# serious question about guns



## JillyG

First let me say I have guns, I shoot guns and I am not above defending my home and family.

If this is in the wrong place so be it but I am really interested in a real conversation here not wanting to offend or bash.

As gun owners are we doing ourselves a disservice by rejecting any and all gun control laws?
What is wrong with having to do a background check, and closing the gun show loopholes? Won't that go a long way in preventing someone who should not have access to guns from getting them? Certainly not all, but maybe some. If you have nothing to hide what is the issue?

By not allowing any of these measures are we not just letting the crazies give us all a bad image?

I had to get a background check to purchase my guns. I also had to wait 24 hours. But I can not imagine ever needing a gun so badly right now that that becomes a problem.

I just think if gun owners really want the right to have guns they should be the first to make sure those rights are not given too those who do not deserve them.


----------



## Cookie2

Oh dear ... let's start with the concept of "first to make sure those rights are not given too those who do not deserve them".

Because "rights" aren't given to you by a government. The right to defend ourselves is given to us by God. Just by being human, we have the right to defend our lives, defend the lives of family and friends, to defend our property, to provide for ourselves, and to rise up against an tyrannical government or enemy forces.

Always keep in mind ... every law in this country (every single law!) is eventually enforced at the point of a gun.

The right to bear and keep arms is the only right that makes us equal to the government because it is the one right that gives us the option to say "no" when governments get out of control. Do I ever want to see it get that far? Of course not! But just like the nuclear cold war, the fact that the possibility exists is what keeps everyone in check.

What if you had to go to a government agency to register before you write a letter to the editor at the local newspaper, or before you get on TV and give an interview about the abusive VA practices you witnessed? What if you had to endure a government background check in order to practice your religion? What if you had to give a list to your local sheriff's department of everyone who ever visited your home or everyone you ever spoke to on the phone just to make sure you're not, you know, committing some kind of crime? What do you have to hide?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

There is no simple answer to your question. Opinions on both sides of the argument can be valid when well considered. 

Regarding your initial question, many people do, in fact, think that there is no place for any gun-control laws because the wording of the second amendment, "...shall not be infringed.", is pretty clear. Despite all the arguing over the decades, there really is nothing ambiguous about the language of the second amendment. There is a well-placed comma after the statement about the militia, and the statement after the comma states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The could have chosen the word eliminated, they could have chosen a lot of other words, but they chose "infringed". If something can't be infringed, it can't be mitigated in any way. A strong word in this application. 

Consider, too, that the second amendment did not need to be there to grant the right of the people to be armed. The right to self-defense is considered natural law, a God-given right. This amendment was written into our constitution by a group of victorious rebels who had just successfully cast off a tyrannical government. They knew well the implication of an armed populace and, in a context that every other nation in history would have considered the most dangerous manifestation of an armed populace, considered this to not only be a tolerable reality, but the only real insurance against the government they'd just built from destroying the freedom they'd just won. That's a heavy concept. The right of the people to be armed is the only way to guarantee the other rights they hold. The right to defend oneself against those who would do them personal harm is even more fundamental still.

So, with the heavy pontificating out of the way, consider what gun control laws mean and how they function. 

What scares most people on the pro-gun-rights side of the debate is that gun control laws, or any right-restricting measures for that matter, operate like a ratchet. Small restrictions are built upon each other until a convoluted net of restrictions is in place that makes it difficult to exercise the right in question, and eventually changes the public perception of what the right means. When people first learn that it used to be possible to buy fully automatic weapons delivered to your door by postal service, the idea seems completely foreign to them. If the brakes aren't put on the ratchet, your children or their children will think that semi-automatics are only something that cops or action-movie stars can have.

And, it all begs the question 'why?'. It is already illegal to rob someone or commit murder. Do we need a law that makes it worse to use a gun to do so? If your family member is killed by a machine gun-wielding criminal, is it somehow worse that if the criminal killed them with a knife or a baseball bat? An automatic fire-control may make it easier to kill a lot of people in a short period of time, but can any gun kill more people faster than a bomb? Are you willing to put up with banning all of the substances that can be made into a bomb?

So, to put this all together in a way that I think answers your question directly: many people on the pro-gun-rights / no-tolerance side of the debate realize two key points - the restrictive laws never stop growing their encroachment, and they never really achieve the ends they intend. If a background check or a waiting period presents an obstacle to someone with nefarious intent, they will find another means. The only people affected by those regulations are those who already intend to follow the rest of the laws on the books, and the net effect is that the paradigm of what is acceptable keeps shifting until small infringements evolve into sweeping restrictions over time. 

Laws can't eliminate ugliness and evil from this world. They only enable the people to punish those who violate them. Once we reached the point where all significant transgressions (murder, robbery, rape etc.) could be punished, further laws only serve to keep the law makers employed and limit the rights of those who aren't a danger to their neighbors to begin with.


----------



## Micheal

I, do agree with JillyG, but then living in NYS we really don't have much choice do we.....
Although I have to somewhat disagree with Cookie2 specially with the .."Because "rights" aren't given to you by a government"..... I suggest you try living or just going out of this country and expressing your believed "god given rights" within another country and see where it lands you..... You will find that this gov (as good or bad as it is) operating within the bounds of the Constitution allows a person many, many freedoms not allowed elsewhere. 

Not casting stones nor do I want stones cast, just expressing my view as I know it to be having traveled to other countries. Also remember I live in NY and have chosen to abide by it's state laws like them or not.....


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Micheal said:


> ...Although I have to somewhat disagree with Cookie2 specially with the .."Because "rights" aren't given to you by a government"..... I suggest you try living or just going out of this country and expressing your believed "god given rights" within another country and see where it lands you..... You will find that this gov (as good or bad as it is) operating within the bounds of the Constitution allows a person many, many freedoms not allowed elsewhere....


Rights are not given to you by the government. The basic rights that are fundamental to our nation's founding are granted by God. The difference with our government _was supposed to be_ that they recognized where those rights came from and pledged not to restrict those rights. No other government has made such a covenant with its people. 

You are absolutely correct that when our government operates "within the bounds of the constitution", we are allowed "many, many freedoms not allowed elsewhere", but it is important to remember that the government does not grant us those rights, it just stays out of the way of them. Besides, the days of our government operating within the bounds of the constitution are LONG gone.


----------



## JJ Grandits

The most feared laws are the ones passed under the heading of "common sense". Passing new laws, while not enforcing existing laws is nothing but repression. Everytime a law is passed you lose the ability to make a choice. Being able to make a choice is one way of defining freedom. It is sad to say that the situation in our Country has deteriorated so that citizens realistically fear the governments knowledge of who is armed as opposed to the fear that a criminal might be armed. Of the tens of thousands of people who have failed to pass a background check, meaning they broke the law by trying to own a firearm, less then a handful have been prosecuted. Remember, our rights do not come from the government. Our constitution does not give us our rights, it LIMITS what the government can do. No law passed by the government has the ability to take away our rights, it only punishes us for using them. If the government was really serious about safety, about fighting crime, about keeping our streets safe, they would enforce the laws we already have. But that is not their intent.


