Why the gun grabber crowd will never win

Gaetano7890:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Just for the record, there is no gun grabber crowd in the USA.
Hmmm. Those folks that want to make guns illegal? When they do they WILL come grab the gun. Exactly what do you think registration is about?
I think your paranoia is showing.
Right, and you actually believed the Affordable Health Care act was going to make medical care cheaper. ROTFLMAO.
Great example of Govt fixing a problem.
You are entitled to your opinion, but this dscussion is about a non-existent "gun grabber crowd".
Oh, oh, my mistake Mr JDH, I thought it said "Health care grabber crowd"!!! When did you decide who can post and not post??
I haven't "decided who can post and not post". I said very plainly that "you are entitled to your opinion", which you most certainly are. However, this IS a discussion about a non-existent gun grabber crowd - just a friendly reminder.
Actually the title of this post is How the gun grabber crown will never win. You have made it about a non existent crowd. Now I will not say I completely disagree with you the one thing I will say is I think you will def be disappointed when gun laws are changed because there will not be a lot changed. If you look at NY which are and will remain the strictist in the country, assault weapons will not be banned they may stop people from buying new ones but will not make current ones illegal and since thousands have been purchased in the last month or so not alot will be done. Oh yeah and maybe magazines will be limited to 10 rounds. The craziest thing about NY is mags are limited to 7 rounds but if you own 10 you can keep them but you can only load 7. So people about to commit a felony will def follow that.

I haven't made it about anything. I'm just pointing out that there is no "gun grabber crowd", and therefore, the premise of the topic is false.

Neither of us knows how much the gun laws are going to be changed. However, I am convinced that our "civil" society has to be de-militarized. If we do not do this, we will not have a civil society, but a violent gun culture where the killing and wounding of innocent people will become a routine, commonplace occurance. Personally, I hope the Congress can finally stand up to the gun manufacturers, who are getting filthy, bloody rich off of all this gun violence, and legislate some sanity. Let the NRA take it to the Supreme Court, and then we will all be given a lesson about what it means to have a "well regulated militia" in conjunction with the right to bear arms.

JDH:
Gaetano7890:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Just for the record, there is no gun grabber crowd in the USA.
Hmmm. Those folks that want to make guns illegal? When they do they WILL come grab the gun. Exactly what do you think registration is about?
I think your paranoia is showing.
Right, and you actually believed the Affordable Health Care act was going to make medical care cheaper. ROTFLMAO.
Great example of Govt fixing a problem.
You are entitled to your opinion, but this dscussion is about a non-existent "gun grabber crowd".
Oh, oh, my mistake Mr JDH, I thought it said "Health care grabber crowd"!!! When did you decide who can post and not post??
I haven't "decided who can post and not post". I said very plainly that "you are entitled to your opinion", which you most certainly are. However, this IS a discussion about a non-existent gun grabber crowd - just a friendly reminder.
Actually the title of this post is How the gun grabber crown will never win. You have made it about a non existent crowd. Now I will not say I completely disagree with you the one thing I will say is I think you will def be disappointed when gun laws are changed because there will not be a lot changed. If you look at NY which are and will remain the strictist in the country, assault weapons will not be banned they may stop people from buying new ones but will not make current ones illegal and since thousands have been purchased in the last month or so not alot will be done. Oh yeah and maybe magazines will be limited to 10 rounds. The craziest thing about NY is mags are limited to 7 rounds but if you own 10 you can keep them but you can only load 7. So people about to commit a felony will def follow that.
I haven't made it about anything. I'm just pointing out that there is no "gun grabber crowd", and therefore, the premise of the topic is false.

Neither of us knows how much the gun laws are going to be changed. However, I am convinced that our "civil" society has to be de-militarized. If we do not do this, we will not have a civil society, but a violent gun culture where the killing and wounding of innocent people will become a routine, commonplace occurance. Personally, I hope the Congress can finally stand up to the gun manufacturers, who are getting filthy, bloody rich off of all this gun violence, and legislate some sanity. Let the NRA take it to the Supreme Court, and then we will all be given a lesson about what it means to have a "well regulated militia" in conjunction with the right to bear arms.

