This is a discussion on Let's pretend... within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by bones
The 2nd Amendment is about freedom.
All other amendments to the constitution are ultimately protected by a citizen who understands and ...
April 20th, 2007 10:17 PM
Bones: You got it right. The 2nd protects me from OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT, first and foremost. Criminals and slimeballs come second.
Originally Posted by bones
April 20th, 2007 10:22 PM
The following is not intended to be argumentative, I Just realized that I left some holes in my statement. :
Originally Posted by Redneck Repairs
It would be very unfortunate if it cost qualifying folks $100. And I'd not suggest adding disqualifying criteria. It sounds simple to my simple mind: if you're a convicted felon or a certified loony then no gun.
Redneck, I'm glad we can still be friends.
Spend few minutes learning about my journey from Zero to Athlete in this
Then check out my blog! www.BodyByMcDonalds.com
Cupcake - 100 pound loser, adventurer, Ironman Triathlete.
April 20th, 2007 10:28 PM
did a lot of good here didnt it ?
he coverage of mental health information in databases is less common and at the end of 1996 only sixteen states were using them for background checks including: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Oh and source link for the quote is http://www.saf.org/JFPP10ch4.htm
Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .
Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.
April 20th, 2007 10:45 PM
Absolutly! Shall not be infringed means, Shall not be infringed!!!! NO MEANS NO!
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” Benjamin Franklin
I'm not pro gun, I'm pro rights. What are you?
April 20th, 2007 11:40 PM
P85 / OKShooter + 1 here
Enforce the laws - no pleas, absolutely no parole, and do away with deferred adjudication. It won't happen because the ACLU and the democraps won't allow true justice.
April 21st, 2007 12:15 AM
When you choose to chip away at one part of the Bill of Rights, you open the door to chip away at all of them. Wiretaps without warrants, no problem. It'll make us safer. Limit to 10-round magazines, no problem. It'll make us safer. Make it illegal to say bad words in public, no problem. We'll be less concerned. Make it illegal to have evil black rifles, no problem. We'll be less concerned. Ditch separation of church and state, no problem. That's not what the language really means, anyway. Ditch the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, no problem. That's not what the language really means, anyway. If you can justify one, you can justify another.
History shows, when you start giving away freedoms, it gets harder and harder to stop.
Last edited by rodc13; April 21st, 2007 at 07:38 AM.
"We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters
April 21st, 2007 12:23 AM
Well I think it's all been said
Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft!
-- Theodore Roosevelt --
April 21st, 2007 12:40 AM
Re: Assault Weapon bans - Let's not forget that one of the few (the only??) times that the Supreme Court has ruled on the 2nd Ammendment was in Miller v. US, wherein a moonshiner got popped with a shotgun cut down to 14". The court ruled that possession of the weapon by a civilian was illegal because there was no military use for such a weapon...meaning that the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to ensure that the people are armed with the same weapons that the military uses.
The commie libs forget about that little ruling.
The keys to winning a gunfight are first to bring a gun and secondly to take your time, quickly.
Always remember that if your opponent is within range, so are you.
POWER TO THE MEPEOPLE!!!
April 21st, 2007 09:17 AM
The Brady Bunch is dangerous. Their ultimate goal is to disarm the population. To reason with them is to loose, you can’t reason with a fanatic.
"Hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
- William Munny (Clint Eastwood in the Unfrogivin)
“The graveyards are full of indispensable men.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
“My Idea of a fair fight is beating baby seals with a club”
April 21st, 2007 09:38 AM
1. Background checks -- If such checks were to be a simple thumbs up/down approval or denial without any record-keeping, I'd have far less problem with it. The concept is sound: keep criminals from obtaining firearms. The reality, though, is somewhat different: most criminals, certainly the adept and truly dangerous ones, will get guns anyway. The downside is keeping track of everyone who has firearms, which can be (and often has been, historically) a precursor to forcible disarmament of citizens by their government officials. And THAT is something worth fighting.
Originally Posted by HOLYROLLER
2. Strengthening the NICS system of background checks -- Again, if it can be configured to functionally disallow abuse, I'm tentatively for it. That's a big "if".
3. Child-proofing -- In an age of lack of personal responsibility, it's no wonder that parents abdicate their responsibility to danger-proof their children. Without that, window-dressing salves such as gun locks and other things won't guard against reality and probability. With a child that hasn't been danger-proofed, no amount of protections will keep that child safe. If children prove anything, they prove that barriers aren't.
4. Assault weapons ban -- It's a solution to a non-existent problem. Fully-automatic machine guns aren't prohobited or banned in this country; they're merely made grossly expensive to non-police types, by virtue of the 1934, 1968 and most-importantly 1986 weapons laws. Criminals acquire them anyway. Murder, kidnapping, rape, violent assault ... each of these is already illegal, with stiff penalties (even though such pentalties are routinely knocked down to some chicken-dung shadow of the penalty). Branding as "evil" a few dozen models of firearms and limiting capacity on ammunition won't stop crime. It won't even limit it, nor mitigate the effects. As the murderer at VT this week showed, in spades, a criminal with any weapon can wreak havoc.
The bottom line? This is an ineffectual piece of window-dressing that does little but disarm victims, making it more difficult for people to defend themselves. You should ask yourself one thing, when considering such legislation: who are our elected officials actually going to disarm, by such laws? The answer should guide your thinking as to the suitability (let alone legality or constitutionality) of such laws.
April 21st, 2007 09:57 AM
I don't want any more restrictions on law abiding citizens. The criminals will not adhere to any new rules enacted. How about this? How about stronger prison sentences for gun related crimes?
Walk steathly - and carry a big Springfield.
April 21st, 2007 10:14 AM
holyroller, how would you feel about freedom of religion being subjected to similar criteria?
i mean, more people die based on religion than any crime, anyway. why not start having people register their beliefs and have leaders of religious denominations, including individual parrish's and churches, undergo registration and place laws mandating what must be reported, and of course, we should tax churches to help pay for this. its a small thing....i could live with it.
April 21st, 2007 10:21 AM
Let's put a different twist on it and see how it works.
Originally Posted by HOLYROLLER
1. Background checks at all book stores, libraries et. al. to include any private transfers of any reading material.
2. Strengthing the background check system to include all your medical records, anything your neighbors care to say about you or your employer.
3. Child proof all reading materials.
4. Ban all books and reading material not approved of by your government.
We have to stop hate speech in America. Hate speech kills more people every year than anything else. If it saves just one life we should do it. Do it for the children.
Most of the biggest mass murderers in history did no or very little killing themselves. They used hate speech to get others to do it. Since they were in power they had the force of government behind them. So who gets to determine what hate speech is?
Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.
April 21st, 2007 10:25 AM
Originally Posted by QKShooter
That's it in a nut shell.
I remember when ATM's first came out. I hated the idea.
Everyone around talked about what a great thing they would be.
My prediction was that the ATM was a cost cutting measure for the banks and that we would see them replacing people. Not only that, we would end up paying through the nose just to use the damn things.
Back then everyone said I was crazy. Why would the banks need to charge us to use ATM's when they are already saving money by hiring fewer tellers?
AM I GOOD OR WHAT??????
The problem with human beings is that they will accept ANY AND ALL atrocities if done to them incrementally over a long period of time.
The real goal of the anti's is not sensible laws at all. They will continue to chip away at our rights until we don't even notice that we don't have them anymore.
OPPOSE ALL RESTRICTIONS. Anything else is just creaping towards confiscation.
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo (resolutely in action, gently in manner).
April 21st, 2007 10:33 AM
Uh, no. I don't think I'd use ATMs as an argument against gun control. They're more an example of the success of decreased restrictions. Besides, banks don't charge their own customers to use their own ATMs. If your bank does, change banks immediately.
Originally Posted by PaulG
"We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters
By McPatrickClan in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
Last Post: March 10th, 2008, 08:17 PM
Search tags for this page
brady campaign bernhard goetz
Click on a term to search for related topics.