----------



## Cornhusker

If anyone thinks restrictive gun laws work, they just need to look at Chicago and Mexico. :cowboy:


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

To illustrate just how Bizzaro-land our nation has become, and prove the power of the paradigm shift, consider this:

As founded, our nation recognized the right to keep and bear arms as a God-given right that should not be infringed. As a constituent of the United States, the state of New York has any power not specifically reserved by the federal government in the constitution. Guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms is one of those few things directly in the purview of the federal government.

That's the way it's _supposed_ to be. It's not a matter for debate or politics. It is in the simple black and white of our founding documents.

SO...when governor Cuomo signed the bill restricting magazine capacity for the citizens of NY, the justice department was supposed to stop them. 

*Eric Holder was supposed to sue the state of New York for enacting unconstitutional gun-control measures.*

Imagine that. Can you?
The way things are supposed to work, according to the fundamental law of our nation, seem fundamentally foreign according to the current paradigm.


----------



## simi-steading

Give them an inch and they take a mile... .Read up on boiled frogs... 

What do people not get about a few simple words.. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.....


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

why do we not give into their CONTROL forget the word gun , throughout history every nation has sought to restrict or deny the natural right to a defense to gain power over the subjects 
in 1775 the England banned the import of rifled barrels , because it feared the range that the American rifleman would have against it's smooth bore infantry musket , England had no idea that it would even be at war with us a year later , but they feared it all the same because they wanted to control the subjects with fear and quartered often Ill behaved soldiers who where outside the law among the subjects.
the colonies had been living without such restrictions or problems of the crown for more than a hundred years at this point the rest is history and a few years later we had our founding document ratified by the 13 states 

jump ahead in history , I know gun control advocates like to state how there where hundreds possibly thousands of municipalities with gun control laws in the 19th and early 20th century , if you more closely examine these laws and how they were used they were in fact very illegal and unconstitutional but those whom they were written to restrict could barely vote at the time , the majority of gun control law written in the 19th and early 20th century were set in place to keep blacks or persons of color from being armed or at least being armed in public 

Dr. Martin Luther King applied for an was denied for insufficient need just months before he was assassinated
many southern blacks wouldn't have lived to tell their story had a Winchester repeating rifle not hung above their door and had in not been readily accessible to them.

in the early 1990s I worked for a company that worked on the homes of very well to do people in northern suburbs of Chicago and I learned that when Chicago implemented their hand gun ban that the very well to do would make a donation to the police department and take a some training that they would pay for and become Auxiliary officers therefore covered as police officers they could keep their guns buy more and carry them when no one else could the wealthy and politically well connected no matter which party will always find a way to be armed many of the most anti gun politicians in the country have their states MAY ISSUE only to special politically well connected people concealed carry permits and or have armed security.

so you can see that all throughout history gun control laws have been used not to prevent crime but to control 

England tried very strict control of guns specifically pistols and when they failed to monitor and enforce their own Law an incident happened they then used this to confiscate all pistols and rifles and only the few large land owners or well connected wealthy people have any arms at all. this didn't stop crime or murder and they now have laws that you may not carry a knife with a point. when will it end 

So when i hear a common sense gun control measure I will let you know , the best one i have heard yet is shall issue concealed carry , get as many of the good people carrying guns as possible in a safe manner , because the one thing all of the mass shooters have had in common is that they seek out unarmed victims they use the gun control measures against the law abiding , the specifically target schools and gun free zones , places that post no carry , and places where it is statistically unlikely any good guys will be present or armed.

criminals will always have arms of some type , restricting them only leaves those who follow the law in danger 

I don't want to blame victims , but I will blame society , the reason we continue to have mass shootings is the lack of return fire , when it is expected that if a shot is fired 2 will be fired in return these cowards will do what they almost always do any way take their own life when met by resistance or end their sorry life before hurting anyone else because they will be assured that they will be met with resistance.


also know that "a sporting propose " is one of the most hatefully things you can say , these words were coined by Adolf Hitler to disarm Jews and Europe before he invaded them. gun control is as old as the gun but it took root under Nazi fascism they proposed "Common Sense laws" that swept through Europe as the thing to do to register arms and to only have sporting arms in the mid to lat 1930s 

so you can see with such a deep and rich history in the control and enslavement of man why we are so opposed to Common sense gun control

the states with the least gun control and the most concealed carry availability have continued to prove the safest to live in ,why would we want your hell in our paradise.


----------



## 1shotwade

I admit I didn't take the time to read all the replies,but need to throw this out there.The government has managed to lie to us on about every occation and people no longer trust them.There is a wave of people that are convinced the country is going down hill fast. If a person feels this way,how could you expect them to agree with the "just 1 more little law so we can track you gun" thing.We are always getting lied to! "you will never see the day when you get pulled over for not wearing a seat belt" "there's WMD's in Iraq " "Oswald did all the shooting" (even though the pro's can't do it today).There's plenty more.
another point,The second amendment wasn't written to address gun control. It was whoever written to establish a "second barrier" of security for the country to detour "enemies both foreign and domestic". It was intended to allow ALL citizens to have the ability to fight off "enemies" of our country.We lost our second amendment rights long ago and actually,it should have been considered "Treason" because is lessens the countries ability to defend it's self!
(so I have heard) during WWII a Japanese Officer was assigned to make a plan to take the USA. He reported that all of the major cities could be take within a 3 month period.But,he also reported that to take control of the entire country would take decades.When questioned about this he stated that "once you get away from the cities there is a gun behind every blade of grass". They did not invade! The detour-ant works! 
Take the time to google kennasaw GA gun control and you will see that they had to lay off half the police force within a year when they passed an ordnance that all property owners had to register a weapon . It works,the bad guys didn't like the odds anymore and went to work in other places.

Our gun rights are actually part of "the right to life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness" . Individual gun ownership was never addressed in the way we think of it today because it was a foregone conclusion that everyone had a gun. That's how the got their food. It was no different than owning an ax ot saw or drill. It was a tool.There was no need to address it!
The 1920-30 are known as "the era of the gentleman". This is because people treated other people with respect. The reason they did that is because it was the introduction of the .25 and .32 "pocket guns" to the general public. You start something with someone and they could just reach into their pocket and end your reign of terror.
I got a lot more to say on this topic but this is way too long now anyway!


Wade


----------



## Dutch 106

In short yes, Ill thought out laws enacted by emotion are always foolish.
Also all the people hury by wackos with guns, don't make me want to ban or restrct guns! It makes me wonder why somebody didn't have one on there hip, happens but for some reason it never makes the news? Doesn't fit into somebodies prejudice!
Dutch


----------



## JillyG

First off it does not say that God gives you any rights in the Constitution.

Can someone explain how having a background check infringes on your rights? All it does is ensure you have not committed a felony or have been deemed crazy.


----------



## simi-steading

JillyG said:


> First off it does not say that God gives you any rights in the Constitution.
> 
> Can someone explain how having a background check infringes on your rights? All it does is ensure you have not committed a felony or have been deemed crazy.


I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says felons can't have guns... especially after they have served their time.... 

_*...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."*_

A felon is people... 

Someone please define shall not infringe...


