Your views on guns.

[mexMan]

I was watching (drumroll, don't kill me I just was watching it) American Chopper (BOOM!) and the guys from Red Jacket built a shotgun for Mikey, and when he was shooting he got hurt (he got a cut on his finger while charging the gun), so I tought, can anyone just get a licence to carry a gun? Like, do they give them away at the drugstores?

I mean, I know it's a good idea to have a gun, for you own protection, I think in Mexico it should be allowed too, you know, with some limitations, like getting a licence to carry a gun and stuff like that.

But, what do you have to do to get a licence? It seems to me that it's too easy. With all those shootings and stuff, can really anyone get a licence? Or a gun without it?

Don't flame, just discuss.

[camcojb]

The laws are different all over this country. In my state (California) you need to pass a background check to purchase a gun from a dealer. There is a ten day waiting period before you can take possession of the gun. That lets you have the gun in your home.

To be able to transport the gun to the range, vacation, etc. it needs to be locked up in the trunk (unloaded) or in a lock box if inside the cab of a truck or car. The ammo needs to be separate from the gun.

Open carry for handguns was just stopped recently here (you used to be able to carry a gun in the open as long as it wasn't loaded). I believe rifles and shotguns can still open carry, but again must be unloaded, so they're basically a club at that point. To be able to carry the handgun (concealed) on your body requires a separate license. Not all states or counties allow concealed carry. Here you have to make an appointment with the sheriffs dept., show reasonable cause for needing the gun on your person, pass a local and FBI background check including Livescan of your fingerprints, and then pass a 16 hour safety and licensing course, with both written and actual shooting tests. Costs $400 or so for everything.

The entire process can take 9 months or longer depending on how far backed up they are, and if they are accepting applications at all.

In California if you're a felon, have a restraining order or domestic violence in your past you will not be allowed to purchase a gun (legally).

[intocarss]

"I believe rifles and shotguns can still open carry, but again must be unloaded"

I was talking about guns with with an LA county Sheriff we race with and he told me, it is NOT allowed anymore in Ca

[HIFLYR]

I was watching (drumroll, don't kill me I just was watching it) American Chopper (BOOM!) and the guys from Red Jacket built a shotgun for Mikey, and when he was shooting he got hurt (he got a cut on his finger while charging the gun), so I tought, can anyone just get a licence to carry a gun? Like, do they give them away at the drugstores?

I mean, I know it's a good idea to have a gun, for you own protection, I think in Mexico it should be allowed too, you know, with some limitations, like getting a licence to carry a gun and stuff like that.

But, what do you have to do to get a licence? It seems to me that it's too easy. With all those shootings and stuff, can really anyone get a licence? Or a gun without it?

Don't flame, just discuss.

How do you know Mikey had a license?
Most states require a class and a shooting range test before issuing a license to carry permit. You can read under the shall issues title the requirements here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

[camcojb]

"I believe rifles and shotguns can still open carry, but again must be unloaded"

I was talking about guns with with an LA county Sheriff we race with and he told me, it is NOT allowed anymore in Ca
The local range just told me a couple months ago that it was still legal in my county (Sacramento), but I'd opt for law enforcement over their opinion. Maybe it's not a state-wide deal.

[ProTouring442]

In Tennessee, you need to pass a background check to purchase a handgun, or certain rifles. I think a shotgun can be purchased without a check, but I could be wrong.

To carry a firearm, whether open or concealed, you must take a class and pass a proficiency test. You cannot carry in anyplace whose primary business is the selling of alcohol, or in anyplace properly marked.

Criminals, of course, ignore all these laws.

[GregWeld]

Sorry Mex Man --- but the reason MEXICO is so F'd up with drug gangs etc killing off entire towns --- is because there's no citizens that can defend themselves....

The best defense is a great offense.... and in America --- the citizens would be kicking those sorry drug gangs asses if they came into town guns blazing...

[Che70velle]

Here in Georgia, it takes about 3 weeks to get your carry permit, and roughly $50.00. We can conceal, or carry the weapon in open site in our vehicles.
I own many weapons of all types, from handguns to assault rifles, and own many thousand rounds of ammunition. I live in a VERY rural part of the state, and get the opportunity to shoot often, WITH my son who is nine. I never bring a gun into my home without him looking at it, and me showing him how it works and operates. My son knows very well how to handle and shoot my handguns and small caliber rifles, and he is very aware that if he ever wants to shoot, all he has to do is ask, and WE will shoot. Of course everything is in a gun safe, with the exception of one 9mm, just in case somebody who just made a very bad choice decides to enter my home in the incorrect fashion. I am a gun safety nazi, and I believe that training kids correctly is a must, because I was trained correctly as a child.
This thread will probably open a can of worms.
My opinion of a "license" is that it will keep an honest person who wants to be on the right side of the law in check, and of course the criminal in this case, couldn't care less about licenses, or laws.

[Shmoov69]

Just need 3 brave men GW!!! :guns:
EzZ7UGZETxo

[GregWeld]

Mexxy ---


I have a conceal carry permit in my home state of Washington -- and a CC permit for Utah -- which has more "reciprocal" agreements with other states I go thru....

I've signed up for a 4 day tactical hand gun class the week after SEMA... and I belong to the Seattle Police Athletic Academy -- which has a range for all manor of guns.

Not everyone is an irresponsible murderer just because they have guns and ammo...

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Senior mex, just protect yourself and carry a bow and arrow. Two deter thieves have a machete on your hip.

Without proper training a gun will just be used to kill you.

Some CA cities have already put a ban on open carry long guns.

[hifi875]

ive got my conceal and carry, but do not carry. just when I travel.

[hp2]

I was watching (drumroll, don't kill me I just was watching it) American Chopper (BOOM!) and the guys from Red Jacket built a shotgun for Mikey, and when he was shooting he got hurt (he got a cut on his finger while charging the gun), so I tought, can anyone just get a licence to carry a gun? Like, do they give them away at the drugstores?

I mean, I know it's a good idea to have a gun, for you own protection, I think in Mexico it should be allowed too, you know, with some limitations, like getting a licence to carry a gun and stuff like that.

But, what do you have to do to get a licence? It seems to me that it's too easy. With all those shootings and stuff, can really anyone get a licence? Or a gun without it?

Don't flame, just discuss.

Forgive if I'm reading too much into this, but I think you may be asking two seperate questions. Based on the context of the first part of the statement above, you seem to be asking if you need a license to exercise ownership. But you also ask about carrying a gun, which is an entirely seperate entity than just owning a gun. Most of the replies you have received so far are about carrying a firearm on your person, either concealed or open, which has a whole different set of requirements from simply owning a firearm of any sort.

[Lowfast]

Senior mex, just protect yourself and carry a bow and arrow. Two deter thieves have a machete on your hip.

Without proper training a gun will just be used to kill you.


I hope this is said in jest.

I agree with Greg, a large part of Mexico's issues start with a society that is not permitted to protect itself. It is like lambs at a slaughter.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

I hope this is said in jest.

I agree with Greg, a large part of Mexico's issues start with a society that is not permitted to protect itself. It is like lambs at a slaughter.

what part? Some sections of mexico are very rough. A person carrying is an easy target for hardened criminals. Even cops can get disarmed in a scuffle.

Bow and arrows a nice, cheap and quiet.

Machette, yeah that was tongue and cheek. But no one usually messes with a guy and a machette.

[snappytravis]

Hey Vince, I am in the middle of wyoming, In the middle of a reservation, If you need some more Bows and Arrows I can get you some. I traded mine in for a Ar-15 it's easier to pull back.

[mexMan]

Machette, yeah that was tongue and cheek. But no one usually messes with a guy and a machette.

Not anymore... Actually they won't mess with anoyne else anymore...

The real question here (sorry if I didn't make myself clear) is, what does it take to get a licence to own/carry (because now I know its two different cases)? Is it neccesary some kind of background check, like, psychological, economic and/or social? I mean, you guys check all that stuff to a potential cookie buyer, why not for guns (if that were the case)?

Anyway, I'm getting a slingshot.

The real problem here in Mexico (as I know because I live in the most dangerous area of the country) is that the authority wont even do their jobs, nor they're able to. Also, it's like watching try to slay a Komodo Dragon with a paperclip.

[andrewb70]

Not anymore... Actually they won't mess with anoyne else anymore...

The real question here (sorry if I didn't make myself clear) is, what does it take to get a licence to own/carry (because now I know its two different cases)? Is it neccesary some kind of background check, like, psychological, economic and/or social? I mean, you guys check all that stuff to a potential cookie buyer, why not for guns (if that were the case)?

Anyway, I'm getting a slingshot.

The real problem here in Mexico (as I know because I live in the most dangerous area of the country) is that the authority wont even do their jobs, nor they're able to. Also, it's like watching try to slay a Komodo Dragon with a paperclip.

Owning a gun and carrying a gun are two separate issues in the eyes of the law. Also, keep in mind that certain states within the US have more strict laws. Off the top of my head, they are, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and there are probably a few more that I am missing. The rest of the country has less restrictive laws.

If you buy a gun from any FFL (federal firearms license) dealer they will run a background check. The background checks are handled by the FBI and tap into various state and federal databases to determine if you are a convicted felon (prior hardcore criminal). If you have never been convicted of a felony, then you are able to purchase the gun. Some states have a waiting period, so you can't walk out with the gun same day. Most states do not, and you can walk out with a firearm in as long as it takes to run the background check (usually less than an hour). There are no other tests or requirements to own a firearm. The more restrictive states that I mentioned above, have other requirements, but I can't get into the details, because I choose to avoid those states if at all possible.

In order to carry a gun, loaded, on your person, most states require a permit. Arizona (and maybe another state) have what is called "constitutional carry." In other words, as long as you can legally own a gun (see above) then you can carry it on your person. There may be subtle distinctions as to whether the gun is in plain sights or concealed. Again, this varies by state. I live in TN, so I can break down exactly what the las is here. In order to carry a handgun, loaded, on my person or in my vehicle, I need a permit. In order to get a permit there is a required 8 hour class that covers basic firearm safety and some range time. Once the class is taken, you have to get fingerprinted, and then you can apply for a permit. As long as you are not a felon, have met the classroom requirement, and paid a fee (I think it is about $100), then you will be issued a carry permit. In TN you can carry open or concealed.

If you want to know the details of the carry laws in all the states, you can browse this website:

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

You will see that some states are "shall issue" while others are "may issue" and Illinois is the only state that "will not issue," but that is about to change.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

Andrew

[DBasher]

Here in Washington state it was as easy as filling out paperwork at the courthouse getting finger printed and waiting. Just under $60.00 and about 3 weeks later I had my cpl.

I've since learned that owning and operating firearms is a lot like hot rods, it's not cheap and you have to have more than one.

It's legal to open carry in my state, I've tried it and didn't like the attention. Concealed in general public for this guy.

:action-smiley-027:
Dan

[Tony_SS]

When you have to get a "permit", it ceases to be a right. The 2nd amendment is your permit. Carry on. :)

[Rick D]

You will see that some states are "shall issue" while others are "may issue" and Illinois is the only state that "will not issue," but that is about to change.


Andrew

June 9th!!! :guns: of coarse no one here in IL thinks the law makers will get it done on time :flag2:

[camcojb]

June 9th!!! :guns: of coarse no one here in IL thinks the law makers will get it done on time :flag2:
If they follow California's rules you'll still be a long ways from actually getting a permit. In my county it can take 9-12 months total.

[garickman]

Carrying a gun whether concealed or in the open is not all it is cracked up to be.

[camcojb]

Carrying a gun whether concealed or in the open is not all it is cracked up to be.
Definitely not for everyone.

[andrewb70]

Carrying a gun whether concealed or in the open is not all it is cracked up to be.

I am not sure what that means, but there is certainly a lot of training that needs to happen when taking on the responsibility of having one on your person.

Andrew

[ProTouring442]

Carrying a gun whether concealed or in the open is not all it is cracked up to be.

It can bu uncomfortable, and it requires keeping an eye out for the signs and and places where you are not allowed to carry.

There is also the issue of practice, and keeping the weapon clean.

[Rick D]

If they follow California's rules you'll still be a long ways from actually getting a permit. In my county it can take 9-12 months total.

I'm sure if you are ever approved for the permit in Il they will know what time you go to bed at night, what you ate for breakfast how you drive your car and on and on and on...... It's not going to be easy that's for sure. I will apply for one when they pass the law, not because I want to carry a gun everywhere I go. But because I want to see what they are going to say, the most I have ever done wrong is a few speeding tickets. So will see, I'm sure IL will end up in contempt of the court order anyway.....

Carrying a gun whether concealed or in the open is not all it is cracked up to be.

Yes I agree Greg, I don't think that if I'm running to the store to get some bread and cookies that I need to carry my Glock! But on the other hand if I'm going to do a deal on a car (insert Craig's List or eBay here) and I'm not sure who I'm dealing with and have cash on hand, well I'll feel a lot safer with some protection!

