National firearms ban "reasonable?"

TexasD · 01-19-2008, 11:05 PM

This could make things very interesting real quick:

WorldNetDaily: National firearms ban 'reasonable'?

troy2000 · 01-19-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasD

This could make things very interesting real quick:
WorldNetDaily: National firearms ban 'reasonable'?

Every right we have is subject to "reasonable" restrictions. the classic old example is that freedom of speech doesn't give us the right to yell, "fire!" in a crowded theater.

I don't see any indication that the Bushies (much as I hate them) are asking any more than that the court not get UN-reasonable about the matter if and when it invalidates DC's laws...

GlockMeister · 01-19-2008, 11:56 PM

Scary thing isn't it. What scares me most is in doing this they are literally going to turn millions of law abiding gun owners into criminals, myself included. I truly believe it could start civil unrest. I know I won't hand them over without a fight of which the outcome would be me not handing them over, but instead, THEM PRYING MINE FROM MY DEAD COLD STIFF HANDS!!!

Whats worse, most people have more important things they could concern themselves with, especially so for the courts and the politicians, but, they'd rather make us into criminals then put and keep the real ones behind bars!!!

G-Meister

PERUVIAN · 01-20-2008, 12:02 AM

well, the guns are beauty articles for collection, a tool for hunt and security of live in good hands however are criminal elements in bad hands. The civilians of good live (worker man) are legal gunners and the restrictions apliccate to this group of people but a criminal with criminal mind and criminal acts the restrictions no apliccate in they.
P.D.Sorry with my english, im a spanish speaker of Lima-Peru-South America

troy2000 · 01-20-2008, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlockMeister

Scary thing isn't it. What scares me most is in doing this they are literally going to turn millions of law abiding gun owners into criminals, myself included. I truly believe it could start civil unrest. I know I won't hand them over without a fight of which the outcome would be me not handing them over, but instead, THEM PRYING MINE FROM MY DEAD COLD STIFF HANDS!!!
Whats worse, most people have more important things they could concern themselves with, especially so for the courts and the politicians, but, they'd rather make us into criminals then put and keep the real ones behind bars!!!
G-Meister

I'm sorry, but I've read everything I could find on the internet about the Justice Department's brief. And they didn't ask that ALL restrictions be classified as reasonable; they asked that all restrictions NOT be classified as UNreasonable.

It is not yet time to light the hair on fire and run screaming in circles...

Quote:

Originally Posted by PERUVIAN

well, the guns are beauty articles for collection, a tool for hunt and security of live in good hands however are criminal elements in bad hands. The civilians of good live (worker man) are legal gunners and the restrictions apliccate to this group of people but a criminal with criminal mind and criminal acts the restrictions no apliccate in they.
P.D.Sorry with my english, im a spanish speaker of Lima-Peru-South America

You put it very eloquently, for not being a native English speaker. As a matter of fact, your comments sound almost poetic when you translate them from your language to ours.

ArkansasHunter · 01-20-2008, 12:33 AM

Do these gun want to be grabbers relize how many Americans citicens own guns ?

Do thay have a clue on how many guns are in this country ?

Do they think we'll just drop them off at a dump station if a law were passed to do that.

How are they going to prosicute and house all the untold thosands who don't turn them in ?

I see a big mess if a gun grab were to take place in the United States.
A.H

mdj696 · 01-20-2008, 12:55 AM

Couldn't pull up the web site. I'd like to hear from members in England, Canada, and Australia, what tactics were employed in gun confiscation countrys. I refuse to be a defensless subject of the state.

Seabeescotty · 01-20-2008, 05:43 AM

I'm staying out of this one, as my temper climbs when I start talking about stupid laws. Just like bill clinton, they want a new meaning for the word. Sorry, had to take a cheap shot! Scotty

Windwalker · 01-20-2008, 08:44 AM

Our Founding Fathers did not seem to think that restrictions should be put on ownership of guns by the individual people, hence the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no need to ban any gun. There is a need to to prosecute any person using one in the commission of a crime. Guns don't commit crimes, people do.

Rave · 01-20-2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasD

This could make things very interesting real quick:
WorldNetDaily: National firearms ban 'reasonable'?

S.O.S.!

troy2000 · 01-20-2008, 02:48 PM

I think the Gun Owners of America leadership is trying to whip up unwarranted hysteria again, to increase membership and donations; they're trying to out-NRA the NRA.

Absolutely NOTHING in the Justice Department''s legal brief even hints that a national gun ban would be "reasonable." Requesting the Supreme Court not to get carried away and rule that any restrictions or regulations whatsoever are unreasonable is a far, far cry from claiming that any and all restrictions, including a total ban, would be reasonable.

Obviously no right or freedom is totally unrestricted or unregulated, or we'd have anarchy instead of liberty. Freedom of movement doesn't mean you can drive drunk or blow through stop signs; free speech doesn't mean you can tell someone to assassinate the president; freedom of worship doesn't mean you can sacrifice your first-born child; the right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean people in looney bins have the right to be packing while they talk to their shrinks, or that people named Muhammed can set up anti-aircraft guns in their back yards behind the airport.

Get a grip and chill out, folks.

Seabeescotty · 01-20-2008, 02:54 PM

Consider me Chilled!!! Really!!! It's afternoon, and still below freezing!!! Had to use a sledge hammer to water the horses! I love it!! Scotty

troy2000 · 01-20-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seabeescotty

Consider me Chilled!!! Really!!! It's afternoon, and still below freezing!!! Had to use a sledge hammer to water the horses! I love it!! Scotty

Sounds like it's a good thing you aren't a brass monkey...you'd be in trouble.

Seabeescotty · 01-20-2008, 03:30 PM

They'd a done fell off!LMAO

Windwalker · 01-20-2008, 06:27 PM

Guns don't commit crimes, criminals do. Enforce our criminal laws and leave gun bans alone. I do not consider laws against mentally deficient or criminals having guns to be gun bans.

troy2000 · 01-20-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windwalker

Guns don't commit crimes, criminals do. Enforce our criminal laws and leave gun bans alone. I do not consider laws against mentally deficient or criminals having guns to be gun bans.

No argument out of me on that one...

And they even get carried away there. Since people who want to ban guns can't do it outright, they just chip away wherever they can, hoping that someday the pile will be small enough that they can wipe out the little bit of legal ownership left.

For example, I fail to see the public good in laying a gun ban on non-violent criminals. Some accountant who pencil-whipped his company out of money might be a scummy crook, but I'm not worried he'll start shooting at me when he gets out of his minimum-security prison...why make it against the law for him to go dove-hunting?

stikbutter · 01-21-2008, 06:08 PM

No one ever thought a social security worker would be embezelling money from his social security clients and investing in stock through Merrll Lynch. That constitutes a scummy crook by what you wrote above. But when he lost everything due to bad investments he walked into Merrill Lynch and ventilated the place killing a bunch of people. You never know what a person may due under the right circumstances.

troy2000 · 01-21-2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stikbutter

No one ever thought a social security worker would be embezelling money from his social security clients and investing in stock through Merrll Lynch. That constitutes a scummy crook by what you wrote above. But when he lost everything due to bad investments he walked into Merrill Lynch and ventilated the place killing a bunch of people. You never know what a person may due under the right circumstances.

"Since you never know what a person may do under the right circumstances..."? Sounds to me like the same argument the people who want to outlaw guns period are using.

Obviously that guy was an aberration; your average white-collar criminal doesn't whip out a gun and start hosing people. I don't think we should base our gun-control laws on aberrational cases. Otherwise we'd have to outlaw deer-hunting, because of that Hmong hunter who shot up those people a year or two ago.

Deersniper · 01-21-2008, 10:09 PM

Bust these drug gangs, close those borders, take out some trash, and vote out the grabbers. Quit giving our kids psychotropic drugs. Allow veterans to defend themselves. Keep the restrictions reversible. If we listen to the Framers, shall not be infringed means just that. They have a ton of laws they don't enforce, but I'll bet you they would enforce the ones they want to.

Windwalker · 01-22-2008, 08:08 AM

Have to go with Troy 2000 on this one. However some of Deersniper's solutions also make sense.

01-19-2008, 11:05 PM	#1
TexasD Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: North Texas Posts: 68	National firearms ban "reasonable?" This could make things very interesting real quick: WorldNetDaily: National firearms ban 'reasonable'?

01-19-2008, 11:56 PM	#3
GlockMeister Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northern Illinois Posts: 5,504	Scary thing isn't it. What scares me most is in doing this they are literally going to turn millions of law abiding gun owners into criminals, myself included. I truly believe it could start civil unrest. I know I won't hand them over without a fight of which the outcome would be me not handing them over, but instead, THEM PRYING MINE FROM MY DEAD COLD STIFF HANDS!!! Whats worse, most people have more important things they could concern themselves with, especially so for the courts and the politicians, but, they'd rather make us into criminals then put and keep the real ones behind bars!!! G-Meister __________________ I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6! Last edited by GlockMeister; 01-19-2008 at 11:58 PM.

01-20-2008, 05:43 AM	#8
Seabeescotty Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Jay, Oklahoma, God's country. Posts: 4,050 Images: 18 Blog Entries: 1	I'm staying out of this one, as my temper climbs when I start talking about stupid laws. Just like bill clinton, they want a new meaning for the word. Sorry, had to take a cheap shot! Scotty __________________ Adapt, improvise, overcome.-Gysgt Highway, Heartbreak Ridge

01-20-2008, 02:48 PM	#11
troy2000 Resident Armed Liberal Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 9,471 Images: 9	More melodramatic posturing from GOA, IMHO I think the Gun Owners of America leadership is trying to whip up unwarranted hysteria again, to increase membership and donations; they're trying to out-NRA the NRA. Absolutely NOTHING in the Justice Department''s legal brief even hints that a national gun ban would be "reasonable." Requesting the Supreme Court not to get carried away and rule that any restrictions or regulations whatsoever are unreasonable is a far, far cry from claiming that any and all restrictions, including a total ban, would be reasonable. Obviously no right or freedom is totally unrestricted or unregulated, or we'd have anarchy instead of liberty. Freedom of movement doesn't mean you can drive drunk or blow through stop signs; free speech doesn't mean you can tell someone to assassinate the president; freedom of worship doesn't mean you can sacrifice your first-born child; the right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean people in looney bins have the right to be packing while they talk to their shrinks, or that people named Muhammed can set up anti-aircraft guns in their back yards behind the airport. Get a grip and chill out, folks. __________________ If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. -Anatole France Last edited by troy2000; 01-20-2008 at 02:54 PM.

01-20-2008, 02:54 PM	#12
Seabeescotty Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Jay, Oklahoma, God's country. Posts: 4,050 Images: 18 Blog Entries: 1	Consider me Chilled!!! Really!!! It's afternoon, and still below freezing!!! Had to use a sledge hammer to water the horses! I love it!! Scotty __________________ Adapt, improvise, overcome.-Gysgt Highway, Heartbreak Ridge

01-20-2008, 12:02 AM	#4
PERUVIAN Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Lima - Perú (south america) Posts: 23 Images: 3	well, the guns are beauty articles for collection, a tool for hunt and security of live in good hands however are criminal elements in bad hands. The civilians of good live (worker man) are legal gunners and the restrictions apliccate to this group of people but a criminal with criminal mind and criminal acts the restrictions no apliccate in they. P.D.Sorry with my english, im a spanish speaker of Lima-Peru-South America

01-20-2008, 12:33 AM	#6
ArkansasHunter Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: South Arkansas Posts: 10,716	Do these gun want to be grabbers relize how many Americans citicens own guns ? Do thay have a clue on how many guns are in this country ? Do they think we'll just drop them off at a dump station if a law were passed to do that. How are they going to prosicute and house all the untold thosands who don't turn them in ? I see a big mess if a gun grab were to take place in the United States. A.H

01-20-2008, 12:55 AM	#7
mdj696 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 265 Images: 1	Couldn't pull up the web site. I'd like to hear from members in England, Canada, and Australia, what tactics were employed in gun confiscation countrys. I refuse to be a defensless subject of the state.

01-20-2008, 08:44 AM	#9
Windwalker Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 3,596	Our Founding Fathers did not seem to think that restrictions should be put on ownership of guns by the individual people, hence the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no need to ban any gun. There is a need to to prosecute any person using one in the commission of a crime. Guns don't commit crimes, people do.

01-20-2008, 03:30 PM	#14
Seabeescotty Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Jay, Oklahoma, God's country. Posts: 4,050 Images: 18 Blog Entries: 1	They'd a done fell off!LMAO __________________ Adapt, improvise, overcome.-Gysgt Highway, Heartbreak Ridge

01-20-2008, 06:27 PM	#15
Windwalker Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 3,596	Guns don't commit crimes, criminals do. Enforce our criminal laws and leave gun bans alone. I do not consider laws against mentally deficient or criminals having guns to be gun bans.

01-21-2008, 06:08 PM	#17
stikbutter Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Keystone Hieghts FL Posts: 354	No one ever thought a social security worker would be embezelling money from his social security clients and investing in stock through Merrll Lynch. That constitutes a scummy crook by what you wrote above. But when he lost everything due to bad investments he walked into Merrill Lynch and ventilated the place killing a bunch of people. You never know what a person may due under the right circumstances.

01-21-2008, 10:09 PM	#19
Deersniper Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,691	Bust these drug gangs, close those borders, take out some trash, and vote out the grabbers. Quit giving our kids psychotropic drugs. Allow veterans to defend themselves. Keep the restrictions reversible. If we listen to the Framers, shall not be infringed means just that. They have a ton of laws they don't enforce, but I'll bet you they would enforce the ones they want to.

01-22-2008, 08:08 AM	#20
Windwalker Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 3,596	Have to go with Troy 2000 on this one. However some of Deersniper's solutions also make sense.