OK LIb s, let's think this "assault weapons" ban through with math and logic...

If they manage to get a weapons ban through I wouldn't want to be living near the Mexican boarder. Do they really think drug traders will give up their guns? I suspect a number of people will get shot on the US side around the boarder who wouldn't have a way to defend themselves. It will be open season for drug dealers.

 

How many times do I have to say it, junior?

 

I'm trying to understand the question and, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I read what is being addressed is that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not adversely affected by a pragmatic limitation of the Freedom to Exercise that Right.

For example, does the registration of a firearm infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Technically no, it does not. Only if that registration was later used as the means to confiscate firearms or to prevent ownership would the Right be infringed upon. The act of confiscation or a prohibition against owning the firearm would violate the Right and I believe that is what many seem to fear.

The question ulitmately becomes does the act of registration present a threat to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? Technically it does create a threat of infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Personally I accept that there are pragmatic reasons for limiting the Freedom to Exercise a Right but when I look at firearms registration and/or the licensing of gun owners I don't believe that the limiting of the Freedom to Exercise the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is pragmatically supported in all cases. In some cases yes but in others it's not. Fully automatic firearms must be registered and the owner licensed to possess them and we don't have a crime problem related to fully automatic firearms being used in crime. At the sametime the registration and licensing requirements related to fully automatic weapons are prohibitive for most people and their Right to Keep and Bear Arms is certainly being infringed upon because of the licensing and registration requirements. Can this infringement upon the Freedom to Exercise the Right to Keep and Bear Arms pragmatic? That is a question that is still open to debate.

Now I do have a proposal related to the licensing of the individual that even the most avid "pro-gun" advocates would probably accept. How about a federal law that establishes that a CCW permit is valid in ALL 50 States based upon Article IV Section 1 (Full Faith and Credit Clause) of the US Constitution? It is my understanding that CCW holders have the lowest gun crime rates of any group in the United States.

I've also proposed registration and licensing of the firearm and individual if they take that firearm out into the public in another thread but where firearms that are exclusively used on private property (with consent of the owner) do not require registration nor would the person need to be licensed. A firearm in the home for self-defense does not present a threat to society and there is no pragmatic reason for registration of the firearm or licensing of the individual. See the thread for details and the discussion.

http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/284177-treat-guns-like-cars-read-op-before-voting.html


.

 

Grenades are you actually serious with that absurdity? And what does that have to do with the best most detailed and comprehensive study on fire arms and violence in the US ever done Lott Mustard. Grenades were never used in crime to any great extent in the first place. Got any proof that anyone ever used a grenade to rob a bank?

You are familiar with the phrase apple and oranges right?

 

you're such a baby crying about some one else's property and such a big boys response................how old are you? 12?
if not, stop arguing like my granchildren...................

 

And when I said that you couldnt admit it.................I wasn't talking about you admitting something that you have already said! WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I was talking about the think that you CANT admit, which is that a limitation on the types of weapons you can buy is not a complete removal of your right to bear the arms that are not banned!

When you are ready to be a man and admit what you fail to admit................we can move forward, but not until then. But I would keep trying if I were you! LOL

 

Too funny! You make me laugh. So you are not willing to admit, or at least pretend you are smart, that a limitation of the arms you can buy is not a complete removal of the arms you can own that are not limited? I wonder why you have such a hard time being honest with yourself, me, and this forum???????

So your lack of dishonesty means that Im a cry baby. Well, let the games begin. I will be dishonest, just because it will make you a cry baby. Welcome to GOP logic! LOL Suddenly, I bet you will not like this logic now that it has been exposed for what it is.

But let's see if I am right! LOL

 

No, not at all Shiva. Here it is in a different context. I limit the amount of cupcakes you can have in a day to 3. That's all you can have. Did my limitation of how many cupcakes you can have completely remove your ability to have cupcakes? No because you can still have 3.

So if I limit the types of weapons you can own to .22 pistols and .357 magnums. Those are the ONLY two arms you can own. Did my limitation of how many or which weapons you can own completely remove your ability to own .22 pistols or .357 magnums? No, you can still own guns................but just not the ones that are banned. This is really rather simple.

And no, registration of weapons does not keep you from owning weapons. Whether it "hinders" you are not is not my concern. The GOP's reasons for not wanting gun control is because they say it will keep you from purchasing altogether, not that it will only hinder your purchase of them. That's what Im addressing...............whether its a complete removal of, not whether its a hindrance to purchasing them. Let's say you have to register every weapon all the way down to BB guns. Can you still own guns even though they have to be registered? Absolutely. Then how is registration infringing on your right to own guns, when you can still own them? It doesn't.

