Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

New Forums: Nexus Player | Nexus 9
test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old November 17th, 2011, 10:39 PM   #1 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
Thread Author (OP)
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,140
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,092
Thanked 2,013 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default 2nd Amendment

OK, as a guide I am foolishly venturing into a hotly contested subject...or is it?

The House just passed H.R. 822 which is the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act, a bill which will provide for State Reciprocity for Concealed Carry Permit holders (of which I am one) all across the U.S. by a resounding margin, 272-154. Figures like this belie a bipartisan sentiment in Congress, despite what the media and gun control groups would like us to believe.

Add to this the latest Gallup Poll a record low of 26% of Americans favor a ban on handguns, 53% vs. 43% are IN favor of semi-automatic weapons, and 44% of Americans are in support of gun laws remaining where they are.

I have heard all the arguments in support of gun control and not one of them makes a damn bit of sense. I unfortunately have even known people who believe you do not have a right to self-defense if it means injury or death to another human being.

I do not for one second believe that banning guns will in any way reduce crime, in fact it will have the opposite effect, how many criminals do you think will say "Wait, I can't use this gun to commit this crime, it would be illegal...". And don't even try to kid yourself that gun control will keep guns out of the hands of criminals; how successful has any government been in stemming black markets.

I am not opposed to sensible restrictions, but I stop short of anything that resembles a Federal licensing or registry program, that is the first step in later taking your guns away and we are already on that path with the BATF transfer records.

What it boils down to for me is gun control is another attempt to remove our liberties from us, once we start down that dark road it will be very difficult to come back.

Give your views and opinions openly, but be please be respectful and keep the tone civil.

Advertisements
__________________
Have you seen me in a kilt?
Site Rules/Guidelines
Use the !Report button to report spam or objectionable posts.
If you find a post helpful please use the button!
SamuraiBigEd is online now  
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SamuraiBigEd For This Useful Post:
Adauth (November 18th, 2011), BabyBlues (December 29th, 2011), tommy_ed (November 21st, 2011)
sponsored links
Old November 18th, 2011, 02:55 AM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Adauth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New Orleans
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,665
 
Device(s): LG G2 , LG G Pad 8.3 GPE
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 43
Thanked 204 Times in 172 Posts
Default

You pretty much summed up my feelings on "gun control" As an avid hunter and a proud NRA member these "gun control groups" and the media can have my guns when they take them from my cold dead hands.
Adauth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2011, 06:22 AM   #3 (permalink)
Fixing stuff is not easy
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Over there <points>
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,690
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3; Asus Infinity
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 2,117
Thanked 4,314 Times in 2,513 Posts
jerofld
Default

The only gun bans I support are ones on weapons that are obviously not meant for sport (target shooting), hunting game or self-defense. Like M-60 machine guns, RPGs, and fully automatic assault rifles. Which, I believe, is what the current law states.

I don't currently own a gun (although I am thinking about getting one), but I would also support needing to take a safety course (if one is not already required) as long as the owner has not received any safety training in the military, police, or other such organizations where firearms are trained with and relied upon.

I don't have any hard facts on it, but hasn't the crime either remained the same or gone up since banning of hand guns? Because the criminals get black market guns and the citizens have nothing and the criminals know this?
jerofld is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2011, 08:47 AM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,445
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerofld View Post
The only gun bans I support are ones on weapons that are obviously not meant for sport (target shooting), hunting game or self-defense. Like M-60 machine guns, RPGs, and fully automatic assault rifles. Which, I believe, is what the current law states.
Please explain the reasoning behind your stance on this.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2011, 09:05 AM   #5 (permalink)
Fixing stuff is not easy
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Over there <points>
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,690
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3; Asus Infinity
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 2,117
Thanked 4,314 Times in 2,513 Posts
jerofld
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
Please explain the reasoning behind your stance on this.
Machine guns purpose is to provide suppressing fire and/or take down large amount targets quickly. Hence why ammo comes in 100 round cases. I don't think I've ever seen a house attacked by a large group of deer before. Automatic weapons are similar, but they just don't have the magazine capability.

I also doubt anyone would try to protect their home with an RPG.

Are those guns fun to shoot? Yes. I was qualified to shoot M60s and .50 cals. I just don't see how they fit under 'personal protection'.
jerofld is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2011, 09:17 AM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,445
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerofld View Post
Machine guns purpose is to provide suppressing fire and/or take down large amount targets quickly. Hence why ammo comes in 100 round cases. I don't think I've ever seen a house attacked by a large group of deer before. Automatic weapons are similar, but they just don't have the magazine capability.

I also doubt anyone would try to protect their home with an RPG.

Are those guns fun to shoot? Yes. I was qualified to shoot M60s and .50 cals. I just don't see how they fit under 'personal protection'.
Sure they wouldn't fit under 'personal protection' from deer and such but who protects themselves from deer? The idea of 'personal protection' is from ALL evil entities. What people don't realize is the 2nd amendment was put in place so we could protect ourselves from individuals sure but more importantly, from the government. That was the intent behind the amendment over everything. If you look at it from this standpoint the government has some pretty powerful weapons and neutering the availability of weapons to the commoners creates a gap of firepower that is slowly widening. IMO there should be no regulation on 'assault weapons' suppressors or short barreled firearms. I think that whole section is simply a farce of perceived safety created by bureaucrats and a cash grab. Nobody is any safer due to these laws and the NFA does NOTHING to protect Americans. In fact, I would argue that the ATF has done more to endanger Americans since it's inception than to protect it with statistics to back up said claims (see 'Operation Fast and Furious' for a start).

I also find it comical about how evil people who aren't in the know think full auto weapons are thanks to the media. Anyone who knows anything about firearms knows that semi-auto can be just as effective as FA and in every case it's more accurate. Those who think an AR15 is somehow less capable of killing massive amounts of people because it's not FA are ignorant to how they work.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OstrichSaK For This Useful Post:
SamuraiBigEd (November 18th, 2011), tommy_ed (November 21st, 2011)
Old November 18th, 2011, 09:19 AM   #7 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
Thread Author (OP)
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,140
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,092
Thanked 2,013 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerofld View Post
The only gun bans I support are ones on weapons that are obviously not meant for sport (target shooting), hunting game or self-defense. Like M-60 machine guns, RPGs, and fully automatic assault rifles. Which, I believe, is what the current law states.

