Sign in or 

|
zachy_vengeance |
|
|
John_234 |
1. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 28 2010, 2:06 PM EDT
This probably won't do much about the really asinine gun laws, like mag cap restrictions, automatic firing pin safeties and "military appearance."
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
zachy_vengeance |
2. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 28 2010, 2:18 PM EDT
"This probably won't do much about the really asinine gun laws, like mag cap restrictions, automatic firing pin safeties and "military appearance.""True, but hey, it's something. Do you find this valuable? |
|
AlexHigginbotham |
3. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 28 2010, 9:27 PM EDT
They completely overlook the purpose of the second ammendment. It isnt to protect the owners home, it is to give people the opportunity to arm themselves during a revolution. Thats why it was instated in the first place.I dont get why some federal laws are ignored why others upheld. Some states that have decriminalized marijuana dont get hassled by federal drugs regulations. The drug is illegal federally, and the state should uphold that. When states and cities outlaw handguns, the feds should step in and defend the 2nd ammendment. Most government officials have been wiping their ass with the constitution for the last 70 years anyways. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Carnack |
4. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 28 2010, 9:34 PM EDT
"They completely overlook the purpose of the second ammendment. It isnt to protect the owners home, it is to give people the opportunity to arm themselves during a revolution. Thats why it was instated in the first place.Actually Alex it isn't to protect during a revolution. It's a warning. It says "From the lowest courts to the president be aware that we are armed and if you seek to oppress us you will face a society armed to the teeth". It's to prevent the need for revolution. If you new that stepping out of line would get you vented would you step out of line? In addition the states have rights as well. It's a loophole sometimes. Do you find this valuable? |
|
LJ126 |
5. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Control Laws
Jun 28 2010, 10:13 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 28 2010, 10:17 PM EDT
Forewarning - you all know the rules about politics: no bashing, no hate speech, no criticism - keep it clean. I'll shut it down if it goes the route of typical politically-motivated threads.Personally, I'm glad that steps are being taken in the right direction, however, I fear that this won't continue. The margin of victory was minimal, and in general, the population of our country continues to be misinformed by the media about firearms. The future is bleak unless we do (or continue doing) something about it. We have the power to change the future for the better - it is our responsibility as firearms owners to expose our friends and family to the joys of shooting in a safe and mature way, and to keep them informed about the truth of our Second Amendment rights so that they vote accordingly. We must teach our loved ones WHY 2A exists, what its purpose is, and teach them to handle firearms safely, because shooting is part of our cultural heritage and because it is a right granted to us by the founding fathers of our nation. Our friends and offspring, in turn, will teach their friends, family and children these same values, so that we can protect future generations from tyrannical oppression. In my opinion, anyone who enjoys their 2A rights must defend it, lest it be taken away like it has been in so many other countries. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Freelancer47 |
6. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Control Laws
Jun 28 2010, 10:24 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 28 2010, 10:25 PM EDT
Before anymore comments are made on this I'd implore you all to read the following link:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Then understand what is being said in the next link (Yes, I expect you to read it): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ I'm with LJ on this one. Any A{1}amp;-Hattery & S**t will get stomped. Continue... -Freelancer47 *Gun-Toting-Katana-Meilding-Meerkat-Lover* Do you find this valuable? |
|
possumblaster |
7. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Control Laws
Jun 29 2010, 9:02 AM EDT
I believe the gun control laws we have now are mind boggling. You can have a pistol but if you shorten the barrel of a rifle without authorization you go to prison?Everything else I have to say is a violation of the rules here... Do you find this valuable? |
|
PedroAsani |
8. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Control Laws
Jun 29 2010, 10:46 AM EDT