----------



## Seth

What, exactly, is the perceived "gun show loophole"? Seth


----------



## unregistered41671

Seth said:


> What, exactly, is the perceived "gun show loophole"? Seth


I would say that most anti-gunners would have to do some research to answer your question.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

JillyG said:


> First off it does not say that God gives you any rights in the Constitution.
> 
> Can someone explain how having a background check infringes on your rights? All it does is ensure you have not committed a felony or have been deemed crazy.



first off , the constitution does not need to state it it is in the first paragraph of the declaration of Independence


"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station *to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them*, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"


second we have background checks , I just had one yesterday to buy a bolt action 22 rifle 

but what is being proposed is not a background checks , a background check checks for past criminal activity and we have that , what is being proposed is a character examination not very different at all from those used to keep persons of color from exercising their right to vote not all that many years ago 


so riddle me this - it is unacceptable to require ID to ensure that a person voting in an election for the candidate who will decide the law , the budget and goverment assistance and whom it is given to , but, you both require an ID and a background check to purchase a firearm , a clearly defined right in the constitution 

should you either not require these things for purchase of a firearm or require them to vote if it is so unconstitutional for one it is so for the other 

however we have accepted that in order to limit the number of persons with criminal past from easily attaining a firearm from a retailer or through the mail that persons would present ID and be subject to a background check.

perhaps this inch should have never been given , but we shall be darnd sure to keep the mile form being taken.

we are past reasonable , and the law has been unenforced hundreds of thousands of times , all faith in the federal management of such is lost 

when the current laws are enforced and the agency's responsible for their enforcement stop contributing more to the problem than the solution perhaps we can meet you at the table again.


----------



## BadFordRanger

simi-steading said:


> I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says felons can't have guns... especially after they have served their time....
> 
> _*...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."*_
> 
> A felon is people...
> 
> Someone please define shall not infringe...


There are so many laws that a person can commit and if found guilty, become a felon it isn't even funny! 
I am 59 years old, and I am not a bad guy whatsoever, but according to the laws, I have committed more felonies than I have fingers & toes! 
Nothing serious mind you, but still yet, felonies! 
When I was 15 years old my father and my father had taught me to run a well machine, and that's before I had a drivers license and one Saturday we had set the machine up on a new well and had it cased out with the pipe, and that night he tossed his keys on my belly and when I looked up he asked me if I was going to drill the well or not? Then he told me I better get to bed because he wanted me gone by 5 am! I didn't sleep a wink that night but I drilled that well! 
I also found out what it was like to drive without a permit!
If a cop spotted me speeding, which I did quite often, I was a gone puppy dog! 
And I have done so since then also, but never in a place where I put innocent peoples lives at stake! Yet it was felonies! 
If I weren't in the position to blow them away really fast, or if I was on a busy road, I'd pull over and take the ticket! 
30 years ago I grew marijuana, or pot as we called it, and every single plant, regardless of the size of even a three day old seedling was a separate felony! 
Can you imagine just getting one year of prison time for 200 seedlings and 9 out of 10 would die culled anyway? 
How could they say that I can't buy a gun if I had been caught in any of those positions? 
No one takes my guns away, period! A felon, yes I am! A convicted felon. No! 
I have outran the cops when I had a gun, or guns in the car but I never shot at them to get them off of me and I'd never do so, unless they started shooting first, at which point they would probably never know who the better shot was!

Now I think that violent criminals should be kept in a cage and only let out in case of a war! Actually, I think they should be hung with a long rope, as soon as everyone is sure they are the culprit, but that's another subject altogether! 

One major question that I have stems directly from the second amendment! 
We all know that it gives us the rights to bear arms! 
When it was written, what arms did they have at the time? 
What arms did any enemy have that they didn't have! Cannons maybe, but as far as small arms, the enemy didn't have anything compared to what our police nor military has today, yet it is illegal for us to own a fully automatic rifle! 
You can get a Federal permit to do so, but that is jumping through their hoops! 
The 2nd doesn't speak of us having to jump through hoops, does it?
It states that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon! 
This doesn't matter to me, myself! I am a long range shooter anyway, so short of an M-60, I'm personally happy, and I sure as the devil am not going to bark out .308 bullets as fast as a M-60 eats them trying to hit a few men 3/4 of a mile away the way my drill Sargent did years ago! Actually he was shooting at a broken down tracked vehicle on the next hill, but it took him half a can to walk the bullets up to it! 
But where does it say that we are limited to a bolt action, which is what I like, or even a semi-automatic, which I also like, but where does it say we can't own a M-16, or fully automatic AK-47? 
It seems to me that the 2nd was written so we could, if true need be, declare war on a tyrannical government! 
Have they already taken that right away from us?
I will say something else! With a M-16, Ak-47, or even a .22 that will fire cleanly, a small 9 Vt. battery powered motor with a roller cam on the shaft, and the right mount will turn them into fully automatic incase the need ever arises, and need not be mounted until it is needed! 
Me? I like one shot at a time! And an M-1A1 will reach way on out there and say good night! 

Ranger


----------



## StL.Ed

BadFordRanger said:


> ...
> One major question that I have stems directly from the second amendment!
> We all know that it gives us the rights to bear arms!
> ...
> Ranger


Wrong! The second amendment outlines certain rights; it does not give us those rights.

9th amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

14th amendment, section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Most of the laws the Federal and State governments pass are unconstitutional. It's just that the courts have a vested power interest in letting them get away with it.


----------



## StL.Ed

As to the question asked by the original poster:

How would you react to a law that lets the government come in and search your home whenever they like? As long as you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide or worry about. 
By the logic within your questions, we are fostering criminals by not giving the government free range to go where ever they like, without cause or warrant, since they would likely find some criminals by these methods.


----------



## Danaus29

There were 2 stabbing deaths locally this week. Should people have to pass a background check to buy sharp objects? What about hammers, ball bats, pressure cookers? Just about anything can be used to kill another person. 

Gun show loophole; transactions between private parties are not subject to background checks. 

What part of "*shall not be infringed*" do gun control advocates not understand?????

People who should not have guns seem to be able to get them easier than the rest of us. If someone is going to commit a crime, stealing a gun won't be that much more out of line. Many of the perps in mass shootings obtained the guns they used illegally.


----------



## Gray Wolf

Usual responses to not enforcing all the laws, gun and otherwise, that we already have.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Jilly, as to who/what has the ability to give rights, although the Declaration of Independence clearly says "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" it isn't repeated in the Constitution for the simple reason it's an "understood". When you look at the wording of the 2nd amendment, the Right mentioned isn't used in a context of the government bestowing it. It's used in the context of an understood right, be it from God or the nature of man to defend himself and others, and shall not be infringed by government.

Back when I had guns (freak boating accident) not one of them was on any government list. I bought them from individuals, sometimes at gun shows but most times from friends and acquaintances. Do I trust the government to keep it's word? Got a couple hours to hear a partial list of broken promises? Even my ex-wife was better at it.

The old saying "an armed society is a polite society" is especially true when you consider the government is still somewhat polite. A brief look at world history will show you just how impolite a government can become to an unarmed citizenry.


----------



## Shrek

This state had a 7 day cooling off waiting period for all handgun sales back in 1991. Didn't matter how many weapons you already owned, you were still subject to the short form background check and7 cool down wait period.

I purchased a pistol back then at the gun store indoor range I frequented wearing a 9mm holstered under my armpit, .38 on my ankle and a .45 derringer in my pocket but still had to wait a week to pick up my new pistol.