I don't currently own a gun (although I am thinking about getting one), but I would also support needing to take a safety course (if one is not already required) as long as the owner has not received any safety training in the military, police, or other such organizations where firearms are trained with and relied upon.

I don't have any hard facts on it, but hasn't the crime either remained the same or gone up since banning of hand guns? Because the criminals get black market guns and the citizens have nothing and the criminals know this?

I don't support an all out ban on fully automatic weapons, the current system works well on that front, you purchase the weapon which is held pending your federal paperwork. If you are approved you can show your paperwork and pick up your weapon, if not the transaction is cancelled generally. Fully auto weapons for a lack of better words are fun, going out and shooting responsibly is a joy and a tremendous stress reliever. If somebody can afford and wants to as long as they are abiding by the laws I see no reason to prevent them.

I agree on the RPG subject, there is no justifiable reason for a civilian to own one or any other rocket propelled ordinance.

What I do disagree with wholeheartedly that you did not mention but Ostrich did is the "short barrel" restrictions. You have to file with the BATF for these as well which makes no sense, 16" is legal but below that is not. You are reducing the rifles effectiveness when you do this, not making it more lethal, but what you do gain is maneuverability which can be a big plus in brush country (or your home in defense of a home invasion) and is also the argument against them.

As far as hand gun bans, crime has increased in the areas they have been banned such as D.C. while it has decreased steadily everywhere else as gun ownership has risen.

Added to address posts I missed:

The "personal protection" standard was not part of the 2nd amendment, it is a BATF standard and one used for as Ostrich put it "...neutering the availability of weapons to the commoners...", this needs to be stopped plain and simple.
SamuraiBigEd is online now  
Last edited by SamuraiBigEd; November 18th, 2011 at 10:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2011, 02:12 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerofld View Post
Machine guns purpose is to provide suppressing fire and/or take down large amount targets quickly. Hence why ammo comes in 100 round cases. I don't think I've ever seen a house attacked by a large group of deer before. Automatic weapons are similar, but they just don't have the magazine capability.

I also doubt anyone would try to protect their home with an RPG.

Are those guns fun to shoot? Yes. I was qualified to shoot M60s and .50 cals. I just don't see how they fit under 'personal protection'.
I use to buy .22 ammo in 100 round boxes. Not sure how the number of rounds could possibly mean anything. Certainly, lots of people here purchase ammo in 100 round containers.

An RPG is illegal. A machine gun is perfectly legal. ALSO, did you know it is legal to purchase and use a silencer?

I think machine guns are not a big issue because they take effort to obtain legally and they are bloody costly for casual use. Lots of fun, but still not my cup of tea.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2011, 03:47 PM   #9 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,490
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S5, Galaxy Tab 7" 2
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,265 Times in 5,119 Posts
Default

The whole issue of Concealed Carry gets muddled by the inclusion of discussion and debate about fully automatic assault weapons, and even certain calibers and magazine capacities and "silencing" apparatus and "police killer" jacketing designs, etc.

I don't know the answer. I just feel that a strongly enforced permit system is in order, where the weapons, ammo and owner of them both should be tracked by state/local law envorcement. <--- And that is unconstitutional by many interpretations of that great document and those pesky amendments.
__________________



Frisco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2011, 05:03 PM   #10 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
Thread Author (OP)
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,140
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,092
Thanked 2,013 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
I use to buy .22 ammo in 100 round boxes. Not sure how the number of rounds could possibly mean anything. Certainly, lots of people here purchase ammo in 100 round containers.

An RPG is illegal. A machine gun is perfectly legal. ALSO, did you know it is legal to purchase and use a silencer?

I think machine guns are not a big issue because they take effort to obtain legally and they are bloody costly for casual use. Lots of fun, but still not my cup of tea.
Bob, I always enjoy your point of view! You hit the nail on the head, most people don't want to go to the expense and trouble to get an automatic, short barreled or silenced weapon. And yes automatics add the expense of rapid fire money loss, I know this all to well. I just want my short barreled PS90, at approximately $22.00 a box of 50 I don't want the ability to burn that up in a few seconds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
The whole issue of Concealed Carry gets muddled by the inclusion of discussion and debate about fully automatic assault weapons, and even certain calibers and magazine capacities and "silencing" apparatus and "police killer" jacketing designs, etc.

I don't know the answer. I just feel that a strongly enforced permit system is in order, where the weapons, ammo and owner of them both should be tracked by state/local law envorcement. <--- And that is unconstitutional by many interpretations of that great document and those pesky amendments.
Frisco, the thread is about the 2nd amendment in general, not specifically Concealed Carry, that was just a jumping off point to help illustrate the current public opinion about guns.

The type of permit system you suggest is way to invasive and does impede on civil liberties and rights. A license to carry concealed where you have to demonstrate proficiency, ffl transfer paperwork for initial purchases, these are good and acceptable policies but any kind of system requiring a federal permit to own a fire arm or ammunition is going way too far. Maybe at a state level, but it should not be used as a "gun control" tool.
SamuraiBigEd is online now  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old November 19th, 2011, 07:19 AM   #11 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,490
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S5, Galaxy Tab 7" 2
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,265 Times in 5,119 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBigEd View Post
Frisco, the thread is about the 2nd amendment in general, not specifically Concealed Carry, that was just a jumping off point to help illustrate the current public opinion about guns.

The type of permit system you suggest is way to invasive and does impede on civil liberties and rights. A license to carry concealed where you have to demonstrate proficiency, ffl transfer paperwork for initial purchases, these are good and acceptable policies but any kind of system requiring a federal permit to own a fire arm or ammunition is going way too far. Maybe at a state level, but it should not be used as a "gun control" tool.
No no.. did my post come across as criticizing the thread? Sorry.. it was not meant like that at all. I was lamenting how complicated the weapons issue is. Re-reading it now I see that it can be taken the way you just responded, but no, I was thinking out loud on how muddled the issues are, and how as soon as any aspect of it comes up all the other aspects end up being hashed (I bought some "Black Talon" ammo for my Glock 30SF a while back and there was a disclaimer in the case in the store about using that ammo in self-defense could set you up for legal hassles ).

I don't think federal permits are needed. I'm in agreement about state rights on it, and am fine with voluntarily impeding civil rights and liberties at the local level to combat weapons related crime.

It's complicated, and it depends on how far we want to extend our argument about it. Libertarians, for example, don't even want automobile licensing or any other government based permit system beyond qualification criteria for things such as doctors and nurses, etc.
Frisco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2011, 07:39 AM   #12 (permalink)
Careful, They're sharp!!
 