I'll put the M down for a moment, because I have an outsider perspective here:Point 1: I agree that putting a cap on the number of bullets a gun can hold is ridiculous. So a gun that holds 13 bullets is ok, but 14 is illegal? Do you not see a problem with this thinking? If your concern is that the person with the gun is going to shoot people, THE NUMBER OF BULLETS IS NOT THE PROBLEM. Point 2: Yes, the state/federal law situation you have is retarded. If a federal law covers all states, then either: the state law is invalid OR the state law overrides the federal one. In the first case, there should be no state law on a subject covered by federal law. It is contradictory and unncessary. For example, if murder is a federal offense, then you don't need a state law saying murder is illegal. In the second case, if state law overrides federal law, then any state with a law against (or permitting) an action nullifies the federal law completely. Pick one of the two options, and stick with it. Myself, I suggest the second. Have federal laws picked by unanimous vote of all 50 states. So the simple stuff will be covered by federal law: murder, rape, theft, assault, etc. Issues that have two opposing sides will come down to state level, and people can then pick which states they want to live in based on the laws they have. Like smoking pot? California for you. Like huge fireworks that can blow your arm off? Welcome to Nevada. Want to wear all your guns at once in a public place? Texas for you, good sir. Do you find this valuable? |
|
PedroAsani |
9. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 29 2010, 10:47 AM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 29 2010, 10:59 AM EDT
Point 3: Don't oppose registration. You have it for your car, so why not a gun? And since there are more gun owners than LEO's, the argument that "They might try and round us up" is ridiculous. A gun database is no more insidious than a car database. It allows officials to match a gun to a person. Why would anyone want to do that, if you are behaving like a legal, responsible gun owner? They wouldn't. But matching a gun used in a crime to an owner (even if it was stolen) would be in their interest, just as if a car was used in a crime.Resisting registration is as counter-productive as mag-caps or laws against the type of gun you can own. One side needs to begin a compromise to put an end to this ridiculous circus. But I guess that isn't going to happen any time soon. Not when you can scream "cold dead hands" or wave placards of dead children. 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
PedroAsani |
10. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 29 2010, 11:19 AM EDT
For the record, the above posts are my official viewpoint on guns: own as many as you want, of any type that you want. Minigun, bazooka, whatever.But with that freedom of choice, comes the responsibility. Everything you buy will be subject to the following regulations: All registered in your name. You have to pass a simple gun safety course (half-hour written test, half-day range course. Nothing huge) before you are allowed to take the guns home. If you don't pass the course, you must keep them at a shooting club. If you take the guns home, they must be kept in a rated and approved gunsafe. (To appease the argument of "what if I need them quickly, all PedroAani-approved safes are keypad-secured with an internal battery wired to the mains. 3 seconds to open in a rush.) Explosives need to be stored in a place that can contain the explosion of everything going off at once. So the only control is the prohibitive cost. You can buy a ton of dynamite, but storing it requires a cave the size of Norway. So if you can only afford a bombproof safe rated to half-stick, then that's all you get. The point of gun control is to ensure guns are handled in a safe, responsible manner. And given the number of accidents, idiots, criminals and children involved with guns, current methods are not working. Something does need to be done, but banning guns won't work, and neither will arbitrary rules about bullet counts or automatic fire. Keeping guns in the hands of responsible owners, and keeping them out of criminal hands, is only possible if you train all gun owners to be responsible. 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Hitmancj86 |
11. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 29 2010, 11:27 AM EDT
I agree with some gun control laws. (Now that everyone is glaring at me)I also agree it is not right to ban guns in an area that has too many shooting. It is not right to ban guns anywhere in the US. But I think some people should not go within 10 feet of a gun and I bet we all know someone like that. I like this from the article: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an ardent proponent of gun control, said the ruling allows cities "to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens." New York does not ban guns, but restricts who can have them. I live in New York and I own many guns. All you have to do is spend a few hours filling out paper work. By the way I mean upstate New York, New York City is small compared to the whole state. Do you find this valuable? |
|
PedroAsani |
12. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 29 2010, 11:37 AM EDT
"I also agree it is not right to ban guns in an area that has too many shooting. It is not right to ban guns anywhere in the US. But I think some people should not go within 10 feet of a gun and I bet we all know someone like that.Quick question: can convicted criminals legally purchase a gun, once they leave prison? What questions does the paperwork ask? What checks are currently involved? Do you find this valuable? |
