Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
redtigerdragon

Montana threatens to secede

Recommended Posts

The Supreme Court disagrees. And I never said reasonable restrictions were wrong.

Again, you're selectively reading. You can't use ONE court case to make a blanket statement. That court case merely said that particular clauses in the particular act were unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Supreme Court disagrees. And I never said reasonable restrictions were wrong.

 

I don't think anyone on here has. But who defines what is reasonable? Some people believe registering and filing every firearm in the country is reasonable. If that reasoning had some form of logical basis other than the fact that every firearm is on central record, I could empathize with their position. But, I fail to see what this logical basis is. OK, so the federal government knows who has legally registered all of their firearms. What good can come of it? The career criminals who use their guns to commit crimes won't register them, so I don't see how a gun being on central record will do anything to lower the crime rate. All I see it accomplishing is tamping down the liberties of those who choose to obey the law, while doing nothing to dissuade the activities of those who don't. All-in-all, it's a nothing more than an ineffective "feel-good" law, and we already have enough of those on the books. It's not the Constitutional job of the federal government to pass feel-good laws. It's their job to promote the general welfare, provide for the common defense, and regulate interstate commerce. The only reason I see to support the central register of firearms is to promote the general welfare - which indicates that proponents believe a central register will, in effect, reduce gun crime. There's no historical evidence to support this. Just like OBGYN-induced cerebral palsy, man-made global warming, and cancer caused by second hand smoke, it's phony science created by leftists to achieve their ultimate political goal - control without boundaries.

 

If someone were to propose some gun regulation that punishes real criminals, invigorates law-abiding citizens, and has some quality that is either economically or historically proven to work, within the bounds of the Constitution, then I will be more than happy to hear them out. The only problem with gun control legislation is that, all too often, it leads to unintended consequences that wind up hurting the law abiders while doing little to dissuade the law breakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's an example of your average, ordinary college kid who was carrying a firearm at the right place, and right time, saving the lives of several others:

 

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html

 

Yeah. Stuff like that happens everyday. On the other hand, people who shouldn't have guns also commit crimes on innocent people every day. So what's the answer to solve this problem? If the objective is to take guns from those who harm innocent people, then a central register of guns will not do this. If the objective is to regulate guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, then the law will be very effective. The question we have to ask is: Do we want to punish the criminals, the good citizens, or do we just want to "do something" to make ourselves feel better, regardless of the outcome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Supreme Court disagrees.

Please explain.

 

Also, even where carrying is allowed, don't they still stipulate certain places where it's not allowed (schools, malls, theaters, etc)? Most states do. "OMG, unconstitutional!!!" Wrong. Plenty of rights come with limitations, and those granted by the second amendment are certainly no exception.

 

And I never said reasonable restrictions were wrong.

No one ever said you did. All I am saying is that throwing the second amendment out there doesn't end the discussion like a lot of pro-gun folks think it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just my general take on it... I think that if enough states can get together that threatening succession can be used to fix some of the countries problems. It just depends on how it goes down...

 

banning guns either pistols or firearms in general will keep them out of the hands of regular citizens, but the black market can and will get guns in the hands of people who want them. You cannot trace a gun that has been bored and filed.

 

The only power left in American hands is the gun. without them we are all cattle waiting to be prodded, but with them we still have some teeth left. I have witnessed some protesting and nothing came of it.

 

Accidents happen, it is a part of life. Hitting on the car metaphor - Some people run red lights, we don't ban the light or the car -just the individual who messed up. Some cars are used as weapons, but America isn't about to start biking to work. Instead of banning hand guns, maybe mandatory training classes or safety classes - encouraging gun safes, or even trigger locks - could be more beneficial in the argument of gun-laws. Perhaps mental evaluations should be enacted to see if a person is likely to go off the hook and gun down people. Parents should be proactive in keeping children safe - I was taught how to shoot a gun and hunt as a child, but I never had access to the guns as it should be.

 

Training does not prevent accidents, but it can help lessen mistakes and accidents. I am not picking on cops, but these men and women are trained in firearm use.

cop shoots himself in the foot during an example in a school. He takes the shot great, but still.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HcvIH6GpW8 cop nearly shoots suspect in head by accidental discharge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkrkPpIeasY...feature=related shoots himself and partner behind him as he holsters the gun

http://blutube.policeone.com/Clip.aspx?key=DE97CEE747EDA725 cops gun gets taken from him and used against him. and shoots him 'two times' [5 actual])

 

Theres plenty more of that too. So how much training is enough?

