2nd Amendment - Slipping away

[Juan.Camaney]

Originally Posted by bobburgster

Show me a legislative bill that wants to take our gun rights away. I reread my comment 3 times and I can't seem to find where I said I was anti-gun...please show me.

I didn't say you were anti-gun, I asked if you had ever read any of the NRA's publications? I asked if your biased opinion was formed on your own by reading their publications and developing your own opinion, or if you just read a headline here and there and had someone else say it was fearmongering.

The amendment says that the specific right shall not be infringed upon. That means we have the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD. Not just arms that legislators feel are safe for us to keep (ban on assault rifles) not just arms that are for hunting (pocket rocket bans in certain cities), not limiting round capacity! It says nothing about flash supressors being illegal. Nothing about engraving numbers on bullets, or guns for that matter.

See, all the bullshit started when individual states felt they needed to bastardize something so brilliantly clear and simple and attaching a bunch of restrictions to it.

[Juan.Camaney]

Originally Posted by CD

I'm ok with people owning guns, but the 7 day wait prevents a lot from getting into the hands of criminals.

Common misconception. When a criminal wants to purchase a gun to commit a crime, he won't go to a store where he has to provide ID to buy a gun. He'll go to his buddies' buddies who know "some guy" or to the black market. The only thing the 7 day period does is make people who want to protect themselves vulnerable for 7 extra days. How many times have you read on the paper about some broad who was threatened by an ex who called the cops only to have them tell her a crime has not been commited then gets slashed up by the same dude? Are you going to throw out the suicide thing? Why is there no waiting period on buy a bottle of pills that do the same?

Gun restrictions are supposed to take care of people...what ever happened to responsibility for one's actions?

[CD]

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

Common misconception. When a criminal wants to purchase a gun to commit a crime, he won't go to a store where he has to provide ID to buy a gun. He'll go to his buddies' buddies who know "some guy" or to the black market. The only thing the 7 day period does is make people who want to protect themselves vulnerable for 7 extra days. How many times have you read on the paper about some broad who was threatened by an ex who called the cops only to have them tell her a crime has not been commited then gets slashed up by the same dude? Are you going to throw out the suicide thing? Why is there no waiting period on buy a bottle of pills that do the same?

Gun restrictions are supposed to take care of people...what ever happened to responsibility for one's actions?

Common misconception? Dude, what facts back up your opinion?

Obviously a criminal can get a gun. Being a criminal means you are more likely to know other criminals who can get a gun. However, I would also assume that there are quite a few people who would commit a crime if they could get a gun quickly. These crimes of passion could be caused by being fired, catching a cheating spouse, etc...

But there are a lot of people who don't like guns, and we all know that the easiest victim is someone who looks like an easy victim (women, children, elderly). I'm not an easy victim at all, but I also know that if something came up where I felt threatened, would having a gun instantly make me qualified to shoot it accurately if I was attacked the following day? That woman who is being threatened by her ex? Do you honestly think that a girl would be able to out shoot a psycho exbf, who may or may not have experience with a gun?

All I know is that the 2nd amendment allows us the privilege of owning and keeping a gun. But a lot of things weren't even dreamed up in 1791, and assault rifles were one of them. Or what about a chain gun mounted on a turret? That would be a great way to defend my home!

You know, if I applied to get an assault rifle and I was turned down, I wouldn't bitch and moan to my congressmen. I can still get a handgun or shotgun if I wanted it, so my 2nd amendment rights haven't been bamboozled.

[Juan.Camaney]

Originally Posted by CD

Common misconception? Dude, what facts back up your opinion?

A lifetime of having friends and family in low places. Statistics like crazy (do your own homework).

Originally Posted by CD

Obviously a criminal can get a gun. Being a criminal means you are more likely to know other criminals who can get a gun.

Good, then we agree.

Originally Posted by CD

However, I would also assume that there are quite a few people who would commit a crime if they could get a gun quickly. These crimes of passion could be caused by being fired, catching a cheating spouse, etc...

So assumptions should dictate our rights, now? Crimes of passion could be commited with things other than guns and do. Most states still sell you a shot gun over the counter except a select few. Why don't more and more "passionate" people go and use shot guns in crime?