Bob Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midland's, South Carolina
Posts: 7,039
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note 2
Carrier: Big Red

Thanks: 2,605
Thanked 4,230 Times in 1,955 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBigEd View Post
You have to file with the BATF for these as well which makes no sense, 16" is legal but below that is not.
Anything below 18" is illegal. First hand experience.
Bob Cat is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2011, 10:49 AM   #13 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
Thread Author (OP)
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,140
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,092
Thanked 2,013 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
No no.. did my post come across as criticizing the thread? Sorry.. it was not meant like that at all. I was lamenting how complicated the weapons issue is. Re-reading it now I see that it can be taken the way you just responded, but no, I was thinking out loud on how muddled the issues are, and how as soon as any aspect of it comes up all the other aspects end up being hashed (I bought some "Black Talon" ammo for my Glock 30SF a while back and there was a disclaimer in the case in the store about using that ammo in self-defense could set you up for legal hassles ).

I don't think federal permits are needed. I'm in agreement about state rights on it, and am fine with voluntarily impeding civil rights and liberties at the local level to combat weapons related crime.

It's complicated, and it depends on how far we want to extend our argument about it. Libertarians, for example, don't even want automobile licensing or any other government based permit system beyond qualification criteria for things such as doctors and nurses, etc.
No problem, I didn't take it as criticism, just mistook it for you thinking the original idea was concealed carry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcat331 View Post
Anything below 18" is illegal. First hand experience.
Must have been a shotgun unless it is a State regulation, ATF rules say 16" for rifles.

From The Gun Control Act of 1968

(6) The term "short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or
more barrels less than eighteen inches
in length and any weapon made from a
shotgun (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon as
modified has an overall length of less
than twenty-six inches.

(8) The term "short-barreled rifle"
means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length
and any weapon made from a rifle
(whether by alteration, modification, or
otherwise) if such weapon, as modified,
has an overall length of less than
twenty-six inches.
SamuraiBigEd is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2011, 10:59 AM   #14 (permalink)
Careful, They're sharp!!
 
Bob Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midland's, South Carolina
Posts: 7,039
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note 2
Carrier: Big Red

Thanks: 2,605
Thanked 4,230 Times in 1,955 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBigEd View Post
No problem, I didn't take it as criticism, just mistook it for you thinking the original idea was concealed carry.



Must have been a shotgun unless it is a State regulation, ATF rules say 16" for rifles.

From The Gun Control Act of 1968

(6) The term "short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or
more barrels less than eighteen inches
in length and any weapon made from a
shotgun (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon as
modified has an overall length of less
than twenty-six inches.

(8) The term "short-barreled rifle"
means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length
and any weapon made from a rifle
(whether by alteration, modification, or
otherwise) if such weapon, as modified,
has an overall length of less than
twenty-six inches.
It was a shotgun Big E. I measured from the butt to the barrel the twenty six inches which i didn't know the barrel had to be no less than 18" until law enforcement was so nice to point that out to me. Ahhh the things we do as teenagers.
Bob Cat is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2011, 11:04 AM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,445
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcat331 View Post
Anything below 18" is illegal. First hand experience.
For shotguns (SBS) you're right. For rifles (SBR) the magic number is 16" & I know first hand as I own several of both.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2011, 01:26 PM   #16 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
Thread Author (OP)
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,140
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,092
Thanked 2,013 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
No no.. did my post come across as criticizing the thread? Sorry.. it was not meant like that at all. I was lamenting how complicated the weapons issue is. Re-reading it now I see that it can be taken the way you just responded, but no, I was thinking out loud on how muddled the issues are, and how as soon as any aspect of it comes up all the other aspects end up being hashed (I bought some "Black Talon" ammo for my Glock 30SF a while back and there was a disclaimer in the case in the store about using that ammo in self-defense could set you up for legal hassles ).

I don't think federal permits are needed. I'm in agreement about state rights on it, and am fine with voluntarily impeding civil rights and liberties at the local level to combat weapons related crime.

It's complicated, and it depends on how far we want to extend our argument about it. Libertarians, for example, don't even want automobile licensing or any other government based permit system beyond qualification criteria for things such as doctors and nurses, etc.
The problem is impeding civil rights really doesn't do much to combat weapon related crime. It may prevent "moment of rage" crimes but the vast majority of guns used in crimes are stolen or black market weapons.

So you are correct, it is a very complicated issue. I could easily see how a misguided idealist would think preventing law abiding citizens from owning guns would prevent gun related crime but the truth is the total opposite, crime actually increases when you remove the ability to defend yourself.

And we get to the crux of the matter, it is not so much the guns as it is the right to self-defense that is in jeopardy. As I said before, there are a lot of people who believe we don't have the right to self-defense.
SamuraiBigEd is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2011, 09:54 PM   #17 (permalink)
Member
 
2003vstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: coldwater,mi
Posts: 471
 
Device(s): Galaxy Nexus
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 35
Thanked 102 Times in 70 Posts
Default

I support the the bill, I`m a CPL holder in michigan, and if I want to travel to any state in the union, would like to be able to have my XDM 40 s&w
2003vstrom is offline  
Last edited by 2003vstrom; November 19th, 2011 at 10:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2011, 01:00 AM   #18 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 131
 
Device(s): Droid Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
Default

It's a little curious that the same people that always scream 'states rights' on most federal legislation are now support legislation that restricts a states right.
AndyLL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2011, 06:04 AM   #19 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,490
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S5, Galaxy Tab 7" 2
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,265 Times in 5,119 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLL View Post
It's a little curious that the same people that always scream 'states rights' on most federal legislation are now support legislation that restricts a states right.
Some.

But I haven't heard any of them "screaming."

Of course my ears aren't what they used to be.
Frisco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2011, 11:08 PM   #20 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
Thread Author (OP)
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,140
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,092
Thanked 2,013 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLL View Post
It's a little curious that the same people that always scream 'states rights' on most federal legislation are now support legislation that restricts a states right.
The States couldn't or wouldn't agree on reciprocity so this is an instance were federal intervention was warranted.
SamuraiBigEd is online now  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old November 21st, 2011, 01:11 PM   #21 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 131
 
Device(s): Droid Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBigEd View Post
The States couldn't or wouldn't agree on reciprocity so this is an instance were federal intervention was warranted.
So anytime the states can't agree on something it's ok that the federal government can intervin?

