[Serious] Can we have a discussion about anti-gun control laws? Educate me.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
My views on gun control, as stated by a meme:

As long as we have juries, you can keep all your cake.

the way I see it, the constitution isn`t outdated law enforcement is.

when the constitution was written there was no need for background checks and other nonsense because if you murdered someone they would hang you. there is no possibility that a dead murderer will ever get their hands on a gun again.
no need to check to see if someone who is buying a gun is a convicted murderer because all the convicted murderers have been hanged.
punishments were harsh and carried out quickly,as an example:

Often the pillory was just part of a package of punishments. On April 23, 1771, the Essex Gazette of Newport, Rhode Island, reported that "William Carlisle was convicted of passing Counterfeit Dollars, and sentenced to stand One Hour in the Pillory on Little-Rest Hill . . . to have both ears cropped, to be branded on both cheeks with the Letter R (for Rogue), and to pay a fine of One Hundred Dollars and Cost of Prosecution." It could have been worse. Continental paper money usually carried this line: "To counterfeit this bill is Death."

the only reason we need background checks and other limits to our 2nd amendment right is because criminals are getting a slap on the hand and released to commit more crimes. give the criminals a proper punishment and when they get out they won`t even think about committing more crimes and carrying illegal weapons.

if criminals can`t be trusted to not commit more crimes then they aren`t trustworthy enough to be let out of prison.
nobody has a problem with honest people owning guns but everyone has a problem with criminals owning guns.
abridging the rights of honest people to own guns isn`t going to stop criminals from illegally owning guns.

a reply to: fencesitter85

I'll bite.

The Second Amendment does indeed protect the right of Americans to bear arms. That means that you can have weapons for hunting and personal protection. So, hunting rifles and small arms. Maybe marksmen rifles for recreational shooting. This should not cover military ordinance. No automatic machine guns. No explosives. No cop-killer ammunition. Those guns are designed to kill lots of people. They aren't for hunting. And if you need to worry about killing lots of people in order to protect yourself, your family and your property; then you should be working with local, state and federal law enforcement.

If you are part of your local militia, your militia should be allowed to maintain and use military ordinance. But when those items are not in use, they should be stored in your local armory building. You shouldn't take a bazooka home, "just in case."

Beyond that, I personally believe that local legislation can decide how to regulate who gets firearms. As with any legislation, the government needs to prove that the law serves the public good. Gun control laws in New York City will not and should not match the gun control laws in rural Idaho. I do not have a problem with registration or conceal/carry laws. Criminals who use firearms during a crime should not be allowed to legally carry guns every again. After that, I think that guns should be as tightly regulated as motor vehicles.

a reply to: blueyedevilwoman

As long as we have juries, you can keep all your cake.

That simply isn't true.

For 80 plus years all it takes is a mere 51 votes to trash an inalienable right.

When it comes to rights, many opponents of gun rights see responsibility differently.

They see the government as being responsible for policing individual actions in regards to guns.

Where many gun proponents see the individual as being responsible for actions in regards to guns.

I lean more towards the latter.

People (anti-gun) are afraid of other people who are armed. That's why they want government to control guns.

It's interesting to observe that they have more faith in government than the individual.

a reply to: lincolnparadox

The Second Amendment does indeed protect the right of Americans to bear arms. That means that you can have weapons for hunting and personal protection. So, hunting rifles and small arms. Maybe marksmen rifles for recreational shooting. This should not cover military ordinance. No automatic machine guns. No explosives. No cop-killer ammunition. Those guns are designed to kill lots of people. They aren't for hunting. And if you need to worry about killing lots of people in order to protect yourself, your family and your property; then you should be working with local, state and federal law enforcement.

The second makes no distinction.

The second clearly talked about two separate but equal things.

The right of the states to have militias.

The right of the people.

To be armed without infringement.

Not a word about hunting.

a reply to: DBCowboy

People (anti-gun) are afraid of other people who are armed. That's why they want government to control guns.

Only when someone like Trump isn't running the show, and are out in record numbers buying GUNZ and building bunkers.

When the ANTIG's are in charge whole different story.

Too much to catch up on now, but for anyone joining late, my main point is regarding the 2nd which refers to a "well regulated militia" regarding gun ownership, and how an individual maintaining a personal armoury of assault weaponry does not fall into this definition.

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Too much to catch up on now, but for anyone joining late, my main point is regarding the 2nd which refers to a "well regulated militia" regarding gun ownership, and how an individual maintaining a personal armoury of assault weaponry does not fall into this definition.

You're ignoring another part of the Amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Bold is mine.

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Too much to catch up on now, but for anyone joining late, my main point is regarding the 2nd which refers to a "well regulated militia" regarding gun ownership, and how an individual maintaining a personal armoury of assault weaponry does not fall into this definition.

It does. The sheriff, govenors, congress, can call us into action at a moments notice. 24/7 365.

I dont understand your question.

This is modern day Sparta.

USA

a reply to: CB328

Hahahahaha,as usual liberals think the exact opposite of the reality.

Gun advocates doubt care about the lives of children, lol, yeah that's why they want teachers to be able to arm themselves to protect the children.


Jaden

The right acknowledged in the US Constitution at the 2nd Amendment goes far back into the English Common Law, so it's entirely appropriate for a UK citizen to comment. Jesus.

At the time this Amendment was added, the acknowledgement was that an American citizen had the right and responsibility to arm themselves to protect their home, their property, their family ... and by extenstion, their town, their State and their Nation.

