Gun Rights

Creekwood said:
But the comparative countries statistics ALSO include suicides by gun. So it is still a valid comparison country to country. Like I said earlier, I am all for responsible gun ownership. But I do think that the more that you ignore the facts and talk around them, and let the more radical gun lobbyists speak or protest for you, the more at risk you are for having major amendments voted in. You are not helping your cause of ensuring that good law abiding citizens continue to be able to own guns.
Click to expand...
What facts have I talked around and what’s my cause? The gun lobby doesn’t speak for me, just as the abortion lobby doesn’t speak for me. I speak for me. Again, you’re putting words in my mouth.

Going back to VA, I believe that was a wonderful cause to protest tyranny. There’s no other word to use but tyranny. As others have stated, there are rules to amend the Constitution. The US citizens Bill Of Rights are not the Governments to decide.
 
Blueone said:
I called Democrats delicate like a snowflake... but please jump to "I insulted you" if that makes you feel better for calling me an asshole. You are the typical left I'll give you that as soon as you feel uncomfortable you have to lash out... in a boating forum for crying out loud where you will solve nothing here.. but please, carry on.
Oh... and congratulations you are my first "ignore" in 13 years...way to go!!… Wingless didn't even qualify.
Click to expand...
Do what ya gotta do, then please ask me if I give a shit......OK?? Fair enough!!!
 
Being a day trader I follow stocks closely. Anytime gun laws were brought up by Obama gun maker stock prices spiked up due to sales. Yeah I realize revenue wouldn't be announced until quarterly reporting but the speculation was there.

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But you won't hear those stories on MSM
 
A big thing that I believe a large portion of our population does not understand about gun control is that any laws require the voluntary compliance of the people it is designed to govern.

It's already against the law to shoot people (except under some very narrowly designed circumstances) but that doesn't stop some people. It's also against the law for felons to possess firearms but that doesn't stop some felons.

Passing more gun laws is not the answer. The answer is to use the laws that are currently on the books to take the bad guys off the street and put them in a warehouse, AKA prison.
 
Thought
firecadet613 said:
@Kwik , @MrHappy and @Blueone hopefully you all are also on ingunowners.com. Would love to have you join us to testify in support of pro gun legislation when it comes up in committee at the state house!

And....lunch is on me. Just not St Elmo's!
Click to expand...
I was a part of the group from years ago. I tried to log in and wasn't able. Reregistered.
 
Gofirstclass said:
A big thing that I believe a large portion of our population does not understand about gun control is that any laws require the voluntary compliance of the people it is designed to govern.

It's already against the law to shoot people (except under some very narrowly designed circumstances) but that doesn't stop some people. It's also against the law for felons to possess firearms but that doesn't stop some felons.

Passing more gun laws is not the answer. The answer is to use the laws that are currently on the books to take the bad guys off the street and put them in a warehouse, AKA prison.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that, except I cannot understand why the law abiding good people would be averse to modified laws to restrict or limit ownership by the bad guys. I know that there is a very real concern that it is a slippery slope to appease the radical anti-gun side. But I am concerned you run the risk of them winning over the more indifferent middle if you polarize too far to the "don't change a single thing" side. The extreme sides will never win. There are not enough of them (you?). Its the middle that matters. They are the ones open minded because they are less firm in their views. They are less vocal, so you may think they are on your side, but they very well may not be. They very well may have been voting Republican because of the other aspects of the GOP platform, and just "accepting" the 2A position. But that can change. Every time there is another mass shooting in a school, a church, a very large number in that fuzzy middle may very well be tipping towards the anti side.

That is why, in my view, gun owners should lobby hard in the middle not the extreme. I think the gun lobby in the US should acknowledge the limitations of the 2A given that it was written over 200 years ago, and work with your governments to bring it into the 21st century, while maintaining that fundamental important aspect of the right to bear arms. If you don't, the tide may very well shift.

