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

If I had children, for example, I'd want to know that mentally ill people can't just go and buy a gun without some checks

Human life, even children's lives have no meaning to gun people. Well except for a campaign slogan at election time.

a reply to: neo96

Oh, this I know. Otherwise ordinary folks with nothing more than a speeding ticket are denied, legally if not morally, the second most important fundamental Constitutional right.

a reply to: CB328

Excuse me? ...and by what evidence do you come to that conclusion? Other than trolling, I mean.

This topic is actually why I joined ATS back when I did. Some of the posters in these type of threads really bugged me...

First of all inspite of many attempts.... looks do not make something an assault rifle.. A AR-15 is not a fully automatic AR-16.. Even though they look identical to the casual observer. Different caliber and the all important selector switch (Ar-16) which goes safe, semi, and auto for the amount of rounds the gun will fire every time the trigger is pulled. The AR-15 the civilians purchase have two positions, safe and fire, which means one round per trigger pull. People in many states can buy a fully automatic weapon but with all the stuff required it will cost you BIG BUCKS... I actually know a lawyer with a fully functional 50 Cal. Machine gun. At 5 to 7 dollars a round; for most people a day at the range shooting the weapon would put them in the poor house.

One of the problems with blanket laws are they make one law to fit everyone.. Should someone living on a ranch or farm who uses a gun to protect live stock or their home be under the same laws as someone in a housing project ? Someone living on the border and having illegals being escorted by armed mules fall under the same laws ? Just thoughts about laws and not trying to start an argument one way or the other.. The agenda 2030 people want us all in cites anyway..

When the Second amendment was written the weapon of the day was the musket.. Many of those weapons were in the .44 to 50+ caliber range which when you were hit would literately take your arm or leg off it the round hit you in the right place. IMO the second was always about citizens being armed with the same equipment the military would have. Great law for those who had just fought a war of independence and knew a little history.

You can buy an F-16 or just about any other aircraft if you can fly and maintain it (look at EAA war birds of America).. Just like there were private Man of war ships back in the day with cannons and all.. By the way we can purchase cannons, tanks, and other military hardware if you have the bucks and the desire..there are collectors all over America. The problem is getting the ammo..

As far as the US citizens standing up and trying to go head to head with the US military...only fools would try... However an underground group of dedicated individuals who were in a regime change operation could make any government very uncomfortable to the point of finally being ousted... Many examples of that...one was Cuba back in the day... The CIA darn sure thinks it works even today with their regime change policies all over the world.

When I was young a felony charge was appropriate in most cases.... today they hand them out like candy... No voting rights and no gun ownership.. However how many times have you heard of a prior felon committing an armed robbery ? Laws are for law abiding citizens.. Felons and crooks just do their own thing... Which brings to mind how many other times have you heard of a robbery, rape, etc, being stopped by an armed individual who is not a LEO but someone who is armed for just such event ? There are many more than you will ever see in the main talking head propaganda news.. Even ATS has threads you can look at/read.

I have no problem with back ground checks providing the check is not used like the IRS was against political foes or other examples of well connected crooks getting away with a slang expression of murder.. Lady justice is supposed to be blind and the justice is equal for all regardless of station in life... we can all see how that is not working like TPTB want you to believe or propaganda put forth in our schools these days.

Many in America have come to realize anything the government touches even with good intentions becomes a bloated bureaucratic mess that serves very few except those at the top and the many employees it takes to enforce the new regulation or law. 10,000 new IRS employees were hired according to many news articles just to manage Obama care. What a mess that has turned out to be..

Obama gun grab ? I will give him this..."He was the best Gun salesman America has ever seen." I was moving overseas and sold my guns mostly to LEOs and ICE people for a profit... Thank you Mr. Obama..

It is 04:30 here and I have not had my required amount of coffee yet... so I am quite sure I have missed several talking points... but I am up and out for a Golf registration and tournament so I need to be exiting this thread and my house..

