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty explicit, plain simple english that leaves no room for interpetation, no wiggle room, or this is what it said but this is what it really means. The Constitution is not a living document subject to change simply because someone doesn't agree with what it states. IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. That the politicians blatantly violate it at will is simply a failure on the part of the general public. Apathy has a price.
I don't think that anyone is advocating that small children should have unfettered unsupervised access to firearms, but that is a parental issue not a goverment one. Illegal aliens have no rights in this country anyways so it's not really an issue, just deport them.
IMO any law, regardless of what level it is instituted at, that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter how trivial it may seem, is unconstitutional.
Perhaps we should seperate gun control from crime control. The latter is always the stated reason for implementing the former. The anti gun crowd constantly ignore the fact that a gun is just an inanimate object until it's in someone's hand. It's just one of the tools that criminals use to commit crimes. I know it sounds simplistic but then again it's not rocket science nor even moderately complex either.
There are already penalties for the commission of crimes regardless of the tools used so gun control is simply that...gun control. It serves no other purpose except to control and/or disarm the law abiding public since those that abide by the law are the only ones affected. There are too many examples of draconian gun control laws that did nothing to reduce crime rates, in fact numerous DOJ and FBI studies have shown just the opposite occurs.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty explicit, plain simple english that leaves no room for interpetation, no wiggle room, or this is what it said but this is what it really means. The Constitution is not a living document subject to change simply because someone doesn't agree with what it states. IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. That the politicians blatantly violate it at will is simply a failure on the part of the general public. Apathy has a price.
I don't think that anyone is advocating that small children should have unfettered unsupervised access to firearms, but that is a parental issue not a goverment one. Illegal aliens have no rights in this country anyways so it's not really an issue, just deport them.
IMO any law, regardless of what level it is instituted at, that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter how trivial it may seem, is unconstitutional.
In red above. You and most others just don't get it do you? The extremists here demand absolutely no gun control laws WHAT SO EVER. Cannot you understand what can happen and will happen when there is ABSOLUTELY NO GUN CONTROL LAWS AT ALL. To simplify for you, say there were no laws and you learned your neighbor 7 year old child carried a loaded gun to school every day. HOW THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO LEGALLY STOP THAT? Or are you so dense that you will depend on the parent to stop it, or maybe you are one of the extremist who believe any living person who wants a gun should be handed one at the Wal-Mart counter if they have the money to pay for it.
In regards to our illegal aliens, if and when we get them all deported than of course they would not be here to illegally buy guns. BUT IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED WE ARE HAVING A GIANT PROBLEM GETTING THEM DEPORTED. But at least while they are here, in order to buy a gun, they have to do it illegally. This means they have to worry about getting caught committing a felony by lying on a form 4471. In addition, the seller has to worry by selling to someone he knows can't legally own a gun. And if that illegal alien gets caught illegally carrying that gun, he knows he will get a lot worse punishment than just deportment. Besides, if there were ABSOLUTELY NO GUN LAWS nobody could even stop that illegal alien from doing whatever he wanted with guns.
You and others here should already know this . Geez S. Christ I don't know why I waste my time telling you. I guess we are both idiots.
Just curious.
quote:Or are you so dense that you will depend on the parent to stop it, or maybe you are one of the extremist who believe any living person who wants a gun should be handed one at the Wal-Mart counter if they have the money to pay for it.I am one of THOSE parents, I have been teaching my kids to shoot since they were 7 and 9. They are now 14 and 16, both still alive and seem to know more about the constitution than you do.
quote:In regards to our illegal aliens, if and when we get them all deported than of course they would not be here to illegally buy guns. BUT IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED WE ARE HAVING A GIANT PROBLEM GETTING THEM DEPORTED. But at least while they are here, in order to buy a gun, they have to do it illegally. This means they have to worry about getting caught committing a felony by lying on a form 4471. In addition, the seller has to worry by selling to someone he knows can't legally own a gun. And if that illegal alien gets caught illegally carrying that gun, he knows he will get a lot worse punishment than just deportment.You mean a Foreign national here illegally is a criminal....who would of thunk it?
