Why do law abiding citizens have a problem with gun control?

[video=youtube;lMH2BRkcCyU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMH2BRkcCyU[/video]

[video=youtube;DuhKCiY-lu0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0[/video]

[video=youtube;bUUKDv85DSY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUUKDv85DSY[/video]

 

Thanks for your judgement on me and how I should be or should have been in this "debate". Now go through everyone's posts on this thread and judge them and whether they have a bias or not, and whether their debate tactics were effective or whether they were being fair and honest or if they have any sort of open mind. And go through your own while you're at it.

Do whatever the hell you want.

Like I said, I'm done.

So where's the link to what you claimed you posted? That's all I'm interested in at this point, and for the rest of my questions I will go elsewhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay thanks.

Bye.

 

STRAWMAN. I didn't ask you if you would comply with what the forum wants. This is the second time you dodged. Three strikes and we have proven you don't follow your own philosophy.
Why someone wants to own a gun is none of your business. Its as simple as that. Its a right guaranteed under the United States Constitution.

 

You caught me! Good job, you made your case. The children of Newtown thank you.

You missed it but I'm done. You win. No one needs to shout me down anymore.

Enjoy your freedoms and your guns.

Bye.

I still think it's odd you quote Bernie Taupin's song about the hand gun murder of John Lennon. Horrible.

 

Not flame throwers perhaps, Not to My knowledge anyway, However, AR type Rifles, AK type Rifles, all manner of light Arms of portable size and weight are used commonly for Defensive purposes, for practical purposes, Most people are not in the habit of carrying Crew served weapons.

 

I don't know if it was this thread or another, but it was put forth that all infantry weapons are protected under the 2nd amendment, and seeing as the main argument is to protect oneself....yes, rolling on the floor....it's all very sensible.

What is it that makes an AR15 or the like practical for individual defense over other "lessor" weapons? An AR15 is typically recommended for that purpose?

 

If you were intelligent you would know why I quoted it and therefore not found it odd. Are you sure you want to keep that comment for everyone to see? That's going to be embarrassing for you.
If you were done why are you still here? Thanks for exposing who you actually are. The telltale "Newtown" comments finally came out. I sniffed your motives out right off the bat. Too easy.
Thanks I will enjoy my freedoms and my guns. Ill also enjoy the fact that you need to sit there while myself and millions of other Americans enjoy our freedoms, taking solace in the fact that there is absolutely nothing you can ever do about it.
The only thing you can do to take my freedoms away is ask me nicely not to own guns. Can you do that for me?

 

You are a strange person.

My motives are about safety. Sorry if that doesn't make any sense to you. I'm obviously not the only one who has the same "motives".

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

I really am done arguing, didn't want to in the first place so no need to carry on with whatever the hell you are trying to prove.

The only reason I'm still here is because I was interested in knowing if weapons like the AR-15 are generally recommended for families wanting to protect themselves and their loved ones.

 

An AR-15 is a lesser firearm, it fires the .223 / 5.56 x 45 NATO cartridge, .223 caliber not a very potent round either.

Currently I prefer the .300 blackout round lowered in potency a subsonic round, also a less potent cartridge, and using a weaker less lethal frangible projectile that penetrates less breaking up on impact and less likely to ricochet or bounce off anything and keep going.

 

Personal attacks are against forum rules. Weren't you the guy touting that you would follow more rules? That's hilarious...you cant even follow the ones we already have. Guess rules are for other people eh? That personality type is why we have guns in the first place. Too many times in history, people want others to follow rules yet feel they are above those same rules.
The reason you are still here is because you want to get your gun grab ideology across. You let your little Newtown comment slip which exposed your real motives. That and I got under your skin thus the insults.

 

How old are you ? just your age bracket,

I am 52, I have seen too much, after having seen so much death and destruction, I suppose I could be Anti Gun, however that would solve nothing and help nobody.

 

Being biased and incorrect does not even begin to cover it.

In 1803 the United States Supreme Court set themselves up as the final arbiter of what the law is. Everybody has their opinion of what the law is, but at the end of the day, the law is what the courts say it is. What have the courts said relative to Right to keep and bear Arms? Here is a ruling over the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds:

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of the free State" Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Again, a few years later, another court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

- Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

So important were those precedents that the United States Supreme Court echoed the very principle those precedents rested on:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1875 )

Oh yes, these precedents ARE important. These cases were cited in the briefs submitted to the United States Court in the Heller decision - which ruled that we have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms.

Don't you think the courts heard all these militia arguments and that nonsense about the Second Amendment being about a militia's right to have weapons? The Right to Life; the Right to self preservation; the Right to Liberty are all unalienable Rights. The tools necessary to defend those Rights are incorporated into those Rights. Otherwise, they would be meaningless.

