I guess I have to say it again; everyone who is a law abiding adult, has the right to bear arms - everyone.

[gunnoob75]

Have your convo w/o name calling or you'll own having this thread closed.
Thank you.
Inferring someone's a Fudd is against forum rules.

It wasn't someone, it was a generalized group of people who post on this board. Way more than a single person.

 

[Alexx1401]

I don't need to. I am commenting directly about something you said -right in this thread-.

If you just keep poking one of the staff members they will just end this thread. If that is what you are after you're going about it the right way. If you want to actually have conversation about laws good and bad, then best to not poke the staff members. This sight is not open free speech. It is controlled and those of us who choose to use it have to follow rules. Those who don't like the rules can of course set up one of their own and they can then make the rules.

 

[DB is Here]

It wasn't someone, it was a generalized group of people who post on this board. Way more than a single person.

And when you agreed to be a member here you also agreed the the rules of said forum. Please take a minute and kindly review them.

thank you

 

[Kruel J]

And when you agreed to be a member here you also agreed the the rules of said forum. Please take a minute and kindly review them.

thank you

You are so much nicer than I.

 

[Pandaz3]

It is apparent on a Form 4473 when they ask your citizenship, if not then they drill down and ask if you are here legally, such as a green card holder. They ask where you reside, because you have to reside in the USA. My wife had guns before naturalization, The whole idea of citizens casually owning guns. That private guns were not required to be stored at, and signed out of the local police station. Stuff like that was foreign to her, she thought shencould go to jail for the mere touching a firearm. She knows now that if you have a legal right to be in this country to establish residence and you have not been adjudicated as restricted, then you can have a gun.

I will say that while I truly believe that denying felons gun rights has increased public safety, I still think it is wrong. It would be more palatable to me if a person used a gun in a crime was denied. Not shoplifters, looter, car thieves, forgers and other non-violent criminals. just a thought.

 

[gunnoob75]

I will say that while I truly believe that denying felons gun rights has increased public safety, I still think it is wrong. It would be more palatable to me if a person used a gun in a crime was denied. Not shoplifters, looter, car thieves, forgers and other non-violent criminals. just a thought.

This is tough for me to swallow because if I am carrying, legally with my CHL, and am accused of a crime wouldn't that be a "Crime with a gun"? I know the "Slippery slope" argument isn't always accepted but look how far they've slipped on the slope already. It's time to start back at the beginning; no infringements at all.

 

[L84Cabo]

I don't disagree that natural rights apply to everyone. But we also know that these rights are not absolute and that certain restrictions can be placed on them. How much and to what extent, is something we have been debating since the Constitution was written...Specifically, at what point does the limiting or restriction on a right, constitute an infringement of that right?

With that said, I also believe that every country has the right to defend its borders and protect its citizens. Accordingly I also think it's acceptable to restrict access to firearms in some situations for various non US citizens that wish to come visit our country. Most specifically when a foreign visitor hails from a country that is known to support terrorism and/or when we are unable to conduct a thorough background check for whatever reason, but particularly because the record keeping in many countries is either poor or nonexistent.

Remember too, that nobody is forcing anyone to come here. Coming here is almost always at the visitors choice. If they are not comfortable with whatever entry requirements we have, they can stay home. Just as we have the choice if we don't like the entry requirements of another country.

 

[Flopsweat]

...
I will say that while I truly believe that denying felons gun rights has increased public safety, I still think it is wrong. It would be more palatable to me if a person used a gun in a crime was denied. Not shoplifters, looter, car thieves, forgers and other non-violent criminals. just a thought.

Yep, warrantless searches would make the police way more efficient. But they're people and therefor imperfect and occasionally inclined toward asshattery.

 

[Pandaz3]

This is tough for me to swallow because if I am carrying, legally with my CHL, and am accused of a crime wouldn't that be a "Crime with a gun"? I know the "Slippery slope" argument isn't always accepted but look how far they've slipped on the slope already. It's time to start back at the beginning; no infringements at all.

No! You did not use the gun to commit the crime. If you draw the weapon to threaten someone in a crime, like robbery, then you are guilty of using a firearm for the commission of a crime. Intent should always be considered.

 

[Pandaz3]

We commonly abbreviate each of the Bill of Rights. 1, Does indeed refer to free speech, but also the right to assemble. 3 remember that one? you don't have to house and feed troops or anyone else if yo don't want to.

Just a lot more to the BoR that people overlook. Each commonly includes several, not just the central, ideas the public of 1789 were demanding. All the demands were not met, but most of the biggies were. Remember the British of the day were Jack booted thugs to the American public. Memories were fresh then.

 

[nwslopoke]

Philosophically, agreed with the original point. Every man and woman has a fundamental right to bear arms in the defense of themselves. One of the many wonderful things our Founders did was enshrine said into a Bill of Rights.

Arms, is not limited to guns. Just as a reminder. Cross the border to any of our neighboring countries and you lose the right to arms, including pepper spray (I believe). I know going into Canada no self protection articles are allowed. They only try to kill you with kindness anyway.

 

[Member 5605]

Our Bill of Rights were written by men who lived in communities where the good will of their neighbour and community was in the forefront of their minds.

This is why they had no restrictions. The world was not as corrupt as it is now.

 

[American123]

Our Bill of Rights were written by men who lived in communities where the good will of their neighbour and community was in the forefront of their minds.

