mnealtx 0 #26 January 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFirst and Second... certain activities within the rights require some sort of gov't license, true - the *BASE* of the right itself does not, so while I agree with you as a generality, that is not the basis of my poll. Kallend's argument in the other thread would require licensing for the *basic* right - owning a gun, not just carrying it in public (which I don't agree with licensing for that in principle, anyway). That, as I said, opens the door to the same government intrusion and requirement for ALL rights. You stated www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3069304#3069304 that "madmen" and criminals are excluded from the right to bear arms. How would you propose to do that without some way of identifying those who DO have the right? They are already constrained from purchase by Federal law. Perhaps you should peruse ATF Form 4473. Not very effectively, apparently. How about you tell us an EFFECTIVE way of doing it? YOU are the one saying it's such a problem, why don't you tell us YOUR solution?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #27 January 5, 2008 QuoteSpun off from another thread: The argument was made that fingerprints and a background check should be required to purchase a weapon. This requirement was stated to be over and above the Federal background check that is already required. Should a license be required to exercise ANY right? This includes the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment, since once Congress can require a license to exercise ONE right, sooner or later they will get around to requiring a license for all. Your argument is predicated on the premise that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to individual gun ownership ...it doesn't. I very much support regulated individual gun ownership. It simply is not a constitutional right. You "patriots" crap on the first and fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments, yet wave your interpretation of the second like you actually understand and support what America stands for. What's up with that?----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #28 January 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFirst and Second... certain activities within the rights require some sort of gov't license, true - the *BASE* of the right itself does not, so while I agree with you as a generality, that is not the basis of my poll. Kallend's argument in the other thread would require licensing for the *basic* right - owning a gun, not just carrying it in public (which I don't agree with licensing for that in principle, anyway). That, as I said, opens the door to the same government intrusion and requirement for ALL rights. You stated www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3069304#3069304 that "madmen" and criminals are excluded from the right to bear arms. How would you propose to do that without some way of identifying those who DO have the right? They are already constrained from purchase by Federal law. Perhaps you should peruse ATF Form 4473. Not very effectively, apparently. How about you tell us an EFFECTIVE way of doing it? YOU are the one saying it's such a problem, why don't you tell us YOUR solution? You don't agree with Douva that armed madmen are a problem? REALLY? You don't believe warpedskydiver that most guns get into the hands of undesirables by way of ostensibly "legal" purchases? I have already told you my solution. You, mnealtx, even grudgingly agreed after a lot of prodding and denial and bellyaching that Texas DOES have a more robust way of identifying undesirables than the Feds do. Fact is, the solution stares you in the face and you just don't want to be inconvenienced by it. I'm sure you easily pass Texas's CCW requirement so a little inconvenience is all it would be, you could still buy as many guns as you wish. Tens of thousands of gun fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #29 January 5, 2008 QuoteDoesnt the word "Homeland" have such a familiar connotation to it? Same connotation as "Fatherland", might as well have just called it "Deptartment of Fatherland Security". I was really surprised to see this type of word being put on a govt organization. It no doubt shows you where things are going. So the Fatherland was the enemy of freedom, the Motherland was also the enemy of freedom - have we just proved that all parents are evil?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 January 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteSpun off from another thread: The argument was made that fingerprints and a background check should be required to purchase a weapon. This requirement was stated to be over and above the Federal background check that is already required. Should a license be required to exercise ANY right? This includes the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment, since once Congress can require a license to exercise ONE right, sooner or later they will get around to requiring a license for all. Your argument is predicated on the premise that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to individual gun ownership ...it doesn't. I very much support regulated individual gun ownership. It simply is not a constitutional right. You "patriots" crap on the first and fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments, yet wave your interpretation of the second like you actually understand and support what America stands for. What's up with that? You are incorrect on your presumption that the 2nd is a collective and not an individual right. Linguistic analysis as well as the papers of the founding fathers prove this.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 January 5, 2008 QuoteQuote You don't agree with Douva that armed madmen are a problem? REALLY? You don't believe warpedskydiver that most guns get into the hands of undesirables by way of ostensibly "legal" purchases? I have already told you my solution. You, mnealtx, even grudgingly agreed after a lot of prodding and denial and bellyaching that Texas DOES have a more robust way of identifying undesirables than the Feds do. Fact is, the solution stares you in the face and you just don't want to be inconvenienced by it. I'm sure you easily pass Texas's CCW requirement so a little inconvenience is all it would be, you could still buy as many guns as you wish. Tens of thousands of gun fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Ok, so you don't have an answer, you just want to whine about the problem - gotcha.