Reasonable Gun Control-Why Not?

[Devil505]

What brings this to mind is that since President Obama has taken office, there has been a huge increase in gun & ammo sales in this country & I wonder what people are really worried about?)


The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet many laws have been written (& upheld by our Supreme Court) limiting our rights to free speech. (Clear & Present Danger, Fighting Words,libel & slander, obscenity, etc)


The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "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."


Yet, there have also been written (and upheld) many laws limiting this right. (The National Firearms Act ("NFA") 1934, which limits acces to machine guns, silencers, Short barreled shotguns.... etc)


Considering the above......I don't understand the reasoning of those who decry any attempt to regulate firearms based on their 2nd amendment rights?? Would anyone who believes there should be no limits on these rights please explain why they feel that way? (& should free speech also be unlimited?)

 

[Gipper]

What brings this to mind is that since President Obama has taken office, there has been a huge increase in gun & ammo sales in this country & I wonder what people are really worried about?)


The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet many laws have been written (& upheld by our Supreme Court) limiting our rights to free speech. (Clear & Present Danger, Fighting Words,libel & slander, obscenity, etc)


The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "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."


Yet, there have also been written (and upheld) many laws limiting this right. (The National Firearms Act ("NFA") 1934, which limits acces to machine guns, silencers, Short barreled shotguns.... etc)


Considering the above......I don't understand the reasoning of those who decry any attempt to regulate firearms based on their 2nd amendment rights?? Would anyone who believes there should be no limits on these rights please explain why they feel that way? (& should free speech also be unlimited?)

How does one place reasonable controls gun ownership? I am for reasonable controls, but what you think are reasonable and what I think are reasonable, are two different things. The anti-gunner liberals want our gun rights removed altogether.

Once that barn door is open, it can't be closed. You know, the slippery slope.

 

[Devil505]

How does one place reasonable controls gun ownership? I am for reasonable controls, but what you think are reasonable and what I think are reasonable, are two different things. The anti-gunner liberals want our gun rights removed altogether.

Once that barn door is open, it can't be closed. You know, the slippery slope.

So you think the bill I mentioned above ..The National Firearms Act ("NFA") 1934, which limits acces to machine guns, silencers, Short barreled shotguns....is unreasonable & should be repealed?

 

[dogtowner]

So you think the bill I mentioned above ..The National Firearms Act ("NFA") 1934, which limits acces to machine guns, silencers, Short barreled shotguns....is unreasonable & should be repealed?

shall not be infringed....

 

[Gipper]

So you think the bill I mentioned above ..The National Firearms Act ("NFA") 1934, which limits acces to machine guns, silencers, Short barreled shotguns....is unreasonable & should be repealed?

If only libs would stop there. But, nooooooooooooooooooooo.

Libs can't ever stop trying to take away our liberties.

Why don't libs just immigrate back to the old country (Europe)??????

Socialism already exists there. Why must they destroy freedom and liberty where ever it exists????????

 

[dahermit]

What brings this to mind is that since President Obama has taken office, there has been a huge increase in gun & ammo sales in this country & I wonder what people are really worried about?)


The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet many laws have been written (& upheld by our Supreme Court) limiting our rights to free speech. (Clear & Present Danger, Fighting Words,libel & slander, obscenity, etc)


The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "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."


Yet, there have also been written (and upheld) many laws limiting this right. (The National Firearms Act ("NFA") 1934, which limits acces to machine guns, silencers, Short barreled shotguns.... etc)


Considering the above......I don't understand the reasoning of those who decry any attempt to regulate firearms based on their 2nd amendment rights?? Would anyone who believes there should be no limits on these rights please explain why they feel that way? (& should free speech also be unlimited?)

Ask the Jews that were in the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto. Ask the settlers on the American frontier about the "need" for gun legislation. Ask the citizens of Mexico how there relatively strict gun control laws had made their society safer.

Oh, that is right...It can never happen here, we are somehow immune.

 

[dogtowner]

If only libs would stop there. But, nooooooooooooooooooooo.

