Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An example would be the first amendment. Free speech is an individual right and is exercised by people with the most obnoxious things to say but they are allowed to say them due to the power of the first. But if you want to have a protest in a public place and exercise your free speech rights then you need to obtain a PERMIT for your protest. The permit process is constitutional and does not infringe on your free speech. It is considered a reasonable restriction.
I would consider a license requirement prior to owning a firearm a reasonable restriction. If you don't then you don't agree with the SCOTUS nor the system of government our forefathers set up. Every constitutional amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions. The argument is what exactly is considered reasonable. I challenge you to name one constitutional amendment that isn't subject to reasonable restrictions.
A permit is not always needed. Depends on a few factors. Will it be on the streets or sidewalks, will it need crowd control, will streets or traffic be blocked, will a PA system be used, will it take place on federal property, will it be in a park, etc. These factor in whether a permit is needed or not.
If a permit was required for the first amendment, it would be infringed on. The permit is not getting permission for free speech, but getting permission to potentially break other laws legally, such as blocking traffic or closing a street to exercise your right.
I believe it would infringe on the 2nd. They have passed specific laws which will prevent you from owning but getting licensed will be requesting permission to own.
If you are allowed to own a gun per current law, you should be allowed to buy, sell, or trade via private party without the governments interference.
I believe its our duty as citizens to buy, sell, and trade responsibly. This is where my volunteer drivers license/ID endorsement comes to play to help aid private sells. This only works though with law abiding citizen sales as we know the criminal ones wont care.
I think there should be a privately owned database for tracking stolen or missing firearms. No names, just a ID and serial number for those who want to participate. Imagine having a firearm coming up missing. You can report this to the private database and enter the weapon info and some other basic info. Its stored and the public now has access to it. You are assigned a number. Now, any buyer has the ability to check it. This may not help in catching thieves, but will help in keeping the stolen ones out of the hands of the law abiding ones. But, this will not work though because the government does not allow ID's given to people that they cannot identify.
There should be no state border restrictions for buying and selling. CCW's should be honored in all states.
I think we have a similar idea. I just want to tie the ccw/background check to an ID/drivers license. I want it to be voluntary, not mandatory.
To help solve the gun violence and gun crime issues. Harsh punishments. Make a tent city in AZ look like a vacation.
I think this is would start putting us on the right track.
Lot's of what you say is very good "grist for the mill" and it is a pleasure to discuss the gun issue with knowledgeable people. One of the biggest problems of the anti gun folks is they haven't got a clue what they are talking about or what the real world of gun ownership actually is. Scratch the surface and drill down on the heart of the matter and you lose most anti-gunners.
I do not agree that licensing is unconstitutional as it applies to the 2nd. Just like the difference between a CCW permit. Some states have a "May issue" clause in their state constitutions. I consider this to be unconstitutional. Most states in the last 20 years have changed their constitutions to read "Shall issue". I believe 38 at last count. This confirms it as a right of the people and not a privilege meted out by the state as in "May Issue".
Of course, the gun license I speak of would be a "Shall Issue" and a right. The state would have to show legal cause as to the denial of a license.
It's not just the second ammendment but all the ammendments tha govenment are willing to trash to fit the NATO agenda .
Your life becomes insignificant, in their point of view ,Just you keep that in mind.
As for good or bad people having guns , the woman afraid for her life has just as much capability of arming her self as any other person, DOING NOTHING IS HER CHOICE , clear enough.
Shouldn't have to, is not part of the equasion .
Notice that if an officer pulls you over for breaking some(moving violation) law the ticket goes against you, not the car your driving?
Of course liberals dont like it , the'd rather blame the car, than take personal responsibility.
Gun control is not about guns but about control. and misleading the people is the agenda at hand.
An armed society, are a polite society .
Cities and states with the toughest gun control have he worst problem, because they are promoting the criminal, not defending the victom.
When Has a criminal paid for all the dammage and expense of his capture? much less the loss to the victom ?
Criminal justice, is just that , criminals have more righs than the victom, and the governemt supports it vigorously.
Congressmen can do inside trading and get away with it ,even manslaughter and get away with it.
They are lawyers playing the loupe holes they created for them selves.