You sound like a member of the Gun Grabbing Crowd. Do you own a weapon JDH?

beatnic:
JDH:
Gaetano7890:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Just for the record, there is no gun grabber crowd in the USA.
Hmmm. Those folks that want to make guns illegal? When they do they WILL come grab the gun. Exactly what do you think registration is about?
I think your paranoia is showing.
Right, and you actually believed the Affordable Health Care act was going to make medical care cheaper. ROTFLMAO.
Great example of Govt fixing a problem.
You are entitled to your opinion, but this dscussion is about a non-existent "gun grabber crowd".
Oh, oh, my mistake Mr JDH, I thought it said "Health care grabber crowd"!!! When did you decide who can post and not post??
I haven't "decided who can post and not post". I said very plainly that "you are entitled to your opinion", which you most certainly are. However, this IS a discussion about a non-existent gun grabber crowd - just a friendly reminder.
Actually the title of this post is How the gun grabber crown will never win. You have made it about a non existent crowd. Now I will not say I completely disagree with you the one thing I will say is I think you will def be disappointed when gun laws are changed because there will not be a lot changed. If you look at NY which are and will remain the strictist in the country, assault weapons will not be banned they may stop people from buying new ones but will not make current ones illegal and since thousands have been purchased in the last month or so not alot will be done. Oh yeah and maybe magazines will be limited to 10 rounds. The craziest thing about NY is mags are limited to 7 rounds but if you own 10 you can keep them but you can only load 7. So people about to commit a felony will def follow that.
I haven't made it about anything. I'm just pointing out that there is no "gun grabber crowd", and therefore, the premise of the topic is false.

Neither of us knows how much the gun laws are going to be changed. However, I am convinced that our "civil" society has to be de-militarized. If we do not do this, we will not have a civil society, but a violent gun culture where the killing and wounding of innocent people will become a routine, commonplace occurance. Personally, I hope the Congress can finally stand up to the gun manufacturers, who are getting filthy, bloody rich off of all this gun violence, and legislate some sanity. Let the NRA take it to the Supreme Court, and then we will all be given a lesson about what it means to have a "well regulated militia" in conjunction with the right to bear arms.

You sound like a member of the Gun Grabbing Crowd. Do you own a weapon JDH?

2 shotguns, 1 rifle, 1 handgun.

JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Gaetano7890:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Just for the record, there is no gun grabber crowd in the USA.
Hmmm. Those folks that want to make guns illegal? When they do they WILL come grab the gun. Exactly what do you think registration is about?
I think your paranoia is showing.
Right, and you actually believed the Affordable Health Care act was going to make medical care cheaper. ROTFLMAO.
Great example of Govt fixing a problem.
You are entitled to your opinion, but this dscussion is about a non-existent "gun grabber crowd".
Oh, oh, my mistake Mr JDH, I thought it said "Health care grabber crowd"!!! When did you decide who can post and not post??
I haven't "decided who can post and not post". I said very plainly that "you are entitled to your opinion", which you most certainly are. However, this IS a discussion about a non-existent gun grabber crowd - just a friendly reminder.
Actually the title of this post is How the gun grabber crown will never win. You have made it about a non existent crowd. Now I will not say I completely disagree with you the one thing I will say is I think you will def be disappointed when gun laws are changed because there will not be a lot changed. If you look at NY which are and will remain the strictist in the country, assault weapons will not be banned they may stop people from buying new ones but will not make current ones illegal and since thousands have been purchased in the last month or so not alot will be done. Oh yeah and maybe magazines will be limited to 10 rounds. The craziest thing about NY is mags are limited to 7 rounds but if you own 10 you can keep them but you can only load 7. So people about to commit a felony will def follow that.
I haven't made it about anything. I'm just pointing out that there is no "gun grabber crowd", and therefore, the premise of the topic is false.

Neither of us knows how much the gun laws are going to be changed. However, I am convinced that our "civil" society has to be de-militarized. If we do not do this, we will not have a civil society, but a violent gun culture where the killing and wounding of innocent people will become a routine, commonplace occurance. Personally, I hope the Congress can finally stand up to the gun manufacturers, who are getting filthy, bloody rich off of all this gun violence, and legislate some sanity. Let the NRA take it to the Supreme Court, and then we will all be given a lesson about what it means to have a "well regulated militia" in conjunction with the right to bear arms.

You sound like a member of the Gun Grabbing Crowd. Do you own a weapon JDH?
2 shotguns, 1 rifle, 1 handgun.

