HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Offensive Weapons Privile...

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:27 AM

Offensive Weapons Privilege Act sounds kinda catchy to me here's an idea or two

Last edited Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:38 AM - Edit history (1)

there has to be a distinct line drawn- one amount of weapons is a state matter, a larger amount is a federal matter.

so, at the state level, you are allowed 3 guns and 20 bullets total.

8 bullet max for any gun, and only one semi-auto. you could have:

2 six shooters and an 8 shot semi-auto rifle
or
two 10 shot pistols (one semi-auto)
or
2 eight shot pistols, one of them semi, and a 4 shell shotgun

any combo.

anything more is a federal license, background check, and insurance.

thoughts? positive preferred.

44 replies, 2379 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply Offensive Weapons Privilege Act sounds kinda catchy to me here's an idea or two (Original post)
farminator3000 Dec 2012 OP
bluerum Dec 2012 #1
backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #2
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #9
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #3
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #20
rrneck Dec 2012 #4
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #10
NutmegYankee Dec 2012 #13
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #16
rrneck Dec 2012 #15
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #17
rrneck Dec 2012 #19
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #21
rrneck Dec 2012 #22
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #23
rrneck Dec 2012 #27
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #28
rrneck Dec 2012 #29
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #30
rrneck Dec 2012 #31
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #32
rrneck Dec 2012 #33
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #38
rrneck Dec 2012 #39
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #40
rrneck Dec 2012 #41
derby378 Dec 2012 #37
jal777 Dec 2012 #5
shintao Dec 2012 #6
Union Scribe Dec 2012 #7
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #11
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #8
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #14
beevul Dec 2012 #24
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #25
guardian Dec 2012 #12
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #18
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #26
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #34
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #35
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #36
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #42
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #43
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #44

Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:32 AM

1. Good lord.

You must have something more useful to do. Go ahead and do it because,,,, well just because.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:37 AM

2. submit it to your congresscritter

see how far it goes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:24 PM

9. already did

he thinks it's a great idea. we already have sane gun laws where i live, but not in neighboring states.
in fact, hardly any of the people that are killed every 45 minutes of every day by guns are from my state.
but i don't want the gun worship spreading here, and i actually care about other people, so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:38 AM

3. "you are allowed 3 guns and 20 bullets total"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:05 PM

20. BWAHahaha... perfect response. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:57 AM

4. You may not believe this

but I tried three times but I could not write a reply that would even begin to cover the impossibilities of your proposal. But I'll give you credit for trying. So I think I'll just watch this thread unfold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:40 PM

10. oh, i do believe it

i wasn't aware it was either my or your job to write the entire law.
i'm just throwing it out there, to see if there are any ideas, of course it isn't perfect.
it IS easy enough for a soccer mom to understand- the military jargon is pointless..

just write one sentence describing an 'impossibility' , watch i'll do it to myself-

"duh, what about the 300 million guns already out there, whadaya gonna take them all away?!?!?"

my answer-
that's the whole problem, there are way too many guns. 40% are sold without background checks, so a criminal can buy a gun whenever he wants. do you think all criminals steal their guns from other ones? somewhere in the chain is an asshole who can go to a gun store every week, buy 50 untraceable guns, and sell them to any scumbag. do you think the store owner gives a shit, obviously he knows the re-seller is up to no good.

everybody has a different car- they're mostly accounted for

car- VIN
gun- serial number

car- registered
gun- maybe

car- license
gun- maybe

car- insurance
gun- is there liability insurance on guns?

cars are necessary everyday of your life for most peeps, guns are not necessary for the majority.
they are a privilege, hence the catchy name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:03 PM

13. Insurance and license only needed on to operate on public roads.

If you own a sprawling ranch you can drive around to your heart's content with neither. You also don't need insurance on the show car stored in your garage. The fairest comparison would be to require insurance to carry a gun in public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:09 PM

16. i agree

i'm a farmer. i learned how to drive and shoot when i was 12.

a gun in public is kind of a liability- if i was at the bank, and it was robbed, i wouldn't want some hero trying to save the day and getting everyone killed, right?

if someone mugs me, i'd rather give them my (empty) wallet than try and pull a wyatt earp and get shot...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:05 PM

15. Cars are not designed to kill.

Guns are designed to kill someone. We don't know who. The manufacturer doesn't know who. The retailer doesn't know who. The person buying the gun won't likely know who, but he will probably know why.

So if you want to stop straw purchases, how do you think that will actually happen? How will it actually work? Do you realize regulating private transfers of firearms isn't really regulating firearms? That's right. You're actually regulating relationships.

When you buy a gun from a dealer, there are certain necessary formalities. You fill out a 4473 and the dealer accesses the NICS system for the background check. All of these formalities are required for a business transaction between a buyer and a seller because it is a business transaction.

