The OK case

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 1. You have a right to own a firearm. It doesn't mean that a firearm seller has an obligation to sell to you. Go find another person who will. You thinking that's a constitutional violation is the same people who think their first amendment rights of free speech are being violated when people criticize what they say. You have the right to say what you want, but it doesn't mean people can't make fun of you for it, or your employer can't fire you for it.

Honestly, when you read articles about "super gun owners" or whatever, it's very common to have guns handed down from grandparents and great grandparents. Like SSF mentioned, my family also had a Civil War cap-and-ball revolver and battle damaged regimental battle flag (currently on loan to a museum).  The right to buy it doesn't compel a salesperson to be required to sell to you. (Unless you're gay and are ordering a wedding cake. )

As for you starting to take it over-the-top with grenade launchers, tanks, and the like.. you can legally own all of that in the US. Just have to get the right permits, which generally means paying large amounts of money. Money shouldn't be the thing keeping you from Constitutional rights.

- - - - - - -

2. Who determines how mentally ******** you need to be in order to no longer be allowed your Constitutional right? Now you're giving a psychiatrist (are they a government psychiatrist, a police psychiatrist, a private practice one?) the ability to strip people of rights. This is already in action, though. If they're able to function in society, I don't mind them owning.

Convicted felons are stripped of their right to bare arms, though they can apply to have them reinstated by a judge, since felon doesn't automatically mean violent. How violent is a history of violence? A highschool fight? A bar fight in college? That seems silly.

- - - - - - -

3. I'm not sure why you think common sense (not giving firearms to blind people) means the door is open to force everyone to jump through hoops, pay fees, and register to use their rights. You can bet your ass it'd cost money to go through the course, training, and licensing you described. So you're basically not only wanting any poor people to be able to use their rights. Inherited firearms are a pretty big thing, so you don't even need to have ever spent money to buy a gun in order to own a gun.


- - - - - - -

4. Until someone posts that shit online and your house gets targeted for robbery while you're not there. It'd be like posting a "who owns real diamond jewelry" registry online and being shocked when their houses get targeted. Or protested, because there's already assholes with nothing better to do than sit outside a planned parenthood with signs all day long, or wear vagina hats and go marching around. You just know some gun owners in Seattle or LA would have people protesting outside their house.

That's not even taking into consideration the whole confiscation aspect. Before anyone pshaws about that, there was a mass shooting by some jackass in Connecticut. In response the state government shoved through a law without any vote or discussion retroactively making quite a few different types of weapons illegal to own (which is illegal to do). They made it the law to either sell them to the state (you wouldn't get anywhere near it's worth) or destroy them. Almost nobody complied, so the state technically made a huge portion of their citizens felons if they ever got found out.

What do you think would have happened if they had a registry?

Meanwhile just during this last election, California passed some new gun laws including passing a law making the ownership of magazines of any type more than 10 rounds as illegal. That shit got quietly removed because it it illegal to grandfather in your citizens into being criminals like that, and nobody would have followed the law.

What do you think would have happened if they had a registry?




Perfect example, sadly. Here's the awful quote from that article...



- - - - - - -

5. Driving isn't a constitutional right.

- - - - - - -

6. It was a little .410 shotgun and the kids were shooting at targets put on haybales. Winner got a big turkey (already cleaned), I believe. America is a big place, dude. There's a lot of different cultures in it. I didn't personally grow up on a farm, but I have plenty of friends who did and were driving tractors on their land when they were 12 to do farmwork. Had a friend in youth rodeo when he was 10 or so, I think.

When I was young, I would hop on my bike and go ranging through woods and stuff miles away from home with my friends. I think the American parents you know of are the suburban or city folk. I would play in the woods, or go fishing, or play with fireworks or whatever. Had a Swiss Army Knife when I was young and my restriction to getting a bigger pocket knife was "when you can close the lock on your own with one hand" and was taught to never cut towards myself, always away. So I have carried a pocket knife for a really long time (you'd be surprised how often it is useful for just random things) and never cut myself because I was taught to not be an idiot with it.

