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.
If you show a form of ID that can only be purchased if you are a legal resident, with your birthdate on it, two of those problems have been solved without the need of a background check. The last one, as I have stated, is to contain or eradicate the ones proven to be a danger to society. Then, no background check would be necessary, either.
But never fear... there is always the black market for all the rest.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
I do a lot of TV news investigative work. Whenever a local TV news is looking for pro-Second Amendment interviews to ballance a gun control story they always go to local gun dealers who are some of the worst spokesmen that could be found anywhere. The reporters and producers just don't know where to find a great interview.
Too many gun dealers HATE the competition that gun shows provide. Dealers nearly always complain about having to set up and sell at gun shows. The Bolshevik gun-haters know about and exploit this rift whenever they can.
Local gun clubs need to offer their best speakers to TV and Radio station news departments. TV and radio want effective debaters on gun control issues not goofs that will fall on their swords. Leave TV or radio gun debate for our experts.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Defender, I have witnessed this on local news many times, especially in the Bay Area. The news people seem to look for the most ignorant, inbred, racist, hillbilly, gun nut they can possibly find. Typically unshaved, missing teeth, with some sort of John Deere or Skoal cap on.
This is when I begin to scream at the television, "Where the hell is the NRA-ILA! What are they doing with my $35?"
I know a lot of it is the regular newsroom bias as this is how they want to portray the "typical" gun-owner, but the local NRA-ILA rep should be calling every news station WEEKLY asking for equal time.
JMHO,
WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
I'll be the first to admit the NRA gives lousy PR at the local level. They are not equiped.
That's where WE must pick up the slack. I'm going to finally start in the Los Angeles area as a speaker. Get someone up in the bay area to do the same. It's really important we do it right everywhere.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Kaliforian wrote:
quote:
4. It's ok with me to bar the insane, minors, prisoners and non-citizens arms, but there should be no background check to enforce this.
Well then how in the world can this idea be enforced?
In my opinion, gunphreak hit the nail on the head. If you have ID that shows proof of adulthood and citizenship and if you are free to roam the streets without supervision, you should be able to buy one. In a land of "innocent until proven guilty", every person who wants to purchase a safety item or self defense tool should not automatically be assumed to be a crazy killer and forced to prove otherwise. Crazy people and psychotic people shouldn't be free to walk into a gun store or up to a vending machine and purchase a weapon. They should be in an appropriate medical or penal institution or otherwise be monitored and restrained by those who watch over them.
Why must it automatically be assumed that anyone who wants to buy a weapon is a likely bad guy? Also, why is it a given that bad guys are rendered harmless if they can't easily buy a gun? I believe that in general, most people are good by nature. Thus, we outnumber the bad guys and if allowed access to equal weaponry, we should generally be able to minimize the harm inflicted by bad guys if we have the WILL to do so and are willing to risk ourselves to help our fellow man when he is attacked.
Imagine a case in which a nut slips through my lenient system, buys a gun and tries to rob a bank. At that moment, 30 customers, 2 security guards and 10 other employees are present. Right now, your average Joe legally can't have anything stronger than pepper spray to put a stop to it and it would be up to the two security guards. In a world where people could arm themselves and in which 10% of the adult population chose to do so, that bank would have the following armed people:
1-robber
2-security guards
3-customers
1-bank employee
That means that before the police are even called, the bad guy would be outnumbered 6 to 1, and he wouldn't know who 4 of his opponents were until they took aim at him and most likely he would never have all 6 of those people within his field of vision at any given moment. If you throw in people who carry pepper spray, tasers, stun guns, etc., that robber would have his work cut out for him. The same thing would happen to muggers, rapists, etc. If society was allowed to be more Darwinian, the bad guys wouldn't last long in an armed society in which people didn't tolerate crime.
I don't believe our government is out to get us, but history has repeatedly shown that sooner or later, with the wrong people in power, it might eventually end up that way. I know my friends, family and co-workers, and I trust them with arms much more than I trust that there will never ever be a time in any part of our nation's distant future in which the government tries to subvert the citizenry. The only reason our nation exists is because people with guns once banded together and used them against a government that no longer served their needs.
Also, keep in mind that many of those people who helped create this nation through force of arms probably wouldn't have passed a background check if the British colonial government had possesed the technology and resources to impose one. After all, one person's "freedom fighter" or "outspoken patriot" is another person's "rebel" or "subversive".
kalifornian,
The scenario you presented in your post has been proven, over and over again. EVERY state that has enacted a concealed carry law, has had the "violent" crime rate go DOWN. Criminals being unsure of WHO may be carrying, is precisely WHY the crime rate drops. Why can't people understand this? It's a PROVEN FACT.
kalifornian posted;
quote:I don't believe our government is out to get us, but history has repeatedly shown that sooner or later, with the wrong people in power, it might eventually end up that way. I know my friends, family and co-workers, and I trust them with arms much more than I trust that there will never ever be a time in any part of our nation's distant future in which the government tries to subvert the citizenry.
The rest of the post is precisely my postion concerning decent citizens. The quote above is precisely why we will lose the tattered remnents of our freedoms.
Living every day in a land ridgedly controlled by the Elites..every move you make regulated,ruled,lawed or taxed....I would collapse from laughter...if it were not so sad.
100 men,women, and children gassed, shot and burned to death...a woman shot in the head, holding a baby..none in power called to account for the buchery.