 

I personally love to hunt, I don't do it often anymore but depending on what you hunt, having a pistol can be a good idea. I know that if I were hunting a grizzly bear I'd rather have a desert eagle than have to rely on a knife solely.

 

Britain has banned guns, look at how it works there. Think back to the wars of America. The civil war for example- the rural south was generally more experienced with guns than the industrial north. Had the south had more money or factories this country would be a whole lot different.

 

However I do not think the whole country should have guns. I just think banning pistols or firearms in general is not a good idea.

 

That is enough ranting and rambling from me for now. I personally think that there is too much regulation. Too much media polluting minds as well. Lets all hook up to the rfid chips already <_<

Edited by RHKCommander959

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all have differing opinions.

 

Clay I disagree with some of your points, you're looking at it from a safety aspect where as most of us are looking at it from a infringement aspect.

None of us want the government to know how many guns we have or what type of guns we own.

 

Your thoughts about safety are honestly irrelevant to us, we do what we do now with OUR guns in the manners that we desire in a safe manner.

We aren't saying that everyone is safe...

 

I know people that I wouldn't even trust with a pellet gun, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let the government regulate ME just because I believe that THEY should be regulated.

 

Even when weapons are disposed of, they're often discovered (that's what detective work is for). As such, having a record of who owns the firearm is why it would allow law enforcement to quickly and effectively find the culprit.

As well as allowing them to know what you have.

You may not have a problem with that, in fact right off the bat I wouldn't have a problem with that because the perceived goal is safety.

The problem is down the road that list could go into anyone hands.

 

In my opinion no being or entity has the right to know what I own unless I give consent.

 

 

And you should get fingerprinted when getting your driver's license

Why do you believe that?

 

You have to pay to register your car, why not a gun? I don't really care if a fee is charged or not, I just don't see it as a big deal either way. $25 or less per year (not per gun) is nothing...not when guns cost you hundreds of dollars. Processing licenses will take government funds, so it's better than taxing everyone.

Same as the first thing, now not only do they have a list of how many guns you own but they have a list of every single gun that you own along with its type, design, model etc.

 

As stated above I do not believe that that is anyones business...

 

You shouldn't be allowed to sell it to just anyone. Sorry, but I'm all for this provision.

Why?

 

I OWN them, therefore I reserve the right to do what I want them including selling them.

 

It has nothing to do with getting your stolen property back. It has to do with protecting YOU, the licensed firearm owner from being accountable if a crime occurs with your firearm. This goes hand-in-hand with the first point you outlined. Some of these points protect the gun owners just as much as they "regulate."

I agree that they can protect us from our guns being stolen and used in a crime.

 

However just as I stated above that is mute when we are talking about the knowledge of what I have in my home...

 

I fail to see what being from NY has to do with anything.

I think he was trying to say that people growing up in places even remotely considered urban usually view guns differently than people from rural areas.

As well as people from different sections of the US view them differently...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, you're selectively reading. You can't use ONE court case to make a blanket statement.

Reading selectively? No . it's only what, the 2nd or 3rd time the 2nd Amendment has ever been addressed in the history of the country and try and translate exactly who the founding fathers meant the 2nd amendment to apply to.

 

That court case merely said that particular clauses in the particular act were unconstitutional.

The particular clause that was found unconstitutional just happened to be one of the clauses that made it illegal to own a handgun in DC. Which is also the main issue i'm talking about.

 

Please explain.

 

Also, even where carrying is allowed, don't they still stipulate certain places where it's not allowed (schools, malls, theaters, etc)? Most states do. "OMG, unconstitutional!!!" Wrong. Plenty of rights come with limitations, and those granted by the second amendment are certainly no exception.

 

 

No one ever said you did. All I am saying is that throwing the second amendment out there doesn't end the discussion like a lot of pro-gun folks think it does.

 

It's in the link i posted last page. I even quoted the part in another post specifically saying that banning handguns as a whole was unconstitutional. And yes you can't just wave it around in a school or a mall...thats part of the reasonable restrictions part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it varies by state in a lot of cases (as it should). For conceal/open carry in NC you can't take it into:

 

1. Establishment where alcohol is sole and consumed

2. Establishments that charge admission to enter (though I figure this would best be left up to the owner of the establishment... but whatever)

3. Parades, protests, etc...

4. Government buildings - schools, courthouses, welfare office - though if you've ever been to the welfare office and seen the people in there, you'd be a fool to go in unarmed :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here Lo but we don't need any permits...