Sorry, one last point. I think it has to be the 2A that is amended again. If it is not very very clear in the constitution itself as to what the right to bear arms means, it leaves the States to do what they will to interpret those 200+ year old words and not "technically" be violating the constitution. You MUST update the words in the constitution in order to secure the rights, as hard as that will be.
 
Blueone said:
Susanandlance...I called Democrats delicate like a snowflake... but please jump to "I insulted you" if that makes you feel better for calling me an asshole. You are the typical left I'll give you that as soon as you feel uncomfortable you have to lash out... in a boating forum for crying out loud where you will solve nothing here.. but please, carry on.
Oh... and congratulations you are my first "ignore" in 13 years...way to go!!… Wingless didn't even qualify.
Click to expand...
I'm FAR from the left Blueone, actually a registered independent, middle of the road, neither far left or far right :) Oh, and thankyou for your kind consideration of putting me on ignore list, have a nice day and happy boating to you, it's going to be 78 today think I'll go do some global warming :)
 
Creekwood, I hear what you're saying and, for the record, I'm not a hard and fast far right gun nut. The problem I have with attempting to change the 2A is that once you open that door, who knows what the end result will be.

When I have a frank and honest discussion with anti-gun folks, my simple question to them, and I'll pose it to you is this:
What gun legislation would you enact that will punish the bad guys and not further restrict the rights of law abiding citizens?

And for the record, you'd probably never catch me at a pro-gun rally and absolutely never with an AR-15 slung over my shoulder. Ain't my style. I think I'm much more subtle than that.

What say you?
 
Gofirstclass said:
What gun legislation would you enact that will punish the bad guys and not further restrict the rights of law abiding citizens?
Click to expand...
There isn’t a right answer to that question. The problem is anti-gun people don’t care about 2A as it is written today and surely don’t care what happens to law abiding citizens rights. They just want the guns.
This argument is not going to be solved anytime soon
 
We need to work on the problems that contribute to folks misusing firearms. Right now most discussion is just about the guns themselves, or the actions of crazy guys, and bad guys. But what causes it?
 
Gofirstclass said:
Creekwood, I hear what you're saying and, for the record, I'm not a hard and fast far right gun nut. The problem I have with attempting to change the 2A is that once you open that door, who knows what the end result will be.

When I have a frank and honest discussion with anti-gun folks, my simple question to them, and I'll pose it to you is this:
What gun legislation would you enact that will punish the bad guys and not further restrict the rights of law abiding citizens?

And for the record, you'd probably never catch me at a pro-gun rally and absolutely never with an AR-15 slung over my shoulder. Ain't my style. I think I'm much more subtle than that.

What say you?
Click to expand...

But without changing it you run the risk that state by state more and more the tide will change and there won’t be a clear way to stop it. What is going on in VA is because there is a view that they can do that under 2A. If 2A was opened up and expanded and clarified then everyone would have the same rules. I think you would want to do that soon before the horse is out of the barn. Opening it up after the center moves more anti will make it much harder.
 
Creekwood, I think that may be where the disconnect is. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is they are unalienable in the US. Those rights cannot be usurped by the States or the Federal Government (edit: without a painstaking process - as it should be). Those Rights are given to us by our creator, or as some would call it Natural Law.
 
OllieC said:
Creekwood, I think that may be where the disconnect is. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is they are unalienable in the US. Those rights cannot be usurped by the States or the Federal Government (edit: without a painstaking process - as it should be). Those Rights are given to us by our creator, or as some would call it Natural Law.
Click to expand...

Except your state politicians don’t believe that. And more and more will pile on. It’s 200 year old wording with no clarity and it’s outdated. Honestly I think you are fighting the wrong enemy. The enemy is an outdated 2A that can be “interpreted” differently over time as governments get swayed and the middle moves anti.
 