Oh before I leave.. A pistol in the states that cost $325 can be legally purchased in Asia by a rich local native for a little over $3000 USD by the time the paperwork is finished.. See that keeps the guns out of the yokels and only the rich can buy one.. Yet even in the sticks the farmers have weapons... and no they are not legal; but they have them.. Nor does it stop insurgents, radicals, bomb makers and drug runners from being well armed and committing mayhem when they feel like it. Again laws are for law abiding citizens.. I would bet the Mexican Cartels would love to see the citizens of America disarmed and that is but one small group not counting the gangs and others who would love the free rains of terror they could inflict if it were not for those pesky guns and America's second amendment.

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: fencesitter85

Excuse the question, but isn't this just paranoia? For 8 years these forums were full of "Obama is going to take our guns!" - which never happened

That's because congress blocked the over 100 plus attempts.

Everything suggested in that article sounds incredibly reasonable to me... suspected terrorists? People at gun shows? Hell yes they should have background checks. 100%.

So VIOLATING peoples constitutional Rights sounds reasonable ?

Not to me.

And the cherry on top.

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.

en.wikipedia.org...

Gun Control is the biggest troll there is.

So you don't think increased checks on people on terrorism watch lists are wise...?

Again you've still not addressed the 'Well regulated militia' point. You're talking about constitutional rights. The constitutional right relates to a well regulated militia. Ol' Zeke waving his AR16 around in his back yard is not a well-regulated miltia, that's my point.

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.

Notice well regulated militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms are both in there.

Why did you omit that?

a reply to: CB328

Human life, even children's lives have no meaning to gun people

Says the anti gun/PRO abortion crowd.

Epic display of cognitive dissonance.

originally posted by: CB328

If I had children, for example, I'd want to know that mentally ill people can't just go and buy a gun without some checks

Human life, even children's lives have no meaning to gun people. Well except for a campaign slogan at election time.

The exact opposite of what you just said is true.

Minus the partisan snip at the end.

You have no idea.

Firearms save way more children than they have ever harmed and I am living testament to that.

a reply to: verschickter

Yes and your point is? The point I was making is that there should be no qualification needed for weapon ownership. If the old lady wants to go buy an ak because she wants it to match her quilt, that is totally okay too. Why would you want to make more laws if there is no real epidemic. Are gun crime increasing? No, they are trending down for decades even when there are more guns. So what is it really you are after if not disarmament?

a reply to: blueyedevilwoman

Firearms save way more children than they have ever harmed and I am living testament to that.

They also saved quite a few women from getting raped.

a reply to: joemoe

What about the 100% blind 40 year old, he has to right to weave a gun around or not? Having the right, does not always make it right.

a reply to: joemoe

What about someone not mental fit, right to own a gun?
What about the 100% blind 40 year old, he has to right to weave a gun around or not? Having the right, does not always make it right.

a reply to: joemoe
strange double post.

a reply to: verschickter
Yes absolutely. There are blind gun owners in the US, yet when was the last time you heard of them shooting someone. Is it an epidemic? No ... if they are law abiding, there should be no problem. Maybe he/she likes collecting weapons.

originally posted by: joemoe
There are bling gun owners in the US...

I'm one. I have a gold-plated, iced out Desert Eagle .50 cal that would make any rapper swoon.

originally posted by: CB328

If I had children, for example, I'd want to know that mentally ill people can't just go and buy a gun without some checks

Human life, even children's lives have no meaning to gun people. Well except for a campaign slogan at election time.

That's just stupid.

a reply to: verschickter

What about the 100% blind 40 year old

LOL they probably would be in more control and aim better than others due to sensitivity and heightened sense of hearing and feeling.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: fencesitter85

S&F - now sit back and watch the parade of wingnuts

Dont forget sissies

a reply to: Deaf Alien

What about the 100% blind 40 year old

They need to watch Donnie Yen in Rogue one then.

Blind is a state of mind.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: fencesitter85

Background checks can be dangerous. Especially with the conditions being arbitrary.

Imagine background checks for any other right.

Like and intelligence and aptitude test for prospective parents, maybe some DNA screening too.
Not exactly kidding, it'd solve a lot of potential problems if reproduction were regulated, ask the Chinese.
Not advocating, just sayin...

ganjoa

a reply to: neo96

"Blind Fury" would be a perfect movie to watch.