Teach respect for the tool and understand it's dangerous so it's not a toy, and they won't be a jackass with it. You can immediately tell if someone has been taught properly, because when handed a gun they instantly check it's loaded/unloaded status, the barrel will be pointed nowhere near anyone, and their finger won't be close to touching the trigger.

I feel like guns/gun safety when you are young is a lot like alcohol. I wasn't getting drunk or anything, but when I was younger, beer wasn't really a big deal. Have a sip, or whatever. Then when I grew up, I noticed when all my friends were at college age, it wasn't the ones who were allowed a beer now-and-then who became the big party binge drinkers. It was the ones who were ignorant of alcohol because their parents sheltered the hell out of them. The people who were seriously sheltered from guns when they were young were the ones who handled them like dangerous jackasses at first when in Basic.

Oh, and it was mostly intended as rhetorical questions, but answer is 0, and I sure hope it stays at 0.

- - - - - - -

7. Australia isn't America. America has ~13.6x the population. Australia also only has 5 cities of at least 700,000 people. The US has 17 cities of at least 700,000 people. The US also has a much larger gang problem.

At the risk of summoning GMD (because I know GMD is just lurking, waiting for a chance to call someone racist), African Americans commit 22.4% of violent crime in America despite being 13% of the population.

If we're looking at just gun homicides, then African Americans commit 151 firearm homicides per 1m compare to 15 per 1m among whites. (Whites do commit suicide with a gun at almost 3x the rate, though. 75 per 1m vs 27 per 1m.)

- - - - - - -

8. I'm not quite that Libertarian, though the licenses sure as hell don't keep shitty drivers off the road, so who knows how I will feel in a few more years. Lol.. that said, we go back to the fact that driving isn't a Constitutional right.

EDIT: That said, it wasn't until 1959 that all 50 states in the US required drivers to pass an exam.

Is a permit to own a grenade launcher preventing you from exercising your 2nd Amendment right?

Do you think people should be required to have a permit to own a grenade launcher?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I need a license from the Georgia Composite Medical Board to take care of patients. My personal information including my home address is available via their website to anyone who wants to look it up.

Why should I be required to have a license to do my job?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-05-2017, 04:13 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is a permit to own a grenade launcher preventing you from exercising your 2nd Amendment right?

Do you think people should be required to have a permit to own a grenade launcher?

I just don't like the money required to get them.

"Sorry, but you can't do this unless you are rich."

I'm all for common sense on a permit for destructive devices like that, but $371? C'mon son. Then you have "renewal fees" of no less than $165, and up to $1,500.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-05-2017, 04:20 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I need a license from the Georgia Composite Medical Board to take care of patients. My personal information including my home address is available via their website to anyone who wants to look it up.

Why should I be required to have a license to do my job?

Yes, because being a medical professional and prescribing potentially lethal medications to thousands/tens of thousands of patients while also being relied upon to catch life threatening illnesses as early as possible is TOTALLY the same as a guy who wants to inherit his father's .22 LR and plink some cans in his backyard with his son.

Why'd you have to go and take the decent conversation that Holl and I were having and have to take a bit 'ol argumentative false equivalence shit on it?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-05-2017, 04:27 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, because being a medical professional and prescribing potentially lethal medications to thousands/tens of thousands of patients while also being relied upon to catch life threatening illnesses as early as possible is TOTALLY the same as a guy who wants to inherit his father's .22 LR and plink some cans in his backyard with his son.

Why'd you have to go and take the decent conversation that Holl and I were having and have to take a bit 'ol argumentative false equivalence shit on it?

Oh, so you think I need a license because I might kill somebody?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-05-2017, 04:22 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I just don't like the money required to get them.

"Sorry, but you can't do this unless you are rich."

I'm all for common sense on a permit for destructive devices like that, but $371? C'mon son. Then you have "renewal fees" of no less than $165, and up to $1,500.