People that actually believe today.. quote:I don't believe our government is out to get us..I just cannot imagine that thought process.
Our government ISN'T systematically and willfully trying to "get us". Corrupt politicians, idiots, and do-gooders gain power and act in their own interest, make stupid choices, etc. Each time this happens, our freedoms die a little bit more.
Mock me if you will, but I don't think our government is intentionally doing it's best to hurt the public most of the time. Given our government's usual incompetency, it wouldn't do nearly as good a job of taking away our freedoms if it was doing it on purpose.
Go to a home owner's association meeting, a "town meeting", a PTA meeting, a high school "prom planning council" or an office "safety committee" meeting or even watch family members plan a holiday reunion and you will see the same sort of things going on. In any group, there are some who crave power and squash he ideas and desires of others to promote their own agenda. The loudest ideas usually win over the best ideas. Most of these cretins actually believe they are doing a good thing and aren't just out to cause misery. Even Hitler thought he was making Germany a better place.
In most cases, I think this is what our government does. Powerful people decide what is best for them or what is in the "public interest" and pick a direction to move towards. The public's will then gets crushed much like ants under a steam roller. The guy who drives the steam roller isn't even thinking about the ants he's killing as he goes about paving a road in his preferred direction.
Through our lack of supervision, we as a nation are letting our government freely play with power like the kids in "Lord of the Flies". Year after year we elect the same congressmen, senators, city council members, judges, etc., no matter how bad they are. It doesn't take a malicious government who is "out to get us" to destroy our rights and freedoms. In fact, a truly hostile government would probably have a harder time harming us as people would be more likely to resist it. Our self-serving and arbitrary government is far more dangerous than a malicious one in a nation where so few people really pay attention to politics, involve themselves in their communities or even bother to vote every couple of years.
In on this one late but here goes. I actually have to admit that I am in favor of the back ground checks. (Blasphemy) 2 & 1/2 years ago I was involved in a "situation" where a loaded pistol was pointed at me after the individual assaulted my wife and I was gettin ready to take care of business. The guy ended up getting arrested, charged, but ended up with deffered adjudication. That means after his 3 years of probation (yes, that's all he got) he will be done with everything. Back ground checks won't prevent him from owning a gun once that happens, but, I had the peace of mind knowing when I was deployed in 03 that the scumbag wouldn't be able to legally obtain a gun. I was concerned for my wife's safety and knew he wouldn't try anything unarmed with the knowledge my wife is a shooter.
quote:Back ground checks won't prevent him from owning a gun once that happens, but, I had the peace of mind knowing when I was deployed in 03 that the scumbag wouldn't be able to legally obtain a gun. So you would have been more comfortable had he assualted your wife with a legal gun ? The "Logic" used above escapes me. Why in hell limit freedom for EVERYBODY...because we have that 10% ? You went and fought for freedom 'over there"..why not fight for it here ?
quote:I was concerned for my wife's safety and knew he wouldn't try anything unarmed with the knowledge my wife is a shooterThis,Sir...is the AMERICAN WAY...not the cowards way. How then can you reconsile this statement ...with the Gun grabbing Fiendsteinien statement above ?
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When a gov't has a monopoly on force, you no longer have rights. On the liberal side, you see a bunch of Emperor Palpatine wannabes banning and seizing power without proper or logical justification, and on the other side, a bunch of Repubs stating they understand the gun kontroller's position, but are having their arm twisted behind their back by their constituents.
What does that tell you???
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
The Founding Fathers frequently used ambiguous words and phrases.
Perhaps that is why they used ambiguity in the first place.
What on earth are you talking about???
There is no frequently used ambiguity in the constitution, and the founders CERTAINLY did not write things in a confusing matter, so that those reading it could affix a meaning that served their purpose.
What are some of these passages that you are having trouble understanding? Perhaps I can help clear this up for you?
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Here you go, Salzo. This is copied from my reply to Highball's "Compromise" thread:
quote:quote:
Amendment III
Ratified on 12/15/1791
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
So basically the government can declare war and make a law to quarter troops on your property. Kind of a self-defeating amendment, don't you think?
quote:
Amendment IV
Ratified on 12/15/1791
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Okay, who defines "unreasonable" and "probable cause"? Of course the courts do. Pretty subjective.
quote:
Amendment VII
Ratified on 12/15/1791
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Are they talking 1791 dollars here? I can't even fill up my truck for 20 bucks!
quote:
Amendment II
Ratified on 12/15/1791
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Not even gonna comment, since this is the foundation for this whole forum.
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
quote:And can someone please tell me why i'm paying money to keep a non-violent offender in jail for smoking weed, and why murders and child molestors get lesser sentenceing than them this is a government going down hill fast.
Sure, I'll tell you why. A gov't that is trying to control what you do needs the drug laws to do it. The so-called "War on Drugs" has dropped in the lap of power grabbers all the power they could possibly want to fulfill that dream. As for the violent felons being set free, they are expected to butcher the people once they leave prison and to try to justify a gun grab once these miscreants pull off their deed. This little game, I think, has been stalled by people suddenly waking up and smelling the BS and seeing it for what it really is. Slowly, but certainly, the people are wising up.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
quote:can someone tell me when we will see background checks on ammo cause lets face it, anyone can go to a store and buy ammo?
Try to buy ammo in Kalifornia in a few months. I bet you will see exactly that.
quote:1. they let the government know who has a gun.
2. when its time to give up guns they will know who to be prepared for when they have to go into houses to take them.
3. they will somewhat know how many guns u own.
4. since they know how many guns u have, they may put a band on how many u own.
I support blind background checks. The government would have no access to what kind of gun you are purchasing, how many guns you are purchasing, or keep any records that an inquiry was ever made. All the system would check is if you are a U.S. Citizen, have been convicted of a felony, or have any warrants out for your arrest. If all are NO then you are cleared for the purchase. Ideally, I think this system should be open to employers as well, so they can insure that they aren't hiring an illegal alien or a criminal.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Background checks are not meant to infringe upon the rights of the law-abiding citizen, they are meant to ensure that convicted felons are not permitted to just buy a handgun. I for one am glad that people who are convicted of murder, child molestation, rape, aggrevated assault, attempted murder, armed robbery, and other violent crimes are not able to just waltz in to any gun shop and walk out with a handgun.
When you commit a violent crime, you lose some of your RIGHTS, such as the right to vote, the right to own firearms, even the basic right to freedom of movement (prison). There has to be a system in place to ensure that these people are not able to circumvent the law, and that system is background checks.
Without background checks, just what exactly would stop illegal aliens from buying a handgun, or foreign nationals on a terrorist watchlist, or someone suffering from severe diagnosed schizophrenia or anti-social personality disorder? What about a 16-year old with a fake ID? etc etc etc........
quote:Without background checks, just what exactly would stop illegal aliens from buying a handgun,These people are here because they broke the law...and we have a gobernment that is bound and determined to drag us down to Third World status.
The problem would NOT EXIST if the goberment was doing what it is CHARGED WITH DOING..please don't be so stupid as to insist that because OTHER PEOPLE BREAK THE LAW...you must punish ME. What part pf FREEDOM do you not understand ?
quote: or foreign nationals on a terrorist watchlist,
Once again...WHY ARE THEY HERE ?
quote:or someone suffering from severe diagnosed schizophrenia or anti-social personality disorder? Darwinism will thin out this problem in short order...if "We gota have another law" types will get off the backs of decent Americans.
quote:What about a 16-year old with a fake ID?
Why on earth would he need an ID ? The goberment spends BILLIONS of dollars a year proping up this or that dictator...buying toilet seats..pis**** it away in ways you cannot imagine. Now imagine a RETIRED gunny down at the local school..teaching proper gun handling to children...EVERY child. Now get out of THEIR face..they would probably be safer then most of us... quote:etc etc etc........I cannot address this. The vast 'issues' that the human brain-washed can throw at freedom just covers too much territory..the only hope being to re-educate that type mind into understanding what freedom truly means....
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
Amen, warriorsfan.
And welcome to the forum.
Thanks. And I can see where people like Highball are coming from. Wouldn't we all like to purchase a handgun without the red tape, but I just don't see a convincing argument from them. From what I have read, the anti-background check people seem to agree on a few things:
1. That background checks are an infringement on their 2nd Amendment rights.
2. They agree that people convicted of violent felonies shouldn't be able to buy a handgun.
What they are missing is the #3, their proposal for how the government is supposed to prevent convicted felons from obtaining firearms without the use of background checks. They appear to be advocating some type of flawless, miracle government that is able to prevent any illegal aliens from crossing the border and keep all mentally ill and violent people off of the streets, therefore no need for background checks.
It doesn't matter how committed the government is to closing the borders, they could pour $10 trillion into border security and people will STILL find their way across the border illegally. Where there is a will, there is a way. Likwise, short of mandatory life sentences for all felonious offenders or massive use of the death penalty on par with Nazi Germany, there is no way to ensure that the streets will be empty of convicted violent offenders. So I see no alternative to background checks.
And please don't quote the second amendment over and over again, it is written so vaguely that your interpretation is just that, your interpretation. I don't see how someone could possibly be so arrogant as to think that they know what the intention of the founding fathers were, or how they would look at background checks if they were alive today. Or to think that their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the right one and everyone else is wrong, including many Right Wing highly conservative federal judges. Just how do you define "well-regualted?" Who does the regualtion? Does it say in the Constitution? How about "infringement", how do you define that? Does the Constitution spell it out or are you offering your opinion on what it means? By the same logic, if background checks are infringement, then federal income tax on guns must also be infringement, since they add to the cost. By the same logic, EVERY gun law on the books counts as infringement.
Every gun law on the books is an infringement. If the only goal is to stop felons from getting guns, then I ask the question: If they are so dangerous that they can't live in a free country, then why are we releasing them from prison?
As I have stated over and over..the single greatest threat to American
liberty and the Second Amendment is Queslings.
People that pretend to be stanch gun owners..and pretend to uphold the Constitution. All the time..they are selling our individual rights down the river.
The Constitution was written so that anyone with an 8th grade education could read it and understand it. Doesn't take black-robed vultures to interpert it.
Just because many of you don't have the stomach to handle criminals as they SHOULD be handled..is no excuse to give up your rights. But, then, of course...you don't recognise them as rights...DO YOU ?
Privileges..that is what those seeking security desire...a wise old dead white guy said..."Those seeking security over freedom will get NEITHER".
Join the NRA...3 million like-minded " Trade it all away " souls. Just keep pretending in your own mind that you are fighting for and defending the Second Amendment...makes life easier as you sell out your childrens freedom.
As long as you are bringing up convicted felons,did you know felons can vote? Did you know felons can serve on a jury "if" they were never incarserated?