Thankfully now once we pass our background checks and the gun dealers run our DLs to make sure we are still qualified we can walk out with our new weapon.


----------



## crispin

OP - i have a question for you.

First let me tell you a story.

22 years ago, 3 days after my 18th birthday I was involved in a fist fight. There were Police nearby and I was arrested. Upon my arrest it was found that I had a small amount of Cocaine (less than 1 gram) in my pocket. I was charged with possession of a controlled substance, a felony. I ended up taking a Plea Deal and getting 3 years Probation.

That was 22 years ago. Since then I have NEVER been in trouble. I have a wife, children, own my home, enjoy gardening, camping, and my animals.

Based on your reasoning I should not be allowed to defend my wife, my home, my children, my possessions. If someone kicks in my door and wants to cause harm to my family I should have no way to protect them / myself, correct?

Is that what you are saying? I am prohibited from owning guns. I am prohibited from the ability to provide protection to my family because as a poor and dumb child I made a mistake. Is that how you feel?

We need stronger gun laws to keep people like me away from weapons, right?

I broke the law 22 years ago, I am a real menace to society, right?

tell me how these "gun laws' and 'restrictions' make any sense. tell me how they protect you from animals like me.

Real criminals do not care about laws. Look at Chicago for anxample. legal gun ownership has been highly restricted for decades, yet Chicago has a very high rate of shootings. How is that possible with such tight restrictions on firearms? It is because criminals, real criminals do not care about laws and no law passed would stop them from obtaining and using guns.

I would love to hear your side. I would like to understand how laws make us safer.


----------



## Nimrod

The so called gun show loophole refers to the fact that you can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. This is merely the law that says you can buy a gun from a private individual without a background check. 

The reality is that most gun dealers at a gun show sell enough guns (I think it's 6) in a year that they have to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). If they have an FFL they have to perform a background check when they sell a gun just like they were selling from a gun store. Only a small percentage of sales at a gun show can be done without a background check and only if the seller isn't required to have an FFL.

The gun grabbers have spun this into a controversy because they want to make it illegal for one private individual to sell a gun to another private individual. In my opinion, restricting private sales of guns, directly infringes on my right to own guns by making them much harder to obtain.


----------



## Gray Wolf

crispin said:


> OP - i have a question for you.
> 
> First let me tell you a story.
> 
> 22 years ago, 3 days after my 18th birthday I was involved in a fist fight. There were Police nearby and I was arrested. Upon my arrest it was found that I had a small amount of Cocaine (less than 1 gram) in my pocket. I was charged with possession of a controlled substance, a felony. I ended up taking a Plea Deal and getting 3 years Probation.
> 
> That was 22 years ago. Since then I have NEVER been in trouble. I have a wife, children, own my home, enjoy gardening, camping, and my animals.
> 
> Based on your reasoning I should not be allowed to defend my wife, my home, my children, my possessions. If someone kicks in my door and wants to cause harm to my family I should have no way to protect them / myself, correct?
> 
> Is that what you are saying? I am prohibited from owning guns. I am prohibited from the ability to provide protection to my family because as a poor and dumb child I made a mistake. Is that how you feel?
> 
> We need stronger gun laws to keep people like me away from weapons, right?
> 
> I broke the law 22 years ago, I am a real menace to society, right?
> 
> tell me how these "gun laws' and 'restrictions' make any sense. tell me how they protect you from animals like me.
> 
> Real criminals do not care about laws. Look at Chicago for anxample. legal gun ownership has been highly restricted for decades, yet Chicago has a very high rate of shootings. How is that possible with such tight restrictions on firearms? It is because criminals, real criminals do not care about laws and no law passed would stop them from obtaining and using guns.
> 
> I would love to hear your side. I would like to understand how laws make us safer.


A convicted felon is a convicted felon. Not much you can do about that now. My son has much the same story to tell. He can't have guns either. 

Have you petitioned your state to have your gun rights restored? 

Have you worked to change your state laws?


----------



## Nimrod

I don't know what button I pushed by mistake but my cursor became invisible in my last post. Kinda made it hard to tell where I was at.

The gun grabbers say they want close the "gun show loophole" because it sounds like a reasonable course of action, doesn't it? The only way to do that, and what they are really after, is to prohibit gun sales between private individuals. A private individual doesn't have the wherewithal to do a background check. 

If they succeed, all gun sales will have to have a background check. This is the first step in taking away all the guns because it means registering all gun sales. When a background check is run, the seller, and only the seller, is supposed to have a copy of the form. They are not public information and the seller is required to keep them forever. How long will it be before there is a law that requires the seller to turn all the forms over to the gooberment? 

Even if they don't collect all the forms, They still have a record that you bought a gun. They collected it when the seller phoned in the form. Unless you only bought guns from private sellers without background checks you are already on a gooberment list of gun owners. Next, the swat team storms your house at 3:00 in the morning to confiscate your guns.


----------



## crispin

Gray Wolf said:


> A convicted felon is a convicted felon. Not much you can do about that now. My son has much the same story to tell. He can't have guns either.
> 
> Have you petitioned your state to have your gun rights restored?
> 
> Have you worked to change your state laws?



I haven't lived in the state in which my 1 and only arrest was for over a decade. 

What I would like to understand is how a minor drug charge over 20 years ago makes me a danger to the public and I should forever until I die be prohibited from owning a gun.

However, I am allowed to own chainsaws, knives, large rocks, and cars, all extremely dangerous if used incorrectly.

Tell me how the the "if you are a felon you cannot own guns" makes any sense?


----------



## fullmetal

i agree with a lot of what has been said on here. and i do understand where a lot of these laws come from. and i understand that they seem harmless or even good to a lot of people. because it would be nice if all bad people had no way to hurt good people. thats good right. 

well how about this, lets say you are big and strong and we take a single sewing thread and loop it around you and tie you to a post in the ground. we will say it has a one pound breaking strength. thats nothing. totally harmless. you can walk away at any time. lets double it and loop you twice. still harmless. double it again and its 4 loops. 8. 16. 32. 64. 128. getting hard to move right? but your big and strong, lets keep going. 256. 512. your not going anywhere now but we can keep going. 1024. 2048. 4096. 8192. it could hold a small car in the air now but whats the big deal its just a thread?

these laws are the same. first lets take away those dangerous full autos. but its ok you still have _your_ guns. then lets outlaw those dangerous hollow point rounds. but its ok you still have _your_ guns. then we will take those dangerous high capacity magazines. but its ok you still have _your_ guns. and of course criminals shouldn't be allowed to have guns, but its ok you still have _your_ guns. and what about depressed people thats just dangerous, but its ok you still have _your_ guns. or other mental problems like adhd or ptsd or even ocd but its ok you still have _your_ guns. and you know that as you get older you become less stable, lets put an age cap at 80 or 70 or 60, but its ok you still have _your_ guns. and just because you have the right to have one doesn't mean you should be allowed to take them to a school, or a bar, or in your car or really in public at all actually, but its ok you still have _your_ guns. and if your not up to something you shouldn't mind waiting a day, or a week, or a month to get it, but its ok you still have _your_ guns. and some people have an adverse reaction to videogames or rap music they shouldn't be allowed to carry deadly weapons, but its ok you still have _your_ guns. and men are prone to anger and women are too emotional they shouldn't have something so dangerous. but its ok your "safe" now.