Creekwood said:
Except your state politicians don’t believe that. And more and more will pile on. It’s 200 year old wording with no clarity and it’s outdated. Honestly I think you are fighting the wrong enemy. The enemy is an outdated 2A that can be “interpreted” differently over time as governments get swayed and the middle moves anti.
Click to expand...
Creekwood, don't take this the wrong way as I happen to agree with lots you have said, but, why doesn't Canada get rid of its monarchy? It's certainly outdated and from what I tell doing some fast research, lacks clarity. I think the answer would be very similar as to why the 2A is not going to get changed, at least any time soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RBB
alnav said:
Creekwood, don't take this the wrong way as I happen to agree with lots you have said, but, why doesn't Canada get rid of its monarchy? It's certainly outdated and from what I tell doing some fast research, lacks clarity. I think the answer would be very similar as to why the 2A is not going to get changed, at least any time soon.
Click to expand...

well the monarchy in Canada is now entirely symbolic. 100%. Good point but there is no need to change it. It costs nothing and has no impact whatsoever on anything other than taking up space on the back of our coins and the symbolism associated with the years as a British colony. But I often wonder the same thing.
 
But since you asked and implied that Canada is locked in an ancient constitution I can give you some history. We actually did go through a very contentious major major amendment to our constitution in the 1980s. The original constitution, as amended by the new one, was written in 1867. It was outdated and did not deal with the very real issues with the rights of provinces vs the federal government. Québec did not sign at the time being different from English Canada. So a very heated and tough process resulted in the new constitution that was suited to the Canada of today. We went through a similar process when the Charter of rights and freedoms in 1982 which also forms part of our constitution.

So we have a history of amending our constitution to suit the present issues in the world. It’s not easy, and it takes cooperation of partisan interests for the greater good. But Americans did that in 1776 when there was arguable more division on issues than today.
 
Creekwood said:
Except your state politicians don’t believe that. And more and more will pile on. It’s 200 year old wording with no clarity and it’s outdated. Honestly I think you are fighting the wrong enemy. The enemy is an outdated 2A that can be “interpreted” differently over time as governments get swayed and the middle moves anti.
Click to expand...
Of course politicians wouldn’t want the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. It limits their power on what they can do to us.....and no, not “all” states politicians are like Northam. But I get it, those words were written by a bunch of old white guys :roll eyes:

Please tell me what you think in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is unclear and outdated. Is it the 1st Amendment? It’s clear you think the 2nd is - not sure how “shall not be infringed” can misinterpreted tho.... How about the 4th? How about the 13th - Democrat’s really hated that one. As a matter of fact, that evil NRA lobby, they used to help freed slaves protect themselves from Democrats. How about the preamble to our Constitution? How should those words be changed? Any other portion of my Rights do you think are old, outdated and unclear?
 
Creekwood said:
But since you asked and implied that Canada is locked in an ancient constitution I can give you some history. We actually did go through a very contentious major major amendment to our constitution in the 1980s. The original constitution, as amended by the new one, was written in 1867. It was outdated and did not deal with the very real issues with the rights of provinces vs the federal government. Québec did not sign at the time being different from English Canada. So a very heated and tough process resulted in the new constitution that was suited to the Canada of today. We went through a similar process when the Charter of rights and freedoms in 1982 which also forms part of our constitution.

So we have a history of amending our constitution to suit the present issues in the world. It’s not easy, and it takes cooperation of partisan interests for the greater good. But Americans did that in 1776 when there was arguable more division on issues than today.
Click to expand...
I actually wasn't trying to imply anything about constitutional histories, more to try and cite a national principle so imbedded in the fabric of the nation that it has become immutable. The Bill of Rights is like that in the US. We're going to need to continue to rely on evolutionary legislation and judicial review, which take time but in my opinion have served us well over the years despite hand-wringing over both. The process and dynamics of both will tend to dampen the chance of a sudden "tide shift" inflicting radical changes in either direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,119
Messages
1,426,564
Members
61,035
Latest member
Lukerney
Back
Top