If the money is a sticking point, I would suggest a person could obtain the necessary permit by providing a service in lieu of money. Something along the lines of community service as an example.

[GMDino]

(04-05-2017, 12:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The resistance to a registry is due to the perception that registration is the last step before confiscation.  Despite the bemused skepticism of people like xxlt the progressive states have shown that such concerns are rooted in some reality.  Also, anti 2A types have published such lists on the internet in the past.  Might as well make a map of which houses criminals should try and burgle.  

That doesn't make sense.

People say they have guns for self defense.  I see those jokes about "My neighbor doesn't believe in guns...rob his house instead".  Why would anyone knowing you have a gun make it more likely your house would targeted?

(Universal "you" & "your"...not you specifically.)

And I maintain that with a population of 300 million plus there's still no way anyone is going to disarm American citizens.  I mean, who would do it?

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2017, 03:12 AM)hollodero Wrote: First, I'd argue the founders didn't have these arms in mind, so for me it gets tricky with the constitution in its first stages here. I reach that point often.
I try to grasp your point... are you against permits for owning a grenade launcher or a tank? In principle or because of the money?

I could make the argument that the Second Amendment doesn't actually guarantee the right to private ownership. That was, in fact, the way the law was interpreted for well over a century. The Second was interpreted as the right to join the military. The thing a lot of people claim to hate, judicial activism, is what made the Second mean the individual right to firearm ownership.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2017, 09:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: That doesn't make sense.

People say they have guns for self defense.  I see those jokes about "My neighbor doesn't believe in guns...rob his house instead".  Why would anyone knowing you have a gun make it more likely your house would targeted?

Because the number one item thieves look for when burglarizing a house are firearms.  If a person stayed home all day every day, then yes, they'd have nothing to worry about.  Seeing as most people leave their home on a frequent basis that's not the case.  

Quote:(Universal "you" & "your"...not you specifically.)

And I maintain that with a population of 300 million plus there's still no way anyone is going to disarm American citizens.  I mean, who would do it?

It would never happen.  Even if all guns were made illegal tomorrow the vast majority of them would never be turned in.  The problem is that the chipping away at gun owner's rights continues to happen in numerous states.  When you turn millions of previously law abiding people into criminals with the stroke of a pen you're doing something wrong.  There have been too many lies from the anti 2A side for gun owners to ever believe them.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 01:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But as to the bigger point: The weapon matters little.

(04-04-2017, 12:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Using a firearm that may not have the stopping power to prevent an intruder from harming you and or your family is a bad choice

Using a shotgun that hinders precise aiming point and risk collateral damage is a bad choice

Not possessing a firearm and subjecting your family to the terror an intruder could impose is a bad choice

Being outgunned by an intruder is a bad choice

Seems as if you're claiming the type of weapon matters despite your previous contradictory statement.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 11:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Seems as if you're claiming the type of weapon matters despite your previous contradictory statement.

Unless., of course, in your failed attempt at Gotcha one of the quotes was speaking about what categorizes something as a "weapon of war" and the other quote talked about what weapon(s) one may use to defend their home and family.

[*bfine32*]

A point that just struck me:

When the debate was about SSM on this board those opposed would go to extremes with examples such as:

"Can I legally marry a goat?" or "Can I marry my mom?"

Now we are seeing in the weapons for home defense folks using such extreme examples as:

"Can I use Sarin Gas?" or "Can I use a grenade launcher?"

Just food for thought I we return to "As The Board Turns"

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 10:03 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I could make the argument that the Second Amendment doesn't actually guarantee the right to private ownership. That was, in fact, the way the law was interpreted for well over a century. The Second was interpreted as the right to join the military. The thing a lot of people claim to hate, judicial activism, is what made the Second mean the individual right to firearm ownership.

I think it would take a lot more judicial activism to interpret the 2nd as stating it doesn't allow individual citizens the right to own weapons uninfringed.

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2017, 01:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think it would take a lot more judicial activism to interpret the 2nd as stating it doesn't allow individual citizens the right to own weapons uninfringed.