quote:Besides, if there were ABSOLUTELY NO GUN LAWS nobody could even stop that illegal alien from doing whatever he wanted with guns.Wrong...we have immigration laws for a reason, just because someone crosses a border illegally does not automatically grant citizenship.........U.S constitution Article I - Section VIII - Clause IV - which assigns the federal government via the Legislative Branch, the power - To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization;
There is also the supreme court case...HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG, 426 U. S. 88 (1976)The US Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that the power of the federal government to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization implies the federal power to regulate immigration.
You might want to try this as well...United States v. Portillo-Munoz "A divided Fifth Circuit panel holds that illegal aliens don't have Second Amendment rights because they're not part of "the people," and suggests that they may lack Fourth Amendment rights as well."
quote:You and others here should already know this . Geez S. Christ I don't know why I waste my time telling you. I guess we are both idiots.I wouldn't call wifetrained an idiot.
Raising a child responsibly is a parental issue and not one for the goverment. It certainly does not take a village to raise a child but two responsible adults that take that responsibility seriously. All the gun laws on the books, over 20,000+ to date, have not prevented tragic events from happening such as Columbine or Virginia Tech. Nor will additional laws have any real impact, you will still have bad people doing bad things. It is unfortunate but it is an undeniable fact. The goverment should only intervene is cases of abuse or neglect and only after all other options have failed.
Both of my sons were raised around firearms and there was never any issues. Their friends spent alot of time at my home and never once was there a problem when it came to firearms. I drew the lines in the sand and all concerned not only knew where the lines were drawn but were smart enough, as well as respectfull enough, to never cross them.
Illegals are another matter, maybe if we didn't have cities, counties, states, and the federal goverment either ignoring the problem or outright encouraging more of the same and offering sanctuary it wouldn't be the problem that it is. Listening to politician's talk about this country being a land of laws rings hollow when they themselves ignore the very laws they inflict on the general population or allow certain groups to violate them with almost total impunity while selectively and unfairly enforcing them on others. There is definetly a double standard in play here.
Penalties for the criminal misuse of a firearm and gun control are two seperate issues. I am not an extremist, I like to think I'm fairly level headed and able to see things for what they are, decide for myself, and act accordingly. If I'm an extremist, then it's because of my belief in the Constitution. The most brilliant document ever concieved by man and it's brilliance is in it's elegant simplicity. Maybe things would be better if people would stop trying to interpet plain english.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by freemind tr fox in red.
Let's be clear Larry, there is no provision for "violent" in the felon part. if the felony was non-violent, he should get all his constitution rights back after he has served his sentence.
Also, "domestic" violence steals away your right to self defense. see below.
The ONLY time a "criminal" should be able to be disarmed is when they are sitting in jail/prison. persently many violent felons serve their time and get out of prison. That is the reality we presently have to deal with. It is craziness to claim that the violent criminals, once out of prison, should have unrestricted rights especially involving guns
To the OP:
No, the feds have no place to disarm the citizenry, nor do they have a place legislating arms. To advance your position, you are referring to a general "citizenry." This has the effect of treating the lawful the same as the unlawful. Your position also has the effect of giving the rights lawful citizens have to the unlawful citizens. If you yourself, Freemind, are a lawful citizen, why would you care to defend the rights of the unlawful citizens?
Likewise, neither do the states have that power. If your "right" to bear arms can't be legislated on the federal level, how the hell could the state have that power? Your rights to religion, speech, search and siezure, extend to EVERY state. Why wouldn't your right to bear arms?
Clintons "domestic violence" rule disarming Americans for getting into an argument with their wives was an outrage. And even you probably don't understand just how much an outrage it was because it was made to apply retroactively!
