That's something I've been wondering about. Seems to me, if Feinstein's bill did make it through, someone would challenge it and then, the Supreme Court would up-hold the second ammendment.
Chuck
Chuck
texascrw 0
Well, I'm back. And as promised, here is what you said:
"But but but
Having guns in the house is claimed to DETER criminals.
Gun owners need to make up their minds what their story is."
And after looking at it again, you are correct, you didn't come out and endorse the publication of the gun owners information. In fact, it really doesn't say much at all. About anything. Perhaps you will enlighten us as to exactly what you are saying. And please tell us, in plain language, whether you think publishing the gun owner's information was the right thing to do. You actually gained a point in my book when you made the comment that indicated you think Feinstein is a loon, as I do. That seemed totally out of character for you. Considering most of the comments you make. I would have imagined a poster size picture of her over your bed. The world is full of surprises.
"But but but
Having guns in the house is claimed to DETER criminals.
Gun owners need to make up their minds what their story is."
And after looking at it again, you are correct, you didn't come out and endorse the publication of the gun owners information. In fact, it really doesn't say much at all. About anything. Perhaps you will enlighten us as to exactly what you are saying. And please tell us, in plain language, whether you think publishing the gun owner's information was the right thing to do. You actually gained a point in my book when you made the comment that indicated you think Feinstein is a loon, as I do. That seemed totally out of character for you. Considering most of the comments you make. I would have imagined a poster size picture of her over your bed. The world is full of surprises.
JerryBaumchen 1,076
Hi polar,
Yes, there could always be an argument about anything. That is what judges are for.
I was having dinner with my attorney-son this evening ( he has about 3 guns at home ) and we got talking about this. It is our understanding that YOU/ME/WE cannot own a RPG, we cannot own a Howizter, etc. There are lots of armament that the average Joe Citizen cannot own.
As to what might become illegal, who knows; but my money is on something is going to change in this country. There was a Letter to the Editor of my newspaper yesterday, the writer owned a number of guns; for hunting and shooting at the gun range. He wrote that if the gun owners in this country do not get on-board with some changes, then they will see things changed that they really do not want.
YMMV,
JerryBaumchen
QuoteNot that I'm a law scholar...it just seems to me that there is a legitimate argument to be made about the legality of the Senator's proposal.
Yes, there could always be an argument about anything. That is what judges are for.
I was having dinner with my attorney-son this evening ( he has about 3 guns at home ) and we got talking about this. It is our understanding that YOU/ME/WE cannot own a RPG, we cannot own a Howizter, etc. There are lots of armament that the average Joe Citizen cannot own.
As to what might become illegal, who knows; but my money is on something is going to change in this country. There was a Letter to the Editor of my newspaper yesterday, the writer owned a number of guns; for hunting and shooting at the gun range. He wrote that if the gun owners in this country do not get on-board with some changes, then they will see things changed that they really do not want.
YMMV,
JerryBaumchen
skypuppy 1
QuoteThat's something I've been wondering about. Seems to me, if Feinstein's bill did make it through, someone would challenge it and then, the Supreme Court would up-hold the second ammendment.
Chuck
How long would an appeal take to get to court? And would gov't hold off on enforcing the new rules until a decision had been made, or start confiscating and destroying guns immediately?
And then what happens after they've destroyed your guns, and feinstein's new law is thrown out later?
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
QuoteHi polar,
QuoteNot that I'm a law scholar...it just seems to me that there is a legitimate argument to be made about the legality of the Senator's proposal.
Yes, there could always be an argument about anything. That is what judges are for.
I was having dinner with my attorney-son this evening ( he has about 3 guns at home ) and we got talking about this. It is our understanding that YOU/ME/WE cannot own a RPG, we cannot own a Howizter, etc. There are lots of armament that the average Joe Citizen cannot own.
As to what might become illegal, who knows; but my money is on something is going to change in this country. There was a Letter to the Editor of my newspaper yesterday, the writer owned a number of guns; for hunting and shooting at the gun range. He wrote that if the gun owners in this country do not get on-board with some changes, then they will see things changed that they really do not want.
YMMV,
JerryBaumchen
If some of these politicians try and make changes in the gun laws, they just might see some changes they don't expect. They just might find out the real reason we have the 2nd amendment.
jakee 1,271
QuoteQuoteQuote
I think he's using the same argument, and making the same mistake as Dmcoco.
"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed: but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National [Federal] Government…”"
He's saying that the right still exists without the amendment, but that without the amendment the right can be infringed. A right that can be infringed is just an abstract notion that's no good to anyone.