Libs can't ever stop trying to take away our liberties.

Why don't libs just immigrate back to the old country (Europe)??????

Socialism already exists there. Why must they destroy freedom and liberty where ever it exists????????

if you abandon your rights via felony or are loony then this is one of those rights you no longer have. after that, hands off and back away.

 

[Popeye]

If only libs would stop there. But, nooooooooooooooooooooo.

Libs can't ever stop trying to take away our liberties.

Why don't libs just immigrate back to the old country (Europe)??????

Socialism already exists there. Why must they destroy freedom and liberty where ever it exists????????

Guess what there Gipper?..Not all liberals are for gun control. Or did you FORGET that?

I'm a liberal, but I live in a very rural area.....I look upon owning a gun as a necessity.

Unfortunately, the Republican party has not stood up for the second amendment either. By my reading, it means NO gun control at all...that means no waiting periods, background checks, or any of the other crap that the GOP has given in on...

 

[dogtowner]

Guess what there Gipper?..Not all liberals are for gun control. Or did you FORGET that?

I'm a liberal, but I live in a very rural area.....I look upon owning a gun as a necessity.

Unfortunately, the Republican party has not stood up for the second amendment either. By my reading, it means NO gun control at all...that means no waiting periods, background checks, or any of the other crap that the GOP has given in on...

these gop pols also realize that the 2nd amendment is intended to be a defense against them if they get out of line.

 

[dahermit]

The most serious threat to the constitution is change through custom. For instance the custom of defining water boarding as not "...cruel and unusual punishment...".
Likewise, if you wish to "infringe" on the rights concerning guns, do it the correct and safe way by getting a two-thirds vote of the states to change it.

 

[dogtowner]

The most serious threat to the constitution is change through custom. For instance the custom of defining water boarding as not "...cruel and unusual punishment...".
Likewise, if you wish to "infringe" on the rights concerning guns, do it the correct and safe way by getting a two-thirds vote of the states to change it.

agreed on the amendment process

WB is neither cruel nor unusual

 

[Gipper]

The most serious threat to the constitution is change through custom. For instance the custom of defining water boarding as not "...cruel and unusual punishment...".
Likewise, if you wish to "infringe" on the rights concerning guns, do it the correct and safe way by getting a two-thirds vote of the states to change it.

Agreed on the constitution, but WB is no big deal. If BO did it, the libs would be fine with it and so would I. But, since Rs did it, libs call it torture.

 

[Bunz]

What brings this to mind is that since President Obama has taken office, there has been a huge increase in gun & ammo sales in this country & I wonder what people are really worried about?)


The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet many laws have been written (& upheld by our Supreme Court) limiting our rights to free speech. (Clear & Present Danger, Fighting Words,libel & slander, obscenity, etc)


The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "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."


Yet, there have also been written (and upheld) many laws limiting this right. (The National Firearms Act ("NFA") 1934, which limits acces to machine guns, silencers, Short barreled shotguns.... etc)


Considering the above......I don't understand the reasoning of those who decry any attempt to regulate firearms based on their 2nd amendment rights?? Would anyone who believes there should be no limits on these rights please explain why they feel that way? (& should free speech also be unlimited?)

I think the current system on a federal level is reasonable. One can still access those things limited in the NFA with a class 3 license. I can still go down to the store and buy an AR-15. While picking up optics, high cap magazines and a few thousand rounds and be out of there in less than an hour.

 

[Bunz]

these gop pols also realize that the 2nd amendment is intended to be a defense against them if they get out of line.

I always chuckle at these type of statements that are all to common among cons who want to think a little tough.

On the list of concerns of a member of Congress, I would imagine popular uprising isnt really that high.

 

[Bunz]

Agreed on the constitution, but WB is no big deal. If BO did it, the libs would be fine with it and so would I. But, since Rs did it, libs call it torture.

Wrong. Another incorrect statement about a libs in general.
If waterboarding is no big deal and not torture then why dont we do it when needing confessions from American citizens? Why have we prosecuted other countries and raised hell when other countries have used tortured Americans in this way.