Here is a copy of my statement at the start of this topic:
Yes. As long as all lawful, peaceful, sane citizens are not denied their rights
If someone is a lawful, peaceful, sane citizen, why would they have any quarrel to my above statement? And why would they want to defend the rights of the unlawful citizens?
The Lautenberg Ex Post Facto law, how is that constitutional, since Ex Post Facto laws are expressly prohibited?
What is an 'unlawful citizen'?
Who defines what a 'peaceful' citizen is, you?
Who defines sanity, you?
Who defines 'lawful', the collectivists infesting government and society? One is not 'lawful' if one doesn't wear a seatbelt, or one spits on the sidewalk, or one does any number of individual acts that are only 'unlawful' because someone says that they are.
Amendment II is clear. If you are not locked up, your RKBA is intact.
Well stated, thanks.
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
The owner of gunsgalore, a gunshop supposedly responsible for most of the criminally used weapons, denied any responsibility for the illegal guns in Camden. He runs his business by the book and can't contol what happens after he makes a legal sale.
The cool part of the show was Kentucky and the massive amounts of ammo being expended. AND, the statement that there were over 200 million guns in the US, privately owned.
The government just isn't big enough to go out and confiscate those kind of numbers. Thats not counting the guns, that are in private collections, bought before the regs.
The ht on Audience tv, there was a program called vanguard. It dealt with two scenerios. One being in Kentucky at a range gathering for class three owners and the other dealing with guns in Camden, NJ.
The owner of gunsgalore, a gunshop supposedly responsible for most of the criminally used weapons, denied any responsibility for the illegal guns in Camden. He runs his business by the book and can't contol what happens after he makes a legal sale.
The cool part of the show was Kentucky and the massive amounts of ammo being expended. AND, the statement that there were over 200 million guns in the US, privately owned.
The government just isn't big enough to go out and confiscate those kind of numbers. Thats not counting the guns, that are in private collections, bought before the regs.
You are missing the big picture, as most gun owners do. To disarm every American does not require the government to show up at each house that has guns and confistacte them. The government does not get tired, run out of money, get old or die. We gun owners do.
To eliminate almost every gun in America the government need merely pass a law outlawing all guns and providing for a 50 year prison term for anyone caught owning a firearm. Over a long period of time, for many and varied reasons, the government would encounter most gun owners and their guns and then the gun owners would go to prison for 50 years (probably a life sentence for most here).
So, instead of hoping that we gun owners are bigger and more powerful that our government (I wish we were) we gun owners need to work together and control our government because it has been out of control for a long time.
quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
Perhaps we should seperate gun control from crime control. The latter is always the stated reason for implementing the former. The anti gun crowd constantly ignore the fact that a gun is just an inanimate object until it's in someone's hand. It's just one of the tools that criminals use to commit crimes. I know it sounds simplistic but then again it's not rocket science nor even moderately complex either.
There are already penalties for the commission of crimes regardless of the tools used so gun control is simply that...gun control. It serves no other purpose except to control and/or disarm the law abiding public since those that abide by the law are the only ones affected. There are too many examples of draconian gun control laws that did nothing to reduce crime rates, in fact numerous DOJ and FBI studies have shown just the opposite occurs.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty explicit, plain simple english that leaves no room for interpetation, no wiggle room, or this is what it said but this is what it really means. The Constitution is not a living document subject to change simply because someone doesn't agree with what it states. IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. That the politicians blatantly violate it at will is simply a failure on the part of the general public. Apathy has a price.
I don't think that anyone is advocating that small children should have unfettered unsupervised access to firearms, but that is a parental issue not a goverment one. Illegal aliens have no rights in this country anyways so it's not really an issue, just deport them.
IMO any law, regardless of what level it is instituted at, that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter how trivial it may seem, is unconstitutional.