That's 4 more than me. And I'm the one arguing for no new gun laws. LOL. Strange world we live in.

beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Gaetano7890:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Just for the record, there is no gun grabber crowd in the USA.
Hmmm. Those folks that want to make guns illegal? When they do they WILL come grab the gun. Exactly what do you think registration is about?
I think your paranoia is showing.
Right, and you actually believed the Affordable Health Care act was going to make medical care cheaper. ROTFLMAO.
Great example of Govt fixing a problem.
You are entitled to your opinion, but this dscussion is about a non-existent "gun grabber crowd".
Oh, oh, my mistake Mr JDH, I thought it said "Health care grabber crowd"!!! When did you decide who can post and not post??
I haven't "decided who can post and not post". I said very plainly that "you are entitled to your opinion", which you most certainly are. However, this IS a discussion about a non-existent gun grabber crowd - just a friendly reminder.
Actually the title of this post is How the gun grabber crown will never win. You have made it about a non existent crowd. Now I will not say I completely disagree with you the one thing I will say is I think you will def be disappointed when gun laws are changed because there will not be a lot changed. If you look at NY which are and will remain the strictist in the country, assault weapons will not be banned they may stop people from buying new ones but will not make current ones illegal and since thousands have been purchased in the last month or so not alot will be done. Oh yeah and maybe magazines will be limited to 10 rounds. The craziest thing about NY is mags are limited to 7 rounds but if you own 10 you can keep them but you can only load 7. So people about to commit a felony will def follow that.
I haven't made it about anything. I'm just pointing out that there is no "gun grabber crowd", and therefore, the premise of the topic is false.

Neither of us knows how much the gun laws are going to be changed. However, I am convinced that our "civil" society has to be de-militarized. If we do not do this, we will not have a civil society, but a violent gun culture where the killing and wounding of innocent people will become a routine, commonplace occurance. Personally, I hope the Congress can finally stand up to the gun manufacturers, who are getting filthy, bloody rich off of all this gun violence, and legislate some sanity. Let the NRA take it to the Supreme Court, and then we will all be given a lesson about what it means to have a "well regulated militia" in conjunction with the right to bear arms.

You sound like a member of the Gun Grabbing Crowd. Do you own a weapon JDH?
2 shotguns, 1 rifle, 1 handgun.

That's 4 more than me. And I'm the one arguing for no new gun laws. LOL. Strange world we live in.

Not really. You are arguing that there should be no regulation of guns, and I am arguing that the Constitution says that you can have military weapons if you are in a well regulated militia - like the National Guard or any other branch of the Armed forces.

JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Gaetano7890:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Just for the record, there is no gun grabber crowd in the USA.
Hmmm. Those folks that want to make guns illegal? When they do they WILL come grab the gun. Exactly what do you think registration is about?
I think your paranoia is showing.
Right, and you actually believed the Affordable Health Care act was going to make medical care cheaper. ROTFLMAO.
Great example of Govt fixing a problem.
You are entitled to your opinion, but this dscussion is about a non-existent "gun grabber crowd".
Oh, oh, my mistake Mr JDH, I thought it said "Health care grabber crowd"!!! When did you decide who can post and not post??
I haven't "decided who can post and not post". I said very plainly that "you are entitled to your opinion", which you most certainly are. However, this IS a discussion about a non-existent gun grabber crowd - just a friendly reminder.
Actually the title of this post is How the gun grabber crown will never win. You have made it about a non existent crowd. Now I will not say I completely disagree with you the one thing I will say is I think you will def be disappointed when gun laws are changed because there will not be a lot changed. If you look at NY which are and will remain the strictist in the country, assault weapons will not be banned they may stop people from buying new ones but will not make current ones illegal and since thousands have been purchased in the last month or so not alot will be done. Oh yeah and maybe magazines will be limited to 10 rounds. The craziest thing about NY is mags are limited to 7 rounds but if you own 10 you can keep them but you can only load 7. So people about to commit a felony will def follow that.
I haven't made it about anything. I'm just pointing out that there is no "gun grabber crowd", and therefore, the premise of the topic is false.

Neither of us knows how much the gun laws are going to be changed. However, I am convinced that our "civil" society has to be de-militarized. If we do not do this, we will not have a civil society, but a violent gun culture where the killing and wounding of innocent people will become a routine, commonplace occurance. Personally, I hope the Congress can finally stand up to the gun manufacturers, who are getting filthy, bloody rich off of all this gun violence, and legislate some sanity. Let the NRA take it to the Supreme Court, and then we will all be given a lesson about what it means to have a "well regulated militia" in conjunction with the right to bear arms.

You sound like a member of the Gun Grabbing Crowd. Do you own a weapon JDH?
2 shotguns, 1 rifle, 1 handgun.

I can't talk about guns or laws with someone that has no idea how the streets work or what is going on in this country besides in blue grass country. Move to a state were there is strict gun laws if it makes you feel better. I know of a really nice housing project in the Bronx you can move to a bout a block from Yankee stadium. I promise it is really safe since Handguns are illegal in NYC and you need a permit to own any type of rifle that can only hold 5 rounds. If you are lucky enough to get a permit the rifle has to stay in your home. Sounds like a really safe place to live right de-militirized right.

webmost:

This is hilarious! I really truly wish that this was actually written by an ignorant loony leftist who meant it to be taken seriously, but there's just too much Onion-like 'absurd realism' in it to make it seem like anything other than the product of a very talented put-on artist. Only in America.

Gaetano7890:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Gaetano7890:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Just for the record, there is no gun grabber crowd in the USA.
Hmmm. Those folks that want to make guns illegal? When they do they WILL come grab the gun. Exactly what do you think registration is about?
I think your paranoia is showing.
Right, and you actually believed the Affordable Health Care act was going to make medical care cheaper. ROTFLMAO.
Great example of Govt fixing a problem.
You are entitled to your opinion, but this dscussion is about a non-existent "gun grabber crowd".
Oh, oh, my mistake Mr JDH, I thought it said "Health care grabber crowd"!!! When did you decide who can post and not post??
I haven't "decided who can post and not post". I said very plainly that "you are entitled to your opinion", which you most certainly are. However, this IS a discussion about a non-existent gun grabber crowd - just a friendly reminder.
Actually the title of this post is How the gun grabber crown will never win. You have made it about a non existent crowd. Now I will not say I completely disagree with you the one thing I will say is I think you will def be disappointed when gun laws are changed because there will not be a lot changed. If you look at NY which are and will remain the strictist in the country, assault weapons will not be banned they may stop people from buying new ones but will not make current ones illegal and since thousands have been purchased in the last month or so not alot will be done. Oh yeah and maybe magazines will be limited to 10 rounds. The craziest thing about NY is mags are limited to 7 rounds but if you own 10 you can keep them but you can only load 7. So people about to commit a felony will def follow that.
I haven't made it about anything. I'm just pointing out that there is no "gun grabber crowd", and therefore, the premise of the topic is false.

Neither of us knows how much the gun laws are going to be changed. However, I am convinced that our "civil" society has to be de-militarized. If we do not do this, we will not have a civil society, but a violent gun culture where the killing and wounding of innocent people will become a routine, commonplace occurance. Personally, I hope the Congress can finally stand up to the gun manufacturers, who are getting filthy, bloody rich off of all this gun violence, and legislate some sanity. Let the NRA take it to the Supreme Court, and then we will all be given a lesson about what it means to have a "well regulated militia" in conjunction with the right to bear arms.

You sound like a member of the Gun Grabbing Crowd. Do you own a weapon JDH?
2 shotguns, 1 rifle, 1 handgun.

I can't talk about guns or laws with someone that has no idea how the streets work or what is going on in this country besides in blue grass country.

Then you probably shouldn't "talk about guns or laws with someone that has no idea how the streets work or what is going on in this country besides in blue grass country." At any rate, I have no intention of moving at this time, thank you very much.

raisindot:
webmost:
This is hilarious! I really truly wish that this was actually written by an ignorant loony leftist who meant it to be taken seriously, but there's just too much Onion-like 'absurd realism' in it to make it seem like anything other than the product of a very talented put-on artist. Only in America.

Yea, it reads like really bad satire to me.

JDH:
Not really. You are arguing that there should be no regulation of guns, and I am arguing that the Constitution says that you can have military weapons if you are in a well regulated militia - like the National Guard or any other branch of the Armed forces.

This repudiates your argument.

" In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment."

There are already restrictions. What further restrictions do they want to impose?

beatnic:
JDH:
Not really. You are arguing that there should be no regulation of guns, and I am arguing that the Constitution says that you can have military weapons if you are in a well regulated militia - like the National Guard or any other branch of the Armed forces.

This repudiates your argument.

" In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment."

There are already restrictions. What further restrictions do they want to impose?

Yes, in this ruling, they upheld the right to bear arms as an individual right, but in their opinions, the Conservative justices left the door wide open for the types of weapons to be allowed to be regulated under the "well regulated militia" clause. I just want them to have the opportunity to finish their ruling, as indicated in their opinions. That will require legislation to be passsed, and then challenged to the Court.

JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Not really. You are arguing that there should be no regulation of guns, and I am arguing that the Constitution says that you can have military weapons if you are in a well regulated militia - like the National Guard or any other branch of the Armed forces.

This repudiates your argument.

" In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment."

There are already restrictions. What further restrictions do they want to impose?
Yes, in this ruling, they upheld the right to bear arms as an individual right, but in their opinions, the Conservative justices left the door wide open for the types of weapons to be allowed to be regulated under the "well regulated militia" clause. I just want them to have the opportunity to finish their ruling, as indicated in their opinions. That will require legislation to be passsed, and then challenged to the Court.

As it should be.

beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Not really. You are arguing that there should be no regulation of guns, and I am arguing that the Constitution says that you can have military weapons if you are in a well regulated militia - like the National Guard or any other branch of the Armed forces.

This repudiates your argument.

" In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment."

There are already restrictions. What further restrictions do they want to impose?
Yes, in this ruling, they upheld the right to bear arms as an individual right, but in their opinions, the Conservative justices left the door wide open for the types of weapons to be allowed to be regulated under the "well regulated militia" clause. I just want them to have the opportunity to finish their ruling, as indicated in their opinions. That will require legislation to be passsed, and then challenged to the Court.
As it should be.

...and that is exactly why I want to see legislation that would bring back the ban on military weapons and that will restrict magazine capacity and that will require background checks on every gun sale, and that will tax ammo and gun sales in order to provide monies to beef up our mental health structure...so that it can be challenged to the Supreme Court, where, I believe it will all be upheld.

JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Not really. You are arguing that there should be no regulation of guns, and I am arguing that the Constitution says that you can have military weapons if you are in a well regulated militia - like the National Guard or any other branch of the Armed forces.

This repudiates your argument.

" In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment."

There are already restrictions. What further restrictions do they want to impose?
Yes, in this ruling, they upheld the right to bear arms as an individual right, but in their opinions, the Conservative justices left the door wide open for the types of weapons to be allowed to be regulated under the "well regulated militia" clause. I just want them to have the opportunity to finish their ruling, as indicated in their opinions. That will require legislation to be passsed, and then challenged to the Court.
As it should be.
...and that is exactly why I want to see legislation that would bring back the ban on military weapons and that will restrict magazine capacity and that will require background checks on every gun sale, and that will tax ammo and gun sales in order to provide monies to beef up our mental health structure...so that it can be challenged to the Supreme Court, where, I believe it will all be upheld.

My problem with much of this is that the liberal side will change the meaning of words to alter their goals. They do it on a daily basis. Until someone fully defines what they mean by assault weapon, I think its' being used as a catch all phase to be molded however they choose. As to registration and background checks, how do you safeguard the information? Once an oppressive government knows who owns what, it will be easy to go after law abiding citizens. And exactly how will any of this stop criminals from getting and using weapons. It sounds like a lot of good intentions, but as all of our mothers' used to tell us, " the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Not really. You are arguing that there should be no regulation of guns, and I am arguing that the Constitution says that you can have military weapons if you are in a well regulated militia - like the National Guard or any other branch of the Armed forces.

This repudiates your argument.

" In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment."

There are already restrictions. What further restrictions do they want to impose?
Yes, in this ruling, they upheld the right to bear arms as an individual right, but in their opinions, the Conservative justices left the door wide open for the types of weapons to be allowed to be regulated under the "well regulated militia" clause. I just want them to have the opportunity to finish their ruling, as indicated in their opinions. That will require legislation to be passsed, and then challenged to the Court.
As it should be.
...and that is exactly why I want to see legislation that would bring back the ban on military weapons and that will restrict magazine capacity and that will require background checks on every gun sale, and that will tax ammo and gun sales in order to provide monies to beef up our mental health structure...so that it can be challenged to the Supreme Court, where, I believe it will all be upheld.
My problem with much of this is that the liberal side will change the meaning of words to alter their goals. They do it on a daily basis. Until someone fully defines what they mean by assault weapon, I think its' being used as a catch all phase to be molded however they choose. As to registration and background checks, how do you safeguard the information? Once an oppressive government knows who owns what, it will be easy to go after law abiding citizens. And exactly how will any of this stop criminals from getting and using weapons. It sounds like a lot of good intentions, but as all of our mothers' used to tell us, " the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Not really. You are arguing that there should be no regulation of guns, and I am arguing that the Constitution says that you can have military weapons if you are in a well regulated militia - like the National Guard or any other branch of the Armed forces.