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,648 #32 January 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote You don't agree with Douva that armed madmen are a problem? REALLY? You don't believe warpedskydiver that most guns get into the hands of undesirables by way of ostensibly "legal" purchases? I have already told you my solution. You, mnealtx, even grudgingly agreed after a lot of prodding and denial and bellyaching that Texas DOES have a more robust way of identifying undesirables than the Feds do. Fact is, the solution stares you in the face and you just don't want to be inconvenienced by it. I'm sure you easily pass Texas's CCW requirement so a little inconvenience is all it would be, you could still buy as many guns as you wish. Tens of thousands of gun fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Ok, so you don't have an answer, you just want to whine about the problem - gotcha. Here... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #33 January 5, 2008 Maybe you should check into that, since I've requested you show HOW you're going to make this all come about all too many times.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #34 January 6, 2008 QuoteTens of thousands of gun fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Hundreds of thousands of automobile fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Thousands of GA Aviation fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Hundreds of skydiving fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #35 January 6, 2008 Quote"madmen" and criminals are excluded from the right to bear arms. Actually, that's "madmen and Englishmen." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #36 January 6, 2008 I thought it was "Mad dogs and Englishmen"?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,648 #37 January 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteTens of thousands of gun fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Hundreds of thousands of automobile fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Are you driving an unregistered, uninsured car with burned out taillights, and don't have a drivers license? Quote Thousands of GA Aviation fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Far fewer than gun fatalities. Have you read the FARs recently? Quote Hundreds of skydiving fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. FAR part 91 and 105. Since you seem to be comparing gun owners with pilots and airplane owners who have mandatory training, written tests, sign-offs, oral exams, practical exams, mandatory medical exams, annual inspections, airworthiness directives, instrument competency checks, biennial flight reviews, etc., I'd say you have chosen a piss-poor analogy to try to make your case.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 1,648 #32 January 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote You don't agree with Douva that armed madmen are a problem? REALLY? You don't believe warpedskydiver that most guns get into the hands of undesirables by way of ostensibly "legal" purchases? I have already told you my solution. You, mnealtx, even grudgingly agreed after a lot of prodding and denial and bellyaching that Texas DOES have a more robust way of identifying undesirables than the Feds do. Fact is, the solution stares you in the face and you just don't want to be inconvenienced by it. I'm sure you easily pass Texas's CCW requirement so a little inconvenience is all it would be, you could still buy as many guns as you wish. Tens of thousands of gun fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Ok, so you don't have an answer, you just want to whine about the problem - gotcha. Here... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #33 January 5, 2008 Maybe you should check into that, since I've requested you show HOW you're going to make this all come about all too many times.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #34 January 6, 2008 QuoteTens of thousands of gun fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Hundreds of thousands of automobile fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Thousands of GA Aviation fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Hundreds of skydiving fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #35 January 6, 2008 Quote"madmen" and criminals are excluded from the right to bear arms. Actually, that's "madmen and Englishmen." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #36 January 6, 2008 I thought it was "Mad dogs and Englishmen"?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,648 #37 January 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteTens of thousands of gun fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Hundreds of thousands of automobile fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Are you driving an unregistered, uninsured car with burned out taillights, and don't have a drivers license? Quote Thousands of GA Aviation fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Far fewer than gun fatalities. Have you read the FARs recently? Quote Hundreds of skydiving fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. FAR part 91 and 105. Since you seem to be comparing gun owners with pilots and airplane owners who have mandatory training, written tests, sign-offs, oral exams, practical exams, mandatory medical exams, annual inspections, airworthiness directives, instrument competency checks, biennial flight reviews, etc., I'd say you have chosen a piss-poor analogy to try to make your case.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnealtx 0 #33 January 5, 2008 Maybe you should check into that, since I've requested you show HOW you're going to make this all come about all too many times.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #34 January 6, 2008 QuoteTens of thousands of gun fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Hundreds of thousands of automobile fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Thousands of GA Aviation fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Hundreds of skydiving fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #35 January 6, 2008 Quote"madmen" and criminals are excluded from the right to bear arms. Actually, that's "madmen and Englishmen." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 January 6, 2008 I thought it was "Mad dogs and Englishmen"?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #37 January 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteTens of thousands of gun fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Hundreds of thousands of automobile fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Are you driving an unregistered, uninsured car with burned out taillights, and don't have a drivers license? Quote Thousands of GA Aviation fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. Far fewer than gun fatalities. Have you read the FARs recently? Quote Hundreds of skydiving fatalities in the USA and you don't want a little inconvenience in your life. FAR part 91 and 105. Since you seem to be comparing gun owners with pilots and airplane owners who have mandatory training, written tests, sign-offs, oral exams, practical exams, mandatory medical exams, annual inspections, airworthiness directives, instrument competency checks, biennial flight reviews, etc., I'd say you have chosen a piss-poor analogy to try to make your case.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