Originally Posted by CD

But there are a lot of people who don't like guns, and we all know that the easiest victim is someone who looks like an easy victim (women, children, elderly). I'm not an easy victim at all, but I also know that if something came up where I felt threatened, would having a gun instantly make me qualified to shoot it accurately if I was attacked the following day? That woman who is being threatened by her ex? Do you honestly think that a girl would be able to out shoot a psycho exbf, who may or may not have experience with a gun?

People who don't like guns? Like guns? WTF?! A gun is a tool. Like a hammer, a screw driver, etc. What's there to like about an inanimate object? You are most certainly an easy victim, everyone is. You are a white male, go stand in a rough neighborhood where they don't like whitey and see how easy a victim you are. Would simply owning a gun instantly make you qualified to shoot it? No, don't be ridiculous. But its a known fact that simply drawing a gun is enough to get people to back away. That woman who is threatened by her ex at least has a tool to care for her. You can't rely on 911....all they do is clean up messes.

Originally Posted by CD

All I know is that the 2nd amendment allows us the privilege of owning and keeping a gun. But a lot of things weren't even dreamed up in 1791, and assault rifles were one of them. Or what about a chain gun mounted on a turret? That would be a great way to defend my home!

Its not a priviledge, its a right. There is a difference. Moreover, its a civic duty! They might not have had assault rifles, but they did have cannons.

Originally Posted by CD

You know, if I applied to get an assault rifle and I was turned down, I wouldn't bitch and moan to my congressmen. I can still get a handgun or shotgun if I wanted it, so my 2nd amendment rights haven't been bamboozled.

So when are you going to say enough is enough? They take your assault rifles away. You think criminals are really going to obey and turn theirs in too? So now you are out gunned...not a nice place to be, ask the police officers who were involved in the bank robbery here in Hollywood a few years back. What if in a few months they said you can't own certain caliber hand guns and stick you with a .22 only. Bamboozled...that's a funny word. Okay, take this for a comparison. You have the freedom of speech, and here you are practicing it on this forum. What if Mr Government started telling you which days you can post here? Which topics you can post about? How many times you can reply per day? What words you can use? Who you can talk to? What if they made you take a test before you were even allowed to post here? Or worse, what if they told you to wait 7 days before you can hit reply? They are still allowing you the right? Really?

Thats not my freedom. Thats not what my america is about.

[CD]

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

A lifetime of having friends and family in low places. Statistics like crazy (do your own homework).

The crimes that may have been committed but weren't because of the current gun laws are awful hard to be a part of your life experiences.

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

Good, then we agree.

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

So assumptions should dictate our rights, now? Crimes of passion could be commited with things other than guns and do. Most states still sell you a shot gun over the counter except a select few. Why don't more and more "passionate" people go and use shot guns in crime?

Because shotguns are a lot harder to conceal and hide.

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

People who don't like guns? Like guns? WTF?! A gun is a tool. Like a hammer, a screw driver, etc. What's there to like about an inanimate object? You are most certainly an easy victim, everyone is. You are a white male, go stand in a rough neighborhood where they don't like whitey and see how easy a victim you are. Would simply owning a gun instantly make you qualified to shoot it? No, don't be ridiculous. But its a known fact that simply drawing a gun is enough to get people to back away. That woman who is threatened by her ex at least has a tool to care for her. You can't rely on 911....all they do is clean up messes.

Huh?

There are people who don't like guns. I'd rather not have one, and I don't think I'd be alone in saying that. But if I did own one right now, I wouldn't be very good at using it. That takes practice, and for those people who don't care for firearms (for whatever reason), they won't get that practice needed.

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

Its not a priviledge, its a right. There is a difference. Moreover, its a civic duty! They might not have had assault rifles, but they did have cannons.

So when are you going to say enough is enough? They take your assault rifles away. You think criminals are really going to obey and turn theirs in too? So now you are out gunned...not a nice place to be, ask the police officers who were involved in the bank robbery here in Hollywood a few years back. What if in a few months they said you can't own certain caliber hand guns and stick you with a .22 only. Bamboozled...that's a funny word. Okay, take this for a comparison. You have the freedom of speech, and here you are practicing it on this forum. What if Mr Government started telling you which days you can post here? Which topics you can post about? How many times you can reply per day? What words you can use? Who you can talk to? What if they made you take a test before you were even allowed to post here? Or worse, what if they told you to wait 7 days before you can hit reply? They are still allowing you the right? Really?