You don't think he is saying that the Constitution and Bill of rights only Confirm our Rights, not Confer them? Meaning they are still our rights, paper or not.
That is exactly what he's saying. Problem is that what he's saying reduces a 'Right' to a meaningless bit of philosophical puffery.
How can you still have a right if Congress has the power to legislate against any use of it?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteQuoteThat's something I've been wondering about. Seems to me, if Feinstein's bill did make it through, someone would challenge it and then, the Supreme Court would up-hold the second ammendment.
Chuck
How long would an appeal take to get to court? And would gov't hold off on enforcing the new rules until a decision had been made, or start confiscating and destroying guns immediately?
And then what happens after they've destroyed your guns, and feinstein's new law is thrown out later?
I'm sure, Emperor Obama would want immediate action on the law. It would probably take some time to get to the Supreme Court. Then too, Feinstein and anyone else voting in favor of her bill would be the most hated people around. That's enough time to do some 'damage'. Once again, the majority of this country is letting a minority of the population lead us around by the nose.
Chuck
If some of these politicians try and make changes in the gun laws, they just might see some changes they don't expect. They just might find out the real reason we have the 2nd amendment.
That may be true but for someone like feinstein it wont matter at all...they would have already gotten their gains from getting the bill passed, and then when the shit hits the fan they can blame it on GWB, like they have so many times in the past.
That may be true but for someone like feinstein it wont matter at all...they would have already gotten their gains from getting the bill passed, and then when the shit hits the fan they can blame it on GWB, like they have so many times in the past.
GeorgiaDon 340
Just having fun with you, pointing out how you use completely contradictory arguments depending on what is convenient for you at the moment. So much for "logic".Quotedid you just hear what you just said?
Since I am a law abiding citizen, I would give up my guns because your imperial leader decided so. So I would be a sitting duck for home invasions. Then you said Im not smart enough to DO WHATEVER IT TAKES...oh why? because I try to follow the law. And when my shit gets robbed the best thing you have to say is that I should have made a fertilizer bomb with my bare hands and blown them the fuck up. Great idea.
Also in the post I responded to you talked about defense against invasion of the country. I have no idea what orifice you are pulling this crap about home invasions or having your shit robbed out of. Well, actually I do. You might want to wash your hands.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
What about the news? I live within an hour of the 4th largest city in the usa. I work in Houston. Literally this place averages just about a murder each day. Try watching the first 48, around 30% of the crimes on that show are home invasions where the victim wasnt armed.
Why should I have to follow logic when criminals dont?
Why should I have to follow logic when criminals dont?
GeorgiaDon 340
What about it? I don't watch the Houston news, and I certainly can't read your mind to figure out what you "really" meant when you wrote your post.QuoteWhat about the news?
Lets put it this way. We have a situation where there has been a terrible tragedy, and many people are looking for any course of action (i.e. new laws) that will make that less likely to happen again. When people on the pro-gun side offer logically contradictory positions, it sends the message that they have nothing constructive to add to the discussion. Then the danger is that they get cut out of the discussion, and laws get passed without their point of view getting a fair hearing.QuoteWhy should I have to follow logic when criminals dont?
Anyway, SC is just a tiny corner of the internet universe where we get to BS about whatever we want. So in that context you don't "have" to follow logic, or anything, if you don't want to.
Oh and for the record I have no wish to confiscate your guns.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
I agree that the people who are all for second amendment rights should get onboard and try and find some common ground and compromise better than 'just put some guard in every school'. I have no problems with having my weapons and their serial numbers associated directly to me...since I have no plans on selling them. I also agree that if the NRA doesnt get onboard and make a valid attempt at compromise, then asshats like feinstein will create laws that take ALL our rights away. Subsequently the one thing Im most worried about is when I register my guns that there wont be another law passed that supercedes the previous one and now all the weapons I own are suddenly illegal which instantly makes me and thousands of other citizens instant outlaws. This is going to lead to more unnecessary bloodshed, but this time some of the people who would be involved might not be nutters at all...just people trying to defend the property they legally paid for. This is a slippery slope no doubt about it.
beowulf 1
Gun registration is just a step towards confiscation. It doesn't help solve crimes nor does it stop any crimes from happening. I don't see any useful purpose other then to facilitate future confiscation.