----------



## JJ Grandits

I can not see why any person who has been convicted of a non violent felony should lose their right to be armed. When you pay your price to society, you paided your price. When you are again a free citizen, you are a FREE citizen.


----------



## Cookie2

"Even if they don't collect all the forms, They still have a record that you bought a gun. They collected it when the seller phoned in the form. Unless you only bought guns from private sellers without background checks you are already on a gooberment list of gun owners. Next, the swat team storms your house at 3:00 in the morning to confiscate your guns."

Thanks. This prompted me to remember an incident that happened to us. Many, many years ago we moved from California to Idaho. During the move we were robbed. When we arrived in Idaho we discovered some of my jewelry missing, some of our cash missing and likewise some of our credit cards. The thief was smart. He took some stuff, not all of it so we didn't immediately realize what happened. We thought we had just misplaced a few items in the move.

So we called the police department back in CA to tell them and they could care less. After all insurance would replace most of our items and the credit card companies would reverse the charges to our credit cards so we really weren't out anything (yes, the police seriously said this.) We decided we needed to get an inventory of what was really stolen for our insurance. During the process we couldn't locate all our fire arms. We called the police in CA and updated them with this information - we think some of our fire arms may have been stolen.

They asked if we had an exact description of each fire arm and their serial numbers. Well no, we had just moved and we were still trying to locate everything so it was going to take time to go through our records. Within minutes the police called us back to tell us what firearms we owned, their serial numbers and when we bought each item.

Mind you, we didn't give them any information other than our name and where we used to live. We hadn't purchased any fire arms when we lived at our old address, just at previous addresses.

We were pretty spooked by how much information about us, not just the fire arms, the police were able to gather within minutes.

When we moved from ID to MS, fire arms were NOT listed anywhere on the moving company's manifest and we haven't registered anything here (not required) nor have we taken a CC-permit class or anything. As far as anyone is concerned, left all the fire arms back in ID although I'm pretty sure the police will just assume we still have them.


----------



## unregistered41671

"Gun show loophole" is nothing but a tactical phrase developed and used by the liberal left gun grabbers to stop private sales between law abiding individuals. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

what I find interesting is that anti gun politicians scream about the private sales and gun show loop holes 

yet , it is their system of background checks , universities not reporting serious mental issues and threats because the student was dropping out , not followed up on criminal complaints , failure to enforce court orders and other lapses by the goverment that have lead to the majority of mass shootings.


----------



## MichaelK!

JillyG said:


> Can someone explain how having a background check infringes on your rights? All it does is ensure you have not committed a felony or have been deemed crazy.


It is frustrating because the process itself is flawed and does prevent normal, law-abiding citizens from purchasing a firearm.

I read a statistic about the the carefull analysis of exactly whom was being rejected some time after the Brady bill was passed. First, it should be stated that it is automatically a crime for a convicted felon to purchase a gun, so it would seem to be easy to just scoop up all the "Brady rejects" and trot them off to jail.

But, that's not what was happening in the real world. Out of approximately 64,000 gun purchase denials, it turned out that only 32 were actually real felons that could be charged with attempting to illegally purchase a gun. In some cases, people were rejected for the most miscellaneous reasons, such as a yet to be paid parking ticket. In others, just having the same name as a convicted felon got you rejected. So, if you happen to be a Joe Smith living in southern California, and there's a registered Joe Smith of Topeka Kansas that's convicted, guess what happens?

The fundemental problem with something like the Brady bill is that its success is measured in the number of rejections it produces. So, it's supporters have a vested interest to make as many rejections as possible, even though it effects people that have never done anything wrong.

Here's another way to look at the problem. Imagine the positive benefits of possesing a gun. The man that didn't get robbed because he could defend himself. The woman that didn't get raped because she could defend herself. The black person that didn't get lynched because they could defend themselves. Looking back at that 64,000 statistic, there are 2000 people that couldn't have a gun for every single criminal that couldn't get a gun. That means two thousand extra men that couldn't defend themselves against robbery, two thousand women that might not be able to stop a rape, two thousand black men more likely to be lynched, just to stop one single criminal. That's what you should be thinking about when you want to promote additional gun controls.


----------



## simi-steading

Huh.. I didn't know lynchings were still so popular... 2000 more huh?


----------



## Seth

Nimrod said:


> The so called gun show loophole refers to the fact that you can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. This is merely the law that says you can buy a gun from a private individual without a background check.
> 
> The reality is that most gun dealers at a gun show sell enough guns (I think it's 6) in a year that they have to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). If they have an FFL they have to perform a background check when they sell a gun just like they were selling from a gun store. Only a small percentage of sales at a gun show can be done without a background check and only if the seller isn't required to have an FFL.
> 
> The gun grabbers have spun this into a controversy because they want to make it illegal for one private individual to sell a gun to another private individual. In my opinion, restricting private sales of guns, directly infringes on my right to own guns by making them much harder to obtain.



Egg Zachary.


----------



## JJ Grandits

But?, But?, They all swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.


----------



## JillyG

I guess I thought they were a few who would rather be represented by the sane gun owners instead of the nuts. The crazies who think it is a good idea to strap an AR-15 to your back and go to the park, or the teen who wants to go out with a bang and be immortalized or the fools who thought aiming weapons at 
federal agents was a good idea, these are the people you wish to represent you, so be it.

For the record your arguments about giving an inch they take an arm is so misguided and lame. Has not happened and will not happen, but you keep using it if it makes you all happy


----------



## Seth

JillyG said:


> I guess I thought they were a few who would rather be represented by the sane gun owners instead of the nuts. The crazies who think it is a good idea to strap an AR-15 to your back and go to the park, or the teen who wants to go out with a bang and be immortalized or the fools who thought aiming weapons at
> federal agents was a good idea, these are the people you wish to represent you, so be it.
> 
> For the record your arguments about giving an inch they take an arm is so misguided and lame. Has not happened and will not happen, but you keep using it if it makes you all happy




I don't understand this... Seth


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

JillyG said:


> I guess I thought they were a few who would rather be represented by the sane gun owners instead of the nuts. The crazies who think it is a good idea to strap an AR-15 to your back and go to the park, or the teen who wants to go out with a bang and be immortalized or the fools who thought aiming weapons at
> federal agents was a good idea, these are the people you wish to represent you, so be it.
> 
> For the record your arguments about giving an inch they take an arm is so misguided and lame. Has not happened and will not happen, but you keep using it if it makes you all happy



there are some really good reasons for strapping on a AR15 and going for a walk in the park , the first and most common is to prove that it is still legal 

people need to know that possession of a gun is not illegal nor is carrying it , It becomes an Illegal act when you start threatening behavior.

we in no way endorse those who plan to do others harm , quite the contrary I would like to buy the person who stops them a fresh box of carry ammo

like the Aurora shooter the most recent shooter in Santa Barbra passed the background check a California back ground check which would mean max of 10 rounds , California approved guns only , and what are the toughest gun control laws in the country and not once but 3 times 


when you are talking people smart enough to keep up grades to stay in college for years and hide their motives from their room mates whom he planned to murder , any phyc test would have been a breeze , the police were even at his house in April for a welfare check and he convinced them all was fine he had planned this for over a year 

he then proceed to drive around town killing people with no one stopping him 

how do you purpose that a background check that didn't keep tens of millions of good honest people from being denied the purchase of a firearm that they would go on to use to defend their families and prevent crime , intelligent criminals will find a way to kill if that is their goal 

the final check and balance is an armed public as a public we need to take the responsibility for making our world a better place that means getting trained , getting armed and remaining vigilant.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

do not sit idly wringing your hands with how you could legislate against evil ,be he who stands against evil ,be the one who makes the difference , all the law and paper in the world will not prevent evil , but you good people can stop it in it's tracks when it shows it's evil face.


