Right To Bear Arms?

[ragged]

Buddy of mine just became a US citizen. 1st thing he did was to go buy a gun. lol!

 

[Matt34]

So, no. If you ban guns (which I'm not weighing in on), you don't necessarily step to a different weapon after that.

Your right, because criminals will stop acquiring firearms because of a law/ban....but myself and others that hold jobs, are decent law abiding citizens and have much more to risk will be forced to hand over our firearms to a government that is completely lost in the sauce. That sounds like an excellent idea because the government is always looking out for the best interests of the people!!

..and you can kill someone with just one slash of a knife.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Well I am sure she is going to get in, however she is replacing a left leaning lunatic so for now the balance remains the same. Let's just hope Obozo the One-termer is out of office before he can nominate another unqualified racist person to the bench.

 

[Schupo]

Your right, because criminals will stop acquiring firearms because of a law/ban....but myself and others that hold jobs, are decent law abiding citizens and have much more to risk will be forced to hand over our firearms to a government that is completely lost in the sauce. That sounds like an excellent idea because the government is always looking out for the best interests of the people!!

Are you sure you meant to quote my post? Re-read it, re-read your response, and then respond again.

..and you can kill someone with just one slash of a knife.

I'd imagine that most murders committed with a knife aren't a single slash. I don't know for certain, but I do know that if you're going to kill someone with a knife, you're going to have a struggle. If you have a struggle, it's more difficult to slash the parts of the body required for something like that. And, like I said, it's way more personal to kill someone with a knife than it is with a gun.

 

[Nemo128]

Your right, because criminals will stop acquiring firearms because of a law/ban.

About my question again, where do the criminals get them from? Other criminals? ONLY through criminal actions? Good law-abiding job-having citizens never willingly sell their guns to people who shouldn't have them in the first place in the interests of profit? Come on.

 

[The Dukester]

Answer me this. How do those criminals and ne'er do wells get the guns? I guess from the beginning of the process (manufacturing) all the way to the criminal, the entire process involves none of these so-called law-abiding citizens.

Maybe every gun ever used for a violent act has been acquired from a legal owner by illegal INVOLUNTARY means. See, that's the important part. Involuntary. If every gun used for a crime were acquired through a crime, I could agree completely with your argument.

I could buy one right now, a few even, without any background check or waiting period from the original authorized licensed owner, and I bet he's not the only one in the country who cares more about the dollar than the responsibility. Yet, I can't buy a car without a title, and I can't drive it or even park it in public without registering it.

Sorry, Nemo, but you are incorrect here. I can't tell you how many cars there are on the roads where I live that are improperly registered or not at all, have no insurance and many drivers without a license. You can buy a car with no title that runs just as if not more easily as you can a gun from an individual. I have had my tag stolen and you can bet it went on a car that was unregistered or that someone had no intention of renewing the tags/insurance on.

FWIW, there are not many guns for sale by owners here, either. Very few ads and any responsible person that sold one would not sell it without getting the person's name and address and turning it in to the po-po. I have sold guns to individuals and have a record of every one of my transactions.

Crooks will be crooks and no, they won't turn their guns in if the government bans them. I would also be so presumptuous as to say that most of the 'guns in the hood", so to speak, are stolen or obtained through illegal dealings and not from law abiding, responsible people.

 

[Matt34]

About my question again, where do the criminals get them from? Other criminals? ONLY through criminal actions? Good law-abiding job-having citizens never willingly sell their guns to people who shouldn't have them in the first place in the interests of profit? Come on.

It is already against the law for a felon to own or purchase a firearm, more legislation isn't going to change that. The government has no need to know what weapons I own through registration, unless of course they want to put me on a terrorist watch list.....oh wait, they already want too. Why? Because our Homeland Security Secretary deemed returning vets as possible domestic terrorists.

Our government can't help itself yet you desire more regulation from the same numbskulls that are ruining this country.

 

[The Dukester]

unless of course they want to put me on a terrorist watch list.....oh wait, they already want too. Why? Because our Homeland Security Secretary deemed returning vets as possible domestic terroristsQUOTE]

OUCH! Welcome home, boys. (and ladies!)
I'll say "Thanks!" for serving even if HS won't!

