PDA

View Full Version : Is it even possible...?


LoneYote
08-05-2012, 2:18 AM
I understand the reasoning behind "Not One Inch". In another thread someone said that there is no such thing as good gun laws. Some laws are bad, some terrible, and some ridiculously uninforcible. The question I have is am I the only one that believes there is a theoretical or actual thing as "common sense" or "good" gun laws.

The types of things I am talking about are this.
I believe it is the governments responsibility to make sure people have the truth available to them. I believe it is the governments responsibility to ensure that people CAN be safe.

Example:
I believe the government should require car manufacturers to install seat belts in every vehicle. I believe it is the right of the people to choose to use them.

Is it really the opinion of so many gun owners that "shall not be infringed" is completely intractable? Or is this simply the result of being backed so deeply into a corner? Have we as California gun owners been so beaten and so jaded that we can not see the good in anything related to the subject?

mossy
08-05-2012, 2:33 AM
shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed there is nothing really hard to understand about that. you would not limit other civil rights so why should guns be any different.......and why should we compromise when they refuse to hear our side.


also there have been a ton of new members here pushing the anti gun agenda lately. they don't last long and do not enjoy the time they were here.

LoneYote
08-05-2012, 2:47 AM
shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed there is nothing really hard to understand about that. you would not limit other civil rights so why should guns be any different.......and why should we compromise when they refuse to hear our side.

I know that compromise is not on the anti-gun agenda... but if it were in a serious and realistic kind of way would it be so bad? Gun laws are pushed as a way to prevent crime which we know is faulty. Crime is a result of the person not the tool. However, some tools require inherently within the design a higher degree of education and care to use effectively and safely.

For instance... the age requirement to purchase a firearm and other such laws. They are related to guns and obviously infringe upon someones rights. Depending entirely on how you define "people".

mosinnagantm9130
08-05-2012, 2:53 AM
For instance... the age requirement to purchase a firearm and other such laws. They are related to guns and obviously infringe upon someones rights. Depending entirely on how you define "people".

There are some gun laws that, IMO, aren't bad. Namely, being 18 to purchase a firearm, barring violent felons, and those with certain confirmed mental illnesses.

The age limit to purchase handguns should be lowered to 18. Non-violent felons should not be barred from possessing arms.

Outside of that...can't think of many ok gun laws.

SilverTauron
08-05-2012, 5:09 AM
I understand the reasoning behind "Not One Inch". In another thread someone said that there is no such thing as good gun laws. Some laws are bad, some terrible, and some ridiculously uninforcible. The question I have is am I the only one that believes there is a theoretical or actual thing as "common sense" or "good" gun laws.
It is an understandable inquiry. The best answer is NO, because of the following:



Is it really the opinion of so many gun owners that "shall not be infringed" is completely intractable? Or is this simply the result of being backed so deeply into a corner? Have we as California gun owners been so beaten and so jaded that we can not see the good in anything related to the subject?

Let us set aside the U.S. Constitution, and look at the matter of the anti-gun position versus our own. The problem with passing gun laws with actual real-world merit is that the anti gun side, who I refer to as the "Disarmament Lobby", does not operate by any creed or respect for law and the wishes of the people.

As far as the Disarmament Lobby is concerned, they believe they have a moral and spiritual mandate rivaling the commitment of Hamas in the Gaza Strip to ensure Americans are legally barred the use and possession of any kind of arms. Not just firearms, but knives and any other 'tool of death'. These people believe that us gun owners are operating under some kind of misguided psychosis from which we must be rescued from , and they intend on rescuing us from ourselves by any means necessary.

Put simply, we'll play by the rules of law to introduce pro-gun legislation,while the Disarmament Lobby will lie, cheat, steal, bribe, and warp any legislation they can to advance their endgame. Let us assume for the sake of argument background checks for mental health are initiated. The Disarmament Lobby will "amend" the bill to ensure that 99% of Americans for the purposes of gun ownership qualify as legally insane. Because of the mendacity and deceptive tactics of our opposition, the only practical way left to safeguard future exercise of the RKBA is to oppose ALL gun control measures in any form, no matter how effective or well intentioned.