Felons can get a pardon too if the ATF ever gets funding to do the investigative background checks required on the federal government level. Fat chance of that.
And felons can own a gun after several years of the release and only in their home.
OTHER than the following.
quote:Felons can get a pardon too if the ATF ever gets funding to do the investigative background checks required on the federal government level.
Please post where you get the rest of your information from.
Like, felons can vote.
Felons can serve on a jury.
And especially, felons can own a gun.
O.K. I have friend who is a convicted felon (20+ years ago) and he called the courthouse and asked if he could vote,they said yes and he registered and voted last November.His name was on the rolls. Same person earlier was called for jury duty and when the judge gave his little speech he stated felons who were locked up cannot serve,but felons who were not locked up can. My friend was excused.
On the matter of firearms: Texas Code 46.04(a) (1)(2) I am looking at in in black and white right now.
warriorsfan, so far I greatly value both of your posts. I hope there will be many more to follow. [:)]
quote:The Constitution was written so that anyone with an 8th grade education could read it and understand it. Doesn't take black-robed vultures to interpert it.
Highball, you have admitted in another thread that, "Flaws, indeed are contained in the Bill of Rights".
I believe there to be great ambiguity in several amendments of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, as enumerated by warriorsfan. Ambiguity breeds interpretation and Article III has given the judiciary the power to make the legal interpretation. I often disagree with their interpretation, but I still respect the intended design of our legal system by the Founding Fathers.
For the 2nd Amendment debate, I believe the only solution will be to propose another Constitutional Amendment that more clearly states the individual's right to keep and bear arms, thus enhancing the 2nd Amendment much in the way the 14th Amendment enhanced the 5th Amendment.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
OTHER than the following.
quote:Felons can get a pardon too if the ATF ever gets funding to do the investigative background checks required on the federal government level.
Please post where you get the rest of your information from.
Like, felons can vote.
Felons can serve on a jury.
And especially, felons can own a gun.
Thanks [;)]
The gene pool needs chlorine.
A few months ago I called the voting office here in Johnson County KS and asked. Was told that ALL felons can vote in Kansas. I think that is true all across the USA and not just specific to states. Ex-Pres Jimmy Carter made that executive order allowing felons to vote.
Not sure about serving on juries, but I would imagine that anyone who can vote could also serve on a jury.
No gun or ammo ownership though. Howerver if the felon were to manufacture one himself I have heard that is legal. Course if that were true, what about the restriction on not allowing the felon to possess ammo? Maybe the gun manufacturered has to be a muzzle loader.
Join the NRA...3 million like-minded " Trade it all away " souls. Just keep pretending in your own mind that you are fighting for and defending the Second Amendment...makes life easier as you sell out your childrens freedom.
Com'on Highball. If you're gonna step on my toes, at least put the figure of "2,999,999 like-minded Trade it all away souls" up.[;)]
The Constitution was written so that anyone with an 8th grade education could read it and understand it. Doesn't take black-robed vultures to interpert it.
My God Highball, of all the things you have said I agree with that thought 1,000 percent. I never actually looked at it quite like that. But I will now.
Fox;
As you know...I am a lifetime member of NRA..at least till they kick me out...[:D] SO of course...I would have to include myself in that 'blanket statement".....[:D]
Since I don't...that also leaves some wiggle room for the damn good decent people that joined the NRA believing that to do SOMETHING was better then nothing...and don't necessarily go along with the NRA'S compromising positions.
What torques me off..is those gun owners that sound like Sarah Brady...the only difference being...she don't belong to the NRA...
Let me respond to some of the things I've seen here:
quote:I for one am glad that people who are convicted of murder, child molestation, rape, aggrevated assault, attempted murder, armed robbery, and other violent crimes are not able to just waltz in to any gun shop and walk out with a handgun.
Say what?!?!? These people shouldn't be free in the first place, much less able to go to a gun store or any store to buy anything. And since I know that people who meet any of those criteria would never even bother going to a gun shop in the first place, opting for the cheaper black market, this is like saying "I'm glad they're only going to use a handgun on me and my family and not a shotgun.
quote:What they are missing is the #3, their proposal for how the government is supposed to prevent convicted felons from obtaining firearms without the use of background checks.
I disagree with this statement. there is a much better way than background check to deal with this problem, and that is to eradicate wrong-doers. Then, there is a 0% chance of them being repeat offenders, especially when they have done something as grievous as murder, rape and molest.
quote:When you commit a violent crime, you lose some of your RIGHTS, such as the right to vote, the right to own firearms, even the basic right to freedom of movement (prison). There has to be a system in place to ensure that these people are not able to circumvent the law, and that system is background checks.
Let me rewrite this so that it is more accurate, and less costly to enact (as well as ensure the rights of the innocent.
When you commit a violent crime, you lose ALL of your RIGHTS. There has to be a system in place to ensure that these people are not able to circumvent the law, and that system is eradication of those who do excessive evil upon the innocent.
quote:It doesn't matter how committed the government is to closing the borders, they could pour $10 trillion into border security and people will STILL find their way across the border illegally. Where there is a will, there is a way. Likwise, short of mandatory life sentences for all felonious offenders or massive use of the death penalty on par with Nazi Germany, there is no way to ensure that the streets will be empty of convicted violent offenders. So I see no alternative to background checks.