Thats not my freedom. Thats not what my america is about.

You can't honestly say, "first the assault rifles, next our handguns". That's fear mongering. People have been saying this stuff for as long as I can remember. My roommate has a gun he JUST got. My Grandfather has a few that he's had for years, another friend got one a few years back and is picking up another soon. Now granted, they didn't attempt to buy an assault rifle that could put down Godzilla, but I haven't once heard any of them say their rights were slowly being taken away. (BTW they are all Republican)

Don't bring in Freedom of Speech, cause that "freedom" only goes so far. I can't scream fire in a theater. I can't say I was raped by Jessica Biel if I haven't been (but I'd like to be). I can't say that I want to bomb a US embassy (I don't, but hell if I wouldn't pay the price if I did!). Besides, even this forum has rules that are put in place for protection.

Look Juan, I'm ok with shotguns, I'm ok with handguns, I'm ok with hollow point rounds, I'm ok with rifles. But if you honestly think that assault rifles being able to be bought as easily as Tylenol to anyone is a good thing, I will just have to disagree with you.

Oh, can a person that gets out of jail for a violent crime be allowed to buy a gun?

[Car Enthusiast]

I felon isn't allowed to own a firearm CD by law.

[Car Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by bobburgster

Show me a legislative bill that wants to take our gun rights away. I reread my comment 3 times and I can't seem to find where I said I was anti-gun...please show me.

Blair Holt bill referred to comitte in February
H.R. 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)

do you want more than just that one or have you not been paying attention to what has been going on.

(yes I know that bill is dead in committee)

[bobburgster]

I didn't say you were anti-gun, I asked if you had ever read any of the NRA's publications? I asked if your biased opinion was formed on your own by reading their publications and developing your own opinion, or if you just read a headline here and there and had someone else say it was fearmongering.

The amendment says that the specific right shall not be infringed upon. That means we have the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD. Not just arms that legislators feel are safe for us to keep (ban on assault rifles) not just arms that are for hunting (pocket rocket bans in certain cities), not limiting round capacity! It says nothing about flash supressors being illegal. Nothing about engraving numbers on bullets, or guns for that matter.

See, all the bullshit started when individual states felt they needed to bastardize something so brilliantly clear and simple and attaching a bunch of restrictions to it.

I was referring to another poster about the anti-gun thing.
My biased opinion( Why is it biased, because it doesn't agree with your opinion?) was formed by many sources of information, both pro and con, over many years.

The amendment says that the specific right shall not be infringed upon. That means we have the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD.

Isn't everything in the constitution interpreted? That's why we have a judicial branch. Before you even say it...I agree their interpretation can be a slippery slope...but that's a whole other topic.

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

As you can see, there is a lot of onterpretation that has alreay taken plane.

[licupssy]

When you speech of the 2nd amendment you do have to take into consideration that the only firearms at the time were single shot flintlock rifles and pistols. (not counting the Punkle Gun a 9 shot revolver rifle mounted on a tripod invented in the UK which never went into mass production - I'd love to see the the second version which had square bullets for fighting the Muslim turks). Whether or not there would have been any restriction to weapons covered under the 2nd amendment if todays firearms existed then are hard to say.

The situation in Iran today shows the obvious reason that the 2nd amendment was written into the constitution.

The greatest problem with making firearm laws is that the laws are only going to effect the law abiding citizen. The criminal neither cares about gun laws or has any necessity to purchases them legally.

What really needs to be done if have judges prosecute criminals that commit crimes while using a firearm to the full extent of the law. Get them off the street and keep them in jail.

What hurts gun owners is criminals like this 18 to 20 old with a partner has robbed 6 businesses in just 3 days in West Philly. Hopefully they'll be caught soon but how long is the court going to keep them off the street.

[Juan.Camaney]

Originally Posted by CD

The crimes that may have been committed but weren't because of the current gun laws are awful hard to be a part of your life experiences.

You know what I meant.

Originally Posted by CD

Because shotguns are a lot harder to conceal and hide.