That would include... just about everything.
AndyLL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2011, 01:37 PM   #22 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,445
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLL View Post
So anytime the states can't agree on something it's ok that the federal government can intervin?

That would include... just about everything.
No but try not to forget that it's the individual's rights that are paramount to that of the state or of the fed. In this case states unfairly chose for far too long to ignore basic inalienable rights of the individual for far too long so a bill was introduced to return rights to the individual. This and nation protection were the primary reasons we created a federal government to begin with. It seems the federal government has been over stepping it's boundaries for so long that the point of using it for what it was actually created for seems novel.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OstrichSaK For This Useful Post:
SamuraiBigEd (November 21st, 2011)
Old November 21st, 2011, 01:52 PM   #23 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,490
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S5, Galaxy Tab 7" 2
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,265 Times in 5,119 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBigEd View Post
The States couldn't or wouldn't agree on reciprocity so this is an instance were federal intervention was warranted.
The reciprocity that exists now, wherein most CC states have agreements with many other states, seems to be working. I've got Nebraska and Utah and Florida. That covers (at last count, could have changed) all states but Wisconsin and New Mexico (again, I'll have to look it up, going by recollection, maybe Illinois is left out too).

It seems to be gradually increasing to all states "naturally," as more of them see that wordage in the licenses/permits, requirements of class hours and background checks become the norm from state to state.

Heck, the FBI fingerprint requirement alone is "federal" enough for me. Let the states do it as it's being done.. takes time for full state to state reciprocity to come about, but it does seem to be happening with no true fed laws about it needed.
Frisco is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frisco For This Useful Post:
Bob Maxey (November 21st, 2011)
Old November 21st, 2011, 02:08 PM   #24 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
Thread Author (OP)
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,140
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,092
Thanked 2,013 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
The reciprocity that exists now, wherein most CC states have agreements with many other states, seems to be working. I've got Nebraska and Utah and Florida. That covers (at last count, could have changed) all states but Wisconsin and New Mexico (again, I'll have to look it up, going by recollection, maybe Illinois is left out too).

It seems to be gradually increasing to all states "naturally," as more of them see that wordage in the licenses/permits, requirements of class hours and background checks become the norm from state to state.

Heck, the FBI fingerprint requirement alone is "federal" enough for me. Let the states do it as it's being done.. takes time for full state to state reciprocity to come about, but it does seem to be happening with no true fed laws about it needed.
Problem is there are states that refuse to recognize other states permits, California being one that jumps to mind but there are more, enough that you can't travel across the U.S. unimpeded.

Andy, this was not a concoction of the Fed's, it started as a grassroots movement that was then brought to the Congressmen that sponsored it. It was an issue that enough citizens felt needed addressing.
SamuraiBigEd is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2011, 03:30 PM   #25 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,490
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S5, Galaxy Tab 7" 2
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,265 Times in 5,119 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBigEd View Post
Problem is there are states that refuse to recognize other states permits, California being one that jumps to mind but there are more, enough that you can't travel across the U.S. unimpeded.

Andy, this was not a concoction of the Fed's, it started as a grassroots movement that was then brought to the Congressmen that sponsored it. It was an issue that enough citizens felt needed addressing.
That's the strong end of that argument for the fed law. I am not expressing disagreement with it in spirit, but yes I am in function: I don't want that federal law/permit.

My reasoning is a lean in the direction of time taking care of this. The states that didn't recognize so-and-so other state's permit now do, one by one they get together and largely due to pressure from good folks just like you who see the need for nationwide recognition of our rights to carry as (proven) law abiding citizens.

It's very very close to the same thing, only the way I advocate negates the fed law/permit need as long as we're willing to wait it out.

Now, I will say this: the first time I see a state in my reciprocity bunch turn and disallow where they once allowed, I'll be pretty mad.
Frisco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2011, 04:02 PM   #26 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,445
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
That's the strong end of that argument for the fed law. I am not expressing disagreement with it in spirit, but yes I am in function: I don't want that federal law/permit.

My reasoning is a lean in the direction of time taking care of this. The states that didn't recognize so-and-so other state's permit now do, one by one they get together and largely due to pressure from good folks just like you who see the need for nationwide recognition of our rights to carry as (proven) law abiding citizens.

It's very very close to the same thing, only the way I advocate negates the fed law/permit need as long as we're willing to wait it out.

Now, I will say this: the first time I see a state in my reciprocity bunch turn and disallow where they once allowed, I'll be pretty mad.
Like Nevada? I have a Colorado and Florida permit which I got (using the exact same certificate and qualifications by which I attained my Colorado permit) and got the non-resident FL permit for the sole purpose of going to Las Vegas as we go several times a year. I wanted to jump through all possible hoops to be legal when traveling there. Welp, as of January 1, 2009 that permit is useless to my wife and I. Lots of hoops jumped through for no reason.

You keep talking about a 'federal permit' but you do realize there is no such thing nor does this bill push for such an animal, right? Bugs me when people make such statements because then others gloss through these discussions and read that and assume it's a bill to implement a federal CCW permit system which it's NOT proposing. At all. It's merely a bill that would require states that allow permits to recognize permits from residents of other states in the same manner. There is ZERO push for a uniform federal permit or uniform federal laws. None. It just means if you have to let permit holders from others states enjoy the same laws you allow for your own permit holders. This is as common sense as a bill gets really. Why there are ANY pro-2nd amendment people against this bill is beyond me.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Last edited by OstrichSaK; November 21st, 2011 at 04:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2011, 04:11 PM   #27 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,490
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S5, Galaxy Tab 7" 2
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,265 Times in 5,119 Posts
Default

I'm calling it a "fed permit" as an issue, not as a card like the ones I have in my wallet.

But your point is a good one, because it would require those reading through here to actually read it all instead of breezing through and drawing conclusions based on a cryptic idiom.

But, I'll hang in there with my idealism on this, for now. I still think the wind is blowing in the right direction.

Click a state or three on the map here:

Handgunlaw.us
Frisco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2011, 04:17 PM   #28 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,445
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
I'm calling it a "fed permit" as an issue, not as a card like the ones I have in my wallet.

But your point is a good one, because it would require those reading through here to actually read it all instead of breezing through and drawing conclusions based on a cryptic idiom.

But, I'll hang in there with my idealism on this, for now. I still think the wind is blowing in the right direction.