|
Shadow_Sukhoi |
13. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 29 2010, 11:45 AM EDT
"Quick question: can convicted criminals legally purchase a gun, once they leave prison?No, they can't. Do you find this valuable? |
|
PedroAsani |
14. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 29 2010, 12:05 PM EDT
"No, they can't."Follow up: can convicted criminals get a driving licence? Do you find this valuable? |
|
kinelta |
15. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 29 2010, 12:18 PM EDT
"Follow up: can convicted criminals get a driving licence?"Yes. If it hasn't been suspended or revoked. Do you find this valuable? |
|
kinelta |
16. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 29 2010, 12:43 PM EDT
I know you think, Pedro, that the "rounding us up" scenario is ridiculous, but I don't.Demonizing firearms seems to have become a national pastime amongst certain segments of society here, and I can't say that they have been unsuccessful. I tend to think that that is the end goal, after all. Especially when they have access to those who are still in their formative years. I think the whole purpose of the owning firearms is to give the government pause before they "attack' their own citizenry, whether through laws that are enacted without our input or through actual force. We have checks and balances in our government, and this is just one more check on the government to ensure the autonomy of the individual. Our Consitituion and Bill of Rights places a lot of importance on the individual. and his rights. Anyway, I do think that the end goal is to disarm us. It would give the government unprescedented power over us and we would have no means to repel it. I don't think it will happen today, not even five years from now. But it will happen eventually, twenty, thirty years down the road, unless it is stopped. So, I can be thought of as a crackpot lunatic. I don't mind. I'd rather be that and on the lookout for my own liberty, than to have that liberty silently stolen away from me, and no recourse to gaining it back. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
zachy_vengeance |
17. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 29 2010, 12:55 PM EDT
I don't get why everything has to be so damn complicated. I like guns, I'm not going to shoot anybody. So leave my guns the f*ck alone.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
PedroAsani |
18. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 29 2010, 12:55 PM EDT
"I know you think, Pedro, that the "rounding us up" scenario is ridiculous, but I don't.You'll need to specify that last part. What EXACTLY are you expecting them to do? Given the last ten years, your rights have been trampled plenty. Patriot Act, much? And I didn't see any uprisings and rebellions there. So what is (in your opinion) going to be the breaking point for an American uprising? If regulations were enacted in line with my own ideas (register, keep the guns in a safe place, keep them out of criminal and underage hands) would you object? Do you think the current system works? If not, and you object to my ideas, what are your own? Do you find this valuable? |
|
kinelta |
19. RE: Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Controll Laws
Jun 29 2010, 1:30 PM EDT
I don't like socialism, Pedro, and I'll leave it at that. I'm not into a utopian society.I'm reaching my own breaking point, but I can't tell what everyone else's will be. I believe there are stirrings, but what will happen is anyone's guess at this point. We, as a people, have been lulled into apathy. Anymore, it appears people only care that they eat and have a roof over their head and that their next door neighbor isn't running a terrorist training camp. It really scares me, and I wonder if my fellow countryman still hold the same values this country was founded on. Guns...it isn't a federal matter. The fact that the federal government is intruding into state matters is just another disturbing trend, and a blurring of lines between matters that a state and it's populace should hash out for themselves. What is good in one part of the nation is not necessarily good in another. (The nice thing about having states deciding these matters is that if a person doesn't like the law in his own state, he can move to another that is more to his liking.) As to the regulations you specify, those are things that responsible gun owners do already. But, again, that is a matter for individual states to enact. And how, exactly, do you propose keeping guns out of the hands of criminals? It is against the law to threaten or murder someone, with a gun or otherwise. Convicted felons can't own them. Perhaps we've become too lenient with criminals and the fear of justice isn't enough to deter them? (Yes, I think so). What's best? I know it isn't restraining the hand of the innocent to rein in the guilty. There will always be lawbreakers. Enforcement of laws against those who break it. Making the punishment of the guilty very uncomfortable. (I mean, earning a college degree in prison? Come on!) Character limit... 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |