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.

National Right-To-Carry

2»

Comments

  • spanielsellsspanielsells Member Posts: 12,498
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball

    See..the calm approach is WHY we have 20,000 gun laws.
    Compromise IS a dirty word...UNLESS it is about the color of the draps.
    STOP COMPROMISING AWAY OUR RIGHTS.

    There's a huge amount of debate about the 20,000 gun laws on the books. I just did a report on this very subject yesterday for my law class.

    You might want to look at http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

    The actual number is hundreds of laws, not 20,000 laws, at state and federal levels. The number of laws does increase, however, when you get into city ordinances, and this is the point where the debate gets sketchy.

    You also read me wrong, Highball. I'm a staunch defender of the Second Amendment. I'm simply telling you fact. The fact is that the Supreme Court has not ruled in favor of the Second Amendment in that last century. Any cases brought before SCOTUS citing Second Amendment rights has lost.

    You can cry and whine, just as I do. But, what SCOTUS says is Law of the Land until it reverses itself.

    I don't believe in whittling away our Second Amendment rights. I'm a big believer in the camel's-nose-under-the-tent theory.

    You talk of not wanting to compromise. While that's a nice idea on paper, our government and civilized society works solely on the idea of compromise. I compromise each and every day by following the law. I'd like to drive 120mph down the highway to get where I want to be and not waste time, but I compromise and drive 75 because that's the law. I'd like to have a machine gun, but the government says "No," and, because I still want to live in this society, I compromise and don't buy one illegally.

    I fight against new gun legislation whenever possible, but since I'm not an elected official, all I can do is write my representatives and express my outrage, but I don't always vote them out of office if I don't approve. I have to compromise, even as a voter. Why? Because my representative's opponent might be worse than the incumbent! For example, if I had a choice to vote for Bob Dole, who supported the AWB only if it would have a sunset provision, and my only other viable choice was Chuck Schumer, I'm going to compromise, hold my nose and vote for Dole (and I realize it is a silly example because neither could run against each other, I'm just making a point with national figures that we all know). The lesser of the two realistic evils was supporting someone who was in favor of the AWB with the provision that it would sunset. Your solution might be to vote for a third party candidate who didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell who was 100% against the AWB and feel good about yourself, but in your desire to be true and not compromise your values, you've done exactly that by doing nothing to try and stop the person who could take away your rights with a better-than-decent shot of winning the election. Is this starting to make sense?

    So, unfortunately, in order to be a willing participant in our society, there are times when we have to compromise. I don't believe in compromising basic rights. But, I also don't believe in dying in an unnecessary, fruitless battle. I'll gladly die for my right to own a firearm and to be a free American. They've not made it to the point where either is in danger, though.

    Moreover, when I want to convince others that I have a right to own a firearm, I understand that the worst way to try and accomplish the task is to come across as a zealot. That's a sure-fire way to turn off the person you're trying to convince. You convince them with reason and logic, not with the business-side of a weapon. You save that as a last resort when it is the right time and place.
  • spanielsellsspanielsells Member Posts: 12,498
    edited November -1
    quote:What we the people need is a national referendum so we the people could counter what the nit-wits we send to government do to use.
    It is polled that 85% of us want the southern border closed. We have laws in place to do this.
    With a referendum we could get what the people want. The down side may not be for the good of the people. To many stupid people thanks to pot and other good $ hit

    I agree. No stupid polling crap where there's scientific error factored in. Get to the meat of the way the American people feel and put it up for referendum.

    The left, of course, isn't interested in that, because they KNOW that they don't have the numbers to support them. Those of us that own the 300 million-plus guns aren't going to be voting to take them away... and most of middle-America isn't going to vote to open the borders.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    20,000...or 2.
    The denial of a right is wrong.

    Proclaiming that "The Government says so" is the position of the Tory's...a couple hundred years ago.

    I have listened to sweet reason for lots of years. Now I say....Let the slimy politicians have their day..allow a total gun ban. STOP crawling on your belly, begging for a morsel of freedom to remain.

    DROP OUT..Let us find out if there are any MEN..AMERICANS..left in Amerika. ALLOW that ban to take place...within 5 years it would happen.
    Voting for the 'lessor of two evils'...places YOU in the position of voting for evil. Comfortable there...? The answer is...YES..you and millions more are VERY comfortable there.

