I've never gotten hate-mail, so here's my chance. - Page 12
Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 161

Thread: I've never gotten hate-mail, so here's my chance.

  1. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Edsworld View Post
    So since we are law abiding, we are better then everyone else. We can use a gun but everyone else has to use sticks and stones.

    A gun is a tool nothing else. We do not have the right to say " I can but you can't because you don't deserve this right.

    Young man kills his whole family with a hammer, do they take away his right to have a hammer? NO! He can have all the hammers he wants but not a gun.

    Guns are not special. If you a going to make laws about guns then you need to make it for all tools.

    The reason we have gun laws is because of people that think like you.(Guns are bad and only very special people should have them.)
    Young man kills his whole family with a hammer because they didn't have a gun? You mean they had to sit there and let him hammer away because one of the family was a felon and his rights to have a gun were taken away. How about if the young man was a felon and coulnd't have a gun and that was why he found an alternate weapon, a hammer. I really dont't understand why someone is no longer allowed to defend themselves because they don't have a gun? Are guns that magical that without one you have to sit a let someone beat you in the head with a hammer? That is the part I do not understand that when your rights to own a gun are taken away you now have to sit while someone kills your family and you.

    The 9-11 attacks were caused by men without guns. Yes if someone on the plane had been able to carry his gun on the plane it may have turned out different but those hijackers did not use or need guns. Did everyone else on the plane sit back and cry because they didn't have a gun and were defenseless. No, some fought back but evidently not enough. There have been several other attempts and the other passengers were aboe to prevent it because they didn't sit back and complain about not having a gun. They took action with what was available. They weren't defenseless but may have been less defenseless if they had been carrying a gun. Either way their right to self-defense wasn't taken away, maybe their methods restricted but not taken away.

    If your are caught for the fifth time DUI and you license taken away your method of travel is restricted but not your right to travel
    If you are charged with certain crimes you are no longer allowed to work in certain places or jobs. Your right to work is not taken away but it is resticted.
    your right to eat is restricted that you will be arrested for eating human flesh. Your right to eat is not taken away but it is restricted.
    If you commit certain crimes your right to own a gun is taken away. Your right to defend yourself is not taken away but it is restricted.

  2.   
  3. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by S&WM&P40 View Post
    Why should a first grader not be allowed to bring his 22 to school? They did it for decade's with no problems. School shootings did not really become a problem in the USA till the 1960's (1966,University of Texas Massacre.)
    Your kidding right? First graders with guns? While were on the subject should they be allowed to smoke, drink & drive? WOW! your bringing crap to a whole new level. You want to know why states bust balls and treat law abiding citizens like untrustable idiots? Because of statements like that. Which will make ALL guns owners look like the idiots they think we are. Stupid statements like that set us back years.

  4. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by S&WM&P40 View Post
    Yes it is. I mean look at the huge anti gun states(CA,NY,MA,NJ,CT etc..)
    Upstate New York has the highest percentage of conceal carry permit holders in the United States. NYS CC permits are issued for life, there is no renewal fee or renewal filing. NYS CC holders can carry in taverns and restaurants that serve alcohol.

  5. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    So, tell us nogods what law would you pass to ensure Tucson never happens again?
    Is that your best rehtorical question you can come up with?

    No law "ensures" that crime won't happen. Laws against DWI persuade people not to drink and drive, but there are still people who will drink and drive. By your logic we should eliminate DWI laws because they don "ensure" DWI will never happen?

    Over the past 30 years mandatory hunter safety courses have had a dramatic impact on decreasing hunting accidents. Such courses have not eliminated hunting accidents and will never totally eliminate them. That alone is not reason enough to abandon the mandatory courses.

    Properly focused gun laws can help prevent unqualified people from possessing a gun. Such laws could never "ensure" that either unintentional or intentional shootings would not occur. But that alone is not reason enough to abandon the effort.

  6. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by snatale42 View Post
    Your kidding right? First graders with guns? While were on the subject should they be allowed to smoke, drink & drive? WOW! your bringing crap to a whole new level. You want to know why states bust balls and treat law abiding citizens like untrustable idiots? Because of statements like that. Which will make ALL guns owners look like the idiots they think we are. Stupid statements like that set us back years.
    How is that a stupid statement? As many a member has said 'They them self's did it". We have done it for years in this country with no problems at all. It's only nuts now because the anti gun nuts and the media say it is. Now a days in this great time of "FEAR" kids are treated like an Al Qaeda operative if they bring a nail clipper to school.

    The idea that we implant this overwhelming fear of firearms into our kids heads is NUTS!

    We have become this huge nation of consumers who are helpless to do anything on our own.

    It use to be the kids responsibility to go hunting and bring back dinner with dad. So in the event dad was not there they could still survive.

    I have seen children who have acted more mature and responsible then some so called adults I have meet. But yet they should not have the right to bear arms? Why is that? Because a group of adults says at that age they are not mature enough?