Do you think you can walk into a gun store and and have the owner just loan you a gun? Or give it to you? Not likely. But loans and gifts are perfectly legal between private parties. The transfer of private property is dependent on the relationship of those engaging in the transfer. It would perfectly legal for a husband to buy his wife a gun. It would also be perfectly legal for a woman who is living with another woman to loan or give her a gun. The government has no right or ability to regulate the transfer of private property between two people within the confines of their own property or the confines of their individual relationship.

In reality, a straw purchaser is just somebody who knows somebody. It may be a deep, long lasting relationship between spouses, a long term friendship, a romantic relationship, a hook up, or a meeting of the minds at a coffee shop. The government can't define the relationship, so it can't regulate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:21 PM

17. guns are killing machines

1. i think the majority of killers have a vague idea of who they want to kill, but yes there are some who buy guns to kill indiscriminately. neither one should buy a gun.

2. BS. i didn't say 'regulating relationships'. the idea is that someone like mrs. lanza, having a psycho in the house, could not own a military style gun

3. great

4. it would be perfectly legal for a husband to buy his wife a gun, and then get shot in the face with it the next day by same wife, who was on a suicide-inducing asthma medicine.

5. yes, it can. if you live with somebody who has robbed a bank, obviously, you don't get a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:00 PM

19. If you want to do a point by point discussion

it should look like this.

1. i think the majority of killers have a vague idea of who they want to kill, but yes there are some who buy guns to kill indiscriminately. neither one should buy a gun.

How do you plan to determine who will use a gun wrong and how do you plan to keep them from obtaining one?

2. BS. i didn't say 'regulating relationships'. the idea is that someone like mrs. lanza, having a psycho in the house, could not own a military style gun

You didn't say "regulating relationships" I did, because that is what private firearms registration is. You just didn't know it. And using an extreme example to make a point is bullshit.

3. great

Great what? I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Do you?

4. it would be perfectly legal for a husband to buy his wife a gun, and then get shot in the face with it the next day by same wife, who was on a suicide-inducing asthma medicine.

I guess so. How are you going to regulate the relationship between a husband and a wife?

5. yes, it can. if you live with somebody who has robbed a bank, obviously, you don't get a gun.

What if you didn't know they robbed a bank? Are you going to require a background check before people get married? How do you think that will fly politically? There is a whole uncounted range of human relationships that cannot be defined well enough to regulate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:39 PM

21. no, i don't

me (second time)
i wasn't aware it was either my or your job to write the entire law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:51 PM

22. Of course you don't have to write the entire law.

But it would be kinda nice if you would at least attempt an intelligent discussion of the issues at hand. I'm obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I can take your proposals apart with ease. That's because they make no sense. I'm sure you care, but caring isn't enough.

If you want to be a good citizen you need at least some knowledge of the world around you. If you want your elected representatives to regulate guns, fine. You need at least a working knowledge of them and the issues surrounding them. It's not enough to stamp your food and demand action. That's what consumers do. You're not ordering a steak here. Your decisions as a voter will affect the lives of others, and I would think you would want to take responsibility for them.

Here, have a song.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:02 PM

23. neither do you

I'm obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I can take your proposals apart with ease

then say something about it that i can understand

i'm sure mick & keef would both tell you gun laws are GREAT, they are from england where there are almost none

what word is missing from this one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:23 PM

27. Every firearms dealer has a 'bound book' that is a record of every gun he has bought and sold.

The BATF can walk into his store at any time and demand to see his bound book, and god help him if his inventory doesn't match up with his records. That's how businesses get regulated.

--------------

Bob and Alice have been married for twenty glorious years. Bob wants to take up target shooting so Alice decides to give him a gun for his birthday. Alice goes to the store with the make and model of the gun he wants, fills out the paperwork pays for the gun and leaves. She gives him his present over dinner that evening.

Bob and Alice have been living together for five years. The neighborhood is going downhill and they can't afford to move, so they decide to get a gun. Since Bob is a truck driver and is often away from home, he tells Alice what to buy and she makes the purchase.

Bob and Alice hooked up at a rave and fell madly in love. Bob thinks guns are cool so Alice goes to the store and buys him one.

Bob and Alice broke up because Alice found out about Cathy. She kicked Bob's cheating ass out but kept the gun. Alice meets John and falls madly in love with him and gives him the gun as a gift.

-------------------------

I could write scenarios like that all night. There is no way the guy selling the gun to Alice will know what kind of relationship she has with Bob or anybody else. There is almost no way to distinguish a legitimate relationship between two people and a straw purchase at the point of sale.

Now, if you want to require background checks on firearms transfers between private parties, you have to record chain of custody. Which is to say, you have to turn every firearm owner into a firearms dealer with all the rights and responsibilities thereof. Even if you make access to the NICS system available to private citizens, anybody who wants to circumvent the system will do so unless you attach some means of verification and penalties for non compliance. Otherwise when the cops come knocking people will just say "I gave it away/there was a tragic boating accident/it was stolen/I dunno what happened to it" or whatever other lie they can think up and nobody will be able to prove otherwise or prosecute them for selling the gun to the wrong person.

Remember the bound book? If you turn every firearm owner into an FFL you will have to allow the BATF to have access to their private residence at any time. The government can walk into your home at any time and demand to see your records. That idea will go over in this country like a turd in a punchbowl. Any political party responsible for that law will get a one way bus ticket to the political wilderness.



Corrections and amplifications of how the firearms distribution systems works are warmly solicited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:46 PM

28. hope you enjoyed pasting that

thank for the info. really opened my eyes to the romance of guns. wow. blew my mind, really. how do you think of all that stuff? not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:52 PM

29. So you got nothing. Alrighty then.

Are you sure you responded to the right post? If you did, do you really think stamping your little foot and demanding something be done is good citizenship?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:23 PM

30. less than nothing.

who demanded anything? its called an IDEA.

something is being done. what are you doing, exactly, besides pasting shit?

Now, if you want to require background checks on firearms transfers between private parties, you have to record chain of custody. Which is to say, you have to turn every firearm owner into a firearms dealer with all the rights and responsibilities thereof

great. people being responsible for their toys. learned it as a boy.

if you think wasting your time with nonsense is being a citizen, good for you.
you are posting nonsense to something you think is nonsense.
wtf?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:38 PM

31. I'll say it again.

"Remember the bound book? If you turn every firearm owner into an FFL you will have to allow the BATF to have access to their private residence at any time. The government can walk into your home at any time and demand to see your records. That idea will go over in this country like a turd in a punchbowl. Any political party responsible for that law will get a one way bus ticket to the political wilderness."

Let me save you some time. Here's how these conversations usually go.

Gun control promoter: Lets do a thing and make the things go away.

Gungeoneer: Won't work. Here's why.

GCP: But I want it! You're spouting NRA talking points!

Gungeoneer: It's a political impossibility. If you pass that law your legislator will lose his/her office.

GCP: I don't care! Right is right! Your're an NRA shill!

Gungeoneer: Facts is facts. If you have a better idea I'd love to hear it.

GCP: I don't like guns and you're a right wing troll.


Generally speaking people come to the forum and churn their way through constitutional law, statistics, comparisons with foreign countries, and psychology. After none of that works, they are simply left with their emotions and defending them with snark, accusations of apostasy, and outright insults. And now with DU3 they can run to Meta and cry about being bullied.

If I'm posting nonsense, and I may be, prove it. Or feed on your emotions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:43 PM

32. yes. and again and again and again

but i don't want to hear a bunch of crap which has nothing to do with anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:44 PM

33. Prove it. Stamping your foot ain't proof.

On second thought, I'll prove it for you. You started the conversation about firearm registrations and straw purchases. So what I have been telling you has everything to do with what you were talking about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2079720

Post #10
my answer-
that's the whole problem, there are way too many guns. 40% are sold without background checks, so a criminal can buy a gun whenever he wants. do you think all criminals steal their guns from other ones? somewhere in the chain is an asshole who can go to a gun store every week, buy 50 untraceable guns, and sell them to any scumbag. do you think the store owner gives a shit, obviously he knows the re-seller is up to no good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:17 PM

38. i am not stamping anything,i am typing words which i put together myself,

none of which were "straw". here are 2 more - go away.

You started the conversation about firearm registrations and straw purchases.

it started by you saying my proposal was impossible and yakking about straws!

then i said the below, and you have listed many pointless questions and non-statistics, which is what you do every time.

just write one sentence describing an 'impossibility' , watch i'll do it to myself-

"duh, what about the 300 million guns already out there, whadaya gonna take them all away?!?!?"

my answer- (to myself)
that's the whole problem, there are way too many guns. 40% are sold without background checks, so a criminal can buy a gun whenever he wants. do you think all criminals steal their guns from other ones? somewhere in the chain is an asshole who can go to a gun store every week, buy 50 untraceable guns, and sell them to any scumbag. do you think the store owner gives a shit, obviously he knows the re-seller is up to no good.
everybody has a different car- they're mostly accounted for
car- VIN
gun- serial number

car- registered
gun- maybe

car- license
gun- maybe

car- insurance
gun- is there liability insurance on guns?

cars are necessary everyday of your life for most peeps, guns are not necessary for the majority.
they are a privilege, hence the catchy name
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #38)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:48 PM

39. Here's some more help for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase
Straw purchases can be illegal when made at a federally licensed firearm dealership. If the straw purchaser of the firearm lies about the identity of the ultimate possessor of the gun, he can be charged with making false statements on a federal Firearms Transaction Record. Straw purchases of used guns are not illegal, unless the gun is used in a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser.


