Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

"Gun stores will typically not even let you try to purchase a gun if you appear to be acting in a suspicious manner; it is illegal for them to sell you a gun if they have reasonable cause to believe you cannot have one, even if this person clears NICS."

"We also declined sales up front without a background check because a person was intoxicated or acting in a disorderly manner."

Sounds like clear violations of those customers god-given Constitutional rights!

I'm sure an intelligent point could be made here.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm sure an intelligent point could be made here.

I think it’s an excellent point. Unless you think those processes and checks should be eliminated we are all then agreeing there are restrictions that should exist. Kids can’t go into a store and buy a gun like a piece of candy, even though the constitution makes no mention whatsoever of an age restriction. And background checks were not required when the bill of rights was written so those are something that have evolved with the times. Once we agree there need to be some restrictions, it’s a matter of both sides agreeing on those. Instead the alt response seems to be over my dead body, stop trampling on my rights, etc. It’s not productive.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think it’s an excellent point. Unless you think those processes and checks should be eliminated we are all then agreeing there are restrictions that should exist. Kids can’t go into a store and buy a gun like a piece of candy, even though the constitution makes no mention whatsoever of an age restriction. And background checks were not required when the bill of rights was written so those are something that have evolved with the times. Once we agree there need to be some restrictions, it’s a matter of both sides agreeing on those. Instead the alt response seems to be over my dead body, stop trampling on my rights, etc. It’s not productive.

Of course you do. I have said many pages ago that I am fine with the kind of restrictions that have historically existed - murderers were not permitted guns in their cells in 1789. I am fine with this. Not a single person is arguing it…

What you and the other banners/regulators in this thread have proposed, banning most all common use firearms or taxing them at 10,000x their value, is blatantly ignoring historical tradition, and is in no way closing an extreme - it’s infringing a basic right. Just as nobody objects to law against inciting using ‘free speech’

We are not saying the 2nd is DIFFERENT from the other amendments, in that we must ignore what was common when it was written and history. We are saying it should be held to the SAME standards as every other amendment. Nobody is saying convicted murderers cannot lose privileges, none of us gun owners have a nuclear bomb. These counter arguments from you are centered on absurdities arguing against things that the other side from you does not even think.

I would describe bitching about ‘god given’, which nobody here is arguing (it’s the Constitution, not the Bible) as the opposite of intelligent.

I am sure you could argue against what people are actually arguing instead of having to make things up that are easier to argue against. It was somehow better when you simply stalked me around replying “ok” randomly.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Of course you do. I have said many pages ago that I am fine with the kind of restrictions that have historically existed - murderers were not permitted guns in their cells in 1789. I am fine with this. Not a single person is arguing it…

What you and the other banners/regulators in this thread have proposed, banning most all common use firearms or taxing them at 10,000x their value, is blatantly ignoring historical tradition, and is in no way closing an extreme - it’s infringing a basic right. Just as nobody objects to law against inciting using ‘free speech’

We are not saying the 2nd is DIFFERENT from the other amendments, in that we must ignore what was common when it was written and history. We are saying it should be held to the SAME standards as every other amendment. Nobody is saying convicted murderers cannot lose privileges, none of us gun owners have a nuclear bomb. These counter arguments from you are centered on absurdities arguing against things that the other side from you does not even think.

I would describe bitching about ‘god given’, which nobody here is arguing (it’s the Constitution, not the Bible) as the opposite of intelligent.

I am sure you could argue against what people are actually arguing instead of having to make things up that are easier to argue against. It was somehow better when you simply stalked me around replying “ok” randomly.

That’s why I added in background checks specifically and noted those were not done at the time the bill of rights was written. It was come for pre teens to have access to guns then too. What was not common then was semis of course. Regardless, the debate is theoretical at this point. No one is taking away any rights for many years with the current makeup of the Supreme Court. So sleep well (but perhaps avoid the news coverings of mass shootings).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

That’s why I added in background checks specifically and noted those were not done at the time the bill of rights was written. It was come for pre teens to have access to guns then too. What was not common then was semis of course. Regardless, the debate is theoretical at this point. No one is taking away any rights for many years with the current makeup of the Supreme Court. So sleep well (but perhaps avoid the news coverings of mass shootings).

Yeah, you get it. That’s why I’m not a supporter of background checks (not hugely against, personally, but it does violate), and am not for banning civil liberties to 18 year olds. Teens may possess a gun in many states, if you were not aware.

For the thousandth time, these insinuations that people who disagree with you are somehow supporting mass killings is nonsense that makes you sound like an ideologue without reason or common sense. Sleep well.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yeah, you get it. That’s why I’m not a supporter of background checks (not hugely against, personally, but it does violate), and am not for banning civil liberties to 18 year olds. Teens may possess a gun in many states, if you were not aware.

For the thousandth time, these insinuations that people who disagree with you are somehow supporting mass killings is nonsense that makes you sound like an ideologue without reason or common sense. Sleep well.

I don’t think you want them. I think having easy access to guns makes them inevitable. We’ve tried easy access. Doesn’t seem to work.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would describe bitching about ‘god given’, which nobody here is arguing (it’s the Constitution, not the Bible) as the opposite of intelligent.

You might want to tell that to Wayne LaPierre, literally hundreds of current and aspirational congressmen, and, almost to a man, the patrons of the shooting range I frequent.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

You might want to tell that to Wayne LaPierre, literally hundreds of current and aspirational congressmen, and, almost to a man, the patrons of the shooting range I frequent.

Yep, we dum’ ol’ re’neck’s think the 2nd amendament is in the Holy Bible.

The entire debate in this thread has been legislative and constitutional; not whether the right is natural born or god given. There’s plenty for you to mock, but mocking points literally no one has made is kind of stupid.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

"...whether the right is natural born or god given"

It is neither. And I'm sorry that I wantonly threw in a phrase that has been casually tossed around for decades by "no regulationers" in order to make it seem as a settled fact.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

It is neither. And I'm sorry that I wantonly threw in a phrase that has been casually tossed around for decades by "no regulationers" in order to make it seem as a settled fact.

Nobody is saying it is. We are talking about the Constitution, not the Bible.