    PLEASE don't call yourself an 'Ardent supporter of the Second Amendment'..you do history a dis-service.
    You are a supporter of the Second in the mould of the NRA ...willing to compromise a BASIC RIGHT...into a privilege..and very comfortable with it.
  • spanielsellsspanielsells Member Posts: 12,498
    edited November -1
    If you feel so strongly about it, why not put your money where your mouth is? Go ahead, Highball, be a martyr for the cause.

    Meanwhile, about the only real thing you'll accomplish is another call from the left to ban guns.
  • spanielsellsspanielsells Member Posts: 12,498
    edited November -1
    ALLOW that ban to take place...within 5 years it would happen.

    Let's see how big your balls are. I'll put any amount of money, ANY AMOUNT, against your prediction coming true. I heard the same B.S. when Clinton was elected.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
    quote:Originally posted by Highball

    See..the calm approach is WHY we have 20,000 gun laws.
    Compromise IS a dirty word...UNLESS it is about the color of the draps.
    STOP COMPROMISING AWAY OUR RIGHTS.

    There's a huge amount of debate about the 20,000 gun laws on the books. I just did a report on this very subject yesterday for my law class.

    You might want to look at http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

    The actual number is hundreds of laws, not 20,000 laws, at state and federal levels. The number of laws does increase, however, when you get into city ordinances, and this is the point where the debate gets sketchy.

    You also read me wrong, Highball. I'm a staunch defender of the Second Amendment. I'm simply telling you fact. The fact is that the Supreme Court has not ruled in favor of the Second Amendment in that last century. Any cases brought before SCOTUS citing Second Amendment rights has lost.

    You can cry and whine, just as I do. But, what SCOTUS says is Law of the Land until it reverses itself.

    I don't believe in whittling away our Second Amendment rights. I'm a big believer in the camel's-nose-under-the-tent theory.

    You talk of not wanting to compromise. While that's a nice idea on paper, our government and civilized society works solely on the idea of compromise. I compromise each and every day by following the law. I'd like to drive 120mph down the highway to get where I want to be and not waste time, but I compromise and drive 75 because that's the law. I'd like to have a machine gun, but the government says "No," and, because I still want to live in this society, I compromise and don't buy one illegally.

    I fight against new gun legislation whenever possible, but since I'm not an elected official, all I can do is write my representatives and express my outrage, but I don't always vote them out of office if I don't approve. I have to compromise, even as a voter. Why? Because my representative's opponent might be worse than the incumbent! For example, if I had a choice to vote for Bob Dole, who supported the AWB only if it would have a sunset provision, and my only other viable choice was Chuck Schumer, I'm going to compromise, hold my nose and vote for Dole (and I realize it is a silly example because neither could run against each other, I'm just making a point with national figures that we all know). The lesser of the two realistic evils was supporting someone who was in favor of the AWB with the provision that it would sunset. Your solution might be to vote for a third party candidate who didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell who was 100% against the AWB and feel good about yourself, but in your desire to be true and not compromise your values, you've done exactly that by doing nothing to try and stop the person who could take away your rights with a better-than-decent shot of winning the election. Is this starting to make sense?

    So, unfortunately, in order to be a willing participant in our society, there are times when we have to compromise. I don't believe in compromising basic rights. But, I also don't believe in dying in an unnecessary, fruitless battle. I'll gladly die for my right to own a firearm and to be a free American. They've not made it to the point where either is in danger, though.

    Moreover, when I want to convince others that I have a right to own a firearm, I understand that the worst way to try and accomplish the task is to come across as a zealot. That's a sure-fire way to turn off the person you're trying to convince. You convince them with reason and logic, not with the business-side of a weapon. You save that as a last resort when it is the right time and place.


    The above explains the situation we are in pretty well.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    spanielsells;
    No..I won't oblige you by striking a blow for freedom by myself. Why should I wade into the breech for YOU ?...One who has no idea what freedom IS..let alone the responsibility to handle it ?
    I merely am amused when such as you run afoul of the laws...200, I think you said..that you aren't smart to know exist.

    No, the ban won't happen within 5 years...because idiots still think that 'putting pressure on politicians' will gain back rights.
    The absolute ONLY thing you accomplish...is SLOWING the juggernaut of total control of the populace.
    By SLOWING the tyranny..you ABSOLUTELY drive the nail in the coffin of freedom. Older guys die off..become disabled...and the young people of this country are so brain-washed, they think freedom is getting on their bellies and begging slime-bag politicians to obey the Constitution..those smart enough to even UNDERSTAND the Constitution...

    As you have demonstrated you do not.
  • spanielsellsspanielsells Member Posts: 12,498
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    spanielsells;
    No..I won't oblige you by striking a blow for freedom by myself. Why should I wade into the breech for YOU ?...One who has no idea what freedom IS..let alone the responsibility to handle it ?
    I merely am amused when such as you run afoul of the laws...200, I think you said..that you aren't smart to know exist.

    No, the ban won't happen within 5 years...because idiots still think that 'putting pressure on politicians' will gain back rights.
    The absolute ONLY thing you accomplish...is SLOWING the juggernaut of total control of the populace.
    By SLOWING the tyranny..you ABSOLUTELY drive the nail in the coffin of freedom. Older guys die off..become disabled...and the young people of this country are so brain-washed, they think freedom is getting on their bellies and begging slime-bag politicians to obey the Constitution..those smart enough to even UNDERSTAND the Constitution...

    As you have demonstrated you do not.


    LMAO. What a chickenpoop answer. Why should you "wade into the breech?" Because you've made a baseless charge, and I'm asking you to back it up. You're already conceding defeat -- you said with great authority that the ban would happen in five years, and suddenly, now it won't? Why is it when challenged, you're not even willing to stand up for statements that you've made?

    You're very good at suggesting that I'm stupid. What are your credentials that make you a constitutional scholar?

    I expect something more in-depth than "I can read." My neighbor's five-year old kid can read, too. BFD.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,845 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    DROP OUT..Let us find out if there are any MEN..AMERICANS..left in Amerika. ALLOW that ban to take place...within 5 years it would happen.
    Taking a post out of context?

    With the WHOLE post, I would agree that it would probably happen pretty soon. Will not put at time frame on it, but if EVERYONE quit fighting for gun rights, it wouldn't take them long to ban everything.

    At least....that's how I read the post.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    He's not smart enough to read the whole post.

    Most anti-gunners share the same traits..lack of concentration.Scratch this guy very deep...and you will find he agrees with the waiting period, or the back ground check, or some other 'its for the children' anti-Constitutional law out there....
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,845 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
    There's a huge amount of debate about the 20,000 gun laws on the books. I just did a report on this very subject yesterday for my law class.

    The actual number is hundreds of laws, not 20,000 laws, at state and federal levels.
    I will grant that the exact number of laws concerning firearms may, or may not be 20,000. But only 300? That is laughable.

    The author of your link admits that he is only counting certain laws that control the manufacture, design, sale, purchase, or possession of guns.

    quote:In our view, the discovery that there may be as few as 300 major statewide laws that fit our definition of a gun-control statute (with some states having as few as one or two such laws) yields a far more appropriate figure for public-policy discussion.

    Kind of like saying that the "legislators" are made up of two branches, the house and the senate, which is true, given that one is only counting the MAJOR parts. There are more "parts" when counting the individual legislators, which make up the whole, of either branch. When referring to the attacks on my rights (gun laws) I am going to count EVERY SINGLE "part" individually.

    A quick look at my state laws reveals these statutes.

    18 - 12 - 101,
    18 - 12 - 102,
    18 - 12 - 103,
    18 - 12 - 104,
    18 - 12 - 105,
    18 - 12 - 106,
    18 - 12 - 107,
    18 - 12 - 108,
    18 - 12 - 109,
    18 - 12 - 110,
    18 - 12 - 111.
    ****
    18 - 12 - 201
    18 - 12 - 202
    18 - 12 - 203
    18 - 12 - 204
    18 - 12 - 205
    18 - 12 - 206
    18 - 12 - 207
    18 - 12 - 208
    18 - 12 - 209
    18 - 12 - 210
    18 - 12 - 211
    18 - 12 - 212
    18 - 12 - 213
    18 - 12 - 214
    18 - 12 - 215
    18 - 12 - 216

    These statutes are all specifically designated as firearm laws. MANY of these statutes have additional (sub) statutes, which are in essence, additional laws. This is not counting firearm relates laws on sentencing, if a firearm is used, or the multitude of firearm "related" laws.

    A quick look at California law finds over 370 basic firearm statutes. Again, not counting the sub-statutes. Putting just these two states together, using an average, then multiplied for every state, makes a mockery of the 300 laws suggested. This is from just TWO states, not counting ANY federal laws.

    I will not bother to take the time to look up other states that are just as restrictive as California, if not more so. Neither will I look up city laws. (there are still some cities that have their own, Washington DC comes to mind)

    One can twist a survey to achieve any desired results. The same can be done with "selective" research, when done using predetermined definitions of what one is looking for.

    Again, using MY definition of counting gun laws, the suggested 300 is laughable. I for one will continue to use the 20,000 number.
Sign In or Register to comment.