I honestly don't see a problem with harsh execution of laws against those who do extremely malicious things to the innocent. Put them to death. And I fail to see how it would be on par with Nazi Germany, because the Nazis put people they knew were guilty of nothing to death for bloodline "crimes", not for crimes against the people, who had violated the most sacred laws of the land.
quote:Every gun law on the books is an infringement. If the only goal is to stop felons from getting guns, then I ask the question: If they are so dangerous that they can't live in a free country, then why are we releasing them from prison?
And dsmith catches the bomb in the end zone!!! The crowd goes wild!!!
quote:For the 2nd Amendment debate, I believe the only solution will be to propose another Constitutional Amendment that more clearly states the individual's right to keep and bear arms, thus enhancing the 2nd Amendment much in the way the 14th Amendment enhanced the 5th Amendment.
No argumest here.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
I'm going to ease back here and ask you this question since the term "violent felons" has popped up several times. What legal term defines a "violent felon"?
Is a guy who wrote a half dozen bad checks or got caught with some weed 25 years ago a violent felon? The books say "felons".
What about this thing called deferred judification or whatever that's called. Should we start breaking down felonies into catagories?
I heard a while back where a guy had a felony before there was a law against felons doing this and that and he said he was exempt since his crime was before the law. He lost.
When was this felon law passed anyway? I think I know when and why but I'll wait for someone with more info speak up before I blurt out something absurd.
A felony used to be associated with a victim (other than yourself), and always involved a vile act, not like something like thievery or destruction of property, but involved the loss of something irreplaceable, like your self, or your family, or your purity, if that is what you want to call it.
The addition of new victimless crimes into the category "felony" was done specifically to make a larger percentage of the population disqualified from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, and right to defend their life from the real bad guys. There is no other explanation.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Goberments get bigger by controlling people. The more people under permanate control..the bigger the goberment.
The ignorant,slothful beer-bellied 'American'..sitting stupified before the tv...is entirely too stupid to notice ever more encroachment upon liberties...indeed...may even cheer new laws.
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Comments
But never fear... there is always the black market for all the rest.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Too many gun dealers HATE the competition that gun shows provide. Dealers nearly always complain about having to set up and sell at gun shows. The Bolshevik gun-haters know about and exploit this rift whenever they can.
Local gun clubs need to offer their best speakers to TV and Radio station news departments. TV and radio want effective debaters on gun control issues not goofs that will fall on their swords. Leave TV or radio gun debate for our experts.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
This is when I begin to scream at the television, "Where the hell is the NRA-ILA! What are they doing with my $35?"
I know a lot of it is the regular newsroom bias as this is how they want to portray the "typical" gun-owner, but the local NRA-ILA rep should be calling every news station WEEKLY asking for equal time.
JMHO,
WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
That's where WE must pick up the slack. I'm going to finally start in the Los Angeles area as a speaker. Get someone up in the bay area to do the same. It's really important we do it right everywhere.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Kaliforian wrote:
quote:
4. It's ok with me to bar the insane, minors, prisoners and non-citizens arms, but there should be no background check to enforce this.
Well then how in the world can this idea be enforced?
In my opinion, gunphreak hit the nail on the head. If you have ID that shows proof of adulthood and citizenship and if you are free to roam the streets without supervision, you should be able to buy one. In a land of "innocent until proven guilty", every person who wants to purchase a safety item or self defense tool should not automatically be assumed to be a crazy killer and forced to prove otherwise. Crazy people and psychotic people shouldn't be free to walk into a gun store or up to a vending machine and purchase a weapon. They should be in an appropriate medical or penal institution or otherwise be monitored and restrained by those who watch over them.
Why must it automatically be assumed that anyone who wants to buy a weapon is a likely bad guy? Also, why is it a given that bad guys are rendered harmless if they can't easily buy a gun? I believe that in general, most people are good by nature. Thus, we outnumber the bad guys and if allowed access to equal weaponry, we should generally be able to minimize the harm inflicted by bad guys if we have the WILL to do so and are willing to risk ourselves to help our fellow man when he is attacked.
Imagine a case in which a nut slips through my lenient system, buys a gun and tries to rob a bank. At that moment, 30 customers, 2 security guards and 10 other employees are present. Right now, your average Joe legally can't have anything stronger than pepper spray to put a stop to it and it would be up to the two security guards. In a world where people could arm themselves and in which 10% of the adult population chose to do so, that bank would have the following armed people:
1-robber
2-security guards
3-customers
1-bank employee
That means that before the police are even called, the bad guy would be outnumbered 6 to 1, and he wouldn't know who 4 of his opponents were until they took aim at him and most likely he would never have all 6 of those people within his field of vision at any given moment. If you throw in people who carry pepper spray, tasers, stun guns, etc., that robber would have his work cut out for him. The same thing would happen to muggers, rapists, etc. If society was allowed to be more Darwinian, the bad guys wouldn't last long in an armed society in which people didn't tolerate crime.
I don't believe our government is out to get us, but history has repeatedly shown that sooner or later, with the wrong people in power, it might eventually end up that way. I know my friends, family and co-workers, and I trust them with arms much more than I trust that there will never ever be a time in any part of our nation's distant future in which the government tries to subvert the citizenry. The only reason our nation exists is because people with guns once banded together and used them against a government that no longer served their needs.