They really aren't. Did you ever see the video about the kid with all the guns in his pocket?

Don't trust kids with baggy pants - Best of Google Video

Originally Posted by CD

Huh?

I never understood the term liked guns. How can you say you don't "like" guns? It's a tool. Can you hate a hammer?

Originally Posted by CD

There are people who don't like guns. I'd rather not have one, and I don't think I'd be alone in saying that. But if I did own one right now, I wouldn't be very good at using it. That takes practice, and for those people who don't care for firearms (for whatever reason), they won't get that practice needed.

That's okay. You do own swords, right? Mainly for display though, I know. I don't own a riding lawn mower either. I have a regular push around with no bag and a weed wacker. I have no use for a riding mower. But that doesn't mean just because someone could potentially use a weed wacker or a push around to mow an acre or two of grass doesn't mean I'd force everyone else to buy a push around too. People have the right to build the meanest riding lawn mower and put a fucking helicopter engine in it for all I care.

Originally Posted by CD

You can't honestly say, "first the assault rifles, next our handguns". That's fear mongering. People have been saying this stuff for as long as I can remember. My roommate has a gun he JUST got. My Grandfather has a few that he's had for years, another friend got one a few years back and is picking up another soon. Now granted, they didn't attempt to buy an assault rifle that could put down Godzilla, but I haven't once heard any of them say their rights were slowly being taken away. (BTW they are all Republican)

No it is NOT fear mongering, CD, it's exactly what is happening. Remember where I live, again, one of the strictest gun control areas. I've seen law after law just leak through like a sieve. Waiting periods, registration for ammo, finger printing, background checks, 10 day waiting period on SHOTGUNS! Limits on magazine capacity. Limits on which guns you can transport through which cities. They make it so the only place you can keep a gun is locked up in your house. It's only getting worse, too.

You know what the stupidest thing on those assault rifles is? You can still buy "hunting" rifles that use as big, if not bigger ammo than some of the stuff that "assault riffles" use and do more damage. An AR-15 uses the same as a Mini 14. Just because the AR has a pistol grip, it is now unsellable?

Originally Posted by CD

Don't bring in Freedom of Speech, cause that "freedom" only goes so far. I can't scream fire in a theater. I can't say I was raped by Jessica Biel if I haven't been (but I'd like to be). I can't say that I want to bomb a US embassy (I don't, but hell if I wouldn't pay the price if I did!). Besides, even this forum has rules that are put in place for protection.

Right. Lets treat one right different than another then. I'm not talking about letting everyone waltz in to a walmart and come out with a submachine uzi. I'm not talking about strapping in a 50 cal belt fed machine gun to the bed of the truck and shooting shit up. YOU CAN say that you were raped by Jessica Biel, she is a public figure. You can also say you want to bomb the embassy...a lot of wire taps will hit your area, but whatev. This forum has rules that are put in place to protect the owner from law suits because of copy right infringement and just for the general enjoyment of people. The BOTH is pretty much a free for all though.

Originally Posted by CD

Look Juan, I'm ok with shotguns, I'm ok with handguns, I'm ok with hollow point rounds, I'm ok with rifles. But if you honestly think that assault rifles being able to be bought as easily as Tylenol to anyone is a good thing, I will just have to disagree with you.

Don't exagerbate, CD, I don't want to be able to buy an m-16 as easy as a tylenol. But just because you are okay with something and not okay with others means you have the right to push your beliefs on a right that is guranteed to the people.

Originally Posted by CD

Oh, can a person that gets out of jail for a violent crime be allowed to buy a gun?

No, they can't. However, how many of those convicts get their hands on guns anyway and end up back in prison for crimes commited with guns? Gun control just keeps guns away from responsible people.

[Juan.Camaney]

Originally Posted by bobburgster

My biased opinion( Why is it biased, because it doesn't agree with your opinion?) was formed by many sources of information, both pro and con, over many years.

Opinions are biased, brother, that's just the way it is. Facts are facts, opinions, are not.

Originally Posted by bobburgster

IIsn't everything in the constitution interpreted? That's why we have a judicial branch. Before you even say it...I agree their interpretation can be a slippery slope...but that's a whole other topic.

