Obama and gun control

Wood'nCoal wrote:

Are you guys really saying that government has no business trying to regulate guns in this country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... nstitution

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You forgot the first part of that sentence: ""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."

(I know about the recent Sup. Court ruling, but those rulings have a tendency to change over time.)

jpete wrote:Yes, that's what we are saying.

Well then....if you believe in NO controls/limits whatsoever.......we simply disagree.

Devil505 wrote:

PC 12-47E wrote:Devil The topic is obama and gun control

Sorry if I misread but I've been made quite aware or remaining on topic, & it seems to be wandering off into a general gun control thread.

Devil first of all I am open to all moderators reviewing my post.

My point is that obama's proposed gun control and ammo registration with serial #'s has flawes.

As a handloader & competitive hi-power target shooter for over 30yrs, a monkey can take a box of ammo with serial numbers remove the bullets, with a $7. bullet puller, from the brass case and replace them with unmarked bullets.

The amount of handloading components sold in the USA each year would shock the new administration.

RS

Devil505 wrote:

Wood'nCoal wrote:

Are you guys really saying that government has no business trying to regulate guns in this country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... nstitution

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You forgot the first part of that sentence: ""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."

(I know about the recent Sup. Court ruling, but those rulings have a tendency to change over time.)

It depends on what you mean by "free State". It is said you can tell how corrupt a government is by how many laws it has. We have over 4000 criminal laws on over 1,000,000 pages.

How "free" do you think that makes us?

PC 12-47E wrote:My point is that obama's proposed gun control and ammo registration with serial #'s has flawes.

I'm not arguing your above point. (I have not even looked into Obama's serial # proposal) I am arguing against the more generic.... "Any limit is a bad limit" argument, which I disagree with. I think reasonable citizens can debate what regulations/restrictions are & are not reasonable, but to argue that ANY limitation is Unconstitutional is not a reasonable position to take in our over-crowded society, IMO.

jpete wrote:It depends on what you mean by "free State". It is said you can tell how corrupt a government is by how many laws it has. We have over 4000 criminal laws on over 1,000,000 pages.

How "free" do you think that makes us?

About as "Free" as any society has ever been, considering we are roughly 300,000,000 citizens living in ever closer proximity to each other.

Devil505 wrote:

PC 12-47E wrote:My point is that obama's proposed gun control and ammo registration with serial #'s has flawes.

I'm not arguing your above point. (I have not even looked into Obama's serial # proposal) I am arguing against the more generic.... "Any limit is a bad limit" argument, which I disagree with. I think reasonable citizens can debate what regulations/restrictions are & are not reasonable, but to argue that ANY limitation is Unconstitutional is not a reasonable position to take in our over-crowded society, IMO.

So what would be the ideal population that the Constitution would work with?

The limit that you seem to be ignoring is the penalty for depriving someone else of their rights.

That is what we have lost in this country. Too much sympathy for the guilty, and not enough for the victim.

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:It depends on what you mean by "free State". It is said you can tell how corrupt a government is by how many laws it has. We have over 4000 criminal laws on over 1,000,000 pages.

How "free" do you think that makes us?

About as "Free" as any society has ever been, considering we are roughly 300,000,000 citizens living in ever closer proximity to each other.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free" - Goethe

Personal income taxes make us all slaves. Property taxes ensure that we will never "own" our property.

So the government owns you and all your stuff.

Still think you are free?

You forgot the first part of that sentence: ""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."

My interpretation is the 2nd Amendment is two separate statements:

1) "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

2) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

and "shall not be infringed." applies to both #1 and #2.

jpete wrote:That is what we have lost in this country. Too much sympathy for the guilty, and not enough for the victim.

So....Let me see if I understand your position:

An individual's right to keep & bare arms, trumps our collective right (as a group) to be secure & should have no limitations?

Example:

Your law abiding, "Salt of the Earth" neighbor.... ( you know him......The one with the crazy 17 year old son who loves to pull the wings off of live birds & is always in trouble with the police....That guy, decides that he would feel more secure if he could defend his home with a small, low yield, tactical nuclear weapon. (sorry Paul......You knew it was coming! ) That would be OK in your eyes?....Serious answer please.

Wood'nCoal wrote:

You forgot the first part of that sentence: ""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."

My interpretation is the 2nd Amendment is two separate statements:

1) "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

2) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

and "shall not be infringed." applies to both #1 and #2.

Sounds like a pretty good interpretation!

Heller won't be expanded. For all the "floodgate" reasons the Supreme Court didn't want to deal with the 2nd Amendment for what, about 75 years, you've seen all you're going to see to delimit gun control.

As illogical as it may seem to all you gun lovers, you've seen the high-water mark for the 2nd Amendment.

Just sayin'.

Devil, I am in favor of the FBI backround check for each firearm purchase.

All my firearms live in a Browining Gun Safe.

Two of my target rifles are wildcat cartridges, (ie) you only can only handload ammo.

obama's proposed "ammo" registration with serial #'s will make my hobby with about $10,000. invested useless.

RS

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:That is what we have lost in this country. Too much sympathy for the guilty, and not enough for the victim.

So....Let me see if I understand your position:

An individual's right to keep & bare arms, trumps our collective right (as a group) to be secure?

Example:

Your law abiding, "Salt of the Earth" neighbor.... ( you know him......The one with the crazy 17 year old son who loves to pull the wings off of live birds & is always in trouble with the police....That guy, decides that he would feel more secure if he could defend his home with a small, low yield, tactical nuclear weapon. (sorry Paul......You knew it was coming! ) That would be OK in your eyes?....Serious answer please.

Since you are obviously not serious, I'll try to be as serious as I can.

A small, low yield, tactical nuke is about as dangerous to me as a 9mm if the owner respects my right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happyness".

If he doesn't, it really doesn't matter what he kills me with, now does it?

An individual's right to keep & bare arms, trumps our collective right (as a group) to be secure?

I thought the "collective right to be secure" meant the "group" was well armed!