Yes lots of training needs to go into not only carrying a gun but also owning a gun or guns.

[garickman]

Yes I agree Greg, I don't think that if I'm running to the store to get some bread and cookies that I need to carry my Glock! But on the other hand if I'm going to do a deal on a car (insert Craig's List or eBay here) and I'm not sure who I'm dealing with and have cash on hand, well I'll feel a lot safer with some protection!

Yes lots of training needs to go into not only carrying a gun but also owning a gun or guns.

True, there are times when it is very nice to have a gun but most often it is more of a burden. 90% of the time, mine is in the safe.

[hifi875]

Even though I have my conceal and carry permit, I really don't have a desire to carry one around for some reason. some people do, but just seems like a hassle to me. I do like to shoot them though!!

[GregWeld]

Just because someone has a CC permit - doesn't mean they're walking around the mall with a weapon on their hip.

Personally -- I leave my guns locked up... but if I'm on a road trip - where I expect to be sleeping in weird roadside places -- or perhaps be broken down somewhere - I want my handgun "handy" somewhere. That means somewhere not out in the open or on my hip - unless I felt it was needed. If you're going to have a gun - not out in the open - then you need to have a CC in most states.

[Tony_SS]

If anyone's been paying attention to what happened in my state, its a good reason, if you're going to get a CCW, to get it in a state other than your own, that offer reciprocity in your state and many others.

Turns out our state govenor worked with the state police and DMV to collect data on all MO CCW holders and shared that info with federal agencies.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-highway-patrol-gave-federal-government-list-of-ccw-permit/article_ac670792-d777-5354-9d73-6c87144d526e.html

This is the exact reason why I have an out of state permit, which is still legal in Mo. At the time your MO CCW was separate and not tied to your drivers license. Now that is not the case, if you have a CCW its tagged right on there. Tell me what does driving have to do with owning/carrying a gun?

Our governor was actually subpoenaed over the whole deal, this was a law he signed and has blatantly broke it... but that's how it goes when you have to ask for permission for rights. They are compromised.

[andrewb70]

Tony, you're probably already on a bunch of "lists." LOL

Andrew

[SuperSport]

Sorry Mex Man --- but the reason MEXICO is so F'd up with drug gangs etc killing off entire towns --- is because there's no citizens that can defend themselves....

The best defense is a great offense.... and in America --- the citizens would be kicking those sorry drug gangs asses if they came into town guns blazing...

You should have been living in Los Angeles in the late 80's early 90's.
I find it funny when there is a school shooting it is a big deal. But when kids get killed every day to gun fire in major cities, that is not really news.

[garickman]

The best defense is a great offense.... and in America --- the citizens would be kicking those sorry drug gangs asses if they came into town guns blazing...

According to the FBI statistics, there are roughly 33,000 organized gangs in the United States with over 1.4 million members. They are responsible for 4,000 murders each year and 48% of all violent crime in America can be directly traced to gangs. By 2015 it is expected that the number of gang members will almost double to 2.5 million. We don't seem to be doing a very good job at kicking their asses.

[Spiffav8]

According to the FBI statistics, there are roughly 33,000 organized gangs in the United States with over 1.4 million members. They are responsible for 4,000 murders each year and 48% of all violent crime in America can be directly traced to gangs. By 2015 it is expected that the number of gang members will almost double to 2.5 million. We don't seem to be doing a very good job at kicking their asses.

GR...what's the point you want to make? You seem to be holding back on saying something bigger. What is it?

[Spiffav8]

You should have been living in Los Angeles in the late 80's early 90's.
I find it funny when there is a school shooting it is a big deal. But when kids get killed every day to gun fire in major cities, that is not really news.

Sadly it's not on the news. In my eyes these are signs of where political policy hasn't worked and those who made them don't want to be held accountable. These types of things should be on the news and the reasons for them happening should be examined and fixed. Change just the the sake of change isn't a good thing and sadly that's the way many of so called leaders think these days. Criminals can't be controlled by laws (laws with no real punishment) only good law abiding people can be controlled that way. There is a simple answer, but it's not very popular.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

According to the FBI statistics, there are roughly 33,000 organized gangs in the United States with over 1.4 million members. They are responsible for 4,000 murders each year and 48% of all violent crime in America can be directly traced to gangs. By 2015 it is expected that the number of gang members will almost double to 2.5 million. We don't seem to be doing a very good job at kicking their asses.

yeah, this isn't the wild west and we arent cowboys anymore.

I remember when I was in Oakland, there was a rumor that gang members were keen on printing and would target them to access guns.

[GregWeld]

Well -- I think my broader point was missed.



In Mexico -- entire towns have been overrun with drug gangs - the citizens that try to intervene are gunned down or they just leave town.


What we have in America is gangs or gang bangers that are - for the most part - in certain areas of a town. They manage - nightly - to kill each other. But they're not taking over entire towns as they have been able to do in Mexico. The citizens are NOT armed in Mexico. I think - and it's purely MHO - that it can't happen - or can't happen as easily here because of the citizens that just might put up a fight if push came to shove.

[garickman]

Well -- I think my broader point was missed.



In Mexico -- entire towns have been overrun with drug gangs - the citizens that try to intervene are gunned down or they just leave town.


What we have in America is gangs or gang bangers that are - for the most part - in certain areas of a town. They manage - nightly - to kill each other. But they're not taking over entire towns as they have been able to do in Mexico. The citizens are NOT armed in Mexico. I think - and it's purely MHO - that it can't happen - or can't happen as easily here because of the citizens that just might put up a fight if push came to shove.

Greg, I agree that what is happening in Mexico would probably never happen in the United States, but in those "certain areas" of a town where gang bangers have taken over there are still citizens who live trapped like prisoners in their own homes. For those people, they are living in Mexico.

In Oakland California last year, a one year old, a three old, a five year old and two nine year old children all died of gunshot wounds. Oakland had 11 different shooting incidents where more than 100 rounds were fired on city streets. In one of those incidents more than 170 rounds were fired from 5 different weapons. The only victims were an innocent lady driving to work who was killed and an innocent man waiting at the bus stop. For those people and the families of those innocent children, they are also living in Mexico.

The only point I am trying to make is something that most people overlook when they speak of citizen's arming themselves. If you take every city, county and state where carrying a firearm is permitted whether open or concealed, less than 12% of those citizens eligible in the entire United States actually apply for a permit. I would be willing to bet that of those 12%, more than half of those people do not carry a firearm 100% of the time. Also of those 12%, I am sure there is a small percentage who would either never use it if confronted with a situation or who would use wrong. (George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin)

[camcojb]

I am sure there is a small percentage who would either never use it if confronted with a situation or who would use wrong. (George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin)
In California George did it by the book, at least as far as the shooting part if you believe Trayvon was on top of George and hitting his head on the ground. Here if an unarmed guy is attacking you, you cannot pull your gun and shoot him. Now if he has you on the ground and picks up a brick to smash your head in (or is pounding your head into the concrete) THEN you can draw your weapon and shoot. I guess they assume that because the guy is unarmed he won't knock you out before grabbing an object to smash you with........ :lostmarbles: You have to wait until the instant before he kills or mains you to pull the gun.

Now if you're 80 years old, or if he has a weapon of some sort all that changes. If you're a normal able-bodied person you have to take a few punches I guess and hope he quits or doesn't incapacitate you.

[hp2]

yeah, this isn't the wild west and we arent cowboys anymore.



Even the old west wasn't the old west. Despite the Hollywood image and romantic stories to the contrary, most old west towns had lower per capita murder rates than any modern city.

[garickman]

In California George did it by the book, at least as far as the shooting part if you believe Trayvon was on top of George and hitting his head on the ground. Here if an unarmed guy is attacking you, you cannot pull your gun and shoot him. Now if he has you on the ground and picks up a brick to smash your head in (or is pounding your head into the concrete) THEN you can draw your weapon and shoot. I guess they assume that because the guy is unarmed he won't knock you out before grabbing an object to smash you with........ :lostmarbles: You have to wait until the instant before he kills or mains you to pull the gun.

Now if you're 80 years old, or if he has a weapon of some sort all that changes. If you're a normal able-bodied person you have to take a few punches I guess and hope he quits or doesn't incapacitate you.

I am not so sure that George Zimmerman did it by the book because I don't have all the facts. I am pretty sure the police officers investigating this incident don't have all the facts either because one party is dead. I am not for or against George Zimmerman just as I am not for or against Trayvon Martin. It is very likely that Mr. Zimmerman approached this kid and simply asked him a question and Trayvon attacked him without provocation. If George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger than he was certainly justified in defending himself. However, with out knowing all the facts it is just as likely that Mr. Zimmerman approached Trayvon and asked him the same question while opening is jacket and displaying a firearm in his waistband. If that was the case than Trayvon Martin would have be justified in attacking George Zimmerman to prevent him from pulling a gun which he perceived as a threat to his life.

The only reason I reference this case in my previous post is because I believe this. As a private citizen of the United States you have the right to make a citizen's arrest when you believe a crime is being committed. As a private citizen, you have the right to arm yourself to effect that arrest. However, you do not have the right to stop random people you believe are "suspicious". When you confront people for no other reason except that they are "suspicious" bad things can happen and in the this case bad things did happen. The reason I say Mr. Zimmerman used his gun wrong is not because of the fact that he felt he was defending his life with it. It is because I believe he used is gun as tool to feed his courage. I could be 100% wrong, but my gut tells me that if Mr. Zimmerman was not carrying a gun he never would have approached Trayvon Martin, a person he described in his own words as "much bigger than him and intimidating looking".

You don't have to pull your gun out and brandish it or shoot it to be using it wrong. If you believe you are responsible enough to carry a firearm in public and you allow that firearm to give you the courage to confront a situation you would not confront with out it, then you are using it wrong.

[camcojb]

I am not so sure that George Zimmerman did it by the book because I don't have all the facts. I am pretty sure the police officers investigating this incident don't have all the facts either because one party is dead. I am not for or against George Zimmerman just as I am not for or against Trayvon Martin. It is very likely that Mr. Zimmerman approached this kid and simply asked him a question and Trayvon attacked him without provocation. If George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger than he was certainly justified in defending himself. However, with out knowing all the facts it is just as likely that Mr. Zimmerman approached Trayvon and asked him the same question while opening is jacket and displaying a firearm in his waistband. If that was the case than Trayvon Martin would have be justified in attacking George Zimmerman to prevent him from pulling a gun which he perceived as a threat to his life.

The only reason I reference this case in my previous post is because I believe this. As a private citizen of the United States you have the right to make a citizen's arrest when you believe a crime is being committed. As a private citizen, you have the right to arm yourself to effect that arrest. However, you do not have the right to stop random people you believe are "suspicious". When you confront people for no other reason except that they are "suspicious" bad things can happen and in the this case bad things did happen. The reason I say Mr. Zimmerman used his gun wrong is not because of the fact that he felt he was defending his life with it. It is because I believe he used is gun as tool to feed his courage. I could be 100% wrong, but my gut tells me that if Mr. Zimmerman was not carrying a gun he never would have approached Trayvon Martin, a person he described in his own words as "much bigger than him and intimidating looking".

You don't have to pull your gun out and brandish it or shoot it to be using it wrong. If you believe you are responsible enough to carry a firearm in public and you allow that firearm to give you the courage to confront a situation you would not confront with out it, than you are using it wrong.
I am not (and don't want to) debating how that event played out. But most everyone believes the ending to be as I described, which is what I was referring to. In my state you'd have to wait to that point to pull your gun. How they got to that point is certainly up for debate.

[garickman]

I am not (and don't want to) debating how that event played out. But most everyone believes the ending to be as I described, which is what I was referring to. In my state you'd have to wait to that point to pull your gun. How they got to that point is certainly up for debate.

No debate from me Jody.:cheers: But in the famous words of Tom Cruise "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove." And you have to give me some credit on the fact that I was able to implement a quote from A Few Good Men into this thread.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Even the old west wasn't the old west. Despite the Hollywood image and romantic stories to the contrary, most old west towns had lower per capita murder rates than any modern city.

I wouldnt know the truth or if I did I probably couldn't handle the truth. Splitting hairs, how about justified shoots? Could be a lot of shovel ready killings and not quite murder.

[SuperSport]

Meanwhile back in The ol US of A.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/12/18213691-at-least-19-injured-in-new-orleans-mothers-day-shooting?lite

Get it together people!
:bang:

[mexMan]

What a shame! That's exactly my point, Greg's right, we don't have the way to defend ourselves, at least not in a fair way. But at the same time, we are not ready to carry a gun. We are not trained, nor capable to handle a gun.

[Spiffav8]

What a shame! That's exactly my point, Greg's right, we don't have the way to defend ourselves, at least not in a fair way. But at the same time, we are not ready to carry a gun. We are not trained, nor capable to handle a gun.

What is your idea of a person who is "trained and capable"?

[SuperSport]

What is your idea of a person who is "trained and capable"?
The reality is anyone can own/purchase a gun regardless if they are a responsible person or not. I support the Constitution but too many idiots own guns and soon the government will be forced to do something about it which is really sad. This is not they case of a few bad apples but too too many bad apples.
I made a point of living in Los Angeles in the late 80's/90's. I was in high school back then and went to many "high school" parties and witnessed way too many guns in the possession of teenagers. I am sorry but there are way too many guns in the streets of America. People make the point of owning weapons to defend themselves. I think of where these weapons end up and it is crazy.

[Spiffav8]

The reality is anyone can own/purchase a gun regardless if they are a responsible person or not. I support the Constitution but too many idiots own guns and soon the government will be forced to do something about it which is really sad. This is not they case of a few bad apples but too too many bad apples.
I made a point of living in Los Angeles in the late 80's/90's. I was in high school back then and went to many "high school" parties and witnessed way too many guns in the possession of teenagers. I am sorry but there are way too many guns in the streets of America. People make the point of owning weapons to defend themselves. I think of where these weapons end up and it is crazy.

A: You're not mexMan
B: You didn't answer the question
C: The 80's are gone
D: You live is Cali which has huge problems on numerous levels
E: The remainder of the country is very different and diverse.

Back up your statements/views with facts. Should be easy enough....right?

[Spiffav8]

The reality is anyone can own/purchase a gun regardless if they are a responsible person or not. I support the Constitution but too many idiots own guns and soon the government will be forced to do something about it which is really sad. This is not they case of a few bad apples but too too many bad apples.
I made a point of living in Los Angeles in the late 80's/90's. I was in high school back then and went to many "high school" parties and witnessed way too many guns in the possession of teenagers. I am sorry but there are way too many guns in the streets of America. People make the point of owning weapons to defend themselves. I think of where these weapons end up and it is crazy.

Screw it...

No not anyone can own a gun legally. Morons like you don't seem to get that or want to believe it. Nor do all lawfully purchased firearms end up the hands of criminals at some point. You obviously spend way to much time watching the news and believing whatever they tell you. Read a book and educate your self on something and stop being sheep. Seriously why should a good person, who has no criminal record ever be stopped from owning anything they have earned? Are the good people responsible enough?

You don't support the 2nd amendment, which is obvious by your statement and I'm betting your the type that say's "it's for hunting". Stop trying to be the in between, none confrontational type. Pick a side and please stay off of mine. Trying reading the book "The 5000 year leap". Perhaps it will shed some light on how our country is designed and why. Follow up with "Still the Best Hope". Perhaps you'll learn why you, you're mind set and those like you are so messed up and flat out stupid. You and those like you, cause more problems than you will ever solve.

Don't like criminals having guns? How about supporting harsh laws that actually punish criminals? We spend more money on taking care of criminals than we should. Whatever happened to a speedy trial and a fair punishment? This means voting people into office who will do what's right and that means YOU have to be involved, holding your elected officials feet to the fire. Way to many people are uninvolved and figure someone else will take care of it while they doing nothing but complain about it. Try giving a **** and while you're at it, stop expecting someone else to resolve you're problems. How about you take responsibility for your own actions. Don't count on anyone or anything except your self. Have a little pride and while your at it, teach your children the same lesson and the importance of them passing it along to their children. It's called Integrity and Morals. Or are you going to pout and be the type that needs a trophy for every little league thing in life he signed up for?

Way to many people have the 'what's in it for me' attitude these days. They refuse to believe they are anything but victims and want someone to take care of them in one way or another...or in every way for that matter. "The Government" isn't the answer. It's been shown time and time again that many of our elected officials break the very laws they vote for. Do you honestly believe that they are looking out for you and are the best group to decided who can and can't have a gun...or anything else? The gun ranges and classes in my area are in crazy high demand now a days. More than ever people are learning to be better with and better at using their firearm. Bad apples? You demonize gun owns the way you put it, but the truth is that far more people are seeking education on the subject than you care to believe. Why? Because they are tired of a system that doesn't deliver. To many changes have been made...just to make change and everyone, except the scumbags, are getting taken advantage of. People are starting to realize that they need to be more self sufficient and protect what's theirs.

Did you ever stop to think that IF the amount of crime was low that people wouldn't feel the need to arm themselves in order to be protected? Sure would be nice to get back to the days when you didn't have to lock your doors, but that's not reality anymore. Don't blame those who own guns for being the problem. That's just stupid. Blame those who have created laws and a system that has breed dead beats, criminals, moochers. Blame those who cry victim at every turn. Blame those who are uninvolved.

Stop casting stones and don't be sheep. It's called REALITY!

[Rick D]

:flag2: :flag2: :flag2: :flag2: :yes: Screw it...

No not anyone can own a gun legally. Morons like you don't seem to get that or want to believe it. Nor do all lawfully purchased firearms end up the hands of criminals at some point. You obviously spend way to much time watching the news and believing whatever they tell you. Read a book and educate your self on something and stop being sheep. Seriously why should a good person, who has no criminal record ever be stopped from owning anything they have earned? Are the good people responsible enough?

You don't support the 2nd amendment, which is obvious by your statement and I'm betting your the type that say's "it's for hunting". Stop trying to be the in between, none confrontational type. Pick a side and please stay off of mine. Trying reading the book "The 5000 year leap". Perhaps it will shed some light on how our country is designed and why. Follow up with "Still the Best Hope". Perhaps you'll learn why you, you're mind set and those like you are so messed up and flat out stupid. You and those like you, cause more problems than you will ever solve.

Don't like criminals having guns? How about supporting harsh laws that actually punish criminals? We spend more money on taking care of criminals than we should. Whatever happened to a speedy trial and a fair punishment? This means voting people into office who will do what's right and that means YOU have to be involved, holding your elected officials feet to the fire. Way to many people are uninvolved and figure someone else will take care of it while they doing nothing but complain about it. Try giving a **** and while you're at it, stop expecting someone else to resolve you're problems. How about you take responsibility for your own actions. Don't count on anyone or anything except your self. Have a little pride and while your at it, teach your children the same lesson and the importance of them passing it along to their children. It's called Integrity and Morals. Or are you going to pout and be the type that needs a trophy for every little league thing in life he signed up for?

Way to many people have the 'what's in it for me' attitude these days. They refuse to believe they are anything but victims and want someone to take care of them in one way or another...or in every way for that matter. "The Government" isn't the answer. It's been shown time and time again that many of our elected officials break the very laws they vote for. Do you honestly believe that they are looking out for you and are the best group to decided who can and can't have a gun...or anything else? The gun ranges and classes in my area are in crazy high demand now a days. More than ever people are learning to be better with and better at using their firearm. Bad apples? You demonize gun owns the way you put it, but the truth is that far more people are seeking education on the subject than you care to believe. Why? Because they are tired of a system that doesn't deliver. To many changes have been made...just to make change and everyone, except the scumbags, are getting taken advantage of. People are starting to realize that they need to be more self sufficient and protect what's theirs.

Did you ever stop to think that IF the amount of crime was low that people wouldn't feel the need to arm themselves in order to be protected? Sure would be nice to get back to the days when you didn't have to lock your doors, but that's not reality anymore. Don't blame those who own guns for being the problem. That's just stupid. Blame those who have created laws and a system that has breed dead beats, criminals, moochers. Blame those who cry victim at every turn. Blame those who are uninvolved.

Stop casting stones and don't be sheep. It's called REALITY!


:flag2: :flag2: :flag2: :flag2: :thankyou:

[GregWeld]

Funny thing about the way "someone" counts "guns".... which also makes it seem that every other American is walking around with two pistols on their hip - and an AR15 style rifle in a sling.


Many of my friends - including me - have multiple guns... but a couple might be shot guns for bird hunting... a couple .22's for plinking... maybe a deer/elk caliber rifle... and finally maybe a .22 or similar small caliber hand gun - and maybe a .45 or similar pistol for "protection". So out of all the gun count... one might be considered a defensive weapon (all of them are - but what I'm saying is in the owners eyes - there might be one that was bought for that purpose).

Many people might 6/8/10 or more "guns".... they're collectors. I just bought a shot gun and when the salesperson asked me about my collection (figuring this was just another wall hanger)... he was appalled to learn that I was going to USE IT...to shoot skeet! When you go to websites that sell high end collector guns --- the big sales pitch is that it's "never been fired"!

I think the no gun prohibitionists read the numbers and think they're all 9MM Glocks stuck in the waistbands of teenagers in East Covina --- and full auto AR15's.

[garickman]

Screw it...

No not anyone can own a gun legally. Morons like you don't seem to get that or want to believe it. Nor do all lawfully purchased firearms end up the hands of criminals at some point. You obviously spend way to much time watching the news and believing whatever they tell you. Read a book and educate your self on something and stop being sheep. Seriously why should a good person, who has no criminal record ever be stopped from owning anything they have earned? Are the good people responsible enough?

You don't support the 2nd amendment, which is obvious by your statement and I'm betting your the type that say's "it's for hunting". Stop trying to be the in between, none confrontational type. Pick a side and please stay off of mine. Trying reading the book "The 5000 year leap". Perhaps it will shed some light on how our country is designed and why. Follow up with "Still the Best Hope". Perhaps you'll learn why you, you're mind set and those like you are so messed up and flat out stupid. You and those like you, cause more problems than you will ever solve.

Don't like criminals having guns? How about supporting harsh laws that actually punish criminals? We spend more money on taking care of criminals than we should. Whatever happened to a speedy trial and a fair punishment? This means voting people into office who will do what's right and that means YOU have to be involved, holding your elected officials feet to the fire. Way to many people are uninvolved and figure someone else will take care of it while they doing nothing but complain about it. Try giving a **** and while you're at it, stop expecting someone else to resolve you're problems. How about you take responsibility for your own actions. Don't count on anyone or anything except your self. Have a little pride and while your at it, teach your children the same lesson and the importance of them passing it along to their children. It's called Integrity and Morals. Or are you going to pout and be the type that needs a trophy for every little league thing in life he signed up for?

Way to many people have the 'what's in it for me' attitude these days. They refuse to believe they are anything but victims and want someone to take care of them in one way or another...or in every way for that matter. "The Government" isn't the answer. It's been shown time and time again that many of our elected officials break the very laws they vote for. Do you honestly believe that they are looking out for you and are the best group to decided who can and can't have a gun...or anything else? The gun ranges and classes in my area are in crazy high demand now a days. More than ever people are learning to be better with and better at using their firearm. Bad apples? You demonize gun owns the way you put it, but the truth is that far more people are seeking education on the subject than you care to believe. Why? Because they are tired of a system that doesn't deliver. To many changes have been made...just to make change and everyone, except the scumbags, are getting taken advantage of. People are starting to realize that they need to be more self sufficient and protect what's theirs.

Did you ever stop to think that IF the amount of crime was low that people wouldn't feel the need to arm themselves in order to be protected? Sure would be nice to get back to the days when you didn't have to lock your doors, but that's not reality anymore. Don't blame those who own guns for being the problem. That's just stupid. Blame those who have created laws and a system that has breed dead beats, criminals, moochers. Blame those who cry victim at every turn. Blame those who are uninvolved.

Stop casting stones and don't be sheep. It's called REALITY!

The great gun debate can and will go on forever. It is one of the most heated and polarizing topics in the Nation. It always has been and always will be. There are no easy answers and no easy solutions, but you are seriously out of line with this post. If it was written be anyone other than a moderator it would have been deleted and the thread locked. Just because someone does not agree with your views they are a moron? The man said he supports the Constitution but somehow you can tell from his seven written sentences that he does not support the 2nd Amendment. SuperSport is right there are far to many idiots who "legally" own guns. You have the nerve to tell this guy to go read some books so he can learn how stupid he is!!! I've got a good read for you. Why don't you calm down and re-read your own post. If you have the INTEGRITY and MORALS you speak of, than perhaps your next post should be an apology to SuperSport. You have the audacity to tell this man to "stop casting stones" when you yourself threw every stone you could gather. You are either the world's biggest hypocrite or the world's best psychiatrist because for you to be able to tell every thing about a man's character in seven sentences is amazing. We all share different views, and most of us have the ability to accept that sometimes we must agree to disagree. It's a little thing called RESPECT, something you failed to mention.

Hey Curtis, not everyone is going to agree with you, not everyone is going to see what you see. It doesn't make them a moron and it doesn't make them stupid. It just makes it REALITY!!!!

