Don't take my guns Cons

[juansavage1]

I think the fact that guns are actually taken away in other parts of the world and that some people would like to do it here makes make it a legitimate concern

Maybe if it it were made clear that this isn't the intent...

This is a good point Juan. I have never said no guns but have restrictions. Part of my tom-foolery starting this thread was the ones I worry about are those that think their guns are being taken. Now while this group at AW I do not include in this theory, there are still millions of one-toothed Juniors out there. This has become a mania and you need more because you think they are being taken but you couldn't get more if they are being taken, could you? Is it not the ultimate circle jerk logic?

[Crampknees]

Maybe if it it were made clear that this isn't the intent...

==========================================

 

There you go and my very point.  I really don't believe it is the intent.

[Jason]

Maybe those convicted of a felonies get psych testing? In that case it would show up on a background check. i think the psych testing is important for things other than just purchasing a firearm. It could be beneficial for the courts in rehabilitation efforts. 

[juansavage1]

If you get enough liberals on the Supreme Court, then it's up to the states, the president, and congress. Maybe even regulatory agencies. You might even get lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Blue states would ban guns.

 

This is a very realistic scenario. If keeping guns are your concern, then your concern is not stupid.

[HaloMagic]

What makes driving a privilege and not a right? Because the government says so? Legitimately interested in people's responses.

[LBHalos17]

I don't believe driving is referenced in the Constitution...

 

Anyway, gun laws and psych-testing are wonderful things.  But, as with prohibition, we will never stop guns from falling into the hands of psychotic or evil people.  Law-abiding gun owners have their guns stolen, or leave them accessible to others (usually family members) who shouldn't have access.  It's a difficult road we're rolling down, in finding some balance between the two sides (especially the two extreme sides).

 

I personally believe in reasonable concealed-carry.  It's been proven again and again that when a suspect is confronted by an armed person, the confrontation/incident is over.

 

I do not believe in open-carry for a couple of reasons.  First, it makes that person the primary target (as a threat); you probably won't see the bad guy coming.  And, I don't like these over-the-top oc people carrying their AR's and AK's around just to push buttons and waste everyone's time.

[Spirit]

I don't believe driving is referenced in the Constitution...

 

 

It's covered under the "... the pursuit of happiness" section of the Declaration of Independence.  

 

 

Of course, the pursuit of happiness only applies if you're driving something other than an American made car. 

Edited June 23, 2015 by Geoff

[HaloMagic]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[LBHalos17]

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

 

It's covered under the "... the pursuit of happiness" section of the Declaration of Independence.  

 

 

Of course, the pursuit of happiness only applies if you're driving something other than an American made car. 

Don't start a Ford vs. Chevy war now!  Haaaaaah!

[mtangelsfan]

What makes driving a privilege and not a right? Because the government says so? Legitimately interested in people's responses.

 

Gun ownership is clearly a right.  Crap, it has it's own specific ammendment.

 

I don't really see anything in the Constitution talking about the right of transportation.  If one were to argue that amongst the more open-ended portions of the Constitution there was a "right" to drive then you can pretty much argue that we have a right to everything.

 

If we have a right to everything, than no rights are meaningful at all.

 

Driving happens on publicly owned lands, which the government can control and decide, who, how and even when certain activities can be practiced on public land.

[Schildog]

i still want my h-bomb. it's my right. 

[arch stanton]

Hyperbolic sniveling is your right, too. Enjoy both. I won't get in your way.

[HaloMagic]

Gun ownership is clearly a right. Crap, it has it's own specific ammendment.

I don't really see anything in the Constitution talking about the right of transportation. If one were to argue that amongst the more open-ended portions of the Constitution there was a "right" to drive then you can pretty much argue that we have a right to everything.

If we have a right to everything, than no rights are meaningful at all.

Driving happens on publicly owned lands, which the government can control and decide, who, how and even when certain activities can be practiced on public land.

This was the entire argument against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Not having it most likely would have ended up worse but clearly the Federalists' fears about including it have become reality. We now believe we only have ten rights. How do we not retain the right if we never gave the government permission to take it? Everything is a right unless we specifically ceded responsibility of it to our government.

[the dude abides]

i still want my h-bomb. it's my right. 

 

I want a nuke and a tank.

[HaloMagic]

I want a nuke and a tank.

Well, it's your right.

Just don't drive the tank without a government-issued license, though. Driving is a privilege.

[the dude abides]

Good point, HM.

 

If I were to permanently weld a RPG launcher to my car, would I still need a license? 

[mtangelsfan]

This was the entire argument against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Not having it most likely would have ended up worse but clearly the Federalists' fears about including it have become reality. We now believe we only have ten rights. How do we not retain the right if we never gave the government permission to take it? Everything is a right unless we specifically ceded responsibility of it to our government.

 

There are more than ten ammendments to the Constitution and many of the first ten contain multiple rights. 

[mtangelsfan]

Good point, HM.

 

If I were to permanently weld a RPG launcher to my car, would I still need a license? 

 

Only if were aimed at government offices.

[Jason]

I want a nuke and a tank.

Money buys anything that is available. You just have a lot of other countries competing with you

[Tank]

I want a nuke and a tank.

 

i'm no longer available. sorry.

[HeavenlyHalos]

Isn't the second amendment regarding a well regulated militia? My other question, cannons were available at that time too, were citizens allowed to own cannons too?

[Crampknees]

i'm no longer available. sorry.

You can't afford this Tank.

[arch stanton]

Isn't the second amendment regarding a well regulated militia? My other question, cannons were available at that time too, were citizens allowed to own cannons too?

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.

Pastrami being the most sensual of the cured meats, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Laughter being the best medicine unless you are actually sick, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Fiber being necessary for a well regulated digestive tract, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

 

These sentences all mean the same thing to me. Just pay attention to the words sandwiched between right of the people and shall not be infringed.

[HeavenlyHalos]

Well, I think that qualifying statement is the issue with many people; i.e. is it a collective vs. and individual right. We have not had well-formed militias in over a century in this country, but I suppose it could be interpreted as the necessity to create one at any given time against a tyrannical government. Of course, I laugh at the thought on any militia trying to take on the US Government. Personally, I can see both sides of this argument and am not sure which way I lean. I like gotbeer's idea quite a bit actually.

[arch stanton]

This was written in the ancient times before the world was ruled by lawyers and politicians. That could be why the simplicity confuses people.