Also, keep in mind that many of those people who helped create this nation through force of arms probably wouldn't have passed a background check if the British colonial government had possesed the technology and resources to impose one. After all, one person's "freedom fighter" or "outspoken patriot" is another person's "rebel" or "subversive".
http://Blog.LestDarknessFall.com
http://LestDarknessFall.com
The scenario you presented in your post has been proven, over and over again. EVERY state that has enacted a concealed carry law, has had the "violent" crime rate go DOWN. Criminals being unsure of WHO may be carrying, is precisely WHY the crime rate drops. Why can't people understand this? It's a PROVEN FACT.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
quote:I don't believe our government is out to get us, but history has repeatedly shown that sooner or later, with the wrong people in power, it might eventually end up that way. I know my friends, family and co-workers, and I trust them with arms much more than I trust that there will never ever be a time in any part of our nation's distant future in which the government tries to subvert the citizenry.
The rest of the post is precisely my postion concerning decent citizens. The quote above is precisely why we will lose the tattered remnents of our freedoms.
Living every day in a land ridgedly controlled by the Elites..every move you make regulated,ruled,lawed or taxed....I would collapse from laughter...if it were not so sad.
100 men,women, and children gassed, shot and burned to death...a woman shot in the head, holding a baby..none in power called to account for the buchery.
People that actually believe today.. quote:I don't believe our government is out to get us..I just cannot imagine that thought process.
Mock me if you will, but I don't think our government is intentionally doing it's best to hurt the public most of the time. Given our government's usual incompetency, it wouldn't do nearly as good a job of taking away our freedoms if it was doing it on purpose.
Go to a home owner's association meeting, a "town meeting", a PTA meeting, a high school "prom planning council" or an office "safety committee" meeting or even watch family members plan a holiday reunion and you will see the same sort of things going on. In any group, there are some who crave power and squash he ideas and desires of others to promote their own agenda. The loudest ideas usually win over the best ideas. Most of these cretins actually believe they are doing a good thing and aren't just out to cause misery. Even Hitler thought he was making Germany a better place.
In most cases, I think this is what our government does. Powerful people decide what is best for them or what is in the "public interest" and pick a direction to move towards. The public's will then gets crushed much like ants under a steam roller. The guy who drives the steam roller isn't even thinking about the ants he's killing as he goes about paving a road in his preferred direction.
Through our lack of supervision, we as a nation are letting our government freely play with power like the kids in "Lord of the Flies". Year after year we elect the same congressmen, senators, city council members, judges, etc., no matter how bad they are. It doesn't take a malicious government who is "out to get us" to destroy our rights and freedoms. In fact, a truly hostile government would probably have a harder time harming us as people would be more likely to resist it. Our self-serving and arbitrary government is far more dangerous than a malicious one in a nation where so few people really pay attention to politics, involve themselves in their communities or even bother to vote every couple of years.
http://Blog.LestDarknessFall.com
http://LestDarknessFall.com
Don't you think this about sums it up ? Hitler actually DID do good...in the early years.
quote:I was concerned for my wife's safety and knew he wouldn't try anything unarmed with the knowledge my wife is a shooterThis,Sir...is the AMERICAN WAY...not the cowards way. How then can you reconsile this statement ...with the Gun grabbing Fiendsteinien statement above ?
What does that tell you???
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
The Founding Fathers frequently used ambiguous words and phrases.
Perhaps that is why they used ambiguity in the first place.
What on earth are you talking about???
There is no frequently used ambiguity in the constitution, and the founders CERTAINLY did not write things in a confusing matter, so that those reading it could affix a meaning that served their purpose.
What are some of these passages that you are having trouble understanding? Perhaps I can help clear this up for you?
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
quote:quote:
Amendment III
Ratified on 12/15/1791
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
So basically the government can declare war and make a law to quarter troops on your property. Kind of a self-defeating amendment, don't you think?
quote:
Amendment IV
Ratified on 12/15/1791
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Okay, who defines "unreasonable" and "probable cause"? Of course the courts do. Pretty subjective.
quote:
Amendment VII
Ratified on 12/15/1791
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Are they talking 1791 dollars here? I can't even fill up my truck for 20 bucks!
quote:
Amendment II
Ratified on 12/15/1791
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Not even gonna comment, since this is the foundation for this whole forum.
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Sure, I'll tell you why. A gov't that is trying to control what you do needs the drug laws to do it. The so-called "War on Drugs" has dropped in the lap of power grabbers all the power they could possibly want to fulfill that dream. As for the violent felons being set free, they are expected to butcher the people once they leave prison and to try to justify a gun grab once these miscreants pull off their deed. This little game, I think, has been stalled by people suddenly waking up and smelling the BS and seeing it for what it really is. Slowly, but certainly, the people are wising up.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Try to buy ammo in Kalifornia in a few months. I bet you will see exactly that.
quote:1. they let the government know who has a gun.
2. when its time to give up guns they will know who to be prepared for when they have to go into houses to take them.
3. they will somewhat know how many guns u own.
4. since they know how many guns u have, they may put a band on how many u own.
I support blind background checks. The government would have no access to what kind of gun you are purchasing, how many guns you are purchasing, or keep any records that an inquiry was ever made. All the system would check is if you are a U.S. Citizen, have been convicted of a felony, or have any warrants out for your arrest. If all are NO then you are cleared for the purchase. Ideally, I think this system should be open to employers as well, so they can insure that they aren't hiring an illegal alien or a criminal.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
When you commit a violent crime, you lose some of your RIGHTS, such as the right to vote, the right to own firearms, even the basic right to freedom of movement (prison). There has to be a system in place to ensure that these people are not able to circumvent the law, and that system is background checks.