They are better than us low life simple voters.
They are owed special privlidge because they suckered you into putting them in office.
A lot of them carry and it is well known Finestine has a CCW for many years now.
But you the voter citizen do not need to live like a congressman must live. He is of so much greater value than you.
The proof is in their behavior .
A permit is not always needed. Depends on a few factors. Will it be on the streets or sidewalks, will it need crowd control, will streets or traffic be blocked, will a PA system be used, will it take place on federal property, will it be in a park, etc. These factor in whether a permit is needed or not.
If a permit was required for the first amendment, it would be infringed on. The permit is not getting permission for free speech, but getting permission to potentially break other laws legally, such as blocking traffic or closing a street to exercise your right.
This is true. I think we're dancing around the same campfire here. Of course, no laws can be made that go against the constitutional rights of the people. This is why every time the antis go after the guns they lose. But, the application of every amendment in the constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions. If this were not the case then there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of laws on the books in our justice system. There would only be the Constitution and it's amendments.
Oh, and BTW, the reason CCWs are not universally accepted state by state is the wide variance in criteria for issuance. Some states have next to no requirements while others require at lest 16hrs of classes and 8 hours of range time. Some states like Cali only issue to rich movie stars and politicians.
Lot's of what you say is very good "grist for the mill" and it is a pleasure to discuss the gun issue with knowledgeable people. One of the biggest problems of the anti gun folks is they haven't got a clue what they are talking about or what the real world of gun ownership actually is. Scratch the surface and drill down on the heart of the matter and you lose most anti-gunners.
I agree! And look at the realistic solutions that come about.
I do not agree that licensing is unconstitutional as it applies to the 2nd. Just like the difference between a CCW permit. Some states have a "May issue" clause in their state constitutions. I consider this to be unconstitutional. Most states in the last 20 years have changed their constitutions to read "Shall issue". I believe 38 at last count. This confirms it as a right of the people and not a privilege meted out by the state as in "May Issue".
Of course, the gun license I speak of would be a "Shall Issue" and a right. The state would have to show legal cause as to the denial of a license.
or denied the right in the few no issue states. Yeah, I think its 38 Shall Issue as of now.
An example would be the first amendment. Free speech is an individual right and is exercised by people with the most obnoxious things to say but they are allowed to say them due to the power of the first. But if you want to have a protest in a public place and exercise your free speech rights then you need to obtain a PERMIT for your protest. The permit process is constitutional and does not infringe on your free speech. It is considered a reasonable restriction.
I would consider a license requirement prior to owning a firearm a reasonable restriction. If you don't then you don't agree with the SCOTUS nor the system of government our forefathers set up. Every constitutional amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions. The argument is what exactly is considered reasonable. I challenge you to name one constitutional amendment that isn't subject to reasonable restrictions.
I suggest you google the 5th amendment. You will find many instances of "reasonable" exceptions to the 5th that has been deemed constitutional by the SCOTUS. Federal Tax law, Eminent Domain, Self incrimination..... all have exceptions and fall under the 5th.
Problem is that when you have 10,000 armed strangers marching against what they perceive as a tyrannical government, the odds of pulling off a peaceful demonstration are greatly reduced. The chances of violence are exponentially increased due to the loaded guns.
why not just march with signs that display the messages you want to get out? What is the necessity for loaded weapons?
Personally, I think it's more of an "in your face" intimidation thing than it is a peaceful rally. In essence, it's a simple case of "brandishing a weapon" to make a political point. A crime in most local jurisdictions.
How valid is your political message when you have to make it at the point of a gun? This is just a terrible idea and will turn into a giant cluster F#*k if it's even allowed to get off the ground.
Stupidest idea yet by the rabid right.
Oh, and one more thing. The organizers of this Cluster better take out a couple hundred million dollar insurance policy in the event someone gets shot during this rally. You're asking 10,000 people you don't know, of dubious backgrounds, to load up their weapons and show up in DC on the 4th. Every nut and cretin with a gun will crawl out from under their rocks and show up for this party. You seriously don't think that every one of those 10,000 will be staunch, law abiding patriots do you?
I think you said that very well.THANKS
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