 

 

And my comment earlier about the rurality vs urbanness of an area is still relevant.

 

Vermont being mostly rural or at least primarily rural has taken a liking towards firearms where as states with a larger population (usually implicating large cities with high population densities) tend to be quite a bit more strict with their firearm laws.

 

Even with the majority of Vermont being Liberal we have some of the laxest laws firearm laws here, which is actually pretty darn surprising...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comments to your comments in yellow this time :lol:

 

We all have differing opinions.

 

Clay I disagree with some of your points, you're looking at it from a safety aspect where as most of us are looking at it from a infringement aspect.

None of us want the government to know how many guns we have or what type of guns we own.

 

Your thoughts about safety are honestly irrelevant to us, we do what we do now with OUR guns in the manners that we desire in a safe manner.

We aren't saying that everyone is safe...

 

I know people that I wouldn't even trust with a pellet gun, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let the government regulate ME just because I believe that THEY should be regulated.

 

Even when weapons are disposed of, they're often discovered (that's what detective work is for). As such, having a record of who owns the firearm is why it would allow law enforcement to quickly and effectively find the culprit.

As well as allowing them to know what you have.

You may not have a problem with that, in fact right off the bat I wouldn't have a problem with that because the perceived goal is safety.

The problem is down the road that list could go into anyone hands.

 

In my opinion no being or entity has the right to know what I own unless I give consent.

The govt knows all the cars you own. You gave your consent when you registered them.

 

 

And you should get fingerprinted when getting your driver's license

Why do you believe that?

Why shouldn't everyone's fingerprints be on file? Again, it'll make it easier for law enforcement, and most people already have their fingerprints on file, so why not have everyone's?

 

You have to pay to register your car, why not a gun? I don't really care if a fee is charged or not, I just don't see it as a big deal either way. $25 or less per year (not per gun) is nothing...not when guns cost you hundreds of dollars. Processing licenses will take government funds, so it's better than taxing everyone.

Same as the first thing, now not only do they have a list of how many guns you own but they have a list of every single gun that you own along with its type, design, model etc.

 

As stated above I do not believe that that is anyones business...

Again, you register your car and thus the govt knows about it. You're treating a gun like some everyday household object...it's not a broom.

 

You shouldn't be allowed to sell it to just anyone. Sorry, but I'm all for this provision.

Why?

 

I OWN them, therefore I reserve the right to do what I want them including selling them.

Why? Because this is one of the biggest issues right now. People can sell guns to anyone without any proof of license or even citizenship. I don't care if you own the gun.

 

It has nothing to do with getting your stolen property back. It has to do with protecting YOU, the licensed firearm owner from being accountable if a crime occurs with your firearm. This goes hand-in-hand with the first point you outlined. Some of these points protect the gun owners just as much as they "regulate."

I agree that they can protect us from our guns being stolen and used in a crime.

 

However just as I stated above that is mute when we are talking about the knowledge of what I have in my home...

See previous points

 

I fail to see what being from NY has to do with anything.

I think he was trying to say that people growing up in places even remotely considered urban usually view guns differently than people from rural areas.

As well as people from different sections of the US view them differently...

Again, I don't really see my location as being relevant (not to mention I've lived in the South).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yes you can't just wave it around in a school or a mall...thats part of the reasonable restrictions part.

And this is exactly my point. The Constitution doesn't mention anything about shopping malls. At least not the copy I've seen. And yet most people don't object to this restriction, including yourself. And yet if a different restriction were to come up that you didn't like, you'd probably be the first to break out the ol' second amendment again and scream about how restrictions are unconstitutional.

 

It's selective logic. You want to make the biggest stink you can about things you disagree with so you break out the Constitution even though you already know and accept the fact that the rights granted to you by that document come with restrictions. You're fine with restrictions as long as they don't impede you, but when they do it's right back to the blanket sweep of "restrictions are unconstitutional".

 

If a court decides something is unconstitutional, that's fine. But a lot of people claim a lot of gun proposals are unconstitutional simply because they think the second amendment allows everything. It doesn't, and we all know and accept that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×