This is why they had no restrictions. The world was not as corrupt as it is now.

It wasn't as corrupt as it is now because they would actually hang people for that back then...

 

[DB is Here]

It wasn't as corrupt as it is now because they would actually hang people for that back then...

Or Tar & Feather them...

 

[Flopsweat]

The world was a lot smaller then. Way fewer people to mess with you, and they had to work at it.

 

[Member 18201]

It appears that many on this forum would prefer soft fuzzy chains, rather than dangerous liberty.

..................................

 

[awshoot]

Our Bill of Rights were written by men who lived in communities where the good will of their neighbour and community was in the forefront of their minds.

This is why they had no restrictions. The world was not as corrupt as it is now.

I would guess the world has always been corrupt but the distortion caused by time's passage makes it seem less so the further back in time you go. If people were so great back in the day, they wouldn't even have thought about a Bill or Rights. Or laws.

 

[WoodsPlinker]

certain restrictions can be placed on them.

I think the word you were looking for there is infringements.

These are also the same idiots that took interstate commerce laws and argued that a farmer growing his own crops affected interstate commerce by him not selling the crop. And then used that ruling to defend just doing whatever the hell they wanted.

And this is why today our gun rights are infringed on by calling ownership of certain items a tax violation if it's not registered.

A tax violation, and some of them are items you can't even aquire to be privelaged enough to pay the tax on anymore.

So yeah we got a lot of problems with more then just infringements on that which shall not be infringed. It's a symptom of a much larger problem that started in the early 1900s of our govenment deciding in court cases that they could indeed twist the law to do whatever the hell they wanted. And now we pray they will rule in our favor in the courts, I'm not holding my breathe.

And this is why we need a second amendment, that is not infringed on.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I think the word you were looking for there is infringements.

These are also the same idiots that took interstate commerce laws and argued that a farmer growing his own crops affected interstate commerce by him not selling the crop. And then used that ruling to defend just doing whatever the hell they wanted.

And this is why today our gun rights are infringed on by calling ownership of certain items a tax violation if it's not registered.

A tax violation, and some of them are items you can't even aquire to be privelaged enough to pay the tax on anymore.

So yeah we got a lot of problems with more then just infringements on that which shall not be infringed. It's a symptom of a much larger problem that started in the early 1900s of our govenment deciding in court cases that they could indeed twist the law to do whatever the hell they wanted. And now we pray they will rule in our favor in the courts, I'm not holding my breathe.

And this is why we need a second amendment, that is not infringed on.

The SCOTUS and Congress have indeed ruled that no Rights thus written are absolute/unrestricted
This was in context of the 1st Amendment, but also applied to all the other Rights thus written.

As much as we want it to be unrestricted rights for all; it is simply not so. Even though the Bill of Rights all are restricting the Federal and State Governent from interfering with these rights; they still found that it can be twisted to mean "restrictions for the greater good"

Even though we may rail that the 2A meant Government cannot restrict/infringe upon the right of people to own and carry arms; the Courts have found that short of outright prohibition (FOPA 1986's Hughes Amendment notwithstanding) none of the "gun control acts" Federally enacted that are still in effect have "infringed" on the right to keep and bear arms

It follows as so;
A law abiding citizen can own anything including Destructive Devices and pre 1986 machine guns, suppressors/silencers, short barreled shotguns/rifles, any other weapon as long as they have passed a background check and paid the $200 tax ans registered them. Those who wish to own post 1986 machine guns (according to the Hughes Amendment) must have a special Federal Firearms License, or are a member of Law Enforcement or Military (Pentagon quartermasters?). "Unusual and Dangerous" weapons such as missiles, rockets, atomic/nuclear bombs are limited to Federal military/civilian contracting companies (the manufacturers and testing agencies for example). However one can own a functioning tank, cannon, howitzer, et cetera and the ammo for them with the Destructive Device tax stamp for each item... making them quite cost prohibitive and quite suited only to NFA trusts/company funded groups.

Did you know that the US military contracts a civilian company to fly aggressor aircraft against the USAF/USN Aviation/USMC aviation in training; and they are the largest private air force in the world?

That company is Draken International, based in Florida.

Undoubtly PMCs are also Civilian corporations with the ability to arm their operators/mercenaries with up to date weaponry and training... so again, these all have Constitutional protection in a way Else the Congress would have prohibited these companies from operating out of the US

 

[WoodsPlinker]

Did you know that the US military contracts a civilian company to fly aggressor aircraft against the USAF/USN Aviation/USMC aviation in training; and they are the largest private air force in the world?

I did not know that. Can they fly with weapons? Because if so how does that fit with FAA guidelines? More proof of a double standard that is comical. The general public lives in fear of scary citizens with black rifles when their government can nuke huge swaths of land. Hell just one fighter jet is pretty powerful compared to a rifle.

A crazy man in the civilian world is scarier then someone in charge who is crazy how then? So a single citizen can kill a handful of people and a single politician can kill millions.... And it's the citizen that everyone is worried about?

It's this weird cultish belief that when you slap titles on someone they somehow become infallible even though history has repeatedly proven this wrong. Even if humans aren't crazy they are also human, and they make mistakes, even the elected ones.

Difference is if one of us makes a mistake your family doesn't starve. If Mao makes a mistake they do.