I agree that many people fear that the big bad gubmint is going to confiscate your weapons once they are registered, but if you apply the registration logic to vehicle ownership, you can see that it doesn't add up. They say that registering them will only allow the gov't to know where they are; hence the implication that the gov't is going to come and get them. But apply this to vehicle ownership/registration. Out of all the vehicles out there that are registered, the gov't isn't going around confiscating them because NOW THEY KNOW where they are at. Its just a bunch of hogwash that has no evidence or credibility attached to it.

 

Well if you will not allow us to compare driving, drunk driving, driving deaths, accidents and drunk driving accidents how can you mention cars in your scenario? When I say you I mean the left.

 

when the government has the authority to regulate Rights, then those Rights are subverted to privileges...........simple enough, junior?

 

You've got issues, son. I don't know if it is a reading comprehension problem or a deeper mental issue. Either way, you should sort yourself out.

 

rexob715 should never own anything more dangerous than a pornographic thought

 

Read my post where I mention "registration"!

- - - Updated - - -

Keep trying! LOL I wonder why you CANT admit that a limitation is not a complete removal of. Who knows why?

 

When they CANT admit what you logically show them, they will make up or say anything to justify not answering your question. They CANT answer your question because it will cause them to change their position and closed minded people just CANT do it!

We are watching it unfold in front of our eyes!

- - - Updated - - -

Wow! You must have a learning disability or you are just pretending to be closed minded. Either way, come back when you grow up and can be a man!

 

I've wasted enough of my time with the child playing on mommy's computer. Welcome to the ignore list rex.

 

I would keep running! When you are too scared to admit that a limitation is not a complete removal of..................its time for you to be ignored!

 

So let's follow your logic to its conclusion: Barack Obama and Democrats could make it illegal to own anything but a certain brand and model of .22 caliber pistol and you would say our 2nd amendment rights have not been abridged. Yes, that makes perfect sense... to someone... somewhere.

But still, I notice you have not offered any response to the actual topic of the thread- the effectiveness of the proposed gun ban. Clearly I can conclude by now that you have no argument to counter with, and have decided that sticking to your tangential rant will serve as a diversion.

 

"when the government has the authority to regulate Rights, then those Rights are subverted to privileges...........simple enough, junior?" Last time I looked, there wasn't a Bill of Privileges in our Constitution.
I think you are simply trolling.........................how juvenile.
just what country are you from? Australia?

 

Then show me how a limitation is a complete removal of. For some reason over the course of days..............no one has! Hmmmmm! LOL

 

Except that the OP said something about "disarming". And my response to the OP was something about a limitation not being a complete removal of....................therefore limiting assault weapons is not disarming anyone. You can still own other guns that are not banned.

Oops! Kind of funny how my comments are pertaining to the OP, huh! LOL

And you guys wonder why we laugh at you? LOL

 

Here it is again Ace. I know you forgot so soon. Its been like a couple of days and stuff. Notice that tiny, bolded word "disarm". Good, I thought so! LOL Baby steps Ace, baby steps!

Now, since part of the OP was about disarming people thru limiting the types of guns they can own(which clearly doesn't make sense).......................I wonder why I have been asking how a limitation equals a complete removal of arms over the course of days and over the course of about 10 pages on this forum????

Are people really that stupid? They really think the definition of a limitation is the same as complete removal of??? What school did they go to because it appears that they didn't. Not even one day of pre-K. Hell, they could have learned this without the slightest bit of education. So, I wonder what on earth could be their problem??????

 

Rexie your argument sucks. Even if it made sense and it doesn't, it wouldn't make things a (*)(*)(*)(*) bit better and in fact statistically would make things worse. Limitation equals removal. See if you could only drink 8 ounces of water a day you'd die evntually of dehydration but arguing you with logic one would say but you still had water why would you die of thirst?

 

Keep trying! Until someone proves that a limitation is equal to a complete removal of......................Im not wrong and you look stupid for not being able to admit it!

Take all the time you need!

 

Even though reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004 has considerable public support (60%), I think that requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales (91% support) is a far more promising remedial measure - as well as the registration of all firearms purchased, so that the 500,000 stolen every year might be more easily traced by law enforcement if implicated in a crime, and so that they might be returned to their lawful owners.

There are Americans who feel insecure without a gun, and those that are not insane and disposed to violence should not be deprived of whatever feeling of security they derive from possessing one.

Funding comprehensive studies of gun violence is probably the most important step needed, however. Basing policy upon ignorance and hyping ideologically-biased, cherry-picked anecdotes in lieu of the missing data is not a sound basis for public policy. Obviously.

 

you remind me of Natty Bumpo, another anti-rights advocate. That lets me know you're not from the US and consequently have no say in our politics...............now go stomp your feet and beat up another door..............
You've just achieved the status of Inconsequential and Irrelevant