Common sense gun control laws?

MonacoMike said:
I have absolutely no interest in exchange. For the last eighty years there has been no exchange it is just take, take, take. It is time to stop taking rights from the people and stop the evil ones…
Click to expand...

Not being a smart ass but what rights have Americans given up in the last 80 years?
We spend our winters in Florida, own a house there.
Other then the weather, no snow, we don’t notice much difference then in Canada and feel right at home.
We have made good American friends but don't talk politics.
Same as in Canada we don’t put ourselves in dangerous positions, ie venture into wrong neighbourhoods at night etc.
We know about your gun laws and realize that probably almost everyone has a gun in their car and/or home but have never actually seen one.
As most people are wearing shorts and T shirts I cannot imagine them having concealed weapons.
I know we won’t feel comfortable if there is open carry but that is because we don’t have the guns in Canada that you guys have and am not used to seeing them.
In fact, the only hand gun I’ve ever seen was at a gun show in Florida and have never actually held one.
I understand that in the US owning a gun is your right and in Canada it is a privilege.
But sure is terrible to hear and read about the mass shootings, school children being killed, wanting to have teachers armed etc.
We sure don’t see that in Canada and hope we never do.
 
BEH said:
Not being a smart ass but what rights have Americans given up in the last 80 years?
We spend our winters in Florida, own a house there.
Other then the weather, no snow, we don’t notice much difference then in Canada and feel right at home.
We have made good American friends but don't talk politics.
Same as in Canada we don’t put ourselves in dangerous positions, ie venture into wrong neighbourhoods at night etc.
We know about your gun laws and realize that probably almost everyone has a gun in their car and/or home but have never actually seen one.
As most people are wearing shorts and T shirts I cannot imagine them having concealed weapons.
I know we won’t feel comfortable if there is open carry but that is because we don’t have the guns in Canada that you guys have and am not used to seeing them.
In fact, the only hand gun I’ve ever seen was at a gun show in Florida and have never actually held one.
I understand that in the US owning a gun is your right and in Canada it is a privilege.
But sure is terrible to hear and read about the mass shootings, school children being killed, wanting to have teachers armed etc.
We sure don’t see that in Canada and hope we never do.
Click to expand...
The link and graphics in post #173 answer this question…
 
TimW said:
When, in all the debates, going back at least 50 years probably- just exactly WHAT did the grabbers ever give up except some of what they wanted.
OUR side, ie conservative/rational is the only side to ACTUALLY give anything up.
I for one am sick and tired of that.
If you’re a “fudd” and don’t care about anything but your duck gun, up yours.
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to worry about you TimW...some of your post are stretching the boundaries of 'rational'. Even this post, you're critical of 'gun grabbers' but then you attack your fellow gun owners too, shotguns, the most versatile guns of all.

When some gun owners are acting and speaking like 'nuts' then their input isn't helpful, maybe it should be limited then to BB guns and paintball.
 
FUZOqvKVUAApWn4.jpg
 
Woody said:
I'm beginning to worry about you TimW...some of your post are stretching the boundaries of 'rational'. Even this post, you're critical of 'gun grabbers' but then you attack your fellow gun owners too, shotguns, the most versatile guns of all.

When some gun owners are acting and speaking like 'nuts' then their input isn't helpful, maybe it should be limited then to BB guns and paintball.
Click to expand...

There are those that constantly give in in little increments until their supposedly safe item is next on the chopping block.

That is what a Fudd is.
 
Jeffreyyachtman said:
Yeah. Muskets. Not AR15 baby killers. A shame. Just a shame…
Click to expand...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:. Maybe if those cops in Texas didn't chill in the hallway and do their jobs there'd have been less dead kids at that school.

I assume since you're against ARs you don't plan on calling 911 when you need help?
 
@Jeffreyyachtman Let's take a look at the second amendment.

It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights.

It reads: 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.

Let’s look at all the pieces of that. First we have “A well regulated militia,”. Some have tried to argue that this means the National guard with lots of rules and structure which could potentially be an interpretation if the document was written today however it was written in 1791. In 1791 the term “well regulated” meant functions properly such as saying a well regulated clock, which of course means a clock that keeps good time and functions as it should. Militia in 1791 meant every able bodied male US citizen was expected to be ready and willing to defend their country if the need were to arise. The founding fathers were very much against the nation keeping a standing army of any sort as that is what the British had used to keep the people subjugated at the time. This is shown to some extent by them writing the third amendment which reads; “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” it was common practice by the British to force subjects to provide room and board for soldiers forcibly and without compensation as a duty to the King prior to, and during, the US revolutionary war.

The next part, “being necessary to the security of a free State,”. This is pretty straight forward and simple when considering the punctuation and placement in the amendment. It simply means that the well regulated militia, every able bodied US citizens ready to defend their country in time of need is necessary for the security of the free state.

The last part you must also consider the punctuation in the sentence as well as what it says which is; “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It’s first statement is stating that the people have a right to bear arms. Not right to bear only muskets. The term “arms” is specifically used as it covers all types of arms that an individual could use to defend themselves or their country with. Because ultimately that is what the idea of the militia was, which was for citizens to be able to defend themselves from subjugation by defending their country when the need would arise. The ending of the sentence; “shall not be infringed.” Is very specific. It immediately follows the right to bear arms with a comma and means that the government is barred from taking this right away from the people or infringing upon this right in any way.

There are those who try to argue that this is an obsolete law and doesn’t make sense with modern times because we now have standing Armies and National Guards so the Militia concept no longer serves a purpose. However, they are wrong, because the constitution is still the law of the land and valid to this day. The Heller decision by the Supreme Court in 2008 even ruled that the right to bear arms is still an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

For those that argue “well the founding fathers only knew of muskets and couldn’t fathom the concept of innovation and the eventual development from the musket to the AR-15.” This is nonsense. The founding fathers were all innovators and intellectuals. Just take a cursory look at the works of Benjamin Franklin. He discovered and theorized about electricity. He invented the lightning rod and bifocals and many other innovative and useful items still used today.

To also say that anything beyond a single shot musket was not thought of by anyone involved in the writing of the constitution is foolishness at best. The Puckle Gun was developed in 1718 by James Puckle it was the beginnings of innovation into semi-automatic rifles which occurred 73 years prior to the writing of the US constitution. It was functional but it was bulky and not really practical for the battlefield which is part of why it wasn’t more popular. But there was also the thought at the time that it wouldn’t really be an honorable way to fight as it would be overwhelming firepower and unfair to use in a fight. To be fair the US had this same opinion regarding the Tommy Gun after it was developed saying the US military would never need an automatic weapon for a single soldier to carry as it was just too much firepower. The decision nearly bankrupted Thompson at the time but the tactics employed in WW2 by our adversaries showed them quickly that we very much instead needed such a tool for soldiers.

The last thing to consider is that the term “arms” in the second amendment is not limiting itself to firearms. It covers all arms, a pocket knife, a baseball bat kept behind your door, a taser, pepper spray, a club, a rock, anything used as a weapon. If your argument is that the second amendment is obsolete or doesn’t apply anymore then your argument is also that Americans have no right to defend themselves from theft or harm in any circumstances. If that’s the case I’m in the market for a new Sea Ray, give me yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,120
Messages
1,426,613
Members
61,037
Latest member
wojozobl
Back
Top