Without a Trojan Horse, the invading Greeks who would sack our rights are forced to confront the tall walls of Law which protect the city of the 2nd Amendment.

nicki
08-05-2012, 5:10 AM
I notice you are new here, so here are my comments.

I understand the reasoning behind "Not One Inch". In another thread someone said that there is no such thing as good gun laws. Some laws are bad, some terrible, and some ridiculously uninforcible. The question I have is am I the only one that believes there is a theoretical or actual thing as "common sense" or "good" gun laws.

Of course there are "good gun laws", for example, in Kennesaw Georgia there is a law mandating ownership of guns. Now of course their are exemptions and there is no penalty for non compliance.

The law was passed as a common sense "*** you" to Morton Grove when they banned ownership of handguns (bad gun law) around 1981.

Kennesaw saw a drastic drop in crime, Morton Grove experienced and increase in crime.



The types of things I am talking about are this.
I believe it is the governments responsibility to make sure people have the truth available to them. I believe it is the governments responsibility to ensure that people CAN be safe.

I agree with on one point, the people should have open, transparent and honest government and government officials should tell us the whole truth on everything. In the big picture of things, they are supposed to serve the people.


Example:
I believe the government should require car manufacturers to install seat belts in every vehicle. I believe it is the right of the people to choose to use them.

I disagree with you that the government has a responsibility to ensure our safety, the government can provide a climate to promote the common defense, but ultimately we are responsible for our own safety.

People should be able to make choices as to if they want things like seat belts or motorcycle helmets. If we allow the government to impose safety on us, then what happens we wind up with a government that becomes the "Nanny State" and starts treating us like little deliquent children.

Is it really the opinion of so many gun owners that "shall not be infringed" is completely intractable?

The second amendment is more than just our right to keep and bear personal arms, it also imposes a "duty" to be able to defend our country from enemies foreign or domestic. The core value that ensures our system of "Ordered Liberty" is that our government gets it's authority from the consent of the governed. For that to mean anything, the governed must have the means to change the government, regardless of how the government may feel.

The first amendment recognizes and provides means for peaceful changes in our government, but we have been able to maintain our peaceful means of protest only because we still have violent alternatives which is exactly what the 2nd amendment is really about, ensuring we the people have the means to maintain a government operating under consent of the governed by force.

The founding fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights just finished a very costly war when they wrote these documents. The final straw that started the American Revolution was the battles of Lexington and Concord where the British tried to disarm the colonists.

Without private arms, our system of ordered liberty would crash.

The very things our founding fathers feared, large standing armies and select militias (current militarized police force, homeland security etc) which they viewed as extremely dangerous to liberty, now exist.

If the people lost their arms, the "free states" would quickly devolve into "serf states" which means people would be effectively owned by the government.
This is why the second amendment ends with, this right shall not be infringed.

The issue is more than just gun rights, it is our whole system of "ordered liberty" and maintaining the government contract that the government operates under the "consent of the governed".

Many will say, well we have "elections". What if those "elections" turned out to be "rigged". What if the election process was made so burdensome, that good people couldn't/wouldn't run for office.

Our democracy is an "illusion". 97 percent of our elected officials don't deserve to be reelected.

Or is this simply the result of being backed so deeply into a corner?

The government has ****ed up on so many things such as welfare, business killing regulations, immigration, the criminal justice and prison system, the drug war etc. etc. and what our government officials are doing is rather than admitting they ****ed up, they seek scapegoats for their failed social/cultural/environmental/economic/educational policies that are destroying our country.

The mantra of the Kool Aid drinking Libtards is that the world will be a better place if we disarm and then all of us hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

Have we as California gun owners been so beaten and so jaded that we can not see the good in anything related to the subject?

The real purpose of Gun Control is not crime control, it is stripping the population of their ability to resist, once this is done, then the rest of our rights are turned into government revocable privileges.