The 2nd was not referring ONLY to the militia, but it did include the reference therein.

The idea in the early US was that there would BE NO STANDING ARMY. Period. Just as we had a Citizen Commander in Chief, so also were the forces of the Nation (and the States) to be made up of the People.

Of course, anyone who has studied history knows that that is idealistic not realistic.

So, in over 200 years, we've organized the militias and the Army much differently than the Founders envisioned. I would argue a lot of what we do today, militarily (and have done for most of our history) is not technically keeping with the Constitution, BUT, the men who wrote it intended it to be a document that could live and grow with the changing times.

What we have now, in 2016 is an absolute, unquestionable right AS CITIZENS to hold armaments that will allow us to protect ourselves, our family, our homes, etc. How that extends to particular TYPES of firearms is debatable as well as the dual CITIZENSHIP we all hold (in the US and in our State), and these are the areas in which the STATES should decide for themselves (regarding concealed weapons, assault weapons, etc.).

Don't forget the Tenth when you're quoting the Second. (Or the First, Fifth and Fourteenth, LOL). (Heck, just remember all of them! )

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Too much to catch up on now, but for anyone joining late, my main point is regarding the 2nd which refers to a "well regulated militia" regarding gun ownership, and how an individual maintaining a personal armoury of assault weaponry does not fall into this definition.

Well regulated militia meant trained to be combat effective.

'Aim Small miss small'.

Not the bullsnip we see on the nightly news over in the middle east with dudes and their 'assault weapons'

Holding them out from a corner and spraying and praying they hit something.

Some awesome posts guys, thank you - I particularly enjoyed TheRedneck's response; I appreciate the detail and have learned some things.

But in response to the patronising post below:

originally posted by: blueyedevilwoman

Why?
Couples fight.
Some do alot more than others.
So unless he or she actually shot the other one, who cares.

You realize women are not above telling lies about the husband?

2. Depression - not overboard at all. It affects a hell of a lot of people and makes them act in a way which is often not in accordance with how they would normally act when not depressed. This is a fact.

Why do you care?
You the boss of everybody?

What about ropes and sheets and belts......all very hazardous to depressed persons.

3. Giving the Govt an inch meaning they take everything - assumption; no basis in fact, just your opinion, sorry.

Thanks all
FS85

Just your opinion too.

You know something we dont?

1. If you threaten someone with a gun during a domestic argumnent, you're not responsible enough to own a gun. Simple as. Yes people argue but if you think it's acceptable to wave a gun in your wife's face during a row, you have a problem.

2. Why do I care? It's a discussion forum. I'm here to discuss my views. As for whether I think I'm the boss of everyone, that's a petulant remark designed to try and rile me, so all I'll say is stay on topic; this is not the mud pit.

3. Obviously it's my opinion. But in the absence of the government even coming the slightest bit close to actually taking your guns, the guy's opinion remains rooted firmly in paranoia, while mine is based on the reality before us.

Thanks
Fs85

a reply to: fencesitter85

3. Obviously it's my opinion. But in the absence of the government even coming the slightest bit close to actually taking your guns, the guy's opinion remains rooted firmly in paranoia, while mine is based on the reality before us.

Actually they have.

The only 'assault weapons' Americans have access today are pre 1986 machine guns. Which is tightly regulated more than prescription drugs.

That were actually designed for WAR.

Every single thing made after 1986 was never designed for warfare, and not carried by any standing military in the world.

So no your opinion is not based on reality, and furthermore no real interest in having a 'real' conversation.

originally posted by: neo96.

Not the bullsnip we see on the nightly news over in the middle east with dudes and their 'assault weapons'

Holding them out from a corner and spraying and praying they hit something.

As an aside, this always surprises me. If someone's shooting at me, I'm pretty sure I'd be firing carefully down the sights to conserve ammo and maximise my chance of hitting something .. surely spray and pray only works for a few seconds of covering fire?

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Too much to catch up on now, but for anyone joining late, my main point is regarding the 2nd which refers to a "well regulated militia" regarding gun ownership, and how an individual maintaining a personal armoury of assault weaponry does not fall into this definition.

Whats your definition of assault weaponry.

You want limits on types of firearms and numbers?

Take away semi automatics?

Restrictions on magazine capacity?

What would you do if you were able to make the rules?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: fencesitter85

3. Obviously it's my opinion. But in the absence of the government even coming the slightest bit close to actually taking your guns, the guy's opinion remains rooted firmly in paranoia, while mine is based on the reality before us.

Actually they have.

The only 'assault weapons' Americans have access today are pre 1986 machine guns. Which is tightly regulated more than prescription drugs.

That were actually designed for WAR.

Everything single thing made after 1986 was never designed for warfare, and not carried by any standing military in the world.

So no your opinion is not based on reality, and furthermore no real interest in having a 'real' conversation.

The government has not tried to take all of your guns away. This is a fact.

And I've done nothing but have polite, respectful and honest discussion from the off. So no amount of emotional knee-jerk baiting will get me to enter into a slanging match with you. People can discuss subjects they're not fully aligned on without trying to wind the other person up. Save that for the cess/mudpit.

Fs85

a reply to: fencesitter85

Funny since gun control is a emo knee jerk response for something the law already address's.

The law says the people can't go around shooting someone else.

MURDER.

So what to do ?

Infringe the rights of every single Americans for crimes the majority will never commit.

Rinse and Repeat.

The story of gun control for over 80 years.