----------



## simi-steading

JillyG said:


> For the record your arguments about giving an inch they take an arm is so misguided and lame. Has not happened and will not happen, but you keep using it if it makes you all happy


REALLY!?!?!! Not happened???

As of now, some people can't even own a .22 because the tube on it holds more than 10 rounds... That's a mile in my eyes.. 

You have to be stupid rich to now own a fully automatic weapon... Partly because of restrictions they put on them as to the date of manufacture, the other reason that you have to apply for a tax stamp... It's a hassle and a hoop, and that's what the government wants.. 

and before you say people don't need more than 10 shots, or a fully auto weapon. think about what the second amendment is all about. Protecting our selves from a tyrannical government.. We're outgunned by our government, and that was the idea of the second.. to make sure we could outgun them... Think cold war.. 

Any more, the tables are tipped, and our government is running all over the top of us.. .They keep taking.. and before long, ,you're gonna look up and our flag will change from red white and blue to strictly red...


----------



## Ozarks Tom

JillyG said:


> I guess I thought they were a few who would rather be represented by the sane gun owners instead of the nuts. The crazies who think it is a good idea to strap an AR-15 to your back and go to the park, or the teen who wants to go out with a bang and be immortalized or the fools who thought aiming weapons at
> federal agents was a good idea, these are the people you wish to represent you, so be it.
> 
> For the record your arguments about giving an inch they take an arm is so misguided and lame. Has not happened and will not happen, but you keep using it if it makes you all happy


Funny, your original post was asking for reasoned thought. Didn't spot it for trolling, but should have.


----------



## unregistered41671

Libs are the same the world over, even if they claim to own and shoot guns.


----------



## Cookie2

I will point out that the college kid that drove around Santa Barbara running over people, stabbing them and then shooting three of them, was doing all this in a "gun-free zone" and lived in a county where the sheriff refuses to issue concealed carry permits to anyone.

In every instance of mass shootings, there were no "good guys with a gun" there to stop the shooter from doing more damage.


----------



## Sam Boggs

The largest mass murder's in history was done with Zyklon B.
Sam


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Sam Boggs said:


> The largest mass murder's in history was done with Zyklon B.
> Sam


Not true. 
Look at what Stalin did just by deciding who had a "right" to some of the potatoes and who didn't. 
The worst mass-murders in history have always been conducted with the same simple instrument: control.


----------



## JJ Grandits

That's all our liberal friends want.


----------



## Jolly

crispin said:


> I haven't lived in the state in which my 1 and only arrest was for over a decade.
> 
> What I would like to understand is how a minor drug charge over 20 years ago makes me a danger to the public and I should forever until I die be prohibited from owning a gun.
> 
> However, I am allowed to own chainsaws, knives, large rocks, and cars, all extremely dangerous if used incorrectly.
> 
> Tell me how the the "if you are a felon you cannot own guns" makes any sense?


 I'm more politically conservative than most. But wrapped up in that conservatism is also a belief in redemption. I firmly believe that when a person pays his dues to society, he should have all the rights of any other citizen.

That doesn't say penalties shouldn't be harsh or swiftly enforced. Just that when a penalty has been served, no residue should exist.


----------



## watcher

JJ Grandits said:


> I can not see why any person who has been convicted of a non violent felony should lose their right to be armed. When you pay your price to society, you paided your price. When you are again a free citizen, you are a FREE citizen.


As a convicted person you have already shown a tendency to ignore the law. That makes you a less trustable, for lack of a better term, person. Think about this. If you can prove that you have turned your life around you can apply to have your rights reinstated.


----------



## watcher

Ok I didn't read all the post, too many and too little time tonight but. . .

No right is 100%. Your right to free speech is limited by slander, and other, laws because your the right to free speech ends when it results in the damage to others. 

Now when it comes to weapons, IMO, citizens should have free access and the freedom to carry any weapon any law enforcement agency has access to. We should also have that same access and freedom for any small arm the military has. We should have very little limits on any other weapons and/or weapon systems the military has. Money is going to limit how many people can own and operate a main battle tank.


----------



## StL.Ed

watcher said:


> ... Money is going to limit how many people can own and operate a main battle tank.


But, if you're interested, there is an auction coming up in July
*Not your usual auction â tanks, a missile launcher, armored personnel carriers up for sale.*
http://blog.sfgate.com/topdown/2014...ed-personnel-carriers-up-for-sale/#21425101=0

:grin:


----------



## PrettyPaisley

You strap a gun to your back and walk around the park for the same reason I stuck a baby on my boob and walked around a park. Because we are so freaked out by what should be NORMAL in society somebody with some courage has to do something to shake up the zombies. You may fear a responsible gun owner the same way someone else fears a well nourished baby - but that is something *you* must work through if you value your freedom.


----------



## poorboy

We already have unconstitutional gun laws, we don't need more..."shall not be infringed" has already happened...maybe we need to chuck the whole constitution(that's sarcasm for the obtuse)


----------



## Cornhusker

JillyG said:


> For the record your arguments about giving an inch they take an arm is so misguided and lame. Has not happened and will not happen, but you keep using it if it makes you all happy


It hasn't happened here...yet
England, Australia and I believe Canada has faced confiscation preceded by registration.
I'm sure there are other countries


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

you know the interesting thing , Canada spent many billions of dollars on a 20 some year run of long gun registry , then abandoned it recently it because it didn't work it didn't change crime 


as a matter of fact almost every state sponsored genocide in the past hundred years started with a commonsense registration , then a confiscation , then the eradication of a ethnic, religions or political group.


----------



## Allen W

The individual who committed this crime was a very mentally disturbed individual who could have killed and injured just as many people by driving his car into a crowd.

WHY do we continually focus on the GUN and not the PERSON pulling the trigger? 

I don't believe their was any thing on this young mans record that would have prevented him from buying a gun, but I haven't kept up with this case real good either.


----------



## Glade Runner

JillyG said:


> I guess I thought they were a few who would rather be represented by the sane gun owners instead of the nuts. The crazies who think it is a good idea to strap an AR-15 to your back and go to the park, or the teen who wants to go out with a bang and be immortalized or the fools who thought aiming weapons at
> federal agents was a good idea, these are the people you wish to represent you, so be it.
> 
> For the record your arguments about giving an inch they take an arm is so misguided and lame. Has not happened and will not happen, but you keep using it if it makes you all happy


Yeah, I wondered how long it would take for the hardcore lefty to come out. You need to take your trolling back to Politics where your Marxist inclinations are well known. Knew this was bogus as soon as you posted.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

I read a very interesting Article that was printed in a normally very anti gun rag although this was apparently a nationally distributed writer that each paper just put a different picture with the article , they were of course asking why as a culture we would let a tiny minority of mentally disturbed people hold us hostage 

they were getting at the idea while people are going around deciding what things caused this wacko or that wacko to commit murderous acts 

the fingers have been pointed at the movies , the aurora co shooter apparently thought he was the joker or something and dyed his hair orange and made booby traps in his apartment inline with the Joker character

the Santa Barbra shooter was apparently frustrated by not getting the girl like in some movies and tv shows they cited 

apparently blame was put on violent video games for another mass shooter 

they went on to say is that the masses shouldn't be punished for what makes a tiny minority of mentally disturbed people go off 


the writer is making the great argument for why we shouldn't alter culture then falls deeply into hypocrisy when he starts into how controlling guns needs to be addressed while of course completely forgetting that California is one of the most regulated states with 10 day waiting periods for handguns , registration , as one other poster pointed out if you purchased a legal gun in CA the cops have almost instant access to make model serial number date of purchase and yet they fail to see that the Santa Barbra shooter passed this not once but 3 times waiting 10 days each time to get his guns , the the restrictions they want to impose on the whole country do not work so why in an epic move of hypocrisy would you suggest that popular media culture shouldn't be held hostage yet constitutionally protected right to arms of defense and right to a defense culture should be.

here is a link to the article http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinio...d-country--hostage-b99280707z1-261313281.html


----------



## Guest




----------



## bluetogreens

crispin said:


> OP - i have a question for you.
> 
> First let me tell you a story.
> 
> 22 years ago, 3 days after my 18th birthday I was involved in a fist fight. There were Police nearby and I was arrested. Upon my arrest it was found that I had a small amount of Cocaine (less than 1 gram) in my pocket. I was charged with possession of a controlled substance, a felony. I ended up taking a Plea Deal and getting 3 years Probation.
> 
> That was 22 years ago. Since then I have NEVER been in trouble. I have a wife, children, own my home, enjoy gardening, camping, and my animals.
> 
> Based on your reasoning I should not be allowed to defend my wife, my home, my children, my possessions. If someone kicks in my door and wants to cause harm to my family I should have no way to protect them / myself, correct?
> 
> Is that what you are saying? I am prohibited from owning guns. I am prohibited from the ability to provide protection to my family because as a poor and dumb child I made a mistake. Is that how you feel?
> 
> We need stronger gun laws to keep people like me away from weapons, right?
> 
> I broke the law 22 years ago, I am a real menace to society, right?
> 
> tell me how these "gun laws' and 'restrictions' make any sense. tell me how they protect you from animals like me.
> 
> Real criminals do not care about laws. Look at Chicago for anxample. legal gun ownership has been highly restricted for decades, yet Chicago has a very high rate of shootings. How is that possible with such tight restrictions on firearms? It is because criminals, real criminals do not care about laws and no law passed would stop them from obtaining and using guns.
> 
> I would love to hear your side. I would like to understand how laws make us safer.



There is no gun show loop-hole, there is no "common sense" gun control measure period. I notice the trolling op has left the building so ill stop there in regard to that, but I wanted again to point out the obvious in regards to crispins question.

Yuo were 18, you were breaking the law, the law at the time stated if convicted of a felony, you loose certain rights including the right to gun ownership, you apparantly were found guilty as to your statement, therefor part and parcel with your sentence. feel free to petition for your rights back, feel free to petition for the law to be changed. 

I happen to agree with the law, but if it were changed, such is life. Why is it so hard for folks to understand, there are some in this thread who made statements to the effect of " if we only enforced the laws on the books" well the law regarding felons and gun ownership IS a law on the books, lets ENFORCE IT WHILE FIGHTING TO CHANGE IT FOR WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE IS AN ACCEPTABLE TIME FRAME OR MEASURED LEVEL OF FELONY. 

My mother cannot own guns, she doesnt and I lock mine up when they come to visit. I also do not allow her un supervised access to my children or my property. Her crimes had nothing to do with guns or children and I was not "abused" heavily as a child (i got spanking and a lot of them cause I was a hard headed boy), I do what I do, because her history dictates that she has a history of extremely poor decision making, that she is ineligible to ever be fully trusted again. That is a simple fact, she did her time, she "paid her debts" in regards to the fines and probationary period yet the whole time SHE STILL USED DRUGS, so again bad decision making. 

I am not a saint, i stand on no pedestal, but so many say that we do a poor job of enforcing laws in this country and then wanna make exceptions for friends or family or someone who "seems all right", exceptions should truly be exceptions and not expectations might go a long way, and judges should have the ability to apply punishments in measure, but when laws are broken and clearly there are CLEARLY DEFINED AND WELL KNOWN repercussions to them, they need to be enforced.


----------



## gunsmithgirl

> As gun owners are we doing ourselves a disservice by rejecting any and all gun control laws?


No you would be doing your country a disservice by accepting them and not trying to eliminate the ones already in place.




> What is wrong with having to do a background check, and closing the gun show loopholes? Won't that go a long way in preventing someone who should not have access to guns from getting them? Certainly not all, but maybe some. If you have nothing to hide what is the issue?


Seriously, Have you ever even been to a gun show or is that just what you heard on the news? There is no gun show loophole!!! It will not prevent crazies from getting guns, just hamper law abiding folks who go about obtaining their firearms legally...been proven many of times... I got nothing to hide but....*IT IS NONE OF YOUR (OR THE GOOBERMENTS) BUSINESS WHAT FIREARMS I HAVE!!!!* *SUPPOSED TO BE A FREE COUNTRY RIGHT? *Not free if you go through a mound of paperwork, background checks and B.S. for a god-given right to defend yourself. The second amendment was not made for hunting and shooting rights...but this has been explained before.....


> By not allowing any of these measures are we not just letting the crazies give us all a bad image?


The crazies have already given us a bad image, unfortunately we are creating a society via. public indoctrination centers (public schools) that are creating the type of people who do not think for themselves nor value freedom but rather believe that someone else should defend them from the "crazies" with more (ineffective) laws. 



> I had to get a background check to purchase my guns. I also had to wait 24 hours. But I can not imagine ever needing a gun so badly right now that that becomes a problem.


 Thats great, I personally think that is an infringement upon my freedoms, don't care if I need it in 24 hours or not..didn't think that was for someone else to decide... 



> I just think if gun owners really want the right to have guns they should be the first to make sure those rights are not given too those who do not deserve them.


No I am first to make sure the rights I have are ..wait..what's that.. oh yeah... *NOT INFRINGED UPON!* ya know those freedoms that countless men have died defending....

I draw a hard line with my right to bear arms... I am not compromising on nothing, the laws in place are too restrictive as it is.


----------



## K-9

I realize that this post has pretty well run its course but I still want to throw my 2 cents in. First the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution instructs the Government that it is not to interfere with the right to bear arms, it doesn't say "reasonable" limits, it does say "common sense" restrictions, it says shall not infringe.

Next, what other constitutionally recognized right do you have to jump through hoops to exercise, I don't think there is a free speech permit, or a reasonable search and seizure waiting period, or a restriction on the number of times you can have due process. The reason the attack right now is on the 2nd amendment is it is the pillar that holds all the other amendments in place. If you value freedom and your rights, you should be a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment even if you choose not to own a firearm.