 

[Wafflesomd]

So, no. If you ban guns (which I'm not weighing in on), you don't necessarily step to a different weapon after that.

The U.K. is a great example to use against that.

They pretty much banned guns, and what problem do they have now? Knife crime, and it's really bad. I mean really bad.

Has there always been this large amount of total morons in politics, or is it because I've started paying attention.

 

[Biggiesized]

How hard is it to answer whether or not we have the right to self-defense?

 

[ragged]

Ok lets assume, that firearms are banned today. All the firearm manufacturers in the US shut down, all registered firearms are turned in. Then what?

 

[markw]

Ok lets assume, that firearms are banned today. All the firearm manufacturers in the US shut down, all registered firearms are turned in. Then what?

[sarcasm mode]Obviously, all the bad guys won't have access to any guns so all our problems will be solved. [/sarcasm mode]

Seriously, no "law abiding citizens" sell their guns to criminals for money. Scum does, but they are not law abiding citizens.

 

[Rickster71]

Ok lets assume, that firearms are banned today. All the firearm manufacturers in the US shut down, all registered firearms are turned in. Then what?

Bad guys will find the next weapon du jour, and the hand wringing Second Amendment foes will find some other half-truth to rally their uninformed
lemmings.

 

[jinjuku]

I wish Sotomayor's Anti-Second Amendment stance was her only problem.

She ruled against white firefighters that pasted a promotion exam, because no minorities pasted the test.

Maybe none could spell passed...

 

[ragged]

[sarcasm mode]Obviously, all the bad guys won't have access to any guns so all our problems will be solved. [/sarcasm mode]

Seriously, no "law abiding citizens" sell their guns to criminals for money. Scum does, but they are not law abiding citizens.

Hey I'm against the ban and all for the right to bear arms, with some limitations of course. I mean, cocaine is a banned substance and that can't be controlled, so why think guns will be any different? I agree, I'm sure the majority of criminals don't legally buy/register firearms. They'll probably just continue to get them the same way, meanwhile us law abiding citizens are left holding the short end of the stick, literally.

 

[jinjuku]

Hey I'm against the ban and all for the right to bear arms, with some limitations of course. I mean, cocaine is a banned substance and that can't be controlled, so why think guns will be any different? I agree, I'm sure the majority of criminals don't legally buy/register firearms. They'll probably just continue to get them the same way, meanwhile us law abiding citizens are left holding the short end of the stick, literally.

Good point. Some should ask the DEA how the 'war' on drugs is going. I can actually answer it for you: The DEA is getting its' collective arse kicked and then handed to them.

They currently spend annually 20X what they did when they initially declared war and the gap that they are losing by has only widened.

 

[Rickster71]

Good point. Some should ask the DEA how the 'war' on drugs is going. I can actually answer it for you: The DEA is getting its' collective arse kicked and then handed to them.

They currently spend annually 20X what they did when they initially declared war and the gap that they are losing by has only widened.

Oh yes, the so called 'War On Drugs' is a real money maker, and job security for all those involved.
Government wants to be a big self perpetuating machine, in all that it does.

As soon as the government say "We're doing for the children" hold on to your wallet.

 

[Tomorrow]

Maybe none could spell passed...

I see they're putting mods on spell patrol now.

Coming from a mod, whose posts come with higher expectations, this comment is not funny, it's not on topic, and it's an inappropriate slam at a good AH'er.

 

[lsiberian]

I see they're putting mods on spell patrol now.

Coming from a mod, whose posts come higher expectations, this comment is not funny, it's not on topic, and it's an inappropriate slam at a good AH'er.

Agreed. I don't think that was the intent of the post, but deleting it would be wise. I know we all say things without thinking sometimes.

But if at test isn't passed by any minorities you don't find that to be a problem? So you endorse promotion tests that are biased toward a certain social groups.

 

[Rickster71]

Maybe none could spell passed...

What can I say, spelling or typing fast was never my strong suit.