Yes it is. How someone can interpret that into the gun laws we have today is why purists are up in arms, literaly.

Originally Posted by bobburgster

As you can see, there is a lot of onterpretation that has alreay taken plane.

Did it fly coach or business class?

[CD]

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

I never understood the term liked guns. How can you say you don't "like" guns? It's a tool. Can you hate a hammer?

Dynamite is a tool used to remove rock from mountainsides (among other uses)... and I'd rather not hold it or have a bunch in my house. Face it, some people just don't feel comfortable in the presence of firearms.

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

That's okay. You do own swords, right? Mainly for display though, I know. I don't own a riding lawn mower either. I have a regular push around with no bag and a weed wacker. I have no use for a riding mower. But that doesn't mean just because someone could potentially use a weed wacker or a push around to mow an acre or two of grass doesn't mean I'd force everyone else to buy a push around too. People have the right to build the meanest riding lawn mower and put a fucking helicopter engine in it for all I care.

I do have a few. I also have no problems with what you use to mow lawns, but I think there is a limit to certain things. With the mower, there might be a limit on how big and powerful it can be before it starts to possibly have a dangerous side. Just like the car industry. I can own a car, but I am not able to own a 2500 HP jet fueled ricer, because then it's state of being could endanger the lives of someone else on the road. What if you decide to get the badass assault rifle and while protecting your road, YOUR bullet goes through your bedroom window and into the body of a neighbor's kid? Do your rights to own any and all guns supercede the right to life or the possibility of snuffing out an innocent?

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

No it is NOT fear mongering, CD, it's exactly what is happening. Remember where I live, again, one of the strictest gun control areas. I've seen law after law just leak through like a sieve. Waiting periods, registration for ammo, finger printing, background checks, 10 day waiting period on SHOTGUNS! Limits on magazine capacity. Limits on which guns you can transport through which cities. They make it so the only place you can keep a gun is locked up in your house. It's only getting worse, too.

I think it was Chris Rock who said that guns can be cheap but if bullets were expensive you would eliminate drive byes! Anyway, here goes:
1) Waiting periods: They can prevent crimes. I'm pretty open to most everything you are saying, but I strongly believe that it is no different then having to wait a year to go from a permit to a drivers license.
2) Ammo registration: I don't like it at all. Cause a smart criminal would collect casings and frame someone innocent.
3) Finger printing: Seems excessive since I almost view it as the previous example.
4) Background checks: Really? You have a problem with making sure a gun doesn't go to a disturbed home?
5) 10 day waiting on shotguns: I like the 7 day system, so I will agree with you to a point.
6) Magazine capacity: Tough call. If on one hand you need 100 shots to defend yourself from a robber, then you suck at guns, and possibly shot a neighbor by accident. On the other hand, if you are famous and need protection from possibly quite a few assailants, the increased capacity would be a godsend. In this case, I will have to agree with you.
7) Gun limits by city: Is it not up to the city? What if the city voted that they don't want 2 types of guns in their area? Remember, a license to carry a concealed firearm doesn't grant you that right everywhere. Schools being a good example. Are your gun rights being shat on by the US school system?

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

You know what the stupidest thing on those assault rifles is? You can still buy "hunting" rifles that use as big, if not bigger ammo than some of the stuff that "assault riffles" use and do more damage. An AR-15 uses the same as a Mini 14. Just because the AR has a pistol grip, it is now unsellable?

Deadliest Warrior on Spike TV taught me a different way of looking at it. The AR-15 bullet may do less damage, but 10 of them per second adds up. A "hunting" rifle lives up to it's name. A single shot kill from far away, and not up close death in a wide radius. I don't know anything about the Mini 14, so I can't say.

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

Right. Lets treat one right different than another then. I'm not talking about letting everyone waltz in to a walmart and come out with a submachine uzi. I'm not talking about strapping in a 50 cal belt fed machine gun to the bed of the truck and shooting shit up. YOU CAN say that you were raped by Jessica Biel, she is a public figure. You can also say you want to bomb the embassy...a lot of wire taps will hit your area, but whatev. This forum has rules that are put in place to protect the owner from law suits because of copy right infringement and just for the general enjoyment of people. The BOTH is pretty much a free for all though.