[Spiffav8]

The great gun debate can and will go on forever. It is one of the most heated and polarizing topics in the Nation. It always has been and always will be. There are no easy answers and no easy solutions, but you are seriously out of line with this post. If it was written be anyone other than a moderator it would have been deleted and the thread locked. Just because someone does not agree with your views they are a moron? The man said he supports the Constitution but somehow you can tell from his seven written sentences that he does not support the 2nd Amendment. SuperSport is right there are far to many idiots who "legally" own guns. You have the nerve to tell this guy to go read some books so he can learn how stupid he is!!! I've got a good read for you. Why don't you calm down and re-read your own post. If you have the INTEGRITY and MORALS you speak of, than perhaps your next post should be an apology to SuperSport. You have the audacity to tell this man to "stop casting stones" when you yourself threw every stone you could gather. You are either the world's biggest hypocrite or the world's best psychiatrist because for you to be able to tell every thing about a man's character in seven sentences is amazing. We all share different views, and most of us have the ability to accept that sometimes we must agree to disagree. It's a little thing called RESPECT, something you failed to mention.

Hey Curtis, not everyone is going to agree with you, not everyone is going to see what you see. It doesn't make them a moron and it doesn't make them stupid. It just makes it REALITY!!!!

The great gun debate doesn't need to go on for ever, but sadly to many people want to tell everyone else how they should live their lives. Problem is that it's GOOD people who are being attacked by people who have good intentions. The attackers (and yes that's how I view them) are seriously miss guided in their views of what the cause of the problems is and in how to solve it. The true lack of respect comes into play when they are proven to be wrong and lash out in anger and try to make supporters look stupid. There are easy answers, but no one wants to seriously talk about them. Doing so would open a huge can of worms and it would prove that the way things have been setup (by them) has failed.

The man claims to support the constitution yet posts this link http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-shooting?lite as proof that to many idiots legally own guns. In the article it says that this has been happening for years and is usually aimed at one person. Ummm...that's a gang related, criminal act. Which means ILLEGAL guns. Bottom line is, this isn't new News. It's only become more popular to show/print as the debate has heated up. If Supersport supports the constitution as he claims, then he should be able to see that. IF he supports the constitution then he should be angry that it's being unfairly attacked by people who don't understand it. His view is one of those who takes the media headlines as 100% truth and forms his opinion after reading the ticker or hearing a two minute story/debate. IF he supported the constitution he would educate himself on the matter and become involved. Do I expect him to have the exact same view as me? No. However, I do expect him to do more than spout off comments like that. There are to many idiots allowed to drive (probably far more than those who own guns) and yet no one is saying crap about that. Yeah...it's that simple. And just so you know....I am and will always be the first one to call the idiot with a gun out and help correct his ways. I've gone after two very good friends and I wasn't nice about it. They both have taken classes and are now safe, responsible shooters/gun owners. Do I like making my friends feel like children? No, but I care enough to be involved and to help them. If more people where active in their community, things would be very different. My point? If you want a positive change, become involved!!

I figured someone would throw the Moderator card. Hey, I am still a member here and YES, I can be moderated. I have not crossed the line, though I have walked right up to it. Not the normal kind of posting you see from me...is it.

Supersport is casting stones and adding fuel to the fire. It was done in a very casual way for sure. So either he's attacking and trying to be the friendly guy about it, or he's uneducated on the subject. The later would make anyone a moron in my opinion. I simply cast those stones back and I wasn't all P.C. about it. I will not write an apology to Supersport. I stand behind my post and I will continue to view him as I do (on this subject) until he does something to show me otherwise. Don't take that to mean that I think he is a bad person, or that I would do harm to him. He's welcome into my home, like any other Lateral-G member. We have a difference of opinion and as heated as that may get, I will not view him as a bad person. A start would be to post up some statisticians (that are backed up and legit) that show how Idiot owned Legal guns are are causing the problem or contributing to it. Making a statement and then posting something that is unrelated (other than it has guns in it's content) isn't helping.

If someone want's respect then they should know better than to open their mouth and spew garbage they know nothing about and can't back up. I don't expect everyone to have the same view as me and no person who is educated on a subject is stupid or a moron. If a person is looking for meaningful discussion on a subject or to learn I will always throw my full support behind that....regardless of what their view is in the end.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

yeah!! plus the Republic of California rules!! :action-smiley-027:

[Dayton]

In Oakland California last year, a one year old, a three old, a five year old and two nine year old children all died of gunshot wounds.

In a whole year?
That is a quiet night my Mexician standards.
Of the world’s 50 most violent cities, 40 are in Latin America; 14 are in Brazil, 12 are in Mexico and five are in Colombia. Mexico lays claim to five of the top 10 urban areas

[SuperSport]

Screw it...

No not anyone can own a gun legally. Morons like you don't seem to get that or want to believe it. Nor do all lawfully purchased firearms end up the hands of criminals at some point. You obviously spend way to much time watching the news and believing whatever they tell you. Read a book and educate your self on something and stop being sheep. Seriously why should a good person, who has no criminal record ever be stopped from owning anything they have earned? Are the good people responsible enough?

You don't support the 2nd amendment, which is obvious by your statement and I'm betting your the type that say's "it's for hunting". Stop trying to be the in between, none confrontational type. Pick a side and please stay off of mine. Trying reading the book "The 5000 year leap". Perhaps it will shed some light on how our country is designed and why. Follow up with "Still the Best Hope". Perhaps you'll learn why you, you're mind set and those like you are so messed up and flat out stupid. You and those like you, cause more problems than you will ever solve.

Don't like criminals having guns? How about supporting harsh laws that actually punish criminals? We spend more money on taking care of criminals than we should. Whatever happened to a speedy trial and a fair punishment? This means voting people into office who will do what's right and that means YOU have to be involved, holding your elected officials feet to the fire. Way to many people are uninvolved and figure someone else will take care of it while they doing nothing but complain about it. Try giving a **** and while you're at it, stop expecting someone else to resolve you're problems. How about you take responsibility for your own actions. Don't count on anyone or anything except your self. Have a little pride and while your at it, teach your children the same lesson and the importance of them passing it along to their children. It's called Integrity and Morals. Or are you going to pout and be the type that needs a trophy for every little league thing in life he signed up for?

Way to many people have the 'what's in it for me' attitude these days. They refuse to believe they are anything but victims and want someone to take care of them in one way or another...or in every way for that matter. "The Government" isn't the answer. It's been shown time and time again that many of our elected officials break the very laws they vote for. Do you honestly believe that they are looking out for you and are the best group to decided who can and can't have a gun...or anything else? The gun ranges and classes in my area are in crazy high demand now a days. More than ever people are learning to be better with and better at using their firearm. Bad apples? You demonize gun owns the way you put it, but the truth is that far more people are seeking education on the subject than you care to believe. Why? Because they are tired of a system that doesn't deliver. To many changes have been made...just to make change and everyone, except the scumbags, are getting taken advantage of. People are starting to realize that they need to be more self sufficient and protect what's theirs.

Did you ever stop to think that IF the amount of crime was low that people wouldn't feel the need to arm themselves in order to be protected? Sure would be nice to get back to the days when you didn't have to lock your doors, but that's not reality anymore. Don't blame those who own guns for being the problem. That's just stupid. Blame those who have created laws and a system that has breed dead beats, criminals, moochers. Blame those who cry victim at every turn. Blame those who are uninvolved.

Stop casting stones and don't be sheep. It's called REALITY!

OMG! You are kidding right?
I do support the Constitution and I believe it should not messed with by politicians that are trying to make a name for themselves. Of course we should keep the right to bear arms. My point is this. The irresponsible gun owners are going to ruin it for the responsible gun owners. Do I own a gun? No, do I have immediate family that owns guns yes. Have I gone to a gun range and shot weapons before, yes. Am I someone that thinks gun owners need to be held accountable when their weapons are used in crimes oh, YES I DO! Too many weapons end up in the wrong hands and this is not an issue it seems. If you want to own a gun then you better be responsible for that weapon. A Moron (a word you used) gun owner bought a gun for a 5 year old who then shot and killed his 2 year old sister. Pretty stupid huh. I would never allow that to happen so I, as a responsible person, choose not to own a gun. I would feel responsible if I owned a gun had it stolen and then it was used to kill someone.
People seem to think only Mexico has a gun problem but not us Americans. I think this is hilarious. I also think it is hilarious if you think California has problems unlike the rest of the country. Google how many kids get killed every year in this country and see if kids only get killed in California.
I think when you have loved ones that are killed by guns in the wrong hands to will see gun control in a different light. I have family that are police officers and the stories I hear from are crazy. Too many weapons in the wrong hands. But I still think only responsible people should be allowed to own guns.
If, you cant account for all your weapons then all your weapons should be taken away because you are a Moron gun owner.
You will soon see certain guns banned by your politicians. Just wait.
Peace!

.

[SuperSport]

If Supersport supports the constitution as he claims, then he should be able to see that. IF he supports the constitution then he should be angry that it's being unfairly attacked by people who don't understand it. His view is one of those who takes the media headlines as 100% truth and forms his opinion after reading the ticker or hearing a two minute story/debate. IF he supported the constitution he would educate himself on the matter and become involved. Do I expect him to have the exact same view as me? No. However, I do expect him to do more than spout off comments like that.

O.k. this is good.
Let me ask you this, is there a gun problem in America?
When Americans get killed every day do you think that is an o.k. thing, a non issue? Or do you believe only people in South American countries get killed?
Believe me our politicians are coming for your weapons. Americans like sheep wil be more than happy to turn them in when this happens.
I was talking with a gun owner at work and asked him if the president asked him to turn in his guns or face fines or jail time, he answered he would turn them in. I was laughing.

[SuperSport]

Gun owners think EVERYONE should own guns (I know not felons or people with mental issues).
Gun control people think no one should own weapons.

Its black or white.

I apologize for being neither and grey.

But stay tuned it will happen. At least I am not afraid to say we Americans have an issue that needs attention for the safety of all Americans. Sandy Hook or someone losing their baby should never happen in this country.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Gun owners think EVERYONE should own guns (I know not felons or people with mental issues).
Gun control people think no one should own weapons.

Its black or white.

I apologize for being neither and grey.

But stay tuned it will happen. At least I am not afraid to say we Americans have an issue that needs attention for the safety of all Americans. Sandy Hook or someone losing their baby should never happen in this country.

I believe this too, but its going to take people control. A sick person made this happen. A sick person that by law should not have been able to own a firearm.

In 2008 I witnessed many non gun enthusiast buying up guns just due to the Obama craze. Some of these are the people that should worry about. Many of the will not take ownership seriously. Im willing to bet most of those guns are loaded and sitting behind a door or is a sock drawer.

The anti's seriously believe that if they remove all the guns, crimes involving guns will stop. The logic is not there.

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x304/doyce9999/SpockGunLogic.jpg

[force-fed-snake]

I'm not only a gun owner, but I hold an FFL, I turn down buyers all the time... simply because I dont think they should own a firearm. granted I'm "small time" gun smith/dealer.... and every sale is a big deal to the bottom line... BUT its my duty... not as a responsible dealer.... but as a human to do my part if I don't think someone should own a firearm. I do have (and use) the right to refuse service to anybody

I fall into the gray area too... where just because somebody can legally own a weapon.... doesnt really mean they should

I see the bigger problem being everyone trying to fix a system with a one size fits all patch.... and that simply is not the how system works. I dont have all the answers.. I can only simply do what I can do. I dont see the system changing anytime soon.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

I'm not only a gun owner, but I hold an FFL, I turn down buyers all the time... simply because I dont think they should own a firearm. granted I'm "small time" gun smith/dealer.... and every sale is a big deal to the bottom line... BUT its my duty... not as a responsible dealer.... but as a human to do my part if I don't think someone should own a firearm. I do have (and use) the right to refuse service to anybody

I fall into the gray area too... where just because somebody can legally own a weapon.... doesnt really mean they should

I see the bigger problem being everyone trying to fix a system with a one size fits all patch.... and that simply is not the how system works. I dont have all the answers.. I can only simply do what I can do. I dont see the system changing anytime soon.

so you are taking it upon yourself to infringe on a possible legal purchaser the right to own a gun? interesting. Is this based on racial profiling or gut feeling?

[Vince@Meanstreets]

that's admirable, you are an exception! most gun shops only look at the bottom line, as long as they pass the background check cha ching, they ring em up

even if they pass a background check as put forth as a guide line by the federal government they should not have the right to purchase? ok. this is getting better.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

hey man i live in medellin colombia, i feel MUCH safer here than i would in chicago. the cops here don't play, a lot of them carry sub machine guns or m16s. two months ago two kids snatched a lady's purse down town, a cop saw it go down and yelled stop, then shot one in the leg, the other one stopped instantly. if regular people catch a thief in the act, they will stomp the crap out of him while waiting for the cops to come get him after the beat down....