Without background checks, just what exactly would stop illegal aliens from buying a handgun, or foreign nationals on a terrorist watchlist, or someone suffering from severe diagnosed schizophrenia or anti-social personality disorder? What about a 16-year old with a fake ID? etc etc etc........
The problem would NOT EXIST if the goberment was doing what it is CHARGED WITH DOING..please don't be so stupid as to insist that because OTHER PEOPLE BREAK THE LAW...you must punish ME. What part pf FREEDOM do you not understand ?
quote: or foreign nationals on a terrorist watchlist,
Once again...WHY ARE THEY HERE ?
quote:or someone suffering from severe diagnosed schizophrenia or anti-social personality disorder? Darwinism will thin out this problem in short order...if "We gota have another law" types will get off the backs of decent Americans.
quote:What about a 16-year old with a fake ID?
Why on earth would he need an ID ? The goberment spends BILLIONS of dollars a year proping up this or that dictator...buying toilet seats..pis**** it away in ways you cannot imagine. Now imagine a RETIRED gunny down at the local school..teaching proper gun handling to children...EVERY child. Now get out of THEIR face..they would probably be safer then most of us... quote:etc etc etc........I cannot address this. The vast 'issues' that the human brain-washed can throw at freedom just covers too much territory..the only hope being to re-educate that type mind into understanding what freedom truly means....
And welcome to the forum.
[;)]
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Amen, warriorsfan.
And welcome to the forum.
Thanks. And I can see where people like Highball are coming from. Wouldn't we all like to purchase a handgun without the red tape, but I just don't see a convincing argument from them. From what I have read, the anti-background check people seem to agree on a few things:
1. That background checks are an infringement on their 2nd Amendment rights.
2. They agree that people convicted of violent felonies shouldn't be able to buy a handgun.
What they are missing is the #3, their proposal for how the government is supposed to prevent convicted felons from obtaining firearms without the use of background checks. They appear to be advocating some type of flawless, miracle government that is able to prevent any illegal aliens from crossing the border and keep all mentally ill and violent people off of the streets, therefore no need for background checks.
It doesn't matter how committed the government is to closing the borders, they could pour $10 trillion into border security and people will STILL find their way across the border illegally. Where there is a will, there is a way. Likwise, short of mandatory life sentences for all felonious offenders or massive use of the death penalty on par with Nazi Germany, there is no way to ensure that the streets will be empty of convicted violent offenders. So I see no alternative to background checks.
And please don't quote the second amendment over and over again, it is written so vaguely that your interpretation is just that, your interpretation. I don't see how someone could possibly be so arrogant as to think that they know what the intention of the founding fathers were, or how they would look at background checks if they were alive today. Or to think that their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the right one and everyone else is wrong, including many Right Wing highly conservative federal judges. Just how do you define "well-regualted?" Who does the regualtion? Does it say in the Constitution? How about "infringement", how do you define that? Does the Constitution spell it out or are you offering your opinion on what it means? By the same logic, if background checks are infringement, then federal income tax on guns must also be infringement, since they add to the cost. By the same logic, EVERY gun law on the books counts as infringement.
liberty and the Second Amendment is Queslings.
People that pretend to be stanch gun owners..and pretend to uphold the Constitution. All the time..they are selling our individual rights down the river.
The Constitution was written so that anyone with an 8th grade education could read it and understand it. Doesn't take black-robed vultures to interpert it.
Just because many of you don't have the stomach to handle criminals as they SHOULD be handled..is no excuse to give up your rights. But, then, of course...you don't recognise them as rights...DO YOU ?
Privileges..that is what those seeking security desire...a wise old dead white guy said..."Those seeking security over freedom will get NEITHER".
Join the NRA...3 million like-minded " Trade it all away " souls. Just keep pretending in your own mind that you are fighting for and defending the Second Amendment...makes life easier as you sell out your childrens freedom.
Felons can get a pardon too if the ATF ever gets funding to do the investigative background checks required on the federal government level. Fat chance of that.
And felons can own a gun after several years of the release and only in their home.
OTHER than the following.
quote:Felons can get a pardon too if the ATF ever gets funding to do the investigative background checks required on the federal government level.
Please post where you get the rest of your information from.
Like, felons can vote.
Felons can serve on a jury.
And especially, felons can own a gun.
Thanks [;)]
The gene pool needs chlorine.
On the matter of firearms: Texas Code 46.04(a) (1)(2) I am looking at in in black and white right now.
quote:The Constitution was written so that anyone with an 8th grade education could read it and understand it. Doesn't take black-robed vultures to interpert it.
Highball, you have admitted in another thread that, "Flaws, indeed are contained in the Bill of Rights".
I believe there to be great ambiguity in several amendments of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, as enumerated by warriorsfan. Ambiguity breeds interpretation and Article III has given the judiciary the power to make the legal interpretation. I often disagree with their interpretation, but I still respect the intended design of our legal system by the Founding Fathers.
For the 2nd Amendment debate, I believe the only solution will be to propose another Constitutional Amendment that more clearly states the individual's right to keep and bear arms, thus enhancing the 2nd Amendment much in the way the 14th Amendment enhanced the 5th Amendment.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
texdot,
OTHER than the following.
quote:Felons can get a pardon too if the ATF ever gets funding to do the investigative background checks required on the federal government level.