One thing you might not know is that my father has been a hunter, rifleman, sport shooter and skeet shooter since I was a baby. There have always been guns around me and I have been taught since I was young not only about gun safety by my dad, but about how precious life is by my mom. Unfortunately we live in a soceity that doesnt instill these morals in all the inhabitants of this planet. Crazy people have been here since our origins. I just want the chance to defend myself against those people who hold no value of human life...the same people who would rather shoot me for 20 bucks so they could go out and get a case of beer or some crack. Lastly since my dad has collected various guns all his life this is part of my legacy I will receive when he passes on. Those weapons have a story and part of my dad is with them when I will receive them...unless of course some douchenozzle like feinstein creates a new law that outlaws all of those guns and instead of being shot every once in a while at a target, they are thrown in a firepit and gone forever. Hopefully cooler heads than me can come to an agreement and figure this out.
blueblur 0
QuoteI have no problems with having my weapons and their serial numbers associated directly to me...since I have no plans on selling them.....
Subsequently the one thing Im most worried about is when I register my guns that there wont be another law passed that supercedes the previous one and now all the weapons I own are suddenly illegal which instantly makes me and thousands of other citizens instant outlaws. This is going to lead to more unnecessary bloodshed, but this time some of the people who would be involved might not be nutters at all...just people trying to defend the property they legally paid for. This is a slippery slope no doubt about it.
That is the thing that worries me most. Ok, we agree to a national registry, something else bad happens like Sandy Hook. "OK, the registry didn't work, we're banning them all. Hey, look! We have this nifty list of everyone that legally owns the guns we're banning. It's not all of them and it's not the criminals, but hell, it's a start and better than nothing!"
that's one greasy-ass slope for sure.
In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.
- RiggerLee
- RiggerLee
rushmc 18
QuoteI agree that the people who are all for second amendment rights should get onboard and try and find some common ground and compromise better than 'just put some guard in every school'. I have no problems with having my weapons and their serial numbers associated directly to me...since I have no plans on selling them. I also agree that if the NRA doesnt get onboard and make a valid attempt at compromise, then asshats like feinstein will create laws that take ALL our rights away. Subsequently the one thing Im most worried about is when I register my guns that there wont be another law passed that supercedes the previous one and now all the weapons I own are suddenly illegal which instantly makes me and thousands of other citizens instant outlaws. This is going to lead to more unnecessary bloodshed, but this time some of the people who would be involved might not be nutters at all...just people trying to defend the property they legally paid for. This is a slippery slope no doubt about it.
Compromise takes middle common sense ground
The left or anti gunners do not offer any
Same for Obama and the fiscal cliff bs
When the left screams compromise they just want submission
They will not deal with mental health in substantive ways nor will they with guns that way. This fact is demonstrated by the bill the bitch from CA is about to introduce.
I do not trust this gov anymore
They have no reason to know what I own for weapons or why
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 1,672
QuoteQuoteQuoteHi Dekker,
QuoteWhy wouldn't I just wait till you leave and break in then? That way if you have guns around the house, I can steal those too!
This is exactly what happened to my brother.
JerryBaumchen
That is the way that "legal" guns fall into the hands of criminals. Those responsible, law abiding gun owners make it easy for the criminals.
Guns are in the top 3 favorite targets of burglars.
and yet you're OK with a list of gun owners being published. You want to make it easier for criminals to steal guns.
hypocrite.
Please post a link to the post in which I claimed that.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,672
QuoteQuoteQuoteI am leaving for a while, but when I return I will backtrack and find the post. Your response to gun owners being upset at having their names and addresses published was to remark that since guns in the home deter crime, they shouldn't be upset. .
Your memory is faulty, that is NOT what I wrote.
I told you not to be a total jackass, and that even you (with your warped sense of what was right) should see that it was an irresponsible act. You responded completely tangentially indicating you are a complete jackass and that you don't see publishing those locations as an irresponsible act.
So you can't actually find a post in which I wrote what you claim I wrote. You are as bad as rushmc for making up strawmen.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,672
QuoteWell, I'm back. And as promised, here is what you said:
"But but but
Having guns in the house is claimed to DETER criminals.
Gun owners need to make up their minds what their story is."
And after looking at it again, you are correct, you didn't come out and endorse the publication of the gun owners information. .
Yes, I AM correct and you and rhaig are WRONG.
Nice weaseling at the end of your post to try to cover up your error.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
I'm of the impression Obama will tout it and push for it.
Chuck
I hoped the sarcasm would come through
I have no doubt Obama would sign a POS bill like hers[/reply
Sorry, I missed the sarcasm. I'm sure, he'll be all over it like flies on a gut pile. Seems to me too, he and his cronies are tearing this country apart from within.
Chuck