Chicago, according to our commander and chief has the strictest gun laws in the country.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

new orleans is not part of the u s of a anymore. sadly after katrina hit, all the red white and blue left N.O. only the entitlement state was left behind....

they are not alone, take a closer look at how parts of the east coast are after storm sandy hit. its still a mess.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

if you have some really agitated, drunk, or drugged up customer trying to buy a gun, would you still want to sell him one just because they pass the background check?

sure, but was this the case? how about a 21 year old, wearing saggy jeans, cap on backwards and just hopped out of a lowered honda civic with a pitbull in the passenger seat? If he passes a federal background check do you think he should be able to make a purchase. Keep in mind that car theives don't go to dealerships to buy cars...most of the time. Just trying to make sense of the logic.

I know you see what im getting at.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

it is almost impossible to get a ccw in medellin, yet there are 20 to 45 murders a month in the city lately, but it is the drug dealers fighting over territory. it's 3k for a cheap 12 gauge through legal channels, my buddy is a retired police capt from the usa that has been here 12 years, he got a ccw back then, and paid 6k for a s&w 38 revolver through legal channels. i asked a taxi driver where i could buy a gun for home protection, he got me a sig .380 for 750 bucks in an hour. lol

its kind of perverse in that the mob called la oficina ran medellin really well. they kept the peace in that, when low level hood rats would do stupid stuff ie kill people of petty stuff and create problems in the barrios, the oficina would wack them and the area was peaceful again. after the cops decimated la officina, there are now 3 different groups competing for control of the city and as a result a lot of new murders, kind of back fired, it was better when the cops and the mob had a working relationship. lol

thats just wrong.....you paid 6K pes for a 38, whats the conversion? 4 bucks?.....LOL down town oakland you can buy one out of a back of a van for $300 US.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

no 6k DOLLARS...... through legal channels you pay like 5k in taxes included with the price of the gun!!!


today its 1829 col pesos to a us dollar

where the hell do yo live? lol

:animated_bye_bye_em

[Vince@Meanstreets]

I'll try to be a bit more PC. Moderate me if you need to, I totally understand.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Vince@Meanstreets]

in medellin colomia south america, i live in el pablado which is the nicest part of medellin, there is very little crime where i live.

parts of down town and some of the crappy barrios are no place to be at night, in the worst barrios people have to pay a vaccuna, which keeps you healthy. lol its only about 2 or 3 dollars a month, and every person that lives on your block pays it. if i live in another gangs block i have to pay like 10cents to go hang at your house in their territory. crazy huh?

loco cie

[garickman]

The great gun debate doesn't need to go on for ever, but sadly to many people want to tell everyone else how they should live their lives. Problem is that it's GOOD people who are being attacked by people who have good intentions. The attackers (and yes that's how I view them) are seriously miss guided in their views of what the cause of the problems is and in how to solve it. The true lack of respect comes into play when they are proven to be wrong and lash out in anger and try to make supporters look stupid. There are easy answers, but no one wants to seriously talk about them. Doing so would open a huge can of worms and it would prove that the way things have been setup (by them) has failed.

The man claims to support the constitution yet posts this link http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-shooting?lite as proof that to many idiots legally own guns. In the article it says that this has been happening for years and is usually aimed at one person. Ummm...that's a gang related, criminal act. Which means ILLEGAL guns. Bottom line is, this isn't new News. It's only become more popular to show/print as the debate has heated up. If Supersport supports the constitution as he claims, then he should be able to see that. IF he supports the constitution then he should be angry that it's being unfairly attacked by people who don't understand it. His view is one of those who takes the media headlines as 100% truth and forms his opinion after reading the ticker or hearing a two minute story/debate. IF he supported the constitution he would educate himself on the matter and become involved. Do I expect him to have the exact same view as me? No. However, I do expect him to do more than spout off comments like that. There are to many idiots allowed to drive (probably far more than those who own guns) and yet no one is saying crap about that. Yeah...it's that simple. And just so you know....I am and will always be the first one to call the idiot with a gun out and help correct his ways. I've gone after two very good friends and I wasn't nice about it. They both have taken classes and are now safe, responsible shooters/gun owners. Do I like making my friends feel like children? No, but I care enough to be involved and to help them. If more people where active in their community, things would be very different. My point? If you want a positive change, become involved!!

I figured someone would throw the Moderator card. Hey, I am still a member here and YES, I can be moderated. I have not crossed the line, though I have walked right up to it. Not the normal kind of posting you see from me...is it.

Supersport is casting stones and adding fuel to the fire. It was done in a very casual way for sure. So either he's attacking and trying to be the friendly guy about it, or he's uneducated on the subject. The later would make anyone a moron in my opinion. I simply cast those stones back and I wasn't all P.C. about it. I will not write an apology to Supersport. I stand behind my post and I will continue to view him as I do (on this subject) until he does something to show me otherwise. Don't take that to mean that I think he is a bad person, or that I would do harm to him. He's welcome into my home, like any other Lateral-G member. We have a difference of opinion and as heated as that may get, I will not view him as a bad person. A start would be to post up some statisticians (that are backed up and legit) that show how Idiot owned Legal guns are are causing the problem or contributing to it. Making a statement and then posting something that is unrelated (other than it has guns in it's content) isn't helping.

If someone want's respect then they should know better than to open their mouth and spew garbage they know nothing about and can't back up. I don't expect everyone to have the same view as me and no person who is educated on a subject is stupid or a moron. If a person is looking for meaningful discussion on a subject or to learn I will always throw my full support behind that....regardless of what their view is in the end.

I too stand behind my post as well. You feel you have walked right up to the line, I happen to believe you crossed it. But that is a matter of opinion. You have already stated you like facts. Since you have posted this response to me I am curious if you are ready to put your money where your mouth is? You stated that there are easy answers to the gun debate. I would love to hear them. I am very curious to know if you have ever read the United States Constitution and your thoughts on why the second amendment was enacted.

Oh, the reason I threw the moderator card......After the Boston Marathon thread got a little personal, you posted "keep it civil kids, DON'T MAKE ME COME IN HERE" There wasn't too much civil about your personal attack on SuperSport.

[force-fed-snake]

so you are taking it upon yourself to infringe on a possible legal purchaser the right to own a gun? interesting. Is this based on racial profiling or gut feeling?

im not taking away anybody's "right" to own a gun.... I am unaware of any law that says I have to sell to somebody simply because its legal for them to own it.

the point was more that as a gun supporter, I dont think that EVERYBODY legally capable of owning firearms..... should.

I dont have anymore to add to this disscussion.

[Spiffav8]

OMG! You are kidding right?
I do support the Constitution and I believe it should not messed with by politicians that are trying to make a name for themselves. Of course we should keep the right to bear arms. My point is this. The irresponsible gun owners are going to ruin it for the responsible gun owners. Do I own a gun? No, do I have immediate family that owns guns yes. Have I gone to a gun range and shot weapons before, yes. Am I someone that thinks gun owners need to be held accountable when their weapons are used in crimes oh, YES I DO! Too many weapons end up in the wrong hands and this is not an issue it seems. If you want to own a gun then you better be responsible for that weapon. A Moron (a word you used) gun owner bought a gun for a 5 year old who then shot and killed his 2 year old sister. Pretty stupid huh. I would never allow that to happen so I, as a responsible person, choose not to own a gun. I would feel responsible if I owned a gun had it stolen and then it was used to kill someone.
People seem to think only Mexico has a gun problem but not us Americans. I think this is hilarious. I also think it is hilarious if you think California has problems unlike the rest of the country. Google how many kids get killed every year in this country and see if kids only get killed in California.
I think when you have loved ones that are killed by guns in the wrong hands to will see gun control in a different light. I have family that are police officers and the stories I hear from are crazy. Too many weapons in the wrong hands. But I still think only responsible people should be allowed to own guns.
If, you cant account for all your weapons then all your weapons should be taken away because you are a Moron gun owner.
You will soon see certain guns banned by your politicians. Just wait.
Peace!

.

You say that irresponsible gun owners are going to ruin it for all the others. Please define your idea of a irresponsible gun owner and a responsible one.

You also state that gun owners need to be held accountable for crimes committed with their guns. You appear to be saying that the owner of stolen gun that was used in a crime should be held accountable. How would that be fair? Neither the gun or it's owner committed the crime. The person who holds the gun did and they should be held accountable. Should you be held responsible if your car is stolen and used in a drive by, or used to drive through a group of children who are waiting for the school bus? Of course not. This line of thinking is crazy. Place the blame at the feet of those who earn it. The way you say it, it looks like you are out to get paid by the one person that can afford it.

I agree 100% with you that to many weapons (of all types) end up in the hands of those that shouldn't have them. That is what the real debate should be, but sadly it's not. My wife is a 911 dispatcher and I hear about everything that happens in Las Vegas. EVERYTHING...weather I want to or not. haha I also have some fantastic friends who are officers. Listening to them complain about how our system works against them in so many ways makes one realize why we have so many criminals and why that is only getting worse.

Children being killed, by any means, is horrible. I am not some heartless monster, but thank you for trying to paint me as such. Now if your point was to say that IF the gun of an owner who fails to take preventative measures from a child having access to a his/her firearm is used by a child to shoot another child (in home shooting kind of thing) should be held accountable, I totally agree with you. Now if a gun is stolen and then used by two criminals to kill a child (this recently happened when to robbers killed a baby, because the mother did have any money) then no, the owner should not be held accountable. Now before you take that and run, my personal belief is that there is a right and a wrong way to store a firearm.

I'm not sure where or why you seem to think I am against California. There are some strange laws there for sure. Travel much? The people of the United States is very different from one region to the next. You apparently missed my point.

Oh and I have had loved ones killed by guns. Have you?

You're last line You will soon see certain guns banned by your politicians. Just wait.
Peace! says it all the proof I needed to show that you don't support the constitution. Thank you for making that clear and for the threat.

[Spiffav8]

I'm not only a gun owner, but I hold an FFL, I turn down buyers all the time... simply because I dont think they should own a firearm. granted I'm "small time" gun smith/dealer.... and every sale is a big deal to the bottom line... BUT its my duty... not as a responsible dealer.... but as a human to do my part if I don't think someone should own a firearm. I do have (and use) the right to refuse service to anybody

I fall into the gray area too... where just because somebody can legally own a weapon.... doesnt really mean they should

I see the bigger problem being everyone trying to fix a system with a one size fits all patch.... and that simply is not the how system works. I dont have all the answers.. I can only simply do what I can do. I dont see the system changing anytime soon.

Bravo! I take your statement not as the Racist thing as others have stated, but as that of a responsible person. If more people took an interest in being responsible we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I applaud you for realizing that firearm ownership isn't for you. It's not for everyone.

You are 100% spot on. There is no one size fits all there. America, God Love her is complicated. Not infringing on the good citizens rights, while solving issues is a delicate balance.

[Spiffav8]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

In this case Jody. Are you saying that I should keep my views and opinion to myself because I am a Moderator?

[Spiffav8]

I too stand behind my post as well. You feel you have walked right up to the line, I happen to believe you crossed it. But that is a matter of opinion. You have already stated you like facts. Since you have posted this response to me I am curious if you are ready to put your money where your mouth is? You stated that there are easy answers to the gun debate. I would love to hear them. I am very curious to know if you have ever read the United States Constitution and your thoughts on why the second amendment was enacted.

Oh, the reason I threw the moderator card......After the Boston Marathon thread got a little personal, you posted "keep it civil kids, DON'T MAKE ME COME IN HERE" There wasn't too much civil about your personal attack on SuperSport.

I'm glad to see you stand behind your post as I have. I am also glad to hear you ask about my answer. It's simple but probably not any more popular than my posting to Supersport. But I'm not really one to always do what's popular..it's not always right and right isn't always popular as the saying goes. As for the Boston thread..you'll have to accept that there was more going on than was obvious. Sorry, I know it's not an answer that brings resolve on that.

Yes I have read the Constitution. Thank you. Being curious as to why and how our founding fathers came about setting things up the way they did, I actually enjoy reading on the subject. Not an easy task they had and it took a lot of debate and give in order to finalize it.

My view on the 2nd is simple. It was setup as a means of balance. A way for the people to be balanced against their government.

What's my simple answer? It's not an answer to just the great gun debate A: Hold those who intentionally do harm accountable. I don't mean lock them up for years and years, while providing them with everything under the sun (our criminals seem to have it pretty good). I mean three strikes and your out...as in dead. Harsh I know, but I'm not talking about speeding tickets here. Strict punishment that is enforced works. B: People in general need to be more involved in their community...on every level. People need to be involved in their neighborhood as well as their local and state and programs. Basically a let's help each other attitude. There are some great programs out there that promote this, take the Big Bother, Big Sister program for example or the Boy/Girl Scouts. Even better would be people just doing it of their own accord. I know...kind of Bill and Ted-ish.

Our continuation isn't the problem. We are. History holds the answers if we care to pay attention to it. We need to be asking "why have things changed and how did we get to this point". That would mean that people would have to accept that their good intent was in fact the wrong way to resolve a problem. It would also mean that we as a society and individuals need to make a moral and just change.

I'm not the greatest with words, but that's my answer.

[Tony_SS]

A few points:

1. We have a mental health and parenting problem disguised as a gun problem in this country.

2. NO ONE is anti-gun. If they want "less guns on the street" what they really want is people wearing black and blue uniform to use their guns to take away someone elses guns. So they are still pro-gun.

3. Chicago

Tony, you're probably already on a bunch of "lists." LOL

Andrew

You and me both brother. :D That's what I get for supporting the Constitution, ironically.

[garickman]

I'm glad to see you stand behind your post as I have. I am also glad to hear you ask about my answer. It's simple but probably not any more popular than my posting to Supersport. But I'm not really one to always do what's popular..it's not always right and right isn't always popular as the saying goes. As for the Boston thread..you'll have to accept that there was more going on than was obvious. Sorry, I know it's not an answer that brings resolve on that.

Yes I have read the Constitution. Thank you. Being curious as to why and how our founding fathers came about setting things up the way they did, I actually enjoy reading on the subject. Not an easy task they had and it took a lot of debate and give in order to finalize it.

My view on the 2nd is simple. It was setup as a means of balance. A way for the people to be balanced against their government.

What's my simple answer? It's not an answer to just the great gun debate A: Hold those who intentionally do harm accountable. I don't mean lock them up for years and years, while providing them with everything under the sun (our criminals seem to have it pretty good). I mean three strikes and your out...as in dead. Harsh I know, but I'm not talking about speeding tickets here. Strict punishment that is enforced works. B: People in general need to be more involved in their community...on every level. People need to be involved in their neighborhood as well as their local and state and programs. Basically a let's help each other attitude. There are some great programs out there that promote this, take the Big Bother, Big Sister program for example or the Boy/Girl Scouts. Even better would be people just doing it of their own accord. I know...kind of Bill and Ted-ish.

Our continuation isn't the problem. We are. History holds the answers if we care to pay attention to it. We need to be asking "why have things changed and how did we get to this point". That would mean that people would have to accept that their good intent was in fact the wrong way to resolve a problem. It would also mean that we as a society and individuals need to make a moral and just change.

I'm not the greatest with words, but that's my answer.

Thanks for the response Curtis. In regards to the discussion we are having about your initial response to SuperSport, I am afraid as gentlemen we will have to agree to disagree. I can admire someone who sticks to what they believe.

The reason I ask if you read the Constitution is because in post 55 in your response to me, you stated that if SuperSport supports the Constitution then he should be angry that it's being unfairly attacked attacked by people who don't understand it. After seeing your response on the second amendment it appears that it is you that doesn't understand.

The second amendment states "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

When the second amendment was drafted, The United States did not have standing Army. As a result, our new nation depended on on-call militias. Because the people are members of a reserve militia, they keep and own there on military equipment, hence the wording in the second amendment.

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a single ruler. By definition, the United States cannot be tyrannical because it is a represented democracy where you have the right to overthrow any person or party every two, four or six years depending on the office. Your recourse is political action and being enfranchised to vote, organize and petition.

On June 26th, 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in regards to D.C vs. Heller. The Court affirmed an individual right to possess a firearm without respect to whether the bearer is a militia member, and that these arms can only be possessed for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Heller also confirmed that your 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute or unlimited. Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned.

Many people (it appears yourself included) wrongly believe in the insurrection theory of the second amendment. Under this view, the second amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms against self defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government. When the government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect" or take up arms against it.

I'm sure as one who understands the Constitution so well you can agree that the Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitutions meaning. You might not like that but that is the way it is. In 1951, Dennis vs. The United States, The Supreme Court issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. In their rejection they wrote the following. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.

[Sieg]

People seem to think only Mexico has a gun problem but not us Americans. I think this is hilarious. I also think it is hilarious if you think California has problems unlike the rest of the country. Google how many kids get killed every year in this country and see if kids only get killed in California.
I think when you have loved ones that are killed by guns in the wrong hands to will see gun control in a different light. I have family that are police officers and the stories I hear from are crazy. Too many weapons in the wrong hands. But I still think only responsible people should be allowed to own guns.
If, you cant account for all your weapons then all your weapons should be taken away because you are a Moron gun owner.
You will soon see certain guns banned by your politicians. Just wait.
Peace!

.
The larger US metro areas have a major gun problem, the problem is "our politicians" are going after the law abiding gun owners, the guns that are a problem are possessed by criminals or soon to be criminals. In rural Oregon areas where I prefer to visit there isn't a gun problem and most people/households have multiple firearms and the firearms incidents don't even make a blip on the radar screen........why is that?

Ignorant politicians with little to no firearm experience and knowledge who are proposing laws that target law abiding gun owners and actually believe they will solve the problems are the problem.

They won't go after the criminals because it would require too much effort, be too dangerous, and won't generate any fee (tax) revenue.

Believing politicians will come up a with a solution to the gun problem in the US is unrealistic........especially after the Benghazi, IRS profiling, and AP wire-tapping incidents.

PS - Study history........Peace is a fantasy.

[57hemicuda]

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a single ruler. By definition, the United States cannot be tyrannical because it is a represented democracy where you have the right to overthrow any person or party every two, four or six years depending on the office. Your recourse is political action and being enfranchised to vote, organize and petition.

That is actually funny, the fact that you feel that a government can not be tyrannical due to the fact that is a reprsentative republic couldn't be more false. During the inseption of the country, only land owners could vote, meaning only people with skin in the game. If you weren't paying in, you didn't get a say in were the moneys collected by the government would go. That since has changed, now I fear that more then 50% of the country is on the doal, and voting in people to give them more,more,more, and taking from us, leaving us with less,less,less. Less, money, less rights, and less freedom. Our representatives no longer represent the producers of this once great country, they represent the dead wood. We need to get back to our roots.

The gun argument is only one of many infringements that the government seems to be taking these days. That is a simple one, it states: Shall not be infringed . That needs no further explanation

[Spiffav8]

Thanks for the response Curtis. In regards to the discussion we are having about your initial response to SuperSport, I am afraid as gentlemen we will have to agree to disagree. I can admire someone who sticks to what they believe.

The reason I ask if you read the Constitution is because in post 55 in your response to me, you stated that if SuperSport supports the Constitution then he should be angry that it's being unfairly attacked attacked by people who don't understand it. After seeing your response on the second amendment it appears that it is you that doesn't understand.

The second amendment states "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

When the second amendment was drafted, The United States did not have standing Army. As a result, our new nation depended on on-call militias. Because the people are members of a reserve militia, they keep and own there on military equipment, hence the wording in the second amendment.

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a single ruler. By definition, the United States cannot be tyrannical because it is a represented democracy where you have the right to overthrow any person or party every two, four or six years depending on the office. Your recourse is political action and being enfranchised to vote, organize and petition.

On June 26th, 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in regards to D.C vs. Heller. The Court affirmed an individual right to possess a firearm without respect to whether the bearer is a militia member, and that these arms can only be possessed for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Heller also confirmed that your 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute or unlimited. Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned.

Many people (it appears yourself included) wrongly believe in the insurrection theory of the second amendment. Under this view, the second amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms against self defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government. When the government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect" or take up arms against it.

I'm sure as one who understands the Constitution so well you can agree that the Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitutions meaning. You might not like that but that is the way it is. In 1951, Dennis vs. The United States, The Supreme Court issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. In their rejection they wrote the following. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.

Agree to Disagree it is then.

The constitution is always under attack and it seems that everyone is always trying to redefine or change it. I agree that it is often misunderstood and/or interpreted. To bad our schools don't do a better job of teaching this subject (and many others). Anyways......to understand what the founding fathers real intent was, one has to try and get inside their head. Thankfully they left behind some writing to help explain their thoughts. I'll admit, it's been a long time and I've never taken a constitutional law course, but I think the Federalist Papers (? on title) give us some pretty good insight. While I personally don't agree with the belief that the 2nd amendment isn't to guard against a tyrannical government, I do agree that it isn't limitless. What if a tyrannical government suddenly said, no more elections and would we really need a legal ruling on that one?

You mention D.C. Vs Heller: Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned. I agree. However we are not seeing that. People from one state have no right to tell those of another what or how their laws should be written. Yet that's what we are facing.

A federal registry (of any type) takes away the rights of "a free state". How is that fair or just. People who make statements like Supersports (and he pretty much said everything except I'll get you and your little dog too and call me a racist) feel they need to control everyone. Laws enacted with good intent are fine, but when they fail you can't simply point the finger at your neighbor and scream it's their fault, which is what some states and a lot of people are doing these days. I really don't think the good people of California (or any other state) are to blame for the problems in the city of Chicago. At the end of the day we are all responsible for our own actions. People like to assign blame and hold someone responsible more so than actually work to resolve an issue these days.

It's sad to think that our founding fathers with all their differences where able to sit down and come up with our Constitution, yet we, the more modern man, can't even come up with a simple straight forward approach on how to resolve ILLEGAL guns and the crimes committed with them. Balance is there somewhere if we care to really find it.

A bigger, better and much more useful debate would be on how to handle criminal organizations, gangs and thugs, etc. Right now we have law abiding people attacking each other, threatening and making demands in order to curb criminal behavior. That really doesn't make any sense what so ever now does it?

I have to say thank you for one of the best posts I have seen on this site in a long time. It is appreciated. We may differ on our views, but you have my respect.

[Tony_SS]

Thanks for the response Curtis. In regards to the discussion we are having about your initial response to SuperSport, I am afraid as gentlemen we will have to agree to disagree. I can admire someone who sticks to what they believe.

The reason I ask if you read the Constitution is because in post 55 in your response to me, you stated that if SuperSport supports the Constitution then he should be angry that it's being unfairly attacked attacked by people who don't understand it. After seeing your response on the second amendment it appears that it is you that doesn't understand.

The second amendment states "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

When the second amendment was drafted, The United States did not have standing Army. As a result, our new nation depended on on-call militias. Because the people are members of a reserve militia, they keep and own there on military equipment, hence the wording in the second amendment.

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a single ruler. By definition, the United States cannot be tyrannical because it is a represented democracy where you have the right to overthrow any person or party every two, four or six years depending on the office. Your recourse is political action and being enfranchised to vote, organize and petition.

On June 26th, 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in regards to D.C vs. Heller. The Court affirmed an individual right to possess a firearm without respect to whether the bearer is a militia member, and that these arms can only be possessed for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Heller also confirmed that your 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute or unlimited. Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned.

Many people (it appears yourself included) wrongly believe in the insurrection theory of the second amendment. Under this view, the second amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms against self defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government. When the government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect" or take up arms against it.

I'm sure as one who understands the Constitution so well you can agree that the Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitutions meaning. You might not like that but that is the way it is. In 1951, Dennis vs. The United States, The Supreme Court issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. In their rejection they wrote the following. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.

Tyrants are voted into power. My grandfather had the misforture of being in the Nazi army and was a Russian prisoner of war. My dad fled that country post WW2. So trust me, I know all about the Hell that country turned into - at the hands of voters. So the idea that some sort of democracy can not become tyrannical is naive at best. Besides, our country is a Constitutional republic.

As for your Supreme Court argument. One response. Dred Scott. That one surely didn't hold up.
The Supreme Court hands down opinions. Congress makes the laws. And unconstitutional laws are not laws.

Now regarding the 2nd. Gary, do your homework. This country was founded as a response to tyranny under the rule of king, it was not setting up a new king and his army.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))


The 2nd is in fact a check to the power of a federal govt. The whole system was designed with checks and balances, as a Republic, under the rule of law, not under the rule of men, a king or his army. Because this country declared independence from a tyranny, not to establish a new form of it. The 1st, 2nd and the whole Bill of Rights tries to secure that. The bill of rights does not grant us rights, it limits the power of a federal govt over individuals.

[garickman]

Tyrants are voted into power. My grandfather had the misforture of being in the Nazi army and was a Russian prisoner of war. My dad fled that country post WW2. So trust me, I know all about the Hell that country turned into - at the hands of voters. So the idea that some sort of democracy can not become tyrannical is naive at best. Besides, our country is a Constitutional republic.

As for your Supreme Court argument. One response. Dred Scott. That one surely didn't hold up.
The Supreme Court hands down opinions. Congress makes the laws. And unconstitutional laws are not laws.

Now regarding the 2nd. Gary, do your homework. This country was founded as a response to tyranny under the rule of king, it was not setting up a new king and his army.



The 2nd is in fact a check to the power of a federal govt. The whole system was designed with checks and balances, as a Republic, under the rule of law, not under the rule of men, a king or his army. Because this country declared independence from a tyranny, not to establish a new form of it. The 1st, 2nd and the whole Bill of Rights tries to secure that. The bill of rights does not grant us rights, it limits the power of a federal govt over individuals.

Your arguments fascinate me. Just like your argument about the 10th amendment. You always seem to use quotes from someone's statement of opinion. The Supreme Courts "opinions" as you call them are in fact called rulings. They are case law, and they are the supreme case law of the land and all states MUST follow them.

Do you know why abortion is legal in every state? Because the Supreme Court says so that's why.

Do you know why the local police as well as the sheriff's department can raid marijuana stores in states that have legalized it? Because the Supreme Court says we can.

Do you know why I had to read every scumbag his Miranda Rights if I wanted to use his statement's in court? Because the Supreme Court told me I had to that's why.

If you think The Supreme Court's decision in 1951 is just an "opinion" why don't you and your buddies form a militia group and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue with assault rifles. Shouldn't be a problem right. When the police stop you, just tell them you don't agree with Supreme Courts decision on Dennis vs. The United States and you are headed to overthrow government. Please be sure to report back to lateral-g so I know how that turned out for you.

The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation. Its decisions set precedents that all other courts then follow, and no lower court can ever supersede a Supreme Court decision.

In fact, not even Congress or the president can change, reject or ignore a Supreme Court decision. American law operates under the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that prior decisions should be maintained -- even if the current court would otherwise rule differently -- and that lower courts must abide by the prior decisions of higher courts. The idea is based on a belief that government needs to be relatively stable and predictable.

In regards to me doing my homework on the second amendment, perhaps you can just educate me. Please point me in the direction of a legal document, the article of the Constitution, or any law that over turns the Supreme Court decision of 1951 where it states the people have the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. If you can show me that which is not some quote you found on the internet of some professor's personal opinion, I will bow my head to you and apologize for my ignorance.

[garickman]

Agree to Disagree it is then.

The constitution is always under attack and it seems that everyone is always trying to redefine or change it. I agree that it is often misunderstood and/or interpreted. To bad our schools don't do a better job of teaching this subject (and many others). Anyways......to understand what the founding fathers real intent was, one has to try and get inside their head. Thankfully they left behind some writing to help explain their thoughts. I'll admit, it's been a long time and I've never taken a constitutional law course, but I think the Federalist Papers (? on title) give us some pretty good insight. While I personally don't agree with the belief that the 2nd amendment isn't to guard against a tyrannical government, I do agree that it isn't limitless. What if a tyrannical government suddenly said, no more elections and would we really need a legal ruling on that one?

You mention D.C. Vs Heller: Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned. I agree. However we are not seeing that. People from one state have no right to tell those of another what or how their laws should be written. Yet that's what we are facing.

A federal registry (of any type) takes away the rights of "a free state". How is that fair or just. People who make statements like Supersports (and he pretty much said everything except I'll get you and your little dog too and call me a racist) feel they need to control everyone. Laws enacted with good intent are fine, but when they fail you can't simply point the finger at your neighbor and scream it's their fault, which is what some states and a lot of people are doing these days. I really don't think the good people of California (or any other state) are to blame for the problems in the city of Chicago. At the end of the day we are all responsible for our own actions. People like to assign blame and hold someone responsible more so than actually work to resolve an issue these days.

It's sad to think that our founding fathers with all their differences where able to sit down and come up with our Constitution, yet we, the more modern man, can't even come up with a simple straight forward approach on how to resolve ILLEGAL guns and the crimes committed with them. Balance is there somewhere if we care to really find it.

A bigger, better and much more useful debate would be on how to handle criminal organizations, gangs and thugs, etc. Right now we have law abiding people attacking each other, threatening and making demands in order to curb criminal behavior. That really doesn't make any sense what so ever now does it?

I have to say thank you for one of the best posts I have seen on this site in a long time. It is appreciated. We may differ on our views, but you have my respect.

Finally Curtis, something we can agree on. A well written and thought out response. You are correct on the Federalist Papers.:cheers: :flag2:

[Tony_SS]

It's clear you are fascinated with power and authority, so I'm not to argue with that.

If you believe that our rights are granted to us from a federal govt, and the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted by a infallible supreme court, then so be it. I will disagree and tell you that our rights come from our creator and the founders gave us a Republic, not a Democracy, to protect those God given rights.

But please enjoy the fact that WA and CO have legalized marijuana. I know that drives you authoritarian types nuts. :D But the 10 amendment > than some Supreme court opinion saying that a federal drug war is "Constitutional".

Anyway, I hope at least now you understand that the 2nd wasn't to form a standing army, but to protect individuals from the abuses of one.

To understand the Bill of Rights and Constitution is to understand the reason why this country declared independence: Freedom.

:flag2:

[Dayton]

Gun control? Forget gun control, I'm now more worried about assault pressure cookers!
Who the hell needs a 6 liter pressure cooker?
We all know a 4 liter will suffice a normal family.
The 6 liter should be reserved for the military.

[camcojb]

But please enjoy the fact that WA and CO have legalized marijuana. I know that drives you authoritarian types nuts. :D But the 10 amendment > than some Supreme court opinion saying that a federal drug war is "Constitutional".



:flag2:
Unfortunately that doesn't stop the Feds from busting legal growers anyway. They say their power is above states rights. We have legal medicinal marijuana here in California, but the Feds will still bust the growers. I would assume that will happen in WA and CO also.

[Tony_SS]

Unfortunately that doesn't stop the Feds from busting legal growers anyway. They say their power is above states rights. We have legal medicinal marijuana here in California, but the Feds will still bust the growers. I would assume that will happen in WA and CO also.

And that is a shame. There are so many people who are helped tremendously by its medical purposes and studies prove it. I know my wife could have benefited from it during her chemo. But somehow none of that matters to a fed govt that classifies a natural plant worse than cocaine and meth.

In the end, a 'power' does what it wants, until it no longer has the resources. My hope is that soon enough, it wont be able to as more states join in.

[garickman]

It's clear you are fascinated with power and authority, so I'm not to argue with that.

If you believe that our rights are granted to us from a federal govt, and the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted by a infallible supreme court, then so be it. I will disagree and tell you that our rights come from our creator and the founders gave us a Republic, not a Democracy, to protect those God given rights.

But please enjoy the fact that WA and CO have legalized marijuana. I know that drives you authoritarian types nuts. :D But the 10 amendment > than some Supreme court opinion saying that a federal drug war is "Constitutional".

Anyway, I hope at least now you understand that the 2nd wasn't to form a standing army, but to protect individuals from the abuses of one.

To understand the Bill of Rights and Constitution is to understand the reason why this country declared independence: Freedom.

:flag2:

Well sir, it appears I have met match. Any efforts to debate you would be futile. Back to building cars!

[GrabberGT]

Gun control? Forget gun control, I'm now more worried about assault pressure cookers!
Who the hell needs a 6 liter pressure cooker?
We all know a 4 liter will suffice a normal family.
The 6 liter should be reserved for the military.

The best post on this thread. :mock:

I think our problems lie more with the desensitization of our youth to violence. Maybe Im getting old but I've actually found a show on prime-time network TV I wont watch. Despite the great story line, I find the violence and gore present in the show "Hannibal" to be absolutely ridiculous. Add in all the 1st person shooter horror games and gore movies and no wonder we've got so many issues. Were are the parents who let their kids watch this stuff. But even to that point, its getting harder and harder to filter thru all of it as a parent. Nightly news, cartoons for kids and even commercials while watching approved TV cartoon shows are even too much to filter out.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

I will disagree and tell you that our rights come from our creator and the founders gave us a Republic, not a Democracy, to protect those God given rights.



Anyway, I hope at least now you understand that the 2nd wasn't to form a standing army, but to protect individuals from the abuses of one.


:flag2:
Word!!! Very same reason we can protest, same reason why criminals don't rule the streets and the same reason we will never be invaded by a foreign military force.

[SuperSport]

Screw it...

No not anyone can own a gun legally. Morons like you

I want to apologize to MexMan for posting my view in a thread called "your view on guns"
I know my view is neither liked by Pro gun and anti gun supporters.
I honestly don't have time to debate the matter word for word with the members here. I will step out of the topic before things get out of hand. Spiffa8 if we ever cross paths we can discuss this topic. I would love to.
Also, please include your name calling as well, in person though. There are too many internet bad asses that can get away with name calling behind the safety of their computers. I would like to see if you have the cajones to do it in person. I live in the Los Angeles area and would like to continue the debate with you someday, let me know when.
I am out. Please be civil guys.
SS.

[garickman]

I'm through also, Vince hurt my feelings.

[Z10ROD]

Garickman I like your responses and yes I am also a gun owner:idea:

[Spiffav8]

I want to apologize to MexMan for posting my view in a thread called "your view on guns"
I know my view is neither liked by Pro gun and anti gun supporters.
I honestly don't have time to debate the matter word for word with the members here. I will step out of the topic before things get out of hand. Spiffa8 if we ever cross paths we can discuss this topic. I would love to.
Also, please include your name calling as well, in person though. There are too many internet bad asses that can get away with name calling behind the safety of their computers. I would like to see if you have the cajones to do it in person. I live in the Los Angeles area and would like to continue the debate with you someday, let me know when.
I am out. Please be civil guys.
SS.

Count on it.

[SuperSport]

Count on it.

P.M. me when your in town.

[69znc]

Gary

[COLOR="Red"]garickman;480143]

The second amendment states "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

When the second amendment was drafted, The United States did not have standing Army. As a result, our new nation depended on on-call militias. Because the people are members of a reserve militia, they keep and own there on military equipment, hence the wording in the second amendment.

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a si
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you really believe our Constitution was not drafted to fend off a tyrannical government you need to talk to some independent Constitutional scholars and spend more time reading how fragile and "out of mainstream" i.e. people really wanted to kill the founders and YES the fear of another tyrannical government drove them to risk there lives to move this independence forward.....

[Vince@Meanstreets]

It's clear you are fascinated with power and authority, so I'm not to argue with that.

If you believe that our rights are granted to us from a federal govt, and the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted by a infallible supreme court, then so be it. I will disagree and tell you that our rights come from our creator and the founders gave us a Republic, not a Democracy, to protect those God given rights.

But please enjoy the fact that WA and CO have legalized marijuana. I know that drives you authoritarian types nuts. :D But the 10 amendment > than some Supreme court opinion saying that a federal drug war is "Constitutional".

Anyway, I hope at least now you understand that the 2nd wasn't to form a standing army, but to protect individuals from the abuses of one.

To understand the Bill of Rights and Constitution is to understand the reason why this country declared independence: Freedom.

:flag2:

I want to apologize to MexMan for posting my view in a thread called "your view on guns"
I know my view is neither liked by Pro gun and anti gun supporters.
I honestly don't have time to debate the matter word for word with the members here. I will step out of the topic before things get out of hand. Spiffa8 if we ever cross paths we can discuss this topic. I would love to.
Also, please include your name calling as well, in person though. There are too many internet bad asses that can get away with name calling behind the safety of their computers. I would like to see if you have the cajones to do it in person. I live in the Los Angeles area and would like to continue the debate with you someday, let me know when.
I am out. Please be civil guys.
SS.

Oh come on you freakin pansies.
"insert the gradual humming of the national anthem"
Never appologize for speaking your mind or voicing your opinion. If you cannot do so then all the fighting, the dying that made this country and us free has no meaning and it was seemingly all in vain. Typical antis, you lack the passion required to meet the task. Carry on with the group hug.

Oh you can appologize for being a doosh. That's fine.
And another thing, I will never push my opinion, I will never tell you what or how to think. I will however give you things to think about and will always have an open mind. And if I hurt your feeling Greg, good, that will help you remember why. LOL

[garickman]

Garickman I like your responses and yes I am also a gun owner:idea:

Thanks, but now you have suckered me back into this thread.:hairpullout:

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Thanks, but now you have suckered me back into this thread.:hairpullout:
Abhhhhhhahhahahhhhhh

[Tony_SS]

I blame all this on public school education, and the corporate news networks, where we are taught from a very early age to....

:king:

[Vince@Meanstreets]

I blame all this on public school education, and the corporate news networks, where we are taught from a very early age to....

:king:We are nation built on fear and stagnancy... Keep your population hungry, uneducated, unhealthy and unarmed. Who did they learn that from?

[garickman]

Gary

[COLOR="Red"]garickman;480143]

The second amendment states "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

When the second amendment was drafted, The United States did not have standing Army. As a result, our new nation depended on on-call militias. Because the people are members of a reserve militia, they keep and own there on military equipment, hence the wording in the second amendment.

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a si
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you really believe our Constitution was not drafted to fend off a tyrannical government you need to talk to some independent Constitutional scholars and spend more time reading how fragile and "out of mainstream" i.e. people really wanted to kill the founders and YES the fear of another tyrannical government drove them to risk there lives to move this independence forward.....

