Why do many pro 2ndA just default between all guns v no guns

Doesn't matter where you look, an American forum, a Psychology Today article on guns by an American etc.. they can only talk about "All guns" against a "Gun ban"?

Does the opposition of the 2ndA want gun control/regulations or a gun ban?

In the UK, anyone can apply for a shotgun licence. As long as your police background checks out, your medical record is ok, nothing dodgy on your driving record, and your referee vouches for you, then the police can't stop you owning a shotgun. So that history and character record about you is down to you.

So once you get a shotgun, you lock it in the bolted down cabinet that the police checked, you lock the cartridges in a separate box. You don't carry it around in public, and when you're not pheasant shooting, or clays, or controlling vermin; then you keep it safely locked.

If you want a rifle or long barrel handgun, then you have to have a valid reason. One good reason is that you're part of a gun club, gamekeeper etc..

Are pro 2ndA'ers frightened they would fail such a UK background check?

I only say this because in debates, I just keep running into "Gun ban" rhetoric.

 

why do gun banners think that "shall not be infringed" actually allows some infringement and allows the government to ban some common firearms? In fact, I have yet to meet a gun banner who actually believes that there is some limit upon governmental action

 

The Right of the who shall not be what?

That's why.

 

we prefer being citizens rather than subjects. I have no use for scumbags in office who don't trust us citizens with the same weapons that are used to protect those scumbags. I was a federal prosecutor for 24 years. I have a completely clean record and all sorts of security clearances. I could carry firearms in courthouses and airports.

 

Because gun control is a slide toward a total ban. Which gun control law is 'going too far' in your opinion? Because if theres no objective, then ur really just complaining that we wont let you ban it all slowly, one 'regulation' at a time...

By 'you' I mean gun controllers in general, not you individually. I've asked for objective stopping points from folks before and banners refuse to specify anything meaningfull.

Beyond that, politics is meant to be a compromise. Banners never offer anything in trade, they just offer banning a lot and expect to settle for banning a little ....over and over and over again. The innevitable result is the same.

A compromise (and this is just an example) would be- give us mandatory background checks and we'll get rid of waiting periods. Or, give us a registry and we'll legalize suppressors. Again, just examples of actual compromise that is never offered.

 

there seems to be two types of gun controller thinking

1) is the most often those who lead the gun control movement. They are almost always leftwing operatives. They try to use gun control to stave off claims lefties are soft on crime, and more importantly, to attack conservatives. They will never stop trying to ban or control guns, no matter what the evidence is-because their goal is political weaponization of gun control laws

2) the second-most often the grass roots or astro turf supporters of #1 might actually believe that gun control is crime control. They have made the following decisions:

a) gun control-and by that I mean laws that restrict what lawful gun owners, can own, acquire, buy or use-actually impedes the actions of people who violate malum per se laws-such as laws against rape, robbery, murder or felonious assault


b) society's right to be safe and impede violent felons is superior to the rights of lawful gun owners to own, acquire possess or use peacefully firearms

That second group will never stop either. Why? because if one wave of gun restrictions do not stop crime-their attitude is that more is needed.

 

Driving record? What has that to do with gun ownership? (Unless there are a LOT of drunken offenses of course... a LOT, that indicate a CHRONIC problem.)
So I need a vault with guards and laser sensors and a moat, maybe guard towers, to secure simple shotgun in UK?
What the heck is a "referee"? Some left wing anti-gun politico that plays God with your rights?
Here in America we have a REASON to own a rifle or handgun. Its called a GOD GIVEN RIGHT!

 

the only reason to ban one today is the ban another one tomorrow.

There isn't any other point otherwise.

if you've been any gun that's a gun ban and it doesn't really serve a purpose. Other than a stepping stone for the next ban.

in the US you have the right to own a gun meaning the government can't put any of these regulations on you they're forbidden to by the law of the land.

no it's not that I'm afraid I wouldn't pass a UK background check it's not that background check isn't there to check your background so there to collect information on you and that's why we do it here. There is a background check if you purchase a firearm with a serial number on it from an FFL you can purchase a firearm and it not have a serial number that's legal because it's a right here.

But because it's death by a thousand cuts one day you won't be allowed to own a shotgun or a rifle either.

 

That was no use to the thread.

 

How many times have I showed the the phrase, "shall not be infringed".
Only for you to tell me you have no problem with infringements because some other amendment supposedly over rides the "shall not be infringed".

 

I don't get that either.
The 2A is not about guns, it's about arms.
There's all kinds of arms that are infringed upon that most of those gun promoters are glad they are infringed upon.

 

I don't support any infringements on the federal level=you do. you keep trying to pretend your desire to ban commonly owned firearms is no different than me saying nuclear weapons are properly restricted

 

that is because you don't understand the underlying natural right that the second amendment is based upon and which the Cruikshank court noted

 

Didn't take you long to post an intentional untruth, did it.

 

Under lying? Sounds like you want some sort of infringement.
Oh, there's no natural rights. Only man made rights.
But perhaps for the right to defend one's life.

 

once again-you try to pretend your hard core gun banning desires are no different than those who say state governments have the power to ban nukes.

 

The 'objective', like most things we enjoy and use is to make them as safe as possible, whilst still enjoying them. The 'objevtive' is to create a culture where guns in public high streets, shops etc.. is a no no.

Please substantiate your statement, "Gun control is a slide toward a total ban". So which country has done that, do you have a link to some study that shows guns are banned because of introduced regulations centuries ago? Which comparable Western country to the States have now banned guns?

Since the horse and cart, push bike, car, lorry etc.. regulations came about. Are they banned off the road.

Need some substance behind your post as opposed to sound bites and opinion.

 

If you used your car to purposely run over someone. Would you like that person to have a gun? Speeding and parking fines are irrelevant to a gun licence.

God given right, ok. You are on a plane, it goes down in the sea. You are washed up on a deserted island. You stand there and scream at the sky, "I have the GOD given right to a gun". Do you know what you've just done? You've just trained the animals on the island to laugh at you.

 

animals understand English and laugh? hmmmm. Look if you like living under a government that doesn't want to treat you as part of the supreme sovereign so be it

 

Thanks, I don't do broken down posts. If I can read yours without having to read mine again between snippets of yours, then I can reply. I don't bother otherwise. Not bothering doesn't mean I can't answer, I concede whatever someone thinks etc.., I just detest broken down posts with snippet replies.

 

Wrong person answered.

 

Could you list the arms the 2nd refers to.

Plus, the thread is about the mentality of All guns v No guns.

Some think it leads to a gun ban. But that statement has no substance and there's no evidence to support that.

 

Here in Texas there are no waiting period to buy a gun, no magazine limitations, no registration, no permits and with "Constitutional Carry" any legal gun owner can carry open or concealed just about anywhere. We are a "sanctuary state" for the 2d amendment.

I just love to watch all the blue state in-fighting about the 2d amendment.

TEXAS!!! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!!!

 

Oh... felonies... ok. Your rant about crashing airplanes, screaming at the sky and scaring animals seems to be some sort of unintelligible cult thing. I never scream alone and I use reliable airlines.

 

I would appreciate it if posters can keep to the questions in the op, the theme of the thread.

When you debate against pro 2nd Amendment advocates, the usual is mouth frothed out -

1- Subjects
2 - Knives
3 - Independence
4 - God given rights
5 - Banned in England
...and a whole raft of other deflections.

So the op is, why do Americans think, "All guns v Gun ban", and can they substantiate they opinion. Can they reference which Western country started with regulations to a gun ban etc..