The Right To Bear Arms

[Comanda]

I was going to post a reply to weeds thread, but the more I read the more pissed off I got.

I believe that every law abiding citizen should have the right to own a firearm. Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, your choice. Just like I choose what kind of vehicle I drive. But I also believe that with firearm ownership comes responsibility. For instance before you can get a drivers license you have to take and pass a written and driving test, not to mention you also have to have insurance and proof of who you are. Why should it be any different for a firearm?

If I'm an idiot I can kill you with my vehicle. If I'm smart, I'll use a compound crossbow. Or if I'm really vicious and vindictive, I'll stick ya with a dirty needle. Are ya bleeding heart liberals getting any of this????

 

[Weevil]

I'm sick and tired of those tree huggers wanting to take away my Bear Arms. I snuck up on Yogi with the hacksaw, they're my souveniers fair and square.

 

[LadyG]

I think people are more worried about the psycho's that "have the right to bear arms". Unless they do a psyche test before granting you the license, there is no way to control this for those without prior criminal records.

And when do you have the right to use your gun to defend yourself?

 

[Black_Bird]

I believe that every law abiding citizen has the right to own hunting riffles and certian types of hand guns for protection purposes. I also believe, strongly, that law abiding citizens have the right to form orginized and trained militias for the purposes of defending this country and their freedoms.

I do not, however, believe that every citizen has the right to own LAW rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, or armor piercing bullets. I'm sorry; there just isn't any reason for it. If this makes me a bleeding heart liberal, then I'll bleed purple peanutbutter just for you, but them's my beliefs.

 

[Comanda]

Damn them tree hugger.. Winters coming, I'm cold..Where's my chainsaw?

And for anyone who cares, and weapon that shoots a .223 is a great hunting rifle, especially for a woman..Great aim, little kick, and light to carry through the woods.

 

[Ishmael]

I was going to post a reply to weeds thread, but the more I read the more pissed off I got.

I believe that every law abiding citizen should have the right to own a firearm. Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, your choice. Just like I choose what kind of vehicle I drive. But I also believe that with firearm ownership comes responsibility. For instance before you can get a drivers license you have to take and pass a written and driving test, not to mention you also have to have insurance and proof of who you are. Why should it be any different for a firearm?

If I'm an idiot I can kill you with my vehicle. If I'm smart, I'll use a compound crossbow. Or if I'm really vicious and vindictive, I'll stick ya with a dirty needle. Are ya bleeding heart liberals getting any of this????

Every time the subject comes up, some misbegotten, logically impaired, person brings up this argument as if they are equivalent. They aren't and they aren't even close. You are comparing apples to oranges.

You do NOT need a license, tags, registration, insurance, or have to take a test to drive a car. Nor are ANY of those things required to buy or own an automobile. You are only required to do those things if you want to drive that motor vehicle on highways and streets paid for with taxpayers money.

Now, if you would like to propose that no one may use a firearm on public property, schools, civic centers, courthouses, etc. without registering and taking a test, hey, I'm with you.

Try comparing apples to apples next time.

Ishmael

 

[Lost Cause]

Why to not register...

When the Nazi's took power in 1933, they got the registration lists of all firearm owners from a 1922 gun control law to control gang violence. By 1938 the country was disarmed and under their control, Jews were not permitted to carry even a knife!
Any "for your own good" law eventually gets perverted if left in a politician's hand long enough! Those that do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it!

 

[MissTaken]

I think people are more worried about the psycho's that "have the right to bear arms". Unless they do a psyche test before granting you the license, there is no way to control this for those without prior criminal records.

Unfortunately, the psychos get their hands on guns without registrations, licenses etc.

If someone really wants a gun, they will hve them, regardless of whether or not they have the governments permission to have one.

In NY, a pistol permit is a six month process and screening. Hmmm there are plenty of pistols to go around that aren't registered or are registered to the sane, common folk.

I believe in the right to bear arms, no doubt.

I just think that regulating that right to ensure 100 percent safety is a fantasy on the part of our government.

 

[Azwed]

Rifle ranges on state parks would fall under that as well.

I have seen more then my share of idiots at the nearby state park range.

 

[LadyG]

I realize that MissTaken, 10 shootings here in Toronto this weekend, prove that point.

If he's talking about the "right to bear arms" and in fact, making it legal to do so, then my statement holds true.

However his vehicle statement is way off. I've yet to see a serial killer or random killer using a car to do so!

Dont mind me, I'm still down a quart of coffee, but working on it!

 

[Lost Cause]

My concealed permit..

Doesn't allow me to carry in bars, schools, public places, and state parks already. If I'm assaulted in the above places, the state cannot be sued for not insuring my safety. Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6!

The Nazi law detail:

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA '68, we concluded that the framers of the GCA '68 -- lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law abiding Americans -- drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

 

[Coolville]

You people are fucking intellectual monkeys.
Your eagerness to condone murder through your gun laws and the death penalty only prove you are crawling along the evolution highway.
When you eventually climb out of the trees and join the civilised world, we'll have some coffee ready.

 

[Ishmael]

You people are fucking intellectual monkeys.
Your eagerness to condone murder through your gun laws and the death penalty only prove you are crawling along the evolution highway.
When you eventually climb out of the trees and join the civilised world, we'll have some coffee ready.