Most gun control laws in America btw has racists roots. Blacks were stripped of gun rights early in our country, it made it easier to strip them of the rest of their rights once they were disarmed.

Gun violence is a real problem in America and like most people on this board, we would like to see effective government policies and laws that reduce gun violence.

Of course on this board there is a split between Conservatives and Libertarians on how to do this, but even though we may disagree, we are civil about things.

Yes we have "moderators", but for the most part "moderators" step in when people go from discussion to personal attacks. The system is not perfect, no system is.

We here about the shooter in Aurora, what we are not hearing a whole lot in the news is about the meds he may have been on the fried his brain.

Most of the mass murderers over the last few years were on various psych meds. These meds have side effects of violent, suicidal and homicidal behavior, yet we don't hear much discussion in the MSM about this.

Of course I am sure that the MSM silence on prescription meds has nothing to do with the add revenue from Big Pharma, right.:rolleyes:


Half the violence with guns in this country is a byproduct directly/indirectly of our drug prohibition. The idea that people who illegally manufacture, then smuggle in drugs are going to obey gun laws is absurd.

Organized crime would look at a gun prohibition as another business opportunity to expand into.

The Black Market creates products far worse than what was banned in the first place, for example, cocaine has been replaced with crack,ice and meth and heroin is being replaced by synthetic drugs such as Krokidil.

Personally I would end the drug war outright, bring in a system of regulated distribution and just bankrupt the cartels. I view the Drug War as an annual 1 trillion dollar mistake.

The antis are waking us up and when gun owners start realizing that the issue are more than just their guns, we will get some needed change.

Welcome to Calguns:

Nicki








[/B][/B][/B]

littlejake
08-05-2012, 5:44 AM
Troll Thread...

FalconLair
08-05-2012, 5:55 AM
Example:
I believe the government should require car manufacturers to install seat belts in every vehicle. I believe it is the right of the people to choose to use them.
I drove a Crown school bus with the LA Unified School district for about 6 months and I found it simply amazing that while I had a seat belt and was required to wear it, the buses themselves did not have seat belts for the 60+ kids who would be riding on it

I think eventually they installed seat belts, probably long after I was gone, but it always bewildered me how a driver in his private car was "required to fasten his belt" yet, there was no law requiring the buses that transported hundreds upon thousands of school age kids daily, to have them installed ...just saying :)

So, when it comes to trying to understand some of our own laws I learned quite a long time ago that doing so was just a waste of time...not much logical thinking goes into many laws that are passed

Blackcrow
08-05-2012, 5:57 AM
Troll Thread...

:iagree:

VAReact
08-05-2012, 5:57 AM
Excellent post, Nicki. Thank you. +1

Carnivore
08-05-2012, 6:48 AM
No there isn't any good gun laws as Silver had described about the "disarmament lobby". They have no common sense an can't stop, if anything "good" were to be passed they would just continue on as good enough isn't in their vocabulary.

LoneYote
08-05-2012, 10:20 AM
Thank you Silver, Nicki, Mosin, and Falcon for taking the time to contribute something substantive to the thread.

Nicki:
Example:
I believe the government should require car manufacturers to install seat belts in every vehicle. I believe it is the right of the people to choose to use them.

I disagree with you that the government has a responsibility to ensure our safety, the government can provide a climate to promote the common defense, but ultimately we are responsible for our own safety.

People should be able to make choices as to if they want things like seat belts or motorcycle helmets. If we allow the government to impose safety on us, then what happens we wind up with a government that becomes the "Nanny State" and starts treating us like little deliquent children.

It is very much appreciated that you respectfully disagree with me. The second sentence(bold) shows very clearly that the state is not responsible for the safety of the people. The response to the next sentence is very long and to be honest seems like a bit of a ramble copy and pasted from another thread. I am not advocating disarming anyone. Nor am I saying that anti-gun is right. My question is more abstract than the current system could or would handle. Sadly, it is the struggle we should be having not the one we are having.

Falcon:
I found it odd and deliciously dangerous as a child to ride the bus for that very reason. I am relatively confident that it has to do mostly with the time they were built and the strict regulations governing the construction.

Silver:
I am trying to approach the problem from the completely opposite side. If there were no "anti-gun" people would we as responsible gun owners create any? That is what I was trying to get at... It was very late perhaps I was not as focused as I should have been...

RRangel
08-05-2012, 12:23 PM
I understand the reasoning behind "Not One Inch". In another thread someone said that there is no such thing as good gun laws. Some laws are bad, some terrible, and some ridiculously uninforcible. The question I have is am I the only one that believes there is a theoretical or actual thing as "common sense" or "good" gun laws.

The types of things I am talking about are this.
I believe it is the governments responsibility to make sure people have the truth available to them. I believe it is the governments responsibility to ensure that people CAN be safe.

Example:
I believe the government should require car manufacturers to install seat belts in every vehicle. I believe it is the right of the people to choose to use them.

Is it really the opinion of so many gun owners that "shall not be infringed" is completely intractable? Or is this simply the result of being backed so deeply into a corner? Have we as California gun owners been so beaten and so jaded that we can not see the good in anything related to the subject?

Are you new to firearms? From your tone I suspect that you are. If you know the history of gun control, and especially that in the state of California, then you probably wouldn't be asking the question.

We have fewer gun choices available in California, and whole classes of firearms have been banned and registered, all under the auspices of safety. Because of outright calls from extremists, some in the legislature, who are bent on casting away our Constitution, in favor of their Marxist inspired ideals. They espouse disarmament policies based on unsound logic.

We have been on the verge of losing our rights altogether, because of incremental changes, which many gun controllers have carried out by design.

Agent Orange
08-05-2012, 9:21 PM
Lmao. Are we learning anything here OP? Here's a hint: you can't argue with a drunken man...

bohoki
08-05-2012, 10:09 PM
stossel says there should be less laws and i agree

even good laws have unforseen consequences

laws should be simple simple enough so you dont need a lawyer much less a whole team with most laws

motorhead
08-05-2012, 10:56 PM
the big issue is that by allowing the state to legislate "safety" you open the door to nanny state regulation like we have here in ca. and it doesn't just affect guns!




"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

phrogg111
08-05-2012, 11:27 PM
Here's the thing about "Not One Inch" reasoning - It's not that gun owners don't want to come to some type of compromise, even if the constitution doesn't permit compromise. It's just that "compromise" means that BOTH sides have to give up something. The anti-gun people keep asking for "more compromise" until they ban all guns period - which is dumb.

I watched a CNN video with a british guy interviewing an "expert" who wrote a book called "More Guns, Less Crime". He kept interrupting the guy for more than five minutes straight, didn't let him get his opinion out, and then they went over to some jewish-looking guy to "refute" all of the facts in the book that was written, who just said "I want to ban as many guns as I can! If I could, I would ban all guns!" They kept interrupting him the whole rest of the interview.

The thing is, it's not that we're gun nuts. Just the way that the average, uninformed person who doesn't feel that he needs or wants a gun thinks that maybe we could "compromise" more. The thing is, there's no more compromise, because "compromise" is the word that the anti-gun people use to keep banning more guns after every time a major shooting incident happens. Really, it's not a huge gun incident, it's a huge mental health incident! People should get to see a shrink for free, and get firearms training for free!

So, "not one inch" - is completely necessary, because no more "compromise" with our RIGHTS! This is life or death we're talking here!

SgtDinosaur
08-06-2012, 9:45 AM
The problem is we have already "compromised" too much. If you give them an inch they'll take a mile. As a matter of fact they have already taken a mile. When was the last time they gave an inch?

AVS
08-06-2012, 2:34 PM
The response to the next sentence is very long and to be honest seems like a bit of a ramble copy and pasted from another thread.

Nicki gives you an eloquent, well thought out response, and your reply is to describe it as rambling?

Wow. Just wow.