Alas, I was not raped by Jessica Biel. All I was trying to say is that they are limits on even the freedom of speech. Shouldn't there also be limits on the freedom to own and bare arms? The US government made a "Davy Crockett" short range nuclear launcher, and I'm ok with there being an exception to that retarded weapon.

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

Don't exagerbate, CD, I don't want to be able to buy an m-16 as easy as a tylenol. But just because you are okay with something and not okay with others means you have the right to push your beliefs on a right that is guranteed to the people.

LIMITS. There are limits to all rights. If Iran says they want nuclear power for their country, why do we deny them that right? They have the money to get it. They have the connections... Even the amendments to the constitution have been wrong before. (*cough* Amendment 18 *cough*) Does the 2nd Amendment say that formerly jailed criminals cannot own a gun?

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

No, they can't. However, how many of those convicts get their hands on guns anyway and end up back in prison for crimes commited with guns? Gun control just keeps guns away from responsible people.

If everyone had a gun, murders would still take place. The only difference is that the court system would be empty since justice would take place on the streets.

[Krasch]

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

No it is NOT fear mongering, CD, it's exactly what is happening. Remember where I live, again, one of the strictest gun control areas. I've seen law after law just leak through like a sieve. Waiting periods, registration for ammo, finger printing, background checks, 10 day waiting period on SHOTGUNS! Limits on magazine capacity. Limits on which guns you can transport through which cities. They make it so the only place you can keep a gun is locked up in your house. It's only getting worse, too.

You know what the stupidest thing on those assault rifles is? You can still buy "hunting" rifles that use as big, if not bigger ammo than some of the stuff that "assault riffles" use and do more damage. An AR-15 uses the same as a Mini 14. Just because the AR has a pistol grip, it is now unsellable?

No, they can't. However, how many of those convicts get their hands on guns anyway and end up back in prison for crimes commited with guns? Gun control just keeps guns away from responsible people.

Damn right Juan. Here in Toronto, we have far more restrictive laws than even your neck of the woods and we're still up to our 14th homicide by shooting this year and we're what, halfway through June?

If gun laws had any real impact on gun crime, we'd be in the low single digits at most with the draconian gun laws in Canada. Still a few times a year we see the cops do a major bust and grab a whole cache of guns and other weapons that makes the cops' own stuff look puny.

[Juan.Camaney]

Originally Posted by CD

Dynamite is a tool used to remove rock from mountainsides (among other uses)... and I'd rather not hold it or have a bunch in my house. Face it, some people just don't feel comfortable in the presence of firearms.

Great, so don't hold it or have a bunch in your house. But just because you are uninterested and ignorant doesn't mean some well qualified person can't have access to it for his own use in whatever he does. Same with other firearms. Just because you are uncomfortable with it doesn't give you the power to strip anyone of their rights to keep it which are GURANTEED. We aren't talking having some control, here, these people want to basically have every single shell lazer inscribed and tabs being kept on everything. If they want to do that, and put the effort to something so unimportant, why not do that with stuff that is really a problem, like keep track of every cent spent in their departments, keep track of every illegal alien, etc etc. Funny how they have enough money to do this but not enough money to do the same thing for other more important problems.

Originally Posted by CD

I do have a few. I also have no problems with what you use to mow lawns, but I think there is a limit to certain things. With the mower, there might be a limit on how big and powerful it can be before it starts to possibly have a dangerous side. Just like the car industry. I can own a car, but I am not able to own a 2500 HP jet fueled ricer, because then it's state of being could endanger the lives of someone else on the road. What if you decide to get the badass assault rifle and while protecting your road, YOUR bullet goes through your bedroom window and into the body of a neighbor's kid? Do your rights to own any and all guns supercede the right to life or the possibility of snuffing out an innocent?

Don't be stupid. Any responsible gun owner knows what is good for self defense, home defense, hunting, and for show. Just like you couldn't be able to drive a 2500 HP jet fueled ricer on the street, but are more than welcome to drive it on a closed road under the provisions of whatever racing league you want to follow (if any at all), I should be able to go buy an AK-47, pick up some rounds, take it to the range, and blow up watermelons for my own fucking amusement. We should preach gun education, not simply start banning shit some dick face in office who probably hasn't even fired a gun thinks I should be able to own. What if someone came into your house and told you you can not own any of the swords you love? They told you you could only own something small, like a nail clipper, for your own safety? Would you like that?