Click a state or three on the map here:

Handgunlaw.us
Sure, overall things have progressed lately but it's not swinging in the right direction for everyone and definitely not quickly enough. On an individual basis I remind you of the story I just told where the step backwards by Nevada has indeed caused a significant effect to me personally since that's the state we travel to the most. I bring this up also to point at that as it currently stands most states can make backward moves like this at any time & there's not much you as a nonresident can do about it. If this bill passes these instant subtractions of our rights can't occur state to state. To say things are going in the right direction currently so we don't need such a bill is extremely near sighted.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2011, 04:36 PM   #29 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,490
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S5, Galaxy Tab 7" 2
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,265 Times in 5,119 Posts
Default

Nobody in this discussion is "near sighted" because of their stated views.
Frisco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2011, 04:50 PM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,445
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
Nobody in this discussion is "near sighted" because of their stated views.
Don't be so thin skinned. I wasn't attacking your vision. It's hard to have conversations on this forum because people take things so personal.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OstrichSaK For This Useful Post:
Bob Maxey (November 21st, 2011)
sponsored links
Old November 21st, 2011, 05:01 PM   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 752
 
Device(s): Samsung Epic 4G
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 77
Thanked 180 Times in 126 Posts
Default

more federal foot stomping on states rights. not needed.
batgeek is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to batgeek For This Useful Post:
Bob Maxey (November 21st, 2011), Crude (November 27th, 2011)
Old November 21st, 2011, 05:18 PM   #32 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,445
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batgeek View Post
more federal foot stomping on states rights. not needed.
So by that statement I conclude the following:

Federal < State
State > Individual

After all, this is about individual rights that are being denied by states.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2011, 07:08 PM   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 752
 
Device(s): Samsung Epic 4G
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 77
Thanked 180 Times in 126 Posts
Default

however you wish to look at it.
batgeek is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2011, 08:39 PM   #34 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 131
 
Device(s): Droid Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
Default

LOL... The hypocrisy is stunning.

No matter how you spin it this is using the power of the federal government to override the states wishes.

Ron Paul agrees. As much as he supports gun rights he does not support this bill because it uses the federal government to override a states right to make laws within that state.
AndyLL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2011, 08:40 PM   #35 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 131
 
Device(s): Droid Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
So by that statement I conclude the following:

Federal < State
State > Individual

After all, this is about individual rights that are being denied by states.
An individual of your state should not be able to override the individuals in my states... that is the whole point of states rights.
AndyLL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2011, 08:52 PM   #36 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
Thread Author (OP)
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,140
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,092
Thanked 2,013 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

As has been said elsewhere, states don't have rights they have powers, we the citizens are the only ones that have rights. In this instance it is at the request of the citizens that this bill was introduced, if it was totally at the whim of the fed's I would be against it, but that is not the case. If it was a federal permit system I would definitely be opposed to that!

As stated by Ostrich, this is a case of states impeding citizens rights and if your not a resident of that state you have no say in the matter at all. It is at that point that federal representation becomes necessary, it is a system of checks and balances that are supposed to protect our rights.
SamuraiBigEd is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2011, 08:54 PM   #37 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
Thread Author (OP)
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,140
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,092
Thanked 2,013 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLL View Post
An individual of your state should not be able to override the individuals in my states... that is the whole point of states rights.
But are you as an individual voting to prevent residents of other states the right to carry? I highly doubt it, this is a decision done by the state government and not the voting populace.
SamuraiBigEd is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2011, 01:27 PM   #38 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,490
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S5, Galaxy Tab 7" 2
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,265 Times in 5,119 Posts
Default

I part company with most gun rights activists because I disagree with them about this. I feel that Americans don't need the full (and likely wrong) interpretation of the 2nd amendment, "to protect ourselves against the government," etc.

In the U.S., the government is freely elected, not ushered in via bloodline or military promotion, etc. Some of us don't trust our government 100%, that seems to be common in every society and is a good thing. But to believe we need to be armed to the teeth so that we can mobilize and fight the U.S. Armed Forces in order to overthrow our rulers is not just a gross exaggeration, it is foolhardy and rather comical at the same time.

If enough people want change in the land on a national scale, important things happen on a mass scale, the Civil Rights Movement, a dedicated non-violent operation led by a Christian Minister, is one example. Slow moving, but effective in the long run and a lot less tragic than a shooting war in the streets against a mechanized Army. Do you really want your neighbors to have access to the sorts of weapons the Army has? Ever seen Beirut?

The Constitution and amendments are quite a template for our society, we're lucky to have it. But we are also clever enough to understand that the farmers of the 1700s with their squirrel guns could then be a threat to the armies of the day, thus certain wording in certain amendments. Only 60 years after that portion of the great document, that portion of the 2nd amendment became outdated.
Frisco is offline  
Last edited by Frisco; November 23rd, 2011 at 03:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frisco For This Useful Post:
Old November 23rd, 2011, 05:09 PM   #39 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

The 2nd Amendment was put in place to keep the authority at the time (red coats) in check. The law is no longer relevant. If the British armies had nuclear missiles and weapons of mass destruction, would the framers have enacted the 2nd Amendment and included your right to carry nuclear weapons on you? If our current government wanted to break into your house and take you into custody or end your life, any weapon you have access to legally would be ineffective at stopping them. The right to bear arms is just a symbolic outdated law. If it had the same meaning as it was when it was drafted then why aren't citizens allowed to buy tanks, missile launchers, surface to air missiles? I think it would be interesting to see how the founding fathers would've interpreted this law in today's society.


Oh and the obligatory.....


 
Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2011, 09:34 PM   #40 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Adauth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New Orleans
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,665
 
Device(s): LG G2 , LG G Pad 8.3 GPE
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 43
Thanked 204 Times in 172 Posts
Default

Whats sad is that more and more of our freedoms are being taken away everyday, and most people don't even notice, and the worst part is that most of the ones that do, do nothing about it.
Adauth is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Adauth For This Useful Post:
SamuraiBigEd (November 24th, 2011)
sponsored links
Old November 24th, 2011, 12:02 PM   #41 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adauth View Post
Whats sad is that more and more of our freedoms are being taken away everyday, and most people don't even notice, and the worst part is that most of the ones that do, do nothing about it.
People need to pay attention. We will wake up one day and get it. By then it might be too late.

Consider guns and SCOTUS. Those judges can refuse to hear cases and they cannot be fired. They are the gatekeepers and if bad ones are appointed and they decide guns are bad, they can refuse to hear cases that come before them and we are more or less stuck.