This repudiates your argument.

" In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment."

There are already restrictions. What further restrictions do they want to impose?
Yes, in this ruling, they upheld the right to bear arms as an individual right, but in their opinions, the Conservative justices left the door wide open for the types of weapons to be allowed to be regulated under the "well regulated militia" clause. I just want them to have the opportunity to finish their ruling, as indicated in their opinions. That will require legislation to be passsed, and then challenged to the Court.
As it should be.
...and that is exactly why I want to see legislation that would bring back the ban on military weapons and that will restrict magazine capacity and that will require background checks on every gun sale, and that will tax ammo and gun sales in order to provide monies to beef up our mental health structure...so that it can be challenged to the Supreme Court, where, I believe it will all be upheld.
My problem with much of this is that the liberal side will change the meaning of words to alter their goals. They do it on a daily basis. Until someone fully defines what they mean by assault weapon, I think its' being used as a catch all phase to be molded however they choose. As to registration and background checks, how do you safeguard the information? Once an oppressive government knows who owns what, it will be easy to go after law abiding citizens. And exactly how will any of this stop criminals from getting and using weapons. It sounds like a lot of good intentions, but as all of our mothers' used to tell us, " the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

I'm picturing you saying this with your fingers in your ears.

beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Not really. You are arguing that there should be no regulation of guns, and I am arguing that the Constitution says that you can have military weapons if you are in a well regulated militia - like the National Guard or any other branch of the Armed forces.

This repudiates your argument.

" In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment."

There are already restrictions. What further restrictions do they want to impose?
Yes, in this ruling, they upheld the right to bear arms as an individual right, but in their opinions, the Conservative justices left the door wide open for the types of weapons to be allowed to be regulated under the "well regulated militia" clause. I just want them to have the opportunity to finish their ruling, as indicated in their opinions. That will require legislation to be passsed, and then challenged to the Court.
As it should be.
...and that is exactly why I want to see legislation that would bring back the ban on military weapons and that will restrict magazine capacity and that will require background checks on every gun sale, and that will tax ammo and gun sales in order to provide monies to beef up our mental health structure...so that it can be challenged to the Supreme Court, where, I believe it will all be upheld.
My problem with much of this is that the liberal side will change the meaning of words to alter their goals. They do it on a daily basis. Until someone fully defines what they mean by assault weapon, I think its' being used as a catch all phase to be molded however they choose. As to registration and background checks, how do you safeguard the information? Once an oppressive government knows who owns what, it will be easy to go after law abiding citizens. And exactly how will any of this stop criminals from getting and using weapons. It sounds like a lot of good intentions, but as all of our mothers' used to tell us, " the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
I'm picturing you saying this with your fingers in your ears.

Certain tones and phrases from the female voice, and most all of political talk radio just don't register anymore.......it's only noise without meaning to me.

I have every confidence that whatever legislation is enacted will be written with the purpose of withstanding Judicial scrutiny, and when it does everything you just said will be moot.

JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
Not really. You are arguing that there should be no regulation of guns, and I am arguing that the Constitution says that you can have military weapons if you are in a well regulated militia - like the National Guard or any other branch of the Armed forces.

This repudiates your argument.

" In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment."

There are already restrictions. What further restrictions do they want to impose?
Yes, in this ruling, they upheld the right to bear arms as an individual right, but in their opinions, the Conservative justices left the door wide open for the types of weapons to be allowed to be regulated under the "well regulated militia" clause. I just want them to have the opportunity to finish their ruling, as indicated in their opinions. That will require legislation to be passsed, and then challenged to the Court.
As it should be.
...and that is exactly why I want to see legislation that would bring back the ban on military weapons and that will restrict magazine capacity and that will require background checks on every gun sale, and that will tax ammo and gun sales in order to provide monies to beef up our mental health structure...so that it can be challenged to the Supreme Court, where, I believe it will all be upheld.
My problem with much of this is that the liberal side will change the meaning of words to alter their goals. They do it on a daily basis. Until someone fully defines what they mean by assault weapon, I think its' being used as a catch all phase to be molded however they choose. As to registration and background checks, how do you safeguard the information? Once an oppressive government knows who owns what, it will be easy to go after law abiding citizens. And exactly how will any of this stop criminals from getting and using weapons. It sounds like a lot of good intentions, but as all of our mothers' used to tell us, " the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
I'm picturing you saying this with your fingers in your ears.
Certain tones and phrases from the female voice, and most all of political talk radio just don't register anymore.......it's only noise without meaning to me.

I have every confidence that whatever legislation is enacted will be written with the purpose of withstanding Judicial scrutiny, and when it does everything you just said will be moot.

I wouldn't get to concerned that the government will take your guns. Most sheriffs are already saying they won't arrest law abiding citizens. Most experience law enforcement officials know that gun laws don't stop gun crimes since most criminals dont buy there guns at walmart. Much like drug laws don't stop the sale and use of narcotics. Also in NYS they didn't ban assault rifles you will just have to register the ones you have and you won't be able buy new ones but NY will be the strictest because you can't get more liberal than NY.

Just so it is clear I know it hard to express opinions in writing sometimes but I would like to try. I am not for no gun laws at all nor am I against registration and so on. ii do beleive that there are a lot of people who cant handle a firearm and spoil it for the rest of us but those people probally shouldnt have a car or chainshaw either. The one thing I am against is bans because in my opinion they don't work. From prohibition to the war on drugs to the all out assault on smoking. All it seems to due is create another goverment agency and increase the population in prisons. The rockafellar drug laws in NYC got so many people locked up for drug charges for so long they had to end it and let people out because they ran out of room. The one thing it did not deter was drug sales or use. The American culture has a thrist for the taboo and making something illegal only makes it more desirable. NYC and Chicago have the strictest gun laws and are two of the most violent cities in the world. I do feel that by banning a type of firearm will not stop people from owning them but will create a new black market, remember if there was never prohibition the Italian Mafia would not have gained half of the power money or influence.

Gaetano7890:
Just so it is clear I know it hard to express opinions in writing sometimes but I would like to try. I am not for no gun laws at all nor am I against registration and so on. ii do beleive that there are a lot of people who cant handle a firearm and spoil it for the rest of us but those people probally shouldnt have a car or chainshaw either. The one thing I am against is bans because in my opinion they don't work.

Actually, they do work. Today, no private citizens can legally buy howitzers, bazookas, army-level machine guns, grenades, mines, anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank weapons, or artillery weapons. Some would argue that banning the purchase of these violates citizens' Second Amendment rights, but most people would agree that keeping these kinds of weapons out of gun shops and gun shows and people's homes is probably a good thing. Imagine what might have happened had the Newtownn assailant been armed with a legally obtained bazooka 'borrowed' from his mom's collection.

The issue is not "to ban or not to ban," but what should or shouldn't be banned. Many think that semi-automatic weapons and cartridges fall into the same "lethal" category as howitzers and grenades. Many people don't. But this part of the gun debate discussion is really a side issue that those in favor of more gun control shouldn't be wasting political capital on since it will never pass. All of the attention should be focused on creating uniform gun registration, training and background check laws and standards that cover the sale of a gun in any venue--whether it's a store, gun show, flea market or private sale. Creating standards that may help keep criminals and the mentally ill from legally purchasing guns is in the best interests of gun owners and non-owners alike.

Well if this were true and they did work there would not be one handgun in NYC right?

Well besides the rich Liberals who have permits but are also big supporters of the anti gun lobby. The reason for there permit is carrying around large amounts of cash. Last time I checked only Leos can carry in a bank.

There is a gun grabber crowd.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri: 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

beatnic:
There is a gun grabber crowd.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/

Well, that's just a stupid piece of legislation whose proponents know damned well won't pass in Missouri (heck, it probably wouldn't pass even here in Massachusetts) but are doing it to cater to their constituencies. In every legislature there's always plenty of stupid grandstanding, certain-to-fail legislation proposed on both sides of the political aisle (Balanced Budget Amendment, anyone?).

raisindot:
beatnic:
There is a gun grabber crowd.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/

Well, that's just a stupid piece of legislation whose proponents know damned well won't pass in Missouri (heck, it probably wouldn't pass even here in Massachusetts) but are doing it to cater to their constituencies. In every legislature there's always plenty of stupid grandstanding, certain-to-fail legislation proposed on both sides of the political aisle (Balanced Budget Amendment, anyone?).