In red above. You and most others just don't get it do you? The extremists here demand absolutely no gun control laws WHAT SO EVER. Cannot you understand what can happen and will happen when there is ABSOLUTELY NO GUN CONTROL LAWS AT ALL. To simplify for you, say there were no laws and you learned your neighbor 7 year old child carried a loaded gun to school every day. HOW THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO LEGALLY STOP THAT? Or are you so dense that you will depend on the parent to stop it, or maybe you are one of the extremist who believe any living person who wants a gun should be handed one at the Wal-Mart counter if they have the money to pay for it.
In regards to our illegal aliens, if and when we get them all deported than of course they would not be here to illegally buy guns. BUT IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED WE ARE HAVING A GIANT PROBLEM GETTING THEM DEPORTED. But at least while they are here, in order to buy a gun, they have to do it illegally. This means they have to worry about getting caught committing a felony by lying on a form 4471. In addition, the seller has to worry by selling to someone he knows can't legally own a gun. And if that illegal alien gets caught illegally carrying that gun, he knows he will get a lot worse punishment than just deportment. Besides, if there were ABSOLUTELY NO GUN LAWS nobody could even stop that illegal alien from doing whatever he wanted with guns.
You and others here should already know this . Geez S. Christ I don't know why I waste my time telling you. I guess we are both idiots.
check out Vermont, you may learn something about "No GUN Laws"
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
Perhaps we should seperate gun control from crime control. The latter is always the stated reason for implementing the former. The anti gun crowd constantly ignore the fact that a gun is just an inanimate object until it's in someone's hand. It's just one of the tools that criminals use to commit crimes. I know it sounds simplistic but then again it's not rocket science nor even moderately complex either.
There are already penalties for the commission of crimes regardless of the tools used so gun control is simply that...gun control. It serves no other purpose except to control and/or disarm the law abiding public since those that abide by the law are the only ones affected. There are too many examples of draconian gun control laws that did nothing to reduce crime rates, in fact numerous DOJ and FBI studies have shown just the opposite occurs.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty explicit, plain simple english that leaves no room for interpetation, no wiggle room, or this is what it said but this is what it really means. The Constitution is not a living document subject to change simply because someone doesn't agree with what it states. IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. That the politicians blatantly violate it at will is simply a failure on the part of the general public. Apathy has a price.
I don't think that anyone is advocating that small children should have unfettered unsupervised access to firearms, but that is a parental issue not a goverment one. Illegal aliens have no rights in this country anyways so it's not really an issue, just deport them.
IMO any law, regardless of what level it is instituted at, that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter how trivial it may seem, is unconstitutional.
In red above. You and most others just don't get it do you? The extremists here demand absolutely no gun control laws WHAT SO EVER. Cannot you understand what can happen and will happen when there is ABSOLUTELY NO GUN CONTROL LAWS AT ALL. To simplify for you, say there were no laws and you learned your neighbor 7 year old child carried a loaded gun to school every day. HOW THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO LEGALLY STOP THAT? Or are you so dense that you will depend on the parent to stop it, or maybe you are one of the extremist who believe any living person who wants a gun should be handed one at the Wal-Mart counter if they have the money to pay for it.
In regards to our illegal aliens, if and when we get them all deported than of course they would not be here to illegally buy guns. BUT IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED WE ARE HAVING A GIANT PROBLEM GETTING THEM DEPORTED. But at least while they are here, in order to buy a gun, they have to do it illegally. This means they have to worry about getting caught committing a felony by lying on a form 4471. In addition, the seller has to worry by selling to someone he knows can't legally own a gun. And if that illegal alien gets caught illegally carrying that gun, he knows he will get a lot worse punishment than just deportment. Besides, if there were ABSOLUTELY NO GUN LAWS nobody could even stop that illegal alien from doing whatever he wanted with guns.
You and others here should already know this . Geez S. Christ I don't know why I waste my time telling you. I guess we are both idiots.
check out Vermont, you may learn something about "No GUN Laws"
Please tell me that you are smarter than to think that the no license required states legally allow small children, convicted violent felons to legally possess guns anytime, anyplace and for loaded guns to be sold out of vending machines.