Guns do not need to be banned. All that needs to happen is more fees, rules, taxes, limiting how many gun stores can exist, ban on imports, higher ammo taxes and other things can impact gun ownership.

We are lost and we need to find the way back to a government that both understands and respects the Constitution and our absolute rights.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
SamuraiBigEd (November 24th, 2011)
Old November 24th, 2011, 02:06 PM   #42 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
Thread Author (OP)
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,140
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,092
Thanked 2,013 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
I part company with most gun rights activists because I disagree with them about this. I feel that Americans don't need the full (and likely wrong) interpretation of the 2nd amendment, "to protect ourselves against the government," etc.

In the U.S., the government is freely elected, not ushered in via bloodline or military promotion, etc. Some of us don't trust our government 100%, that seems to be common in every society and is a good thing. But to believe we need to be armed to the teeth so that we can mobilize and fight the U.S. Armed Forces in order to overthrow our rulers is not just a gross exaggeration, it is foolhardy and rather comical at the same time.

If enough people want change in the land on a national scale, important things happen on a mass scale, the Civil Rights Movement, a dedicated non-violent operation led by a Christian Minister, is one example. Slow moving, but effective in the long run and a lot less tragic than a shooting war in the streets against a mechanized Army. Do you really want your neighbors to have access to the sorts of weapons the Army has? Ever seen Beirut?

The Constitution and amendments are quite a template for our society, we're lucky to have it. But we are also clever enough to understand that the farmers of the 1700s with their squirrel guns could then be a threat to the armies of the day, thus certain wording in certain amendments. Only 60 years after that portion of the great document, that portion of the 2nd amendment became outdated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
The 2nd Amendment was put in place to keep the authority at the time (red coats) in check. The law is no longer relevant. If the British armies had nuclear missiles and weapons of mass destruction, would the framers have enacted the 2nd Amendment and included your right to carry nuclear weapons on you? If our current government wanted to break into your house and take you into custody or end your life, any weapon you have access to legally would be ineffective at stopping them. The right to bear arms is just a symbolic outdated law. If it had the same meaning as it was when it was drafted then why aren't citizens allowed to buy tanks, missile launchers, surface to air missiles? I think it would be interesting to see how the founding fathers would've interpreted this law in today's society.


Oh and the obligatory.....


The argument that the 2nd Amendment is outdated doesn't carry much weight, the fact is it is a Constitutional right but we have groups who feel those rights should be arbitrary and up for change on a whim. The gun control "Idiots", yes I used that term, claim banning guns is what will reduce crime when in fact the opposite has been proven over and over again. I have never once heard one of them use the argument that the 2nd amendment is outdated, that usually comes from the pseudo-gun supporters or fence straddlers.

If it comes down to it, would you rather be totally stripped of your rights? Yes we aren't as well armed as the military, but rest assured, if we as a populace called for the resignation of our current government it would not be bloodless. I wish that would be the case, but the people in power are not going to just give up and don't forget the monster corporations who have access to forces like Blackwood.

I apologize if I come across as a revolutionary nut-job, I'm not, I have just adopted a more realistic outlook. I hope these things never come to pass, but things aren't looking good right now.
SamuraiBigEd is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2011, 02:18 PM   #43 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBigEd View Post
I apologize if I come across as a revolutionary nut-job, I'm not, I have just adopted a more realistic outlook. I hope these things never come to pass, but things aren't looking good right now.
Those that hate guns would think nothing of banning all guns. They would, however, "take up arms" if freedom of speech or freedom of assembly were taken away.

If we get to a point where our guaranteed rights are ignored completely, we are screwed.

You are not a nut job by any means. Please do not apologize.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
SamuraiBigEd (November 25th, 2011)
Old November 25th, 2011, 10:34 AM   #44 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,445
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Armed citizens = free people

Unarmed citizens = subjects

The 2nd amendment gives the 1st amendment teeth.

Those who think that the 2nd amendment was put into place to 'protect from the redcoats' know nothing about history or what this country was founded on. Study some history and pay special attention to previous dynasties if you think our country is so great it can't happen to us because we're following the exact path all others have prior to tyranny of dictatorship.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OstrichSaK For This Useful Post:
SamuraiBigEd (November 25th, 2011), tommy_ed (December 5th, 2011)
Old November 25th, 2011, 02:44 PM   #45 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
Thread Author (OP)
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,140
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,092
Thanked 2,013 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
Those that hate guns would think nothing of banning all guns. They would, however, "take up arms" if freedom of speech or freedom of assembly were taken away.

If we get to a point where our guaranteed rights are ignored completely, we are screwed.

You are not a nut job by any means. Please do not apologize.
Thank you Bob!

That is exactly what is happening, our rights will begin to disappear one by one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
Armed citizens = free people

Unarmed citizens = subjects

The 2nd amendment gives the 1st amendment teeth.

Those who think that the 2nd amendment was put into place to 'protect from the redcoats' know nothing about history or what this country was founded on. Study some history and pay special attention to previous dynasties if you think our country is so great it can't happen to us because we're following the exact path all others have prior to tyranny of dictatorship.
You know I completely blanked on that part, The 2nd amendment was not written to protect us from Redcoats, it was written to protect us from our own government.

Here are a few quotes to this effect:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

All of these were said by Thomas Jefferson.
SamuraiBigEd is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2011, 01:54 PM   #46 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adauth View Post
Whats sad is that more and more of our freedoms are being taken away everyday, and most people don't even notice, and the worst part is that most of the ones that do, do nothing about it.
The right to bear arms is more of a token freedom that gives us the illusion of freedom IMO. I could understand if we were afforded the right to carry the same grade of weapons that our government carries.

Lets go back several hundred years, lets say clubs were the preferred weapons of choice and a government was formed and in order to demonstrate "good faith", it was written into law that a man was entitled to carry a club for his protection and to ensure that his government didn't encroach on his rights. Decades pass with that same law in place, meanwhile the government has amassed weapons that rely on "magic" (gunpowder) to strike an enemy down from a distance, and can do a lot of harm in high concentration (bombs). The government to appease the people claim, "feel free to keep your sticks err clubs since that's your right, but you can't have the same "magic" that we possess."

What good then is a rifle when the government has nuclear power, large missiles that can reach around the world, biological weapons that can kill you within seconds of a breath, armor that can render that weapon of yours ineffective?

I think the whole gun debate is just another divisive diversion to keep the status quo in place. It's a non-issue that's put in the forefront of our politics to keep people from voting for their best interest. It allows parties to claim victory for their base while they're busy selling this country off to the highest bidder.

