Defensive Carry banner

National Gun Ban "Reasonable"

3K views 44 replies 30 participants last post by  glock27mark 
#1 ·
#2 ·
I hope it is withdrawn, but I doubt it will be. I continue to be disappointed by the President that I voted for and I'm not real optimistic here.
 
#4 ·
What baffles me is the whole premise that firearms "clearly endanger public safety." Really? Says who? And what have they been smokin'? The CDC just published a report to the contrary, not to mention the fact that historically the safest communities in this nation have had a lot of privately owned firearms. So how exactly do privately owned firearms exactly endanger public safety. Apparently just because "they" seem to think it is clear and obvious that they do.
:comeandgetsome:
 
#6 ·
And to think that party affiliation has anything to do with wanting to take away or infringe upon the peoples rights. Well the proof is in the pudding as they say.

Kinky Friedman said it best when he said:

poly = a bunch or more than one

tics = blood sucking parasites

Fits most of the folks in government in my book.
 
#7 ·
I believe a gun ban of that caliber could possibly cause a civil war. Who would be on the "governments side?"

The military? The same people who swore to uphold the constitution, namely the second amendment which would be clearly violated.

I wouldn't see that working out to well.
 
#9 ·
Even after all Bush has done, this still surprises me. To tell us with one breath that terrorist still threaten American citizens and with the next say that we should all have to give up our guns? Wow. He's dumber than the media says he is.
 
#12 ·
I believe people driving while talking on cell phones endangers public safety more than guns. :gah:
 
#15 ·
Id say it is high time to call for the termination (firing) or resignation of the solicitor general.....
 
#17 ·
Why? He merely reflects the federal government's view. If that view is wrong, that's not his problem, and he could lose his job if he lies and changes the government's position. He's done his job accurately. If you don't like the decision, than take it up with the message, not the mouthpiece.


-B
 
#16 ·
Disarmament of the good leads to victory over the bad, eh? Interesting principle. Okay, let's take a U.N. force of, say, 10000 troops and completely disarm them prior to depositing them into the front lines of any of the world's three major war zones. For the subsequent five year period, a disinterested group of 100 monitors will appreciate the situation and compile reports of the actual results of the engagements. At the end of the five years, the forces and monitors will meet back at the nearest urban center. We'll review the reports from each of the surviving monitors, then make the judgement based on the actual, practical tally of wins vs. losses. Both of the surviving reports would be useful for one thing, IMO, and that's to appreciate how fluffy, pie-in-the-sky assumptions don't go very far at the point of a gun.

Here's my take, based on what I've seen on the streets when the innocent are disarmed ...

Elimination of guns from the hands of citizens might be reasonable, if and only if it were reasonable to expect that criminals would cease engaging in violent criminal action against citizens. I believe the assumption of a good result is unreasonable in the extreme, thus disarmament of innocents can never be a reasonable proposition.

Mathematical probability can be a terrible taskmaster, when it's blindly ignored.
 
#18 ·
I tried to find the actual Brief filed to read it but failed! there is no 2008 stuff on the doj website...anyone have a link to the actual document? News stories are notorious for misquoting things...
 
#24 ·
I saw this on arfcom over the weekend, and actually found and read the brief. Naturally, I can't find it now, but I'll check my history when I get home. It's real, and it was every bit as two-tongued and weaseley as everyone is saying.

Maybe the email flood actually worked and it got recalled. :confused:
 
#23 ·
The 2nd Amendment- 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. "Militia" is US, the people....."being necessary", is in case the Government gets out of hand....remember, this was written by men who, if their cause failed, would most likely have been hung as traitors. Also, the right to protect/defend yourself, predates the Constitution. Granted by God, if you will. Complacency and apathy have caused the left thinkers to take back a few of our liberties.....We must be as vocal, and as well spoken as those that 'don't get it'. The ACLU screams about 1st Amendment rights.....well, without the 2nd Amendment, you might as well throw out the other nine. Speaking of the 9th Amendment....look that one up. It says I believe, and I'm not a lawyer, that people have OTHER rights that are not listed in the Constitution. But, by not listing them, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. There's one to talk about.
 
#26 ·
I dont believe that most folks today care one bit about other peoples rights. I have even heard elected officials say the people get their rights from the constitution. The news people never even questioned it.
Most government folks that I have talked to believe that protecting the country means to protect the government. They believe they are the same thing.

Michael
 
#29 ·
Rights are granted by God.....The founding fathers just chose a few of the good ones and wrote them down. If WE were given the rights by Government, it would mean that THEY could just take them away...which they can't, but not through lack of trying. Remember WHO the 2nd was written to protect us against.
 
#32 ·
The main problem I had with the brief was its insistance that "furthering government interests" was a sufficient reason to ignore or severely restrict an individual right. This essentially boils down to saying that we have rights, but we can only excercise them when it suits "government interests" to do so.

I also have to take issue with these statements:

Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment under that constitutional understanding, as illustrated by the existing federal laws regulating firearms
There is nothing offered to back that up, especially in the face of certain CDC studies showing exactly the opposite.

The federal prohibitions on the possession of particular types of firearms, such as machineguns, readily pass such scrutiny. Those prohibitions are carefully targeted to firearms that have little or no legitimate private purpose, they permit possession for lawful purposes of a broad class of firearms other than those regulated, and the government’s interest in regulating firearms like the machinegun to protect the public safety is paramount.
Again, nothing to back this up. "Legitimate private purpose" is a very nebulous term that leaves the door gaping wide open for pretty much any sort of regulation you could imagine.

I think they're scared and are trying to "head it off at the pass". The NFA/FOPA combination is almost exactly analogous to the DC laws in question, except that they deal with machine guns instead of pistols. If one falls, the other won't be far behind.
 
#33 ·
While "over-all" the brief may say the Second Amendment is an individual right, the following excerpts are what bothers me:

"In 2001, the Attorney General adopted the position
that the Second Amendment protects an individual
right to possess firearms for a lawful private purpose
unrelated to service in a militia, and that such right—
like other constitutional rights—is subject to reasonable
restrictions."

"Although the court of appeals correctly held that
the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it
did not apply the correct standard for evaluating respondent’s
Second Amendment claim. Like other provisions
of the Constitution that secure individual rights, the
Second Amendment’s protection of individual rights
does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically
invalid. To the contrary, the Second Amendment,
properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation
of firearms, must be interpreted in light of context
and history, and is subject to important exceptions, such
as the rule that convicted felons may be denied firearms
because those persons have never been understood to be
within the Amendment’s protections. Nothing in the
Second Amendment properly understood—and certainly
no principle necessary to decide this case—calls for invalidation
of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."

Let the government get "reasonable" and "important exceptions" allowed by the SCOTUS and see what happens.
 
#34 ·
The 2nd Amendment- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
FREE state is the issue. Governments do NOT want a FREE state, they want their own kingdom. Of course governments will fight against the people being able to maintain a free state. It's contrary to the power of politicians and bureaucrats. The Founding Fathers knew that and that's why we have the Bill of Rights.

Asset seizures, gun restrictions, limits on political talk, monitoring citizens without warrants, Homeland Security, The "Patriot Act", it's all part of the politicians and bureaucrats wanting to take this country away from the people and destroy it's foundations.

Geesh, when you step back and look at the overall picture, not just the 2A, it really looks scary, very scary..

Ken
 
#35 ·
I am glad to see a healthy discussion going with quoting things and such...

I think the 2 central questions to this discussion are:

Should there be any limits on firearms owned by citizens?

and if you answered yes, Who gets to decide what those limits are?

...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top