That is just some examples of what absolutely no gun control laws will allow.
Vermont Concealed Carry Permit Information
Click here to view the Vermont Concealed Carry Permit Map at the bottom of the page.
If you would like to contribute to this page, please post the information in the Vermont State Forums.
Concealed Permit:
It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow
man. There is no permit required to carry concealed.
Requirements:
1. Be of age. In the state of Vermont, that age is 16 or older. You must be at least 16 years of age to legally purchase a gun and keep it loaded on your person in public.
2. Obtain permission from a parent or guardian to carry a gun if you're under the age of 16. Failure to do so may result in being deemed a delinquent child by the state.
3. Have a clean record if purchasing a firearm. Things like felony convictions and dishonorable military discharge will show up during the federal instant check, and prohibit purchase.
Informing Law Enforcement of Carry:
Automobile carry:
Rifles and shotguns carried in a wehicle must be unloaded; handguns may be carried loaded and concealed.
Places off-limits when carrying:
1. School bus or school building or on school property.
2. Courthouse
3. US Federal Buildings (including US Post Offices)
Alcohol and Drugs:
Deadly Force / Castle Doctrine:
Vermont is not a Castle Doctrine state and has no stand-your-ground law.
Open Carry:
Unrestricted in most public areas and generally accepted.
Localities with Varying Laws:
We Americans need to control our government, not just gun-owners, because government has long been out of control in far more areas than abrogating Amendment II.
Problem is, and the insanity of your position is, that you and the NRA would cede that same government more enforcement authority and more control mechanisms, all the while talking out the other side of your mouth about wresting control from the government.
There is a fundamental failure to grasp the 'big picture' and the simple solution to the problem of predatory out of control government, but it is the NRA and most of its minions who fail to grasp it.....Actually, you have demonstrated that you grasp it, you are simply afraid and in disagreement with the solution, as evidence by your own words, time and time again.
That is all.
quote:we gun owners need to work together and control our government because it has been out of control for a long time.
We Americans need to control our government, not just gun-owners, because government has long been out of control in far more areas than abrogating Amendment II.
Problem is, and the insanity of your position is, that you and the NRA would cede that same government more enforcement authority and more control mechanisms, all the while talking out the other side of your mouth about wresting control from the government.
There is a fundamental failure to grasp the 'big picture' and the simple solution to the problem of predatory out of control government, but it is the NRA and most of its minions who fail to grasp it.....Actually, you have demonstrated that you grasp it, you are simply afraid and in disagreement with the solution, as evidence by your own words, time and time again.
That is all.
I do not to wish to live in a jungle or back in the primitive cave man days. I prefer to live in civilization. Unlike the jungle, in civilization, I can feel very confident that when my wife, daughter or small grandson leaves home to go somewhere, it is very, very likely they will actually arrive at their destination unharmed.
That is one of the benefits of living in a civilized society as compared to a jungle. A jungle has no "man made laws or control." A civilized society by its very nature has to have at least a minimum amount of rules, laws and control. You pick where you and yours would prefer to live.
Come to think of it, you might actually fit in better with the cavemen.
BTW, you and your supporters act like all I do is support the NRA. That is not anymore true than for me to say that all you and your supporters do is to denounce the NRA. Well, I guess that last one is mostly true.
In red above. Yeah, right. That is one reason, among many, many actions, why the NRA took two lawsuits to the supreme court trying to get a strong and clear ruling that the 2A does mean gun right for individual citizens. As with most important, country changing supreme court decisions, we pro-gunners did not get all we wanted. But we did not LOSE. So that is as close to a win that can be expected but I know that some will always complain regards of any and all outcomes.
BTW, other than posting on the internet, what are you doing ACTUALLY DOING to at least attempt to take back control of our government as you mentioned above?