The problem with independent Constitution scholars is that they all have different opinions on what our founding fathers intentions were in the drafting of the Constitution. Granted these scholars have a far far greater amount of knowledge than I have or ever will have for that matter. I agree that if one is an expert of the Constitution and of the Federalist Papers, the history of the United States, Shays Rebellion, the whiskey rebellion, etc. they could probably come up with a very educated opinion on what the intentions were of our founding fathers. The problem is it would still just be an opinion.

Not everything I have posted in this thread do I necessarily agree with. I base my arguments on facts as they are today. As I have stated before, there is no law, statute, or Constitutional provision that exists in this country that allows someone to fight domestic tyranny. There is also nothing in the Constitution to suggest the second amendment was enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. Therefore it would not matter if all the independent Constitutional scholars in the world all agreed that defense against a tyrannical government was in fact the basis of the second amendment. Last time I checked a scholar's opinion could not create case law.

The only point I have ever tried to get across is a fact, whether we agree or disagree, it is a fact that as of today can not be disputed. The fact is the the only entity today that can interpret the Constitution is the United States Supreme Court, and when they hand down a decision in regards to the Constitution it becomes case law and it can not be disputed.

[D impala95]

Oh you can appologize for being a doosh. That's fine.
And another thing, I will never push my opinion, I will never tell you what or how to think. I will however give you things to think about and will always have an open mind. And if I hurt your feeling Greg, good, that will help you remember why. LOL

I guess that means you have to take your car out of his shop. Lol

[garickman]

I guess that means you have to take your car out of his shop. Lol

WHAT!! That A** H*** has my car in his shop. That's going to change:warning:

[andrewb70]

Just to liven things up....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

LOL...

Andrew

[Vince@Meanstreets]

WHAT!! That A** H*** has my car in his shop. That's going to change:warning:

:action-smiley-027:

What car?? I see no build thread??? Baahhhhhaaaaa

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Just to liven things up....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

LOL...

Andrew

You think that's funny Andrew, there was a recent story on the gun buy back program. Talk about a joke.

[garickman]

You think that's funny Andrew, there was a recent story on the gun buy back program. Talk about a joke.

Gun buy backs are a necessity to those cities running low on man hole covers.

[Shmoov69]

Actually I think (uh oh, that's where this all got started, people thinking!!) that of all the people posting in this thread, there is probably only one that actually "knows" what he is talking about. Or at least more than anyone else... The guy not even from here, Andrew. I believe that his "opinion" is probably more "on target" than anyone else's here about our own history and government! :thumbsup:

Now back to the :catfight:

LOL!

[Sieg]

WHAT!! That A** H*** has my car in his shop. That's going to change:warning:

:action-smiley-027:

What car?? I see no build thread??? Baahhhhhaaaaa

Priceless! :thumbsup:

[Spiffav8]

Guys I've exchanged a few PM's with Supersport and he's actually be fairly cool. While I still disagree with his view (as it was posted), he is willing to share it and it brings up some interesting questions that I would honestly like to hear more on and possibly learn from.

Supersports views don't make him a Moron and I was wrong for jumping on that. I do not know him other than here on Lateral-G and to the best of my knowledge he has never caused an issue. So far as I know he is a good man as was his intent. I owe him the chance to prove himself one way or the other. Who knows maybe he and I will be drinking Pacifico's or cruising around SEMA admiring cars in the near future.

If you are missing it, I am admitting I was wrong and I am apologizing to him for the moron comment.

[ProTouring442]

The problem with independent Constitution scholars is that they all have different opinions on what our founding fathers intentions were in the drafting of the Constitution. Granted these scholars have a far far greater amount of knowledge than I have or ever will have for that matter. I agree that if one is an expert of the Constitution and of the Federalist Papers, the history of the United States, Shays Rebellion, the whiskey rebellion, etc. they could probably come up with a very educated opinion on what the intentions were of our founding fathers. The problem is it would still just be an opinion.

Not everything I have posted in this thread do I necessarily agree with. I base my arguments on facts as they are today. As I have stated before, there is no law, statute, or Constitutional provision that exists in this country that allows someone to fight domestic tyranny. There is also nothing in the Constitution to suggest the second amendment was enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. Therefore it would not matter if all the independent Constitutional scholars in the world all agreed that defense against a tyrannical government was in fact the basis of the second amendment. Last time I checked a scholar's opinion could not create case law.

The only point I have ever tried to get across is a fact, whether we agree or disagree, it is a fact that as of today can not be disputed. The fact is the the only entity today that can interpret the Constitution is the United States Supreme Court, and when they hand down a decision in regards to the Constitution it becomes case law and it can not be disputed.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." -James Madison

And if you look at this; "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," in light of this; "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security," it becomes quite apparent as to the how and why of the Second Amendment.


But let's not take my word for it, let's look at what our founders and other men of their ilk had to say...

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." -George Mason

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." -James Madison

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -Elbridge Gerry

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -Thomas Paine

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Mahatma Gandhi

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" -Patrick Henry

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." -Thomas Jefferson

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -Aristotle

"There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men." -Robert A. Heinlein

" ... the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law." -Martin Luther King Jr

"A free people ought to be armed." -George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." -John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." -Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." -Noah Webster

“A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." -James Madison


"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone." -James Madison

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." -Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -St. George Tucker

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." -Joseph Story

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." -Alexander Hamilton

In decem ibi libertas!
Servabit nos nostram libertatem!
Bill

[andrewb70]

Actually I think (uh oh, that's where this all got started, people thinking!!) that of all the people posting in this thread, there is probably only one that actually "knows" what he is talking about. Or at least more than anyone else... The guy not even from here, Andrew. I believe that his "opinion" is probably more "on target" than anyone else's here about our own history and government! :thumbsup:

Now back to the :catfight:

LOL!

Thanks Jimmy. I guess I have a unique perspective on being an American, because I am an immigrant. When I took the oath of citizenship, I took it seriously, unlike many politicians.

If anyone has a little time, I suggest reading the article by Gary North:

http://www.garynorth.com/public/10459.cfm

Enjoy...

I would like to add that anyone that believes that the US Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is constitutional and what isn't was lied to in school. That's like having my brother being the judge in a dispute between myself and a third party. Furthermore, the three pillars that make up the triad of the division of power, are not the Judicial, Executive and the Legislative branches of the Federal government. This is another lie that is widely taught in schools. The real three pillars of the division of power are the Federal government, State governments, and The People.


Also, with respect the the Federal Supramacy clause, yes, Federal law does trump state law, BUT, only with respect to the specific powers that are granted to the Federal government in the Constitution, and no others. I know many of the folks here believe it to be otherwise, but again, you were lied to in school.

Andrew

[GregWeld]

If you are missing it, I am admitting I was wrong and I am apologizing to him for the moron comment.





Good! Because you needed to.



The beauty of LAT-G has ALWAYS been it's ability to be a great forum WITHOUT the sniping, and hostility, of other internet forums.

[RussMurco]

Just to liven things up....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

LOL...

Andrew

Yes, gun ownership is way up over the last 20 years and gun crime is way down... Is that a pattern?? :)

As I have stated before, there is no law, statute, or Constitutional provision that exists in this country that allows someone to fight domestic tyranny.

Maybe it's just me but I can't think of any entity that would endorse a means of it's own demise...

[Tony_SS]

Maybe it's just me but I can't think of any entity that would endorse a means of it's own demise...

Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that. ;)



Also, with respect the the Federal Supramacy clause, yes, Federal law does trump state law, BUT, only with respect to the specific powers that are granted to the Federal government in the Constitution, and no others. I know many of the folks here believe it to be otherwise, but again, you were lied to in school.

Andrew

Yes, that one is widely misunderstood. They are only supreme in the enumerated powers specifically delegated to them in the Constitution, not in the powers that they just assume are theirs for the taking. If that was the case, there would be no reason to have states at all.

[garickman]

Guys I've exchanged a few PM's with Supersport and he's actually be fairly cool. While I still disagree with his view (as it was posted), he is willing to share it and it brings up some interesting questions that I would honestly like to hear more on and possibly learn from.

Supersports views don't make him a Moron and I was wrong for jumping on that. I do not know him other than here on Lateral-G and to the best of my knowledge he has never caused an issue. So far as I know he is a good man as was his intent. I owe him the chance to prove himself one way or the other. Who knows maybe he and I will be drinking Pacifico's or cruising around SEMA admiring cars in the near future.

If you are missing it, I am admitting I was wrong and I am apologizing to him for the moron comment.

Glad to hear Curtis. The exchange between you and SuperSport is a perfect example of why I am ducking out of this thread and why I should have never let myself gut sucked into it.

It is nearly impossible to have a meaningful debate over the internet. Too many things taken out of context, too many people "reading" into something that just isn't there and too many people jumping in on the middle of the conversation with out knowing what got the conversation to that point in the first place. All of which I myself have been guilty of. The only way to have a meaningful and educated debate is face to face where everyone is involved from the start and nothing can be taken out of context. And if needed you can whoop someone's a**:catfight: (That last line was my attempt at humor not to be taken seriously)

Anyway time to start a build thread!

[Bucketlist2012]

Glad you guys worked it out..

LatG is too Important a website to get all twisted about any issues, including guns...:grouphug:

[SuperSport]

Spiffav8 I appreciate you saying this publicly and not in a P.M.
I would like to apologize to everyone here for going too far as well.

The only thing I will say is that I gave my opinion on guns in a thread titled "your view on guns". My opinion has not changed and I only spoke on what I saw with my own personal experiences. I did not document my life in this country so, no, I do not have facts. I don't know what other facts anyone needs other than the opinions I shared are mine.

I think people had an issue with the word irresponsible gun owners. It seemed to me that people felt that irresponsible gun owners do not exist, only criminals.
When I here of cases like George Zimmerman (which I can explain at another time). Zimmerman and people such as this, I call (again just me in my own opinion) irresponsible gun owners.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting

[camcojb]

When I here of cases like George Zimmerman (which I can explain at another time). Zimmerman and people such as this, I call (again just me in my own opinion) irresponsible gun owners.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting
Your link is an example of an irresponsible gun owner. There's three simple rules that if followed, would eliminate all accidental shootings.

1. Always point the gun in a safe direction

2. Never put your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot.

3. Always leave gun empty until ready to use.




I'll also throw in to treat EVERY gun as if loaded. If someone is accidently shot then one or more of the listed rules was broken. None of this helps with the linked example above; but rules were broken nonetheless and some people need to be more responsible with their firearms.

No idea how George gets lumped in with that.

[mexMan]

I'm just going to jump in and say it. Giving a 5 year old a gun for his birthday is just plain stupid. Giving a kid education and proper training on guns, THAT'S different (I say), but, just giving a kid a freaking shotgun, my God. And now that we're talking about it, have you guys considered giving your kids gun safety education? Just a question, that's something else I'd like to know how you feel about.

[Spiffav8]

I'm just going to jump in and say it. Giving a 5 year old a gun for his birthday is just plain stupid. Giving a kid education and proper training on guns, THAT'S different (I say), but, just giving a kid a freaking shotgun, my God. And now that we're talking about it, have you guys considered giving your kids gun safety education? Just a question, that's something else I'd like to know how you feel about.


I would have to say that the parents (and legal owners of the gun) where irresponsible in this situation. Of course there is very little info on how the gun was stored and no info on how the child was taught. Obviously it was stored wrong as it was loaded and the child was able to gain access to it. Oh and just to keep things straight...it was a .22 caliber single shot, not a shotgun. Oh and yeah 5 is way to young if you ask me.

Personally, I don't have any issue with giving a young person a gun as a gift. But that age is dependent on the person, in that everyone matures differently. With safety always being first and foremost in my mind, a gift of that sort would come with the means to safely store it. All of my guns (with the exception of my daily carry) are kept unloaded and in a safe. I don't have kids, but it still keeps them from being easily accessible. I'm sure there is some criminal out there that can get into my safe or worked out in Prison so much that he could carry it away, but it's the best I can do.

I think Supersport is saying (and correct me if I am wrong) that Zimmerman appears to have acted irresponsible and that perhaps having a gun gave him a false sense of....authority or control? I THINK that's where he's going and if so I understand that. I've come across that type that seem to think they are king of the heap and have control due to the fact that they carry a gun. Wouldn't matter if it was a legal or illegal gun in that situation.

I like how Jody laid out the core basics of handling a firearm. IMHO the number one thing a person needs to do is educate them self on the subject. The basics are great, but being responsible goes far beyond the range. Obviously mindset and storage are two areas that are just important.

We have plenty of military law enforcement types here that could shed a lot more light on this than me (and I hope they will). Anyone care to weigh in on their view of a responsible gun owner?

[camcojb]

I think we can call this one done. I appreciate everyone working out their differences, and hopefully the original poster found the answer to his question.