I personally don't care if my neighbor has a gun, as long as they're not some Yee-Haw that fires it off at any occasion, but I think to tell yourself that it's some sort of "inalienable right" that belongs alongside the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in my opinion only proves that you've fallen right into their hands and have lost sight of what true freedom really means.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBigEd View Post
The argument that the 2nd Amendment is outdated doesn't carry much weight, the fact is it is a Constitutional right but we have groups who feel those rights should be arbitrary and up for change on a whim. The gun control "Idiots", yes I used that term, claim banning guns is what will reduce crime when in fact the opposite has been proven over and over again. I have never once heard one of them use the argument that the 2nd amendment is outdated, that usually comes from the pseudo-gun supporters or fence straddlers.

If it comes down to it, would you rather be totally stripped of your rights? Yes we aren't as well armed as the military, but rest assured, if we as a populace called for the resignation of our current government it would not be bloodless. I wish that would be the case, but the people in power are not going to just give up and don't forget the monster corporations who have access to forces like Blackwood.

I apologize if I come across as a revolutionary nut-job, I'm not, I have just adopted a more realistic outlook. I hope these things never come to pass, but things aren't looking good right now.
Why does it not carry much weight? The law was put in place back when people fought with muskets. Have you seen what "modern warfare" is all about (and I don't mean the game)? A good test of how outdated it actually is, go out and try to buy a replica musket from the Revolutionary war, next try to buy ANY of the more popular weapons used in any of the wars from the past 20-30, hell past 100 years. Let me know the outcome. It's outdated because the advancement of warfare has neutered the law itself and how it's interpreted.
 
Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2011, 05:23 PM   #47 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,445
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
blah blah blah....government has nuclear power...armor that can render that weapon of yours ineffective....It's a non-issue...I personally don't care if my neighbor has a gun, as long as they're not some Yee-Haw that fires it off at any occasion...blah blah blah
Not really sure how you think the government is going to use nukes or chemical warfare on people of it's own nation... where members of the federal government resides. As for the US military vs the citizens; you do realize how many active military members there are compared to civilian gun owners, right? Why do you think the US mainland has NEVER been invaded by a standing army of an aggressor nation? Having access to more power weapons only helps to lower the blood shed of civilians once a revolution happens. Yeah, I said once it happens because most every nation of the world has had at least two since our last one. Don't think that our nation is above it and the way our federal government is gaining power it's going to be sooner than later. you do realize that it is our duty as citizens of this nation to take this country back (by force if need be) from the federal government if it becomes too powerful? I love how anti-gun people see ALL those who own firearms as 'whack jobs' who just pop off rounds in their house or out back on a regular basis but those in the military or in law enforcement are made of different genetics and can do no wrong with a firearm. I know better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
I think to tell yourself that it's some sort of "inalienable right" that belongs alongside the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in my opinion only proves that you've fallen right into their hands and have lost sight of what true freedom really means.
The good news is I don't have to tell myself anything. It was decided many, many, MANY years ago what rights free men were born with and the Bill of Rights was put into place only to outline those and spell them out for people like you who don't think they're necessary or important any longer. I love how in your world our federal government has our best interests in mind and works only to serve the needs of the many as they selflessly give of themselves with absolutely no greed behind any of their actions. Just curious, in the last century or so what has our federal government done to earn such unwavering trust from you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
Why does it not carry much weight? The law was put in place back when people fought with muskets. Have you seen what "modern warfare" is all about (and I don't mean the game)? A good test of how outdated it actually is, go out and try to buy a replica musket from the Revolutionary war, next try to buy ANY of the more popular weapons used in any of the wars from the past 20-30, hell past 100 years. Let me know the outcome. It's outdated because the advancement of warfare has neutered the law itself and how it's interpreted.
Not really sure what you're trying to say here but the point is lost on me. I can only assume that you're saying that because weapons have progressed this somehow makes the right to bear arms more dangerous or risky?
OstrichSaK is offline  
Last edited by OstrichSaK; November 27th, 2011 at 05:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2011, 06:51 PM   #48 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
Thread Author (OP)
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,140
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,092
Thanked 2,013 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
Not really sure how you think the government is going to use nukes or chemical warfare on people of it's own nation... where members of the federal government resides. As for the US military vs the citizens; you do realize how many active military members there are compared to civilian gun owners, right? Why do you think the US mainland has NEVER been invaded by a standing army of an aggressor nation? Having access to more power weapons only helps to lower the blood shed of civilians once a revolution happens. Yeah, I said once it happens because most every nation of the world has had at least two since our last one. Don't think that our nation is above it and the way our federal government is gaining power it's going to be sooner than later. you do realize that it is our duty as citizens of this nation to take this country back (by force if need be) from the federal government if it becomes too powerful? I love how anti-gun people see ALL those who own firearms as 'whack jobs' who just pop off rounds in their house or out back on a regular basis but those in the military or in law enforcement are made of different genetics and can do no wrong with a firearm. I know better.



The good news is I don't have to tell myself anything. It was decided many, many, MANY years ago what rights free men were born with and the Bill of Rights was put into place only to outline those and spell them out for people like you who don't think they're necessary or important any longer. I love how in your world our federal government has our best interests in mind and works only to serve the needs of the many as they selflessly give of themselves with absolutely no greed behind any of their actions. Just curious, in the last century or so what has our federal government done to earn such unwavering trust from you?
You have answered these points well enough that I am leaving those alone.


Quote:
Not really sure what you're trying to say here but the point is lost on me. I can only assume that you're saying that because weapons have progressed this somehow makes the right to bear arms more dangerous or risky?
He is saying that the military is an undefeatable power, at least by the citizens and the lowly weapons we posses.

He apparently does not comprehend that the guns available to civilians are just as powerful as what the military has. Ammo is ammo, 5.65 or 7.62 NATO rounds are no more powerful than their .223 or .308 Win civilian counterparts and just because a weapon is semi-auto as opposed to full-auto doesn't make it any weaker, on the contrary it is a more accurate weapon when fired single shot.

Body armor is an issue, but it is designed to stop handgun rounds, large caliber rifle rounds will penetrate most body armor (what it won't is to bulky and heavy to be effective in the field), its only purpose under that circumstance is to minimize damage.

And look what is done cheaply to disable our Armored vehicles in Iraq, that can easily be reproduced here.

I hope it never comes to this, but it is a "Right" granted us by the Constitution and if this one gets taken away the others will fall very soon after that. This is the one standing in the way of us being stripped of our other rights.
SamuraiBigEd is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2011, 10:26 PM   #49 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
Not really sure how you think the government is going to use nukes or chemical warfare on people of it's own nation... where members of the federal government resides. As for the US military vs the citizens; you do realize how many active military members there are compared to civilian gun owners, right? Why do you think the US mainland has NEVER been invaded by a standing army of an aggressor nation? Having access to more power weapons only helps to lower the blood shed of civilians once a revolution happens. Yeah, I said once it happens because most every nation of the world has had at least two since our last one. Don't think that our nation is above it and the way our federal government is gaining power it's going to be sooner than later. you do realize that it is our duty as citizens of this nation to take this country back (by force if need be) from the federal government if it becomes too powerful? I love how anti-gun people see ALL those who own firearms as 'whack jobs' who just pop off rounds in their house or out back on a regular basis but those in the military or in law enforcement are made of different genetics and can do no wrong with a firearm. I know better.



The good news is I don't have to tell myself anything. It was decided many, many, MANY years ago what rights free men were born with and the Bill of Rights was put into place only to outline those and spell them out for people like you who don't think they're necessary or important any longer. I love how in your world our federal government has our best interests in mind and works only to serve the needs of the many as they selflessly give of themselves with absolutely no greed behind any of their actions. Just curious, in the last century or so what has our federal government done to earn such unwavering trust from you?



Not really sure what you're trying to say here but the point is lost on me. I can only assume that you're saying that because weapons have progressed this somehow makes the right to bear arms more dangerous or risky?

I don't feel like segmenting each specific point of yours so I'll just reply. A couple of things, the first is I am not claiming that anyone that is "pro 2nd amendment" is a "whackjob", I said I have NO PROBLEM with my neighbor owning a gun as long as he's not some "YEE-HAW" (meaning he has NO respect for a firearm, which lets face it there are people that get a hold of a firearm that have NO BUSINESS owning one and that's on BOTH sides i.e. that guy doing gun-safety training that shot himself in the foot).

My second point, you pretty much validated my prior post about the issue being more of an issue used to divide and distract from actual issues (like our rights and interests being sold to the highest bidder). I don't think having all the handguns/rifles in the world is going to do you a lick of good if the government decides it wants to wipe you off the map thus I think it's like arguing that you want to use a BIG knife at a gun fight.

The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in because they were under English oppression. The amendment was intended to dissuade a tyrannical government from forming after the U.S. was free from English rule. Like I said, the amendment has lost it's intended bite due to the technological advances in weapons and warfare.

As far as having faith in my government, wrong again but I understand how this topic tends to invoke passion in people. I mean those in power know that the best way to divide people is to introduce a topic that they're emotional about. It's much easier to bend a person's rational thinking by trying to stir them emotionally.

To summarize, my opinion is not that we need to get rid of everything that kills or maims and replace it with teddy bears, stuffed unicorns, and stuff that glitters (I actually would like to introduce more pointy things that maim and kill if anything as a means of population control), my opinion is that the original intention of this amendment has been mostly neutered and the actual argument now is just a ploy used by politicians to garner votes so they can get down to the business of selling our interests to the highest bidders. "Well, I'm going to introduce a bill that allows the U.S. government to listen to your phone calls, enter your house without a warrant, and hold you indefinitely if we suspect you of something, but don't worry, we're going to let you keep that relatively harmless assault rifle, Oh and the new bill that I'm introducing, you'll like its name. It's going to be called the "Patriot Act"."
 
Last edited by TxGoat; November 27th, 2011 at 10:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2011, 08:15 AM   #50 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
Thread Author (OP)
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,140
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,092
Thanked 2,013 Times in 1,060 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
I don't feel like segmenting each specific point of yours so I'll just reply. A couple of things, the first is I am not claiming that anyone that is "pro 2nd amendment" is a "whackjob", I said I have NO PROBLEM with my neighbor owning a gun as long as he's not some "YEE-HAW" (meaning he has NO respect for a firearm, which lets face it there are people that get a hold of a firearm that have NO BUSINESS owning one and that's on BOTH sides i.e. that guy doing gun-safety training that shot himself in the foot).
Yes, there are many people that should not have firearms and I think reasonable safeguards are prudent.

Quote:
My second point, you pretty much validated my prior post about the issue being more of an issue used to divide and distract from actual issues (like our rights and interests being sold to the highest bidder). I don't think having all the handguns/rifles in the world is going to do you a lick of good if the government decides it wants to wipe you off the map thus I think it's like arguing that you want to use a BIG knife at a gun fight.
You are assuming that everyone fighting for the 2nd amendment is ignoring everything else around them, quite the contrary those who support it are usually very well informed on the major issues and threats to our rights.

Quote:
The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in because they were under English oppression. The amendment was intended to dissuade a tyrannical government from forming after the U.S. was free from English rule. Like I said, the amendment has lost it's intended bite due to the technological advances in weapons and warfare.
As Ostrich said earlier, the government is not going to turn nuclear or biological weapons on U.S. soil.

Do you realize what the 8th largest army in the world is? Based on license registrations in only 6 U.S. states it is the American hunters!

Quote:
As far as having faith in my government, wrong again but I understand how this topic tends to invoke passion in people. I mean those in power know that the best way to divide people is to introduce a topic that they're emotional about. It's much easier to bend a person's rational thinking by trying to stir them emotionally.
Magic and politics, it's all smoke and mirrors.

Quote:
To summarize, my opinion is not that we need to get rid of everything that kills or maims and replace it with teddy bears, stuffed unicorns, and stuff that glitters (I actually would like to introduce more pointy things that maim and kill if anything as a means of population control), my opinion is that the original intention of this amendment has been mostly neutered and the actual argument now is just a ploy used by politicians to garner votes so they can get down to the business of selling our interests to the highest bidders. "Well, I'm going to introduce a bill that allows the U.S. government to listen to your phone calls, enter your house without a warrant, and hold you indefinitely if we suspect you of something, but don't worry, we're going to let you keep that relatively harmless assault rifle, Oh and the new bill that I'm introducing, you'll like its name. It's going to be called the "Patriot Act"."
The Patriot Act was supposed to be a necessary evil during the period immediately after 9/11 to help in locating the terrorists responsible and prevent further attacks and you will find most people in favor of abolishing that one.
SamuraiBigEd is online now  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.