• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
TCBF said:
- The 'gateway' is not the gun, it is the user.  Guns can sit buried for years.  Users have to eat and buy gas and work and hang out with other users.  Easier to 'gateway' the 5,000,000 cCanadians with a criminal/psych record than 15,000,000 guns.  So, what to do?

- Convert the CFC to track people instead of guns - they should keep a registry of people banned from possessing/owning/using guns as listed by court orders.  You want to buy a gun?  The seller calls Miramachi.  If you are not on their list, you can buy it.

Your idea is good but does have some flaws
 
slowmode said:
Your idea is good but does have some flaws

If you are going to make a statement like that then you should present those flaws so we can all discuss them.
 
Redeye said:
If you are going to make a statement like that then you should present those flaws so we can all discuss them.

No no.  The best way to do things, ESPECIALLY in the army/military, is to identify a problem, but NOT a solution.  :blotto:
 
recceguy said:
Her last sentence says it all.

How true is that? I wonder if Ms Cukier reads this website.

Its not up to government or some social activist to tell me what I can and cannot have when it comes to firearms.
 
civilians with guns...
TD3_RearEntry1.jpg


yes that is a auto 9mm Colt SMG I have - personally owned gun of Ken Hackathorn (shameless name drop)
 
Niteshade said:
Having read your article, I stand corrected.

We need CCW laws.

I still stand by my statement that I think that CCW would not have saved the bus-passenger's life though. Would have stopped the decapitation.

I am admittedly on the fence about CCW and gun registrations. I agree that gun registration is good. We should know who owns what type of weapon. I do however believe hand guns and automatic rifles should be made more available. CCW? Well that article sums it up. Criminals don't apply/register/purchase/carry guns legally, so at the very least law abiding people should be able to do the same, that is, to carry handguns etc. for their personal protection.

On the flip side, the gun registration system is FAR too late. Too many handguns and rifles are rolling around the country with the owners not intending at all to register them.

Nites

You, and the gubermint have NO RIGHT to know what I own, just like it is none of the gubermint's business about my love life when I renew my PAL.

If you knew anything about gun laws, you'd know that "automatic rifles" are already prohibited.

Also, the only unregistered hanguns are those in the hands of criminals. Unregistered rifles? Good. Time to put that waste of money to ground anyway.
 
- George Jonas on the futility of our gun control:

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=1071186
 
Convince this lady... then come and talk to me.

<a href="http://arizonahuntingtoday.com/desertrat/2009/01/05/dr-suzanna-hupp-talks-about-the-2nd-amendment/">Suzanna Hupp</a>
 
In the United States, gun control laws are unconstitutional. Too bad the politicians don't seem to know this:

http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/02/02/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-is-the-cornerstone-of-our-freedom/

The right to keep and bear arms is the cornerstone of our freedom.
By mtefft • on February 2, 2009

The constant erosion of our right to keep and bear arms as defined by the Second Amendment of the Constitution is something that threatens our future freedom and liberty. Every citizen should be alarmed by this attack on this right that our founding fathers were wise enough to add to the Constitution. Even if you do not own a firearm and never plan to, you should still be concerned with the history of legislation that has been passed in recent years that severely restricts our rights as stated in the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment clearly states our rights and is not subject to interpretation. Any law passed that infringes on these rights is unconstitutional. I will not get into the history of gun control legislation but if you would like to read more about this tragic history you can go here. In words that clearly define these rights the Second Amendment states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Could it be any clearer? Any law that infringes on our right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment was adopted by an emergent republican ideology founded upon the view that:

To deny arms to some men while allowing them to others was an intolerable denial of freedom.

English and American political writers stated that society and government rests upon the popular possession of arms, that arms are the primary means by which individuals affirmed their social power and that arms are necessary for an individual to protect himself from vicious fellow citizens, corrupt authorities and to defend themselves against tyrannical rulers.

The concept of a militia in the United States dates from the colonial era. Based on the British system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies. This rules out the argument by some that the term militia refers to organizations like the Army Reserve and the National Guard. The arms provided to members of the Army Reserve and National Guard are controlled by the government. This sort of defeats the whole purpose of one of the main justifications for the Second Amendment, to defend against corrupt authorities and tyrannical rulers. If the government controls access to arms the militia is basically defenseless. A key element in the concept of “militia” was that to be “genuine” it not be a “select militia”, composed of an unrepresentative subset of the population.

If you look closely at the relationship between gun control and crime you will see that gun control has done nothing to make Americans safer. Right after World War II many schools in the United States had firing ranges in their basements were basic firearms skills were taught to students. You could buy a firearm by mail and have it delivered directly to your door. The military would even sell firearms to citizens. An America where most of its citizens owned firearms was much safer and had far less crime than an America of today where its citizens are being slowly but surely disarmed. I defy anyone to provide statistics that prove that more gun control legislation and fewer citizens legally owning firearms has led to a decrease in crime.

The right of private citizens to keep and bear arms led to our very independence from tyrannical British rule. The militia that fought the British consisted of private citizens who provided their own firearms. The founding fathers recognized this fact,  which is why the Second Amendment was later added to the Constitution. How far west do you think this country could have expanded if the settlers had not had firearms to protect themselves from Indians and outlaws? The military at the time certainly did not have the resources to protect them. A large portion of the United States would still be owned by Mexico if there had not been armed private citizens and a militia present to defeat Santa Anna and the Mexican Army. Our very existence today is founded on the words of the Second Amendment. Our future existence and freedoms likewise still depend on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

So the next time you see legislation introduced whose aim is to further weaken the rights guaranteed to you by the Second Amendment, stand up for those rights so that you will be able to defend yourself against the threats to your freedom that the Constitution empowers you to protect against.
 
The Second Amendment clearly states our rights and is not subject to interpretation.

Huh?  Isn't that what Common Law and the Judiciary are all about?
 
Well the idea behind the Amendments was that they would stand and not be able to "interpreted" by subsequent governments...
 
I suspect it can reasonable to assume that laws generated 300 years ago when Native raids on settlements was a domestic security issue would be liable to interpretation in this day in age....
 
I would argue that if times change then there is a process to amend the Constitution, but if the government is free to interpret it however it wants through the appointed supreme court, then the Constitution becomes meaningless...

Ron Paul's book "The Revolution" explains this very well.
 
Infanteer said:
I suspect it can reasonable to assume that laws generated 300 years ago when Native raids on settlements was a domestic security issue would be liable to interpretation in this day in age....

And if you were to do some research, you'd understand that that would be one small part as to why the 2A exists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top