birdlike 0 #76 September 5, 2008 Quote Quote "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.", majority opinion of the Supreme Court, District of Columbia v Heller, 2008 Which is fine and logical until you start twisting it to catagorize a semi-automatic handgun with machine guns simply because it loads from the bottom. Twist it far enough and the only thing legal will be flintlocks. But that sits fine with anti-gunners, DS! They recognize that the Framers didn't foresee our technologically advanced weapons, so they weren't protecting them. And the anti-gunners will be in agreement, of course, when we make a move to attack the 1st Amendment, because the Framers could not have possibly been protecting print and other communication technology that didn't exist in 1791. So it's back to the movable lead type with you! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #77 September 5, 2008 Quote Ohhh Emmm Geeee http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=heller+permit+denied google is your friend. He can register a different handgun (maybe he has) which meets the registration requirements. There will be a pissing match about what kinds of guns can be banned, and it will take years to clear up, but the basic principle has been decided don't you think? Yes, that's exactly the point, the basic principle has been decided, and an individual right to own "GUNS" has been agreed upon. That makes it all the more ridiculous that D.C. should be attempting to draw a needless distinction between revolvers and semi-automatic handguns. As if it's such a big difference that things will be OK if it's just revolvers, but hell on earth if semi-autos are allowed. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #78 September 5, 2008 QuoteSo tell me what do you think should be done to cut the illegal gun trade. All I get from reading your posts is an angry man wanting to prevent any gun control legislation from being enacted regardless of its intent. You piss on every idea that anyone suggests and post BS about other countries that don't even come close to the scale of the illegal gun trade the USA has. I wouldn't piss on 99% of the gun control ideas if they were on fire. They're not worth it. Not a one worth saving, really. You know, Jamaica, a small island nation, has a thriving "illegal gun trade." So does Mexico. So do the former Soviet nations. They are where, it's said, many of the illegal guns in the U.K. have come from--which, by the way, now implicates U.K. as "having an illegal gun trade." Funny, places with gun bans also have thriving "illegal gun trades." Makes you wonder why good people should be told to do without guns, themselves, if the laws that ban them won't protect the citizenry by disarming the felons.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #79 September 5, 2008 QuoteThat might be because you have a preconceived notion and are unwilling to listen. Ah yes, now I remember you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #80 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere is not one proposal by JohnRich in this thread to reduce gun crime Punish criminals for criminal acts. =. That's disingenuous and hypocritical. You say one thing about punishing criminals but then oppose every proposal that enables the law to be effectively implemented. Example - you claim to support the prohibition on mentally ill people purchasing guns, but steadfastly oppose every effective method of checking on purchasers. You mean violating that pesky right to privacy. It may not be literally in the BoRs, but it's long been held to exist, at least since 1973. You seem to hold a belief that it's important when we're talking about the Patriot Act. That RED HERRING again. Try to be more original. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." SCOTUS, 2008 Quote No one in the NRA opposes punishing criminals that try to buy guns. Yet the Clinton and Bush Adminstrations haven't bothered to prosecute cases that are essentially slam dunks. No opposition to increased penalties for crimes committed with guns either. Hard to punish someone without catching them first, and the gun lobby has effectively emasculated that process. Dispensing lies from your pulpit again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,654 #81 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe background checks as currently implemented simply don't work. The V. Tech massacre showed that very well. The checks need to be more robust, but the gun lobby opposes all efforts to do that. But guns bans don't work either.. RED HERRING - no-one here is suggesting a ban.... 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
Ron 7 #82 September 5, 2008 QuoteAh yes, now I remember you. Good then you know BS will not fly with me and you have to actually defend your position."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #83 September 5, 2008 QuoteThe checks need to be more robust, but the gun lobby opposes all efforts to do that. You have claimed that the gun lobby and *I* have opposed all rational laws. You have been proven wrong with HR2640 was supported by the NRA that made improvements to the NICS. Now, man up and admit you were wrong, or prove otherwise. QuoteRED HERRING - no-one here is suggesting a ban. And you talked trash without any supporting evidence. Are you going to admit you were wrong (Like I ever expect that from you)...Or are you going to try and distract again?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,654 #84 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe checks need to be more robust, but the gun lobby opposes all efforts to do that. You have claimed that the gun lobby and *I* have opposed all rational laws. You have been proven wrong with HR2640 was supported by the NRA that made improvements to the NICS. Now, man up and admit you were wrong, or prove otherwise. QuoteRED HERRING - no-one here is suggesting a ban. And you talked trash without any supporting evidence. Are you going to admit you were wrong (Like I ever expect that from you)...Or are you going to try and distract again? I admit that YOU personally are not on record as explicitly having opposed tightening the background check requirements so that they actually work. The gun lobby IS on record as having done that.... 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
rushmc 18 #85 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe checks need to be more robust, but the gun lobby opposes all efforts to do that. You have claimed that the gun lobby and *I* have opposed all rational laws. You have been proven wrong with HR2640 was supported by the NRA that made improvements to the NICS. Now, man up and admit you were wrong, or prove otherwise. QuoteRED HERRING - no-one here is suggesting a ban. And you talked trash without any supporting evidence. Are you going to admit you were wrong (Like I ever expect that from you)...Or are you going to try and distract again? I admit that YOU personally are not on record as explicitly having opposed tightening the background check requirements so that they actually work. The gun lobby IS on record as having done that. OK, explain to me what (in your mind) "tightening the background check requiremnts" means. Specifically."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 0 #86 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteBut the problem with the SCOTUS decision is that it still leaves the question open so it was a hollow victory for Heller and supporters. In fact, the statement in the decision about the right being "not unlimited" might even be considered a setback for the NRA et al. and most certainly IS a setback for Gun Owners of America which essentially opposes any restrictions at all. What a lot of nonsense. No one with any credibility at all argues that there exists a SINGLE right that is "UNLIMITED." Even one's right to LIVE is not unlimited. So there's no setback involved, here, Kallend, since there was no credible claim ever made in the first place that our 2nd Amendment rights are "unlimited" or are supposed to be. Sheesh. Talk about a strawman. Where do you think the limits should be? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #87 September 5, 2008 Quote I admit that YOU personally are not on record as explicitly having opposed tightening the background check requirements so that they actually work. Wow, thank you John. QuoteThe gun lobby IS on record as having done that. Have you read H2640? Could it be that you and the gun lobby just do not agree on what you consider to be a plan that works? Why would anyone support something they don't think will work?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #88 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe background checks as currently implemented simply don't work. The V. Tech massacre showed that very well. The checks need to be more robust, but the gun lobby opposes all efforts to do that. But guns bans don't work either.. RED HERRING - no-one here is suggesting a ban. Not directly maybe. But, your arguments are analogous to the insurance that some municipal airports are asking DZO’s to have to remain on the airport. Since NO ONE, not even Lloyds of London will write the insurance, the request effectively bans the DZO from operations on the airport. Not much difference (to me at least) between your position and the Muni Airports Commisions insurance requirment"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