I would agree that it is unlikely to pass. None the less, there are those who would like to see all weapons banned and confiscated. And to say, as has been repeated on this thread numerous times, that no one is trying to grab your guns is just naive.

fla-gypsy

beatnic:
raisindot:
beatnic:
There is a gun grabber crowd.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/

Well, that's just a stupid piece of legislation whose proponents know damned well won't pass in Missouri (heck, it probably wouldn't pass even here in Massachusetts) but are doing it to cater to their constituencies. In every legislature there's always plenty of stupid grandstanding, certain-to-fail legislation proposed on both sides of the political aisle (Balanced Budget Amendment, anyone?).
I would agree that it is unlikely to pass. None the less, there are those who would like to see all weapons banned and confiscated. And to say, as has been repeated on this thread numerous times, that no one is trying to grab your guns is just naive.

X 2, one of those regularly calls it the "non existent gun grabber crowd". I trust those who love liberty in Missouri will triumph over this ignorant attempt.

beatnic:
raisindot:
beatnic:
There is a gun grabber crowd.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/

Well, that's just a stupid piece of legislation whose proponents know damned well won't pass in Missouri (heck, it probably wouldn't pass even here in Massachusetts) but are doing it to cater to their constituencies. In every legislature there's always plenty of stupid grandstanding, certain-to-fail legislation proposed on both sides of the political aisle (Balanced Budget Amendment, anyone?).
I would agree that it is unlikely to pass. None the less, there are those who would like to see all weapons banned and confiscated. And to say, as has been repeated on this thread numerous times, that no one is trying to grab your guns is just naive.

True. Some people are trying to take away the right to own guns. Just as some are trying to secede from the union, force school districts to teach creationism, criminalize same-sex relationships, outlaw all abortions including in cases of rape and incest, gut environmental protection laws, outlaw unions, give gigantic tax breaks to corporations, require Christianity to be taught in public schools, ban soft drinks, ban liquor, ban fast food, ban gambling, ban cigars, ban legal immigration, ban oil companies from drilling offshore, ban restrictions on offshore drilling, ban protection for endangered species, ban hunting, ban government funding for NPR, ban defense spending, ban fishing of depleted fish species, lift restrictions against fishing depleted species, wipe out laws against polygamy, wipe out laws against man/boy love, wipe out laws that criminalize violence against women, wipe out laws that protect the right to vote, and on and on. Someone's ALWAYS trying to pass laws or bans that we don't agree with. The fact is, very few of any of these will actually get enacted. I want to have the right to own a gun someday if I wanted, yet I have not the slightest fear that any meaningful legislation to stop me from legally getting just about kind of weapon short of a bazooka or machine gun will ever be passed.

raisindot:
beatnic:
raisindot:
beatnic:
There is a gun grabber crowd.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/

Well, that's just a stupid piece of legislation whose proponents know damned well won't pass in Missouri (heck, it probably wouldn't pass even here in Massachusetts) but are doing it to cater to their constituencies. In every legislature there's always plenty of stupid grandstanding, certain-to-fail legislation proposed on both sides of the political aisle (Balanced Budget Amendment, anyone?).
I would agree that it is unlikely to pass. None the less, there are those who would like to see all weapons banned and confiscated. And to say, as has been repeated on this thread numerous times, that no one is trying to grab your guns is just naive.
True. Some people are trying to take away the right to own guns. Just as some are trying to secede from the union, force school districts to teach creationism, criminalize same-sex relationships, outlaw all abortions including in cases of rape and incest, gut environmental protection laws, outlaw unions, give gigantic tax breaks to corporations, require Christianity to be taught in public schools, ban soft drinks, ban liquor, ban fast food, ban gambling, ban cigars, ban legal immigration, ban oil companies from drilling offshore, ban restrictions on offshore drilling, ban protection for endangered species, ban hunting, ban government funding for NPR, ban defense spending, ban fishing of depleted fish species, lift restrictions against fishing depleted species, wipe out laws against polygamy, wipe out laws against man/boy love, wipe out laws that criminalize violence against women, wipe out laws that protect the right to vote, and on and on. Someone's ALWAYS trying to pass laws or bans that we don't agree with. The fact is, very few of any of these will actually get enacted. I want to have the right to own a gun someday if I wanted, yet I have not the slightest fear that any meaningful legislation to stop me from legally getting just about kind of weapon short of a bazooka or machine gun will ever be passed.

Not bad, not bad at all.

OK, how'bout this: if some of you want to fantasize about a gun grabber crowd, then I'll start refering to the NRA as the Not Rational Association. Fair enough?

I think at the end of the day we all kinda want the same thing. I have a few handguns and a double barrel shotgun. Never been a big fan of more just don't want to lose those and def don't want my freedoms to drink and smoke to be takin away. Can we all agree that what I listed above is fair and let's enjoy one of are avo rite cigars tonight.