    Yet in the 1800-1950's(and before) kids have been entrusted with firearms and even allowed to bring them to school. Yet strangely enough they did not shoot them self's or anyone else. The idea of a child who has been shown how to use a firearm and treat it with respect. Is not nuts it's as American as the Constitution.

    Will all children be able to handle it? No, but why should the ones who can be denied simply because of those who cant?

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  7. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Upstate New York has the highest percentage of conceal carry permit holders in the United States. NYS CC permits are issued for life, there is no renewal fee or renewal filing. NYS CC holders can carry in taverns and restaurants that serve alcohol.
    Outstanding for them! So can many other states!

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  8. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Is that your best rehtorical question you can come up with?

    No law "ensures" that crime won't happen. Laws against DWI persuade people not to drink and drive, but there are still people who will drink and drive. By your logic we should eliminate DWI laws because they don "ensure" DWI will never happen?

    Over the past 30 years mandatory hunter safety courses have had a dramatic impact on decreasing hunting accidents. Such courses have not eliminated hunting accidents and will never totally eliminate them. That alone is not reason enough to abandon the mandatory courses.

    Properly focused gun laws can help prevent
    unqualified people from possessing a gun.
    Such laws could never "ensure" that either unintentional or intentional shootings would not occur. But that alone is not reason enough to abandon the effort.
    Just who would the "unqualified people" be? Those who refuse to pay a another person,state,or federal government money in order to use their rights?

    Or would the unqualified people be the "criminals"? Because we all know how well that works now.

    How about making the people willing to roll over and surrender their rights the ones who are unqualified?

    How about on the third strike we make it mandatory that the criminals are lobotomized and castrated?

    Or maybe we can round them all up and dump them on a island? Such as in escape from LA.

    Gun laws are not the problem, it's our inability and or unwillingness to keep the criminals locked up. I think the time has come to bring back the chain gangs and remove the TV's from cells and the AC. Remember when doing "Hard time" meant something in this country?

    Now it's a taxpayer funded hotel stay with all the amenity's included. Free hot meals,AC,TV,free health care,Free dental etc..

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  9. #118
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    No law "ensures" that crime won't happen. Laws against DWI persuade people not to drink and drive, but there are still people who will drink and drive. By your logic we should eliminate DWI laws because they don "ensure" DWI will never happen?
    In order for there to be any equivalence to the history of gun control in this country, you'd have to ban liquor, cars or both... but only for "those people", be they Blacks, Indian, Jews or Italians.

  10. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,900
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Upstate New York has the highest percentage of conceal carry permit holders in the United States.
    Cite?
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  11. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by S&WM&P40 View Post
    Just who would the "unqualified people" be? Those who refuse to pay a another person,state,or federal government money in order to use their rights?
    As for the economic issue, maybe the day will come when the court rules that the government must provide a self-defense weapon for use in one's home to those who can't otherwise afford one, similar to the way government has to provide an attorney to a person charged with a crime if the person cannot afford one.

    As to your other questions, to give up a right you have to have a right in the first place. The SCOTUS has made it very clear that the definition of the right to bear arms does not mean "everyone, everywhere, any gun, all the time."

    As for "qualified" people it is more a matter of determining who is "not qualified" for constitutional purposes, or more accurately, who is not covered by the scope of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Those "unqualified" people simply don't have a right under the Second Amendment to be "given up." One can't give up what they don't have in the first place.

    People with a history of violence, drug abusers, and alcoholics might be some of those who don't have a right to bear arms. Moreover, even if they were within the scope of the right to bear arms, they might be deemed "unqualified" under one of the other three criteria identified by Eugene Volokh in his writings on assessing the constitutionality of gun laws post-McDonald:

    1. Limited Scope: A restriction might not be covered by the constitutional text, the original meaning of the text, the traditional understanding of the text’s scope, the background legal principles establishing who is entitled to various rights, or the categorical exceptions set forth by binding precedent (such as Heller’s statement that bans on gun possession by felons, bans on concealed carry, and several other kinds of gun controls are constitutional).

    2. Slight Burden: A restriction might only slightly interfere with rightholders’ ability to get the benefits that the right secures, and thus might be a burden that doesn’t rise to the level of unconstitutionally “infring[ing]” the right

    3. Reducing Danger: A restriction might reduce various dangers (in the case of arms possession, chiefly the dangers of crime and injury) so much that the court concludes that even a substantial burden is justified.

    4. Government as Proprietor: The government might have special power stemming from its authority as proprietor, employer, or subsidizer to control behavior on its property or behavior by recipients of its property.

    As Volokh points out, these are not simplistic issues resolved by shouting "shall not be infringed" because under the first criteria there is nothing to be infringed. It is only if we reach the second, third and fourth criteria where "infringement" becomes and issue.

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast