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

originally posted by: neo96
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.

How exactly are your rights being infringed. You can buy and own guns.

a reply to: fencesitter85

The NRA has convinced many that "shall not be infringed" means that no law, controlling any aspect of gun ownership, can be enforced by any government (even though the Tenth Amendment very clearly says that the States can and should.)

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Second Amendment has no exceptions.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Why do we need more obstacle to exercise our rights? Especially, if the problem we face is really not an epidemic?

a reply to: fencesitter85

How exactly are your rights being infringed. You can buy and own guns

Not without the states permission.

ONLY those people that have lived a perfect little life.

They get to say how many rounds my firearm can fire with the squeeze of the trigger.

They get to say how many rounds my firearm can hold.

They gets to say hey Neo if you want to make your gun quiet your going to have to get the states permission again and wait months for it's approval.

Then the $200 tax stamp which is a poll tax(declared unconstutional) by the way.

The background check declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL 90s Supreme Court ruling.

But hey WHO CARES.

It's not like there isn't a LAW that says murder is illegal to begin with.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Second Amendment has no exceptions.

The Supreme Court says otherwise.

So does the Tenth Amendment.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: fencesitter85

The NRA has convinced many that "shall not be infringed" means that no law, controlling any aspect of gun ownership, can be enforced by any government (even though the Tenth Amendment very clearly says that the States can and should.)

The 14th spelled it out clearly.

But hey blame the NRA!

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.

www.law.cornell.edu...

But why let the GD piece of paper get in the way.

a reply to: fencesitter85

What I want everyone here to think about because goodness this is getting old now does not matter whether the gun it a semi-auto, full auto or an anti aircraft missile. If you have the right to bare arms, do so because living in the UK not having the ability to protect myself against a threat that might and could happen any day to me, my loved ones or my home I hate the idea of only having the police to offer support to me as the Police do not help. They are phoned, the action is completed in around 30 minutes or more. The act, has already happened, lives ruined or lives lost. How can the police repeal this fallout? Nothing. I say keep your gun laws, protect them from being taken from you, as you will be enforced to not have the ability to defend yourself in the future from your own government.

As I was saying, whether its... semi-auto, full auto or an anti aircraft missile. It is a firearm, if they ban an assult rifle but sure they will ban your handgun. They both kill, it is the human using it thats kills. It does not matter whether it fires quick or slow. I know most trained in using firearms could clean a room just as well with a slow firing handgun, just as much as a assult rifle.

a reply to: Gryphon66

"nor prohibited by it to the States"

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"


2nd Amendment makes no distinction from Fed or State.

there is very little difference between these two guns... .but to many the second picture would be considered an assault weapon.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Second Amendment has no exceptions.

Some people just can't comprehend the word infringe.

Two different words that mean the same thing in the IX.

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

www.law.cornell.edu...

Infringe,deny,disparage.

As Voltaire once said. It's difficult to free slaves from the chains they revere.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

there is very little difference between these two guns... .but to many the second picture would be considered an assault weapon.

Right because it's black and looks scary.

Bunch of 'racist xenophobes' the anti gunners.

You can repackage it as much as you like. But the 2nd says you can have guns. That's the situation. If the govt decides you can't have high capacity mags because they're entirely unnecessary, I don't see the problem.

And I stand by my earlier comments that anyone who thinks background checks are a bad thing is either engaging in petty partisan politics, or is exceptionally naive. There is no way in this world that it could be called irrational to force background checks prior to being able to buy guns. It's simple common sense. I'd much rather live in s society where the mentally ill can'tgo buy a gun without any scrutiny. That would be senseless.

Nobody is taking your guns. Nobody is going to take your guns. Partisan politics and NRA rhetoric helps nobody.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Gryphon66

"nor prohibited by it to the States"

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"


2nd Amendment makes no distinction from Fed or State.

No, but the Constitution does make a distinction. The right of American citizens to bear arms is "enshrined" in the Second.

The right of the States to make laws regarding reasonable limitations on weapon types, the nature of "citizenship" etc. is very firmly guaranteed in the Tenth.

We can't pick and choose, we have to take the Constitution as a whole; that also includes the provision for the Supreme Court interpreting how the Constitution applies (see Article III.)

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: neo96
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.

How exactly are your rights being infringed. You can buy and own guns.

I am going to drift off topic slightly but I feel the two are related... I know people who served in the Army went to war, were injured in a combat zone, and the fed with the backing of the VA have tried to have their constitutional right stripped from them because if the injuries they sustained while defending the constitution (yea I know some people are going to flip over that statement but I dont care), the claim is its to protect the vet from hurting themselves...

YET... at the same time they do not get prompt access to the doctors they need and while waiting sometimes for months while in pain the very same VA that claims they took their guns for their own well being... will pump them full of opiates to deal with the pain.

This has played out all across our country in the last 16 years of war, and is a prime example of why I do not trust the fed when they say its for the best.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Depends what meets the definition of mentally ill....

Under the rule, Social Security beneficiaries with psychiatric disabilities who are assigned a money manager for their disability benefits would be reported to the FBI's background check database as people ineligible to purchase firearms.

a reply to: fencesitter85

You may be noticing an almost religious zeal here among some.

This demonstrates the successful marketing strategies of the NRA in the last 40-some-odd years.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So basically the 10th trumps the 2nd?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: fencesitter85

You may be noticing an almost religious zeal here among some.

This demonstrates the successful marketing strategies of the NRA in the last 40-some-odd years.

Go ahead and name names.

if you dare.

Speaking for myself.

Not a card carrying due paying member of the NRA.

Just a reader of the Bill of Rights.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: fencesitter85

You may be noticing an almost religious zeal here among some.

This demonstrates the successful marketing strategies of the NRA in the last 40-some-odd years.

What would you like to see?

No Semi Auto's?

Whats your actual position on this?