Firearms are the center point of the attack not for protection of the populace because if that was a reason, we would be discussing the regulation of blunt objects such as baseball bats because they are responsible for more deaths each year than firearms according to the Governments own statistics. But while they are deadly, they are of little use in protecting oneself from a tyrannical government which is what the founding fathers had in mind with the 2nd amendment. They speak of a militia, not a shooting club, hunting club, or target shooting club, their intent was clear why they put the 2nd amendment in place. Also if you read some of their writings, they weren't talking only about rifles, handguns, and shotguns in that day, arms referred more to what we would call heavy weapons today ie mortars, and cannons.


----------



## beowoulf90

I haven't read this entire thread, but can say one thing for certain..

If you tell me that you believe and support the 2A and in the same breath say "but". 
Then you truly don't believe in the 2A..

There is nothing more to say..

In 1932 Gun owners "compromised" and allowed "reasonable" gun control by allowing the Government to restrict firearms.
In 1968 Gun owners "compromised" and allowed "reasonable" gun control by allowing the government to restrict firearms
In 1986 Gun owners "compromised" and allowed "reasonable" gun control by allowing the government to restrict firearms
In 1994 Gun owners "compromised" and allowed "reasonable" gun control by allowing the government to restrict firearms

Shall I continue explaining why there is no such thing as "reasonable" Gun Control.

How many times to legal gun owners have to be violated by the Government before the people realize that it isn't about the gun, but about control and the theft of our Freedoms and Liberty?

Apparently a lot of times when so called 2A supporters say "but" 

When you register your 1A then maybe you can talk to me about more gun control. But till then please take a long walk off a short pier, because you are all wet...


----------



## JJ Grandits

I heard the other day that worldwide the United States, in relations to homicides commited ranks number three among all Countries. However, if we subtract the homicide rate from Chicago, detroit, washington DC, and New Orleans, Four cities with very strict gun control, we are then third from the bottom. Gun control does not work. All it does is spread crime, fear and worst of all, total government control. Throughout history, prior to a Countries mass subjugation and extermination of any opposition in it's population, they disarm their citizens. This is not a political view. It's a historical fact.


----------



## Malamute

JillyG said:


> As gun owners are we doing ourselves a disservice by rejecting any and all gun control laws?
> What is wrong with having to do a background check, and closing the gun show loopholes? Won't that go a long way in preventing someone who should not have access to guns from getting them? Certainly not all, but maybe some. If you have nothing to hide what is the issue?
> 
> By not allowing any of these measures are we not just letting the crazies give us all a bad image?
> 
> I had to get a background check to purchase my guns. I also had to wait 24 hours. But I can not imagine ever needing a gun so badly right now that that becomes a problem.
> 
> I just think if gun owners really want the right to have guns they should be the first to make sure those rights are not given too those who do not deserve them.


 
A couple points stand out from the OP. One is the part about "reject any and all gun control laws". I believe the meaning should _any more gun control laws. _The question seems to imply that there are NO gun control laws at the moment, which is a false assumption. I think though, after reading all the comments, that the misrepresentation of the question and issue may not have been unintentional. It's a straw man*. A false premise. There are tons of gun control laws already.

It's already been addressed, but there are already federal laws requiring background checks on buying guns from dealers. It's another misleading question at best.

The co-called "gun show loophole" is another smoke screen, meant to scare the uninformed. It's in the same category as so-called "internet gun sales", which some seem to think one can simply order a gun online and bypass all laws. All gun sales that are related to the internet are still required to adhere to the same laws as any other sale. One cant ship to an individual, and sales have to be done through FFL licensees in interstate sales and shipment. Some states mandate that even private sales have to be run through an FFL dealer, and hence and background check. That hasn't seemed to make any serious dent in their crime issues. Think about that, and why it would be considered common sense to mandate something that hasn't shown to make a difference?

We already have federally mandated background checks for most gun sales, but I'm not sure why all the hoopla about them, they haven't seemed to do much good, many have passed them with no trouble, then gone on to commit multiple murders. Whats all the hype about then?

The initial post of this thread is filled with incorrect assumptions about the law, and the proposed "fixes" to current law. For someone that's supposedly a gun owner and enthusiast, I'm surprised they aren't better informed as to what the actual truth is related to these issues. They condemn anyone that opposes more gun control, calling them "nuts". If you think that creeping, incremental controls haven't happened, you haven't been paying attention (read the attached link, written by an LEO). Things have gotten better recently regarding carry laws, it isn't all doom and gloom, but there are still plenty of people that do not like the idea of people having guns. If you think that each step that's supposed to be the answer is all they want, I really think you haven't been paying attention, or are being naive. It's predictable that each proposed new law won't do what its supposed to, so when they fail, we obviously we just need more laws, right?

I have some serious issues with the meaning of so called "compromise" that keeps being bandied about in the gun discussions in the media. I saw a good commentary on it. Interesting reading.

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html



*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

I have a compromise since we have been giving for 80 years we make no change to current gun law on ownership but we get across the board carry in all 50 states and territories of hand guns and vehicle carry of long guns 

this would mean 1 carry license shall issue for all 50 states , the district of Columbia , every territory and no city could block it oh and to get it all you need to do is get your state or any other states license, so if you are a California resident and your state won't issue you a CCL Utah will and then your good to carry in your home state and all the others 

open or concealed holstered handgun 

oh and if you have such a license what ever the gun was manufactured to hold is good to go so if you carry a glock 17 it comes from the factory with a 17 round mag so 17+1 is what you carry , bypassing state to state magazine restrictions 

and since Jersy would like for us to all enter their state with 18 rounds of hollow point ammunition in our carry gun so that they can fine us 500 dollars a round - nope not gonna happen if it is legal for the police force in your home state or any other state to carry it is good for you to carry 

how is that for a compromise

here is your compromise a common sense act to make the streets safer for millions of Americans


----------



## diamondtim

JillyG said:


> I guess I thought they were a few who would rather be represented by the sane gun owners instead of the nuts. The crazies who think it is a good idea to strap an AR-15 to your back and go to the park, or the teen who wants to go out with a bang and be immortalized or the fools who thought aiming weapons at
> federal agents was a good idea, these are the people you wish to represent you, so be it.
> 
> For the record your arguments about giving an inch they take an arm is so misguided and lame. Has not happened and will not happen, but you keep using it if it makes you all happy


Why do the rest of you chase the bait from this anti-American, Socialist, Progressive, Troll?:smack


----------



## BadFordRanger

Possum Belly said:


> I would say that most anti-gunners would have to do some research to answer your question.


There is probably more than 90% of people who have committed serious felonies such as armed robbery, rape, bodily harm, and that list goes on, who right now have a gun in their position and all the laws in the world won't stop them from getting them if they want one! 

We have a page in the Sunday paper here that is called crime stoppers! They list all the people that commit any crime, let me rephrase that, who are charged with any crime, even before they go to court, and more than half of the people, regardless of what they are charged with, are also charged with having a gun after being a convicted felon! 
You can bet that they didn't get the guns from a dealer who did a back ground check. 


Godspeed

Ranger


----------

