Gun ownership poll

[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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

Your posts are informative and articulate.

I am finding it ironic that these people who think more laws will solve the problem, seem willing to sidestep, or set aside, the central law of this country since its very founding: the Constitution.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your posts are informative and articulate.

I am finding it ironic that these people who think more laws will solve the problem, seem willing to sidestep, or set aside, the central law of this country since its very founding: the Constitution.

the same people who think overturn roe v wade is ridiculous when abortion not a constitutional right are fine with overturning the constitution for gun control. Also same people fine with forcing a shot and lose your job if dont take covid shot are now saying its their body and no right to interfere with roe v wade even though they mostly live in states where nothing has changed and doesnt impact them at all..

plus interesting that people said you should get a shot because it impacts the life of other people...i would think abortion after a viable fetus also impats another life etc..

i not taking side here but just saying please be consistent..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your posts are informative and articulate.

I am finding it ironic that these people who think more laws will solve the problem, seem willing to sidestep, or set aside, the central law of this country since its very founding: the Constitution.

Thank you. It's almost like people will just ignore laws that get in their way, or something. Crazy. Imagine that. Who could have seen that coming?

The argument is self-defeating because it contradicts itself. The banners would be better served by recognizing the difference between what one thinks should be, and what actually is rather than conflating the two. Instead of trying to have the cake and eat it too (pretending that banning essentially all post-civil war technology in the field, de facto total bans via a 10,000x tax, ignoring the 4th amendment as well, etc. are somehow actually in accord with the Constitution), a logical argument would be that while this is what the document, the highest source of US law, states, it should be changed. There is a process to do so, spelled out in the Constitution itself as the founders recognized times would change, and the people might need to reconsider things and consider new things. It's a loser of an argument to play the game the way they are playing it now - to pretend the 2nd and now the 4th also can just be ignored whenever politically expedient for political goals they agree with, without actually violating the amendments they are insisting be practically set aside. It's an argument without any logical merit. Make the case that the people should have no meaningful right to self-defense, that guns should not be allowed (or only allowed for pre-civil war technology), and that the Constitution should be amended through the legal process put in place to do exactly that to eliminate this liberty of the people. I would strongly disagree with it, but the argument would at least be internally consistent with itself instead of a series of absurd contradictions.