What a crock of S#@T!
quote: "If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner (and I have … at Thanksgiving dinner), why it’s important to own a gun, they’ll bark about the Constitution. Yes, the Second Amendment: “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed!”
This of course is the slogan the National Rifle Association adopted in the 1970s. It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property."
The NRA was founded in 1870 and for its first hundred years it was for gun control..."
What a crock of S#@T!
watch your top knot !
NRA supported gun locks..... NRA is a gun control organization. 2nd amendment means ANY weapon the gov't has, we can have. ANY
Gun control from the right or the left is only more control.
The article states that "cutting taxes does not increase revenue." No one ever said it did. Cutting tax [B]RATES, however, does increase revenue. The article also states that "Making gun ownership UNLIMITED does not make us safer. Why did it have to say "unlimited?" Freedom of speech is not unlimited, but we all believe in freedom of speech. TENDENTIOUS ARTICLE
Of course I believe in gun control!
I believe guns should be controlled from getting into the hands of violent criminals or people who are too mentally unstable to make good, responsible decisions, and by means which do not discriminate or create unnecessary hardships against law-abiding gun owners.
The NRA was started by union officers after the Civil War to train people how to shoot and encourage marksmanship. They didn't start supporting gun control until FDR, nearly 70 years later, and then later did an about face again.
People also forget that a Well Regulated Militia means a militia in good working order, and that the first clause is a reason for the 2nd clause, not a limitation.
Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 05-28-2012 at 10:32 AM.
And I certainly don't trust the government to decide who is mentally stable. Soon, being a member of "extremist" groups like OCDO will probably be justification for terrorist watch list status and qualification for mental derangement.
If I thought someone was unable to be trusted with a gun, they should either be under constant supervision, for instance incarcerated or in the asylum, or they should be executed because they are so dangerous. If they are loose, they can get guns despite the governments ridiculous edict against them, or even kill people in other ways... knives, cars, etc.
And the criminals who now get guns, instead of buying them, will often get illegal guns, increasing crime such as burglary rings, creating black markets and therefore violent gangs, and evading taxes.
Men who have their freedom should not be restricted. The effect of these "laws" you refer to that create a subclass without rights is that they are used as an excuse by police to harass law abiding gun owners, and especially open carriers. It seems every time I'm stopped, they need to hold me for 45 minutes and they use as a reason, "to make sure I'm able to lawfully own a gun." It is a bunch of crap.
To allow men to be free of supervision, but to restrict their rights, in effect serves to restrict the rights of all people who are free. Treating a group as a subclass will increase the propensity for recidivism and the restrictions on their ability to kill is illusory. Only a change of heart, prison walls, or death will stop someone from committing further crime, but not silly edicts telling people intent on murder that they cannot have guns.
Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 05-28-2012 at 10:46 AM.
We are free to say what we want, until it causes some other issue, like someone dies because you lied to them and told them there was cake in the next room when there was really a killer robot. Then it becomes murder rather than speech.
The right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms was also not intended to be infringed by the government. However, when you do things like shoot in the middle of the public square, you cause property damage, noise pollution, and injury to bystanders, which are separate issues from keeping and bearing in itself.
At the time of the founding of the country, people could own the most powerful weapons in existence... grenades, cannon, war ships, and every manner of small arm and sword.
Today, one might say, "private ownership of nukes is nutz" It might well be, but there were not nukes at the time of the founding of this country so the extreme power of nukes could not have factored into the minds of the writers of the constitution. I believe the founders did intend that every weapon that the government had was to be permissible for the people to own. How could a militia, made of all the able bodied people, possibly protect the security of a free state against foreign or domestic armies, if the militia (the people) were not allowed to possess effective war devices?
Should we still be able to possess nukes? That is another question... but the meaning of the words of the constitution do not change based on modern development... that is why they created an amendment process. However, if civilians could possess nukes, who could afford to keep one and who is doing the selling?
My right to read the instructions for the manufacture of nuclear weapons I believe is also upheld as protected by the freedom of speech.
But if we limit our discussion to small arms... I severely doubt that any law proscribing the ownership or carry of small arms has ever made anyone safer, but has instead only lead to black markets and the associated crime, as well as resulted in people being powerless to defend themselves, emboldening criminals.
Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 05-28-2012 at 11:05 AM.
No, it isn't a perfect system. If I thought it was a perfect system I never would have thought to arm myself when out and about on my daily business.
But there's no reason to make it easy for someone with a violent felony record to walk into a gun store and purchase a firearm.
I've never had any problems with that, and my name, birth date, & physical description match identically with a man who lives one state north of me with both an FBI and Secret Service number on him. It's not a hindrance for me at all. When such "gun control" does impact my ability to legally purchase and own firearms, then you can bet I'll be raising hell.
Last edited by TruxLupus; 05-28-2012 at 11:06 AM.
If making it easier for the person with a "violent felony" record (who for some reason is released because the state has judged him to be fit to be among the masses), reduces the likelihood that someone breaks into your car or home to steal your gun, is that not a good reason to make it easier?But there's no reason to make it easy for someone with a violent felony record to walk into a gun store and purchase a firearm.
I've never had any problems with that, and my name, birth date, & physical description match identically with a man who lives one state north of me with both an FBI and Secret Service number on him. It's not a hindrance for me at all. When such "gun control" does impact my ability to legally purchase and own firearms, then you can bet I'll be raising hell
If making it easier for him to buy a gun means that there will not be criminal enterprises developed for the purpose of the illegal gun trade, and the associated gang war and crossfire, is that not a good reason to make it easier for him to own a gun?
How about the taxes? If you make it so he can buy a gun at the gun store, a percent of that money will go to maintaining the prisons, highways, and schools. Otherwise, the money will go to the local drug dealers and burglary rings.
I'm glad you have never been hindered by the laws. I however, have been held at gun point, put in handcuffs, pushed around, and had my evenings ruined in the name of making sure I was a good enough person. In public, these situations are also humiliating.
Also, can you imagine how much cheaper guns would be if you could purchase them directly from the manufacturer over the internet like most goods rather than being forced to buy them in person? [If guns were cheaper, more people could afford self-defense.] Even if you get a gun over the internet now, the local guy still gets his cut, as the government has subverted the free market process. The FFL system has done much to enable further gun control of all types now too... Now I cannot send a gun in the mail to my buddy across state lines without committing a crime?
Under current federal law, there is nothing at all to stop anyone convicted of the most heinous offense, from ordering a blackpowder cap and ball revolver over the internet directly to their door, no questions asked. These guns are equally as deadly and accurate as modern guns. Yet, despite this, almost no criminal will settle for an antique and will still opt for a Glock despite the government supposedly "making it difficult" for them. [When was the last time you read about a convicted felon using an antique gun in a crime?] I think that illustrates that the laws are virtually no hindrance whatsoever to the criminal.
However, I think it is quite readily shown that the gun laws are a considerable hindrance to the law abiding.
The gun control act, which created the FFL system and all is nothing but a feel good measure with real measurable costs but no measurable benefits. 50 years ago when people could get guns in the mail, chaos did not abound.
Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 05-28-2012 at 11:52 AM.
You can't give a lot of credence to most of what the liberal media writes these days. It's hard to understand what the point of the article is, except to take a jab at the NRA for somehow not being on the side of gun owners. What a bunch of hooey!
There is an ageless piece of wisdom from a very well known source that says, "he who is not against us is for us". The NRA has done a great deal to advocate for our 2nd Amendment rights. We have come a long way over the last few decades in this area, and we probably would not enjoy the degree of freedom we have today without the NRA.
As for the NRA's stance on the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States seems to be in agreement with the NRA on this point. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said, "It is clear that the Framers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." So the idea that Americans have a fundamental right to bear arms is not some pipe dream the NRA came up with to make money, the NRA stance on the 2nd Amendment has been recently re-affirmed by the highest court in the land.
Last edited by Mark 1911; 05-28-2012 at 05:42 PM.
Wow. That article was so ridiculous and packed with inaccuracies..
It was so awful I think reading it gave me cancer.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare
Gun control goes against due process. It is restricting rights for what a person might do not what they have done. That even goes for felons, once they have done their time for their crime they should be allowed to be good citizens. How does indefinitely punishing them make them good citizens. It is dumb and it does not work. The only effective way to keep arms from the hands of dangerous criminals is jail them in a pine box six feet under.
Increase sentences for violent crime with guns, and don't let them out, that is effective gun control.
Did the article did, inadvertently I'm sure, make the case the the roots of gun control are racist.
Of course everyone believes in "gun control." After all, if you don't control your gun how do you expect to hit your target?
A quick read through the comments at the end of the article makes it clear what the public thinks about it. (Flush....)
As for the NRA, I don't believe I've ever held them up as a proponent of either gun control or staunch defenders of our Second Amendment. My oath of office did not contain the letters "NRA" in sequence, so as far as I'm concerned, they're not really the issue here, either.
Back to the article: "The idea is that we have to be just as armed as our government in order to be safer or have more liberty (or something). The U.S. government has unmanned drones armed with supersonic laser-guided anti-armor Hellfire missiles, “bunker busters,” and nuclear weapons." Apparently, when it comes to nailing down "the idea," this author is utterly clueless. It doesn't matter what the government has. We defeated vastly superior forces over 230 years ago, and we'll do it again, if necessary.
The idea is that a well-armed citizenry will give any government pause for thought before they take actions which might make it necessary. If the government is no longer capable of thinking such a thought, then a well-armed citizenry becomes necessary to the security of a free state, to "defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
That and the fact that during a criminal attack, assault, home invasion, robbery, or rape, when seconds count, law enforcement is just minutes away...