Please post where you get the rest of your information from.
Like, felons can vote.
Felons can serve on a jury.
And especially, felons can own a gun.
Thanks [;)]
The gene pool needs chlorine.
A few months ago I called the voting office here in Johnson County KS and asked. Was told that ALL felons can vote in Kansas. I think that is true all across the USA and not just specific to states. Ex-Pres Jimmy Carter made that executive order allowing felons to vote.
Not sure about serving on juries, but I would imagine that anyone who can vote could also serve on a jury.
No gun or ammo ownership though. Howerver if the felon were to manufacture one himself I have heard that is legal. Course if that were true, what about the restriction on not allowing the felon to possess ammo? Maybe the gun manufacturered has to be a muzzle loader.
Hell, I don't know. I'm going to shut up.
quote:
Join the NRA...3 million like-minded " Trade it all away " souls. Just keep pretending in your own mind that you are fighting for and defending the Second Amendment...makes life easier as you sell out your childrens freedom.
Com'on Highball. If you're gonna step on my toes, at least put the figure of "2,999,999 like-minded Trade it all away souls" up.[;)]
quote:
The Constitution was written so that anyone with an 8th grade education could read it and understand it. Doesn't take black-robed vultures to interpert it.
My God Highball, of all the things you have said I agree with that thought 1,000 percent. I never actually looked at it quite like that. But I will now.
As you know...I am a lifetime member of NRA..at least till they kick me out...[:D] SO of course...I would have to include myself in that 'blanket statement".....[:D]
Since I don't...that also leaves some wiggle room for the damn good decent people that joined the NRA believing that to do SOMETHING was better then nothing...and don't necessarily go along with the NRA'S compromising positions.
What torques me off..is those gun owners that sound like Sarah Brady...the only difference being...she don't belong to the NRA...
quote:I for one am glad that people who are convicted of murder, child molestation, rape, aggrevated assault, attempted murder, armed robbery, and other violent crimes are not able to just waltz in to any gun shop and walk out with a handgun.
Say what?!?!? These people shouldn't be free in the first place, much less able to go to a gun store or any store to buy anything. And since I know that people who meet any of those criteria would never even bother going to a gun shop in the first place, opting for the cheaper black market, this is like saying "I'm glad they're only going to use a handgun on me and my family and not a shotgun.
quote:What they are missing is the #3, their proposal for how the government is supposed to prevent convicted felons from obtaining firearms without the use of background checks.
I disagree with this statement. there is a much better way than background check to deal with this problem, and that is to eradicate wrong-doers. Then, there is a 0% chance of them being repeat offenders, especially when they have done something as grievous as murder, rape and molest.
quote:When you commit a violent crime, you lose some of your RIGHTS, such as the right to vote, the right to own firearms, even the basic right to freedom of movement (prison). There has to be a system in place to ensure that these people are not able to circumvent the law, and that system is background checks.
Let me rewrite this so that it is more accurate, and less costly to enact (as well as ensure the rights of the innocent.
When you commit a violent crime, you lose ALL of your RIGHTS. There has to be a system in place to ensure that these people are not able to circumvent the law, and that system is eradication of those who do excessive evil upon the innocent.
quote:It doesn't matter how committed the government is to closing the borders, they could pour $10 trillion into border security and people will STILL find their way across the border illegally. Where there is a will, there is a way. Likwise, short of mandatory life sentences for all felonious offenders or massive use of the death penalty on par with Nazi Germany, there is no way to ensure that the streets will be empty of convicted violent offenders. So I see no alternative to background checks.
I honestly don't see a problem with harsh execution of laws against those who do extremely malicious things to the innocent. Put them to death. And I fail to see how it would be on par with Nazi Germany, because the Nazis put people they knew were guilty of nothing to death for bloodline "crimes", not for crimes against the people, who had violated the most sacred laws of the land.
quote:Every gun law on the books is an infringement. If the only goal is to stop felons from getting guns, then I ask the question: If they are so dangerous that they can't live in a free country, then why are we releasing them from prison?
And dsmith catches the bomb in the end zone!!! The crowd goes wild!!!
quote:For the 2nd Amendment debate, I believe the only solution will be to propose another Constitutional Amendment that more clearly states the individual's right to keep and bear arms, thus enhancing the 2nd Amendment much in the way the 14th Amendment enhanced the 5th Amendment.
No argumest here.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Is a guy who wrote a half dozen bad checks or got caught with some weed 25 years ago a violent felon? The books say "felons".
What about this thing called deferred judification or whatever that's called. Should we start breaking down felonies into catagories?
I heard a while back where a guy had a felony before there was a law against felons doing this and that and he said he was exempt since his crime was before the law. He lost.
When was this felon law passed anyway? I think I know when and why but I'll wait for someone with more info speak up before I blurt out something absurd.
A felony used to be associated with a victim (other than yourself), and always involved a vile act, not like something like thievery or destruction of property, but involved the loss of something irreplaceable, like your self, or your family, or your purity, if that is what you want to call it.
The addition of new victimless crimes into the category "felony" was done specifically to make a larger percentage of the population disqualified from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, and right to defend their life from the real bad guys. There is no other explanation.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
The ignorant,slothful beer-bellied 'American'..sitting stupified before the tv...is entirely too stupid to notice ever more encroachment upon liberties...indeed...may even cheer new laws.
That...my friend..is the stark truth.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."