Originally Posted by CD

I think it was Chris Rock who said that guns can be cheap but if bullets were expensive you would eliminate drive byes! Anyway, here goes:
1) Waiting periods: They can prevent crimes. I'm pretty open to most everything you are saying, but I strongly believe that it is no different then having to wait a year to go from a permit to a drivers license.
2) Ammo registration: I don't like it at all. Cause a smart criminal would collect casings and frame someone innocent.
3) Finger printing: Seems excessive since I almost view it as the previous example.
4) Background checks: Really? You have a problem with making sure a gun doesn't go to a disturbed home?
5) 10 day waiting on shotguns: I like the 7 day system, so I will agree with you to a point.
6) Magazine capacity: Tough call. If on one hand you need 100 shots to defend yourself from a robber, then you suck at guns, and possibly shot a neighbor by accident. On the other hand, if you are famous and need protection from possibly quite a few assailants, the increased capacity would be a godsend. In this case, I will have to agree with you.
7) Gun limits by city: Is it not up to the city? What if the city voted that they don't want 2 types of guns in their area? Remember, a license to carry a concealed firearm doesn't grant you that right everywhere. Schools being a good example. Are your gun rights being shat on by the US school system?

1. It does not prevent crime. Someone who is looking to commit a crime will do so, waiting period be damned. Why do people keep preaching this bullshit?
2. Werd.
3. Excessive? To me this makes more sense. Prints on my application can pinpoint me in a crime pretty easily. Guns really are a sloppy way to commit crimes, they leave evidence.
4. Do you have a common name? I do. Do you know how many people with my name get into trouble? Do you know how faulty the system we have in place is in differentiating between those idiots and me? Background checks are fine if the system worked.
5. Even 7 days is stupid. I can kill more people with my truck than I can with any of my guns, and I can go pick up a truck right fucking now.
6. 100 shots goes by pretty quick, brother. You ever try to shoot a moving target? Again, the 100 shot capacity would not be needed for home protection. A shot gun with bird shot is enough for that. Here in CA they limit caps on pistols. That nice 15 round I have for my 9 mm...yeah, illegal to be sold now a days. Mostly everything is limited to like 7 or some such bullshit.
7. It shouldn't be up to the city. Its a right guranteed by the US Constitution. To put this into perspective, we have a city around here called Reseda. They banned certain small caliber guns (saturday night specials). So in order for me to get my sub compact from one city to the other, I have to go around Reseda. Comon sense does not prevail.

Originally Posted by CD

Deadliest Warrior on Spike TV taught me a different way of looking at it. The AR-15 bullet may do less damage, but 10 of them per second adds up. A "hunting" rifle lives up to it's name. A single shot kill from far away, and not up close death in a wide radius. I don't know anything about the Mini 14, so I can't say.

I can fit a high cap mag on the mini and shoot just a fast as the AR dude. There is no difference other than grip.

Originally Posted by CD

LIMITS. There are limits to all rights. If Iran says they want nuclear power for their country, why do we deny them that right? They have the money to get it. They have the connections... Even the amendments to the constitution have been wrong before. (*cough* Amendment 18 *cough*) Does the 2nd Amendment say that formerly jailed criminals cannot own a gun?

You already know my stance on the Iran issue. The second amentment says nothing about formerly jailed criminals. And formerly jailed criminals CAN own and receive guns. Felons cannot, a limit made by altering rights.

Originally Posted by CD

If everyone had a gun, murders would still take place. The only difference is that the court system would be empty since justice would take place on the streets.

Same thing happens in countries with no guns, so I don't know what you are trying to prove.

[bobburgster]

Blair Holt bill referred to comitte in February
H.R. 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)

do you want more than just that one or have you not been paying attention to what has been going on.

(yes I know that bill is dead in committee)

Sorry, should have included the phrase,

"... a bill that has a better chance of passage than you winning the lottery."

If you check, you'll notice that most hot button bills, like gun control, are filed by congressmen motivated by self-preservation or increasing campaign contributions.