I just love this:

"cars are necessary everyday of your life for most peeps, guns are not necessary for the majority.
they are a privilege, hence the catchy name."


Self defense is not a privilege, it is a right. Every living organism on the planet is capable of defending itself some way or another. Human beings are no different. Tigers have teeth and claws, butterflies have camouflage, spring bucks can run really fast and human beings are tool using mammals with opposable thumbs, so we build weapons. The best weapon for personal self defense is a gun. If you really want to solve the problem, produce a solution for self defense against an attacker that works better than a gun so that that "minority" that you so blithely disregard will have a solution when they get attacked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:56 PM

40. thank you for bumping my thread

300 million people in usa
100 million own guns.
minority.
go ahead. use one. a handgun. use three if you want
you shoot with your toes?
i had forgotten that tigers have teeth and claws, thank you for the head's up
i typed that all with one finger
guess which one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:02 PM

41. Well, you're efficient.

You're burning right through whining scold to incoherent prankster. In record time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:59 PM

37. Anyone who says gun ownership in America is a privilege...

...has just taken themselves out of the debate, sorry. It might be considered a privilege to own a machine gun in the United States, but not a shotgun or a rifle.

And cars may be a necessity, but they're not a right. "Sir, there's no shame in taking public transportation..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:03 AM

5. Please define "Bullets". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:09 AM

6. Switzerand is worth watching nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:12 AM

7. That would actually be scaling BACK gun laws

"one amount of weapons is a state matter, a larger amount is a federal matter"

You would be eliminating the federal background check for potentially millions of purchases. That is a terrible idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:49 PM

11. i am flexible

i'll also admit i don't know shit about BG checks- leave them the way they are obviously.

i'm trying to get at eliminating the 40% of guns sold on the "grey market"

Gun Control Act of 1968
From Wikipedia,

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68), Pub.L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213, enacted October 22, 1968, is a federal law in the United States signed by President Lyndon Johnson that broadly regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. The 1968 Gun Control Act was supported by America’s old school manufacturers (Colt, S&W, etc.) in an effort to forestall even greater restrictions which were feared in response to recent domestic violence.

i mean, i'd say every single person who buys a gun should get checked
i'd say an 18 year old has to pass a test to buy his first gun
i'd say the government should put some money into smart guns
but then those are different threads

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:50 AM

8. These seems like arbitrary limits.



and I'm not sure what this gets us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:04 PM

14. you have to start somewhere?

it is supposed to stop the proliferation of a type of gun, the one used twice in this month by psychopaths.

the 8 shot per gun number is less than the 30 or 50 that those guns can hold, so anyone who wants one of those guns has to go thru a federal process, which will hopefully start to plug the gunshow loophole, and also hopefully at least slow down the psychos a little when they go berserk.

3 guns because you only have 2 hands, so you get an extra.

i don't have any problem with anyone owning reasonable amounts or a type of gun-
its just that people INSISTING that they have a god-given right to own whatever they want (unlike any other consumer product)
makes it a little dangerous for the more peaceful types...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:20 PM

24. It HAS started somewhere.

Long before you were born, I'd wager.


The national firearms act of 1934.

The gun control act of 1968.

If that isn't "starting", and none of the other current gun control measures are a "start", then put your money where your mouth is, and stand up to repeal them.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

its neat to pretend theres no gun control, though, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:28 PM

25. i mean in reality, like today and tomorrow?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022081557

The 1968 Gun Control Act was supported by America’s old school manufacturers (Colt, S&W, etc.) in an effort to forestall even greater restrictions which were feared in response to recent domestic violence.

wiki

ah, the good ol' days

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:56 PM

12. Just admit

 

That ANY proposal that you like will not be acceptable to 99% of gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:27 PM

18. obviously!

99% might be a little high, there. start a poll.

you could say that gun owners insisting on a narrow and selfish version of the 2nd amendment makes them look bad to 99% of non-gun owners. or it could be closer to 100%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:39 PM

26. Good Start - Next We Repeal The 2nd Amendment And Criminalize All Gun Ownership

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:46 PM

34. get off it

Heller 2008,
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:09 AM

35. And Your Point Would Be What?

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:24 PM

36. that you are being over-dramatic

the 2nd amend only gave you the right to carry a gun in 2008, Heller decision.

nobody wants to repeal it, or criminalize anything- you own a car, right?

the bold parts of that decision in my last post are about making laws to define your right/privilege to carry

which is what i am looking for ideas on...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:08 PM

42. Cars Not Equal To Firearms, False Equivalency, Nice Try At Redirection, Not Falling For That NRA Ruse

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:23 PM

43. you are definitely serious. seriously weird.

thank you for your...input?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #43)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:26 PM

44. Seriously, I Have The Same Opinion Of You And Other Gun Owners And Gun Apologists

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread