oldngray
nowhere special
Sorry but the Constitution says otherwise. And confirmed by courts.
guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Sorry but the Constitution says otherwise. And confirmed by courts.
wrong. The courts have affirmed that government entities can regulate arms regardless what the NRA's reading of the Constitution might be.
Sorry. Even Justice Scalia has written that states can enact gun control legislation that is does not infringe upon Second Amendment rights. So in fact, the courts have affirmed the public's right to enact gun control and rules occasionally on which ones are constitutional and which are not.
oldngray
nowhere special
Some laws are Constitutional but not ones enacted just because someone is uncomfortable about anyone having a gun.
Brownslave688
You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Actually the people with the hoards of guns are planning on fighting all the people on welfare off.
If you want to laugh go ahead but there are already plans in place at a national government level for this scenario.
Here is what is eventually going to happen. The haves will no longer be able to support the have nots. At this point the have nots will take what they need thru thievery and rioting. Think aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
The federal government knows they do not have the rescources to protect everyone. There is already a plan in place to protect a select few cities. The rest will simply be left to fight it out among themselves.
This is not a conspiracy theory. Many high ranking officials have already accepted this will happen. It's not a matter of if its only a matter of when. Could be 20 years could be 120.
Brownslave688
You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Don't know if its still a law but when I was growing up. It was illegal NOT to own a gun in my hometown. Each household was required to have one firearm liscenced to it.
You don't even agree with that, do you? Don't you often say that that's all gun free zones are? Ineffective laws passed because people are uneasy about guns in these areas? And yet they have passed the test of Con
I think it's more likely that we'll just find a way to cut off Social Security recipients. A lot of money there and Grandma can't shoot like she used to, not with the glaucoma in her good eye. Face it. There is no reason future generations are going to put up with us. Kids are going to go to the archives and see political ads commenting on "bankrupting our children". At that point, the "kids" will turn to the rest of us and say, "Sorry. You didn't bankrupt us. You bankrupted your future. You spent yours already.".
728ups
All Trash No Trailer
the right to bear arms and the right to carry guns into Target while shopping are a bit different
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
A zombie apocalypse is also possible.
Brownslave688
You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Like I said laugh away but your government feels its a real enough threat to have put in a specific plan to deal with it.
overflowed
Well-Known Member
So I only saw this thread on the right thread box by chance and clicked on it couldn't even find it later because I thought it was in ups discussions had to search for it. Why are you anti gun guys so adamant about other people not having firearms? I'm not crazy or deranged, can I not collect and shoot guns? I learned the sport of shooting in the boy scouts, should we ban the boy scouts for teaching me this? I'm just interested in the reasoning behind your stance. Have good family or friends died from gun violence? Mine have and it only enforced my decision to own guns so it will never happen to my family. I just want to understand where you are coming from.
Depends on who you're talking to. A lot of "anti gun" folks aren't "anti gun" at all. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership but to me responsible has a high bar.
If you are a responsible gun owner, then when a deranged lunatic (who up until this moment is a "law abiding citizen) opens fire in a dark and smoky theatre, you are responsible if you open fire. If you hit an innocent patron, you are responsible.
If you have guns, IMO, you are responsible whether you are present or not. You are responsible for those weapons not being stolen and not in any way coming into the hands of unsupervised minors.
There is a post in this thread that puts it very well. Gun ownership is like having an infant child that will never grow up. The owner must always know where the weapon is and who is around it. There are no exceptions and failure to do so should have very steep penalties. I understand and support Second Amendment rights but with strong emphasis on responsibility. There can't be any "Oooops" moments in gun ownership.
oldngray
nowhere special
That sounds all well and good but not valid in real world when you have irresponsible people (like Bloomberg etc.) in charge of deciding what responsible is. When a group openly declares an intent to take all guns out of civilian hands they are not trusted to behave responsibly.
That's why I said it depends on what you consider "anti gun". You seem to link my stance with Bloomberg's. How is that fair? I'm being reasonable and you can't seem to stand it.
oldngray
nowhere special
Flip that and say I'm being reasonable and you can't seem to stand it. All in perspective isn't it?
No. I laid out my ideas of responsibility and you brought up Bloomberg. Where did I link your ideas to the likes of Ted Nugent?
oldngray
nowhere special
You claimed you were being reasonable but you are not one of the politicians who would decide what "reasonable" is, therefore I threw one of those supposedly reasonable politicians (Bloomberg but I could have named many others of course) at you. And Nugent is not a politician who would decide what a reasonable gun law is. He is active in politics but to fight the anti gun politicians. He has no power to write any laws himself.
Similar threads