Ahhhhhhhh, what's the matter? INS turn down your immigration request again?

Ishmael

 

[Coolville]

how do you take your coffee, whaleboy? I'll make a note of it.

 

[sigh]

Re: Re: The Right To Bear Arms

You are only required to do those things if you want to drive that motor vehicle on highways and streets paid for with taxpayers money.

Ishmael

Wait a minute, you mean I can drive it up and down my driveway without a license? Wow. Cool. Not too useful, but what the hell, it's nice to know I have the right.

Thanks, Ish, you've made my day! Now if I can only build my own road from my home to work, that notion might come in handy...but then, how would I get to the mall?, or the grocery?, or to see my mom?, or.......dammit Ish, you knew all along that was a useless right, didn't you?

Tried to fool me again.

Seriously though, I've often wondered (and I'm ASKING here because I'm not really sure), at what point does the "right to bear arms" end? The framers of the constitution gave us the right to bear arms and raise a militia because that right had been denied to them by their previous government, and by inference they also were establishing the right (or at least justifying their act) of revolution.

Fine, I'm all in favor of that. It's at the heart and soul of what America is all about and I don't think anyone who's not fully steeped in our history and culture can truly appreciate that, but where does it end? What weapons would be needed in our day to form a truly effective militia? It seems that all but the truly extreme would agree that we shouldn't have the "right to bear nuclear arms", or even a fully armed fighter jet, stealth bomber, tank, cruise missle and so forth. I (and most others, I think) would rather see such weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the general public for obvious reasons.

So the question of limiting the right to bear arms seems more one of where to draw the line rather than whether or not that right is all inclusive.

 

[Rex1960]

Re: Re: Re: The Right To Bear Arms

Seriously though, I've often wondered (and I'm ASKING here because I'm not really sure), at what point does the "right to bear arms" end? The framers of the constitution gave us the right to bear arms and raise a militia because that right had been denied to them by their previous government, and by inference they also were establishing the right (or at least justifying their act) of revolution.

Fine, I'm all in favor of that. It's at the heart and soul of what America is all about and I don't think anyone who's not fully steeped in our history and culture can truly appreciate that, but where does it end? What weapons would be needed in our day to form a truly effective militia? It seems that all but the truly extreme would agree that we shouldn't have the "right to bear nuclear arms", or even a fully armed fighter jet, stealth bomber, tank, cruise missle and so forth. I (and most others, I think) would rather see such weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the general public for obvious reasons.

So the question of limiting the right to bear arms seems more one of where to draw the line rather than whether or not that right is all inclusive.

I second that.

Hopefully it doesn't make me a coward, tree hugger, commie or whatever...

 

[SINthysist]

You can have my suitcase nuke when you can pry it from my warm, glowing fingers...

 

[Rex1960]

You can have my suitcase nuke when you can pry it from my warm, glowing fingers...

....and I've thought i only had to ask nicely....

 

[sexy-girl]

no offense but i find it impossible to debate with people who are pro firearms

i think there is an unbending philosophy when it comes to the "right to bear arms" that i can't understand

im curious is there anyone who is pro firearm's that would actually accept any kind of tightning of gun control ?

 

[sport]

right to own

Some people don't understand you do not have the right to own fully automatic guns. As far as the car shit if you can hide in a car and act as a sniper don't you think we should ban these cars too? LOL If people want to kill they will find a way to do it, get off the ban the gun kick. There are sick people out there and having a gun or not will not stop them.

 

[Rex1960]

no offense but i find it impossible to debate with people who are pro firearms

i think there is an unbending philosophy when it comes to the "right to bear arms" that i can't understand

im curious is there anyone who is pro firearm's that would actually accept any kind of tightning of gun control ?

maybe it's just me...

 

[SINthysist]

I'd accept what we have if you'd just go away and shut the fawk up, well actually, a couple of roll-backs, but not much.

You act like we're all strapped and playing at being Jesse James or something.

That's why there's NO DEBATING with those who are anti-gun...

 

[Rex1960]

can you please use the quote button SIN

 

[SINthysist]

Lee Harvey Oswald used a bolt-action hunting rifle...

But lack of a firearm never stopped Jack-the-Ripper, or that Russian mass murderer, the Manson clan was good with knives, I could go on, but you get my drift.

Some people just broke. We need to identify them earlier and keep better tabs on them. Like the FBI getting reports [breaking news] that the people from the Sally were concerned and contacted them at least twice because this guy kept acting like he was in a sleeper-cell. It wasn't the gun, but our failure perhaps to not have a series of talks with this guy...

 

[SINthysist]

Lee Harvey Oswald used a bolt-action hunting rifle...

But lack of a firearm never stopped Jack-the-Ripper, or that Russian mass murderer, the Manson clan was good with knives, I could go on, but you get my drift.

Some people just broke. We need to identify them earlier and keep better tabs on them. Like the FBI getting reports [breaking news] that the people from the Sally were concerned and contacted them at least twice because this guy kept acting like he was in a sleeper-cell. It wasn't the gun, but our failure perhaps to not have a series of talks with this guy...