The early courts were closer to knowing what the founding fathers intended. As an example, Chief Justice Joseph Story wrote:

"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, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

How credible is Story? He was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by James Madison, a co-author of the United States Constitution. Don't you think he's pretty well authoritative on the intent of the Second Amendment?

As far as militias go, I have been involved in citizen militias since 1987. Trying to get them to standardize weapons is harder than stuffing hot butter up a wild cat's rump with a red hot poker. They have to be forced to have the right tools... but the Second Amendment is not all inclusive about the Right to keep and bear Arms. That Right predated the Constitution; it is an unalienable Right, and unfortunately, the Brady campaign... along with the anti-gun trolls selling snake oil here are trying to throw a lot of smoke and mirrors up when there are different factors at play.

At the end of the day, only a fool would fully trust any government. Our forefathers intended for every person that wanted a firearm to have one. It is the only way we can insure that the government will not tyrannize the people.

 

Of course you don't absolute free speech anywhere without permission. You can' speak freely in a private place of business without being qualified nor in a church or school or .......there are a plethora of places. The right of free speach is NOT ABSOLUTE AND NEITHER IS owning a gun. You have to qualify for all your rights and you have to prove these rights in many places and locations even if you haven't been convicted of a felon. It's lunacy to think otherwise. You guys make these rediculous statements like you know what you are talking about.. You are restricted in many public places on what you can say. Some public domains, require a permit to speak.

I guess you have the unqualified and absolute right to speak in your bathroom alone....ha ha.

 

You seem to be having a lot of trouble living here. Just leave.
That our forefathers intended that anyone who wanted a a firearm could have one, is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. For one thing, the second amendment never mentions firearms; only arms and they were restricted by our forefathers, including "frighteners". These are axes that looked scary and were restricted........just because they looked scary. Ha ha. You guys are so misinformed...you just make stuff if.
Arms have always been regulated ! Dah.

 

To be clear, natural rights have natural duties. Laws are passed when those duties are violated. For instance, when you use a natural right to violate other rights, you have abdicated your freedom to use them. Your misunderstanding of law as a limit on rights is common for those that do not understand rights. Of course there are those in power that do not respect rights so pass laws that violate rights but sometimes the courts actually do follow the letter if not the intent of the constitution and correct the error.

 

Well, you have just manage to say nothing that adds to the conversation. None of your rights as listed in the bill of rights are absolute and all are subject to regulation. You can talk about "natural rights" till the cows come home and we will still have regulations like obscenity laws to regulate speech and felony and age restrictions on buying and possessing guns.

 

Because (a) they're are unconstitutional and (b) they don't work. Show me a regulation that fits the two criteria and I'll be happy to support it.

 

No, they are not dangerous. They can be deadly if used that way but in combat, they used mostly as suppressive fire. Why would a civilian want one? For one its the second amendment. I don't need to explain to you why I want a machine gun. Second is again the second amendment. It's to equalize ourselves to the government as a deterrent. And third, they are just plain fun at the range.

 

Translation: No clue what natural rights or natural duties are.

Your vapid response says a lot about the state of education.

 

There are no regulations (depending on state law) on flame throwers. They are as easy to get (provided you have money) as buying milk from Walmart.

 

Just the idea you frequent this den of ignorance and fear tells us all we need to know.

 

What are you talking about ???

 

I haven't read what you all have posted since I was last here, but I read this on wiki about gun politics and I thought it amazingly apropos to some of the "conversation".....so I figured I'd post it here for you, not that it makes any difference to anyone here....I doubt if the Framers themselves came here and shared their feelings would it matter, unless their feelings matched up 100% with what most of you all think already. Or would it? If they disagreed on your interpretation of what they had in mind, would that change any of your minds? How patriotic are you? Or does love of guns trump all? (No pun intended.)

The murder of musician John Lennon in 1980 and an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981 led to enactment of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) in 1993 which established the national background check system to prevent certain restricted individuals from owning, purchasing, or transporting firearms.[27] In an article supporting passage of such a law, retired chief justice Warren E. Burger wrote:

Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing – or to own automobiles. To 'keep and bear arms' for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago. 'Saturday night specials' and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.

 

If firearms offend, you, the YOU leave. The courts have ruled over and over and over again: the Right to keep and bear Arms does not depend on the Second Amendment. The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right not granted by the government. "Neither is it (the RKBA) dependent upon that instrument (the Constitution) for its existence." (Supreme Court ruling)

You quote Burger, but don't say whether it was a case, a personal opinion, a dissent to an existing law, etc. The thing is, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right. And I can buy dangerous vehicles (like trucks and four wheelers) all day long and they don't restrict them. I can buy a car that will go twice the posted speed limit. Why would I "need" that?

 

Sorry you are upset by me responding to your den of ignorance and fear. Truth is just to hard for some of you.