It took quite a while for the individual right to own firearms to become the interpretation of the Second by the courts. Changing the interpretation is judicial activism.

[BmorePat87]

(04-05-2017, 01:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It took quite a while for the individual right to own firearms to become the interpretation of the Second by the courts. Changing the interpretation is judicial activism.

Despite not being a gun owner, I am in the camp that the current interpretation of an individual's right is the correct one for the time that we live in, but, yea, the Court's interpretation that it protect's the individual's right, not the States' right from the Federal government, is less than a decade old. The English Bill of Rights clearly defined a right to own guns separate from any discussion of a militia. The 2nd Amendment then purposely added that point of a militia. Older versions of it elaborate on the militia too. Of course, to me, this is a case where we need to stretch the meaning of it for today's time. 

If we're using the definition of judicial activism of merely "overturning laws and previous precedent" then obviously going back to an older precedent would be activism as you're overturning a newer one. One could make the argument that reversing activism is not itself activism but restraint. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2017, 02:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Despite not being a gun owner, I am in the camp that the current interpretation of an individual's right is the correct one for the time that we live in, but, yea, the Court's interpretation that it protect's the individual's right, not the States' right from the Federal government, is less than a decade old. The English Bill of Rights clearly defined a right to own guns separate from any discussion of a militia. The 2nd Amendment then purposely added that point of a militia. Older versions of it elaborate on the militia too. Of course, to me, this is a case where we need to stretch the meaning of it for today's time. 

If we're using the definition of judicial activism of merely "overturning laws and previous precedent" then obviously going back to an older precedent would be activism as you're overturning a newer one. One could make the argument that reversing activism is not itself activism but restraint. 

But if the Second was never interpreted as individual protection until a decade ago, then it is activism that turned it towards that. Whatever the English Bill or Rights said, it wasn't the judiciary that put the militia bit in there, it was the legislature. But you are correct, going back to the previous precedent now would be activism. I am just having my fun with people who are typically pro-individual right to bear arms and anti-judicial activism by pointing out a fault in their logic since "judicial activism" is not something either ideological side has a monopoly on benefiting from and its use is usually inappropriate when used. That is why I am using the very basic and broad definition for my posts.

Now I have explained it all and the fun has been ruined.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-05-2017, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: A point that just struck me:

When the debate was about SSM on this board those opposed would go to extremes with examples such as:

"Can I legally marry a goat?" or "Can I marry my mom?"

Now we are seeing in the weapons for home defense folks using such extreme examples as:

"Can I use Sarin Gas?" or "Can I use a grenade launcher?"

Just food for thought I we return to "As The Board Turns"

Then there is the crowd who claim anything can be used as a weapon, including a rock, who are worried their guns might be taken away. Why? If anything can be used as a weapon, can't you MacGyver a spud gun?

There is the crowd that doesn't want gun control because laws don't work, but they want to outlaw abortion.

There is the crowd who doesn't want gun licenses to own a weapon designed to intentionally kill someone, but believe I should have a license to write a prescription so I don't accidentally kill someone. Prescription pads are a tool. Prescription pads don't kill people. People kill people.

There is the crowd who is against gun registries because they are afraid their home will be burgled or their guns will be confiscated. Meanwhile, my home address has been available online at the Georgia Composite Medical Board's website and anyone can burglarize my home when they see me at work and after 12 years no one has shown up at my door to confiscate my stethoscope.

Since you used the grenade launcher example, why is an AR-15 acceptable for civilian use, but a grenade launcher isn't? Maybe I want to use a smoke round to screen my movement? Who are you to tell me what weapon I should or shouldn't have? Hell, I might step in a hole and break my leg while hunting and could really use an illum round to mark my position at night for the SAR team.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-05-2017, 01:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think it would take a lot more judicial activism to interpret the 2nd as stating it doesn't allow individual citizens the right to own weapons uninfringed.

A weapon like a grenade launcher?

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2017, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: A point that just struck me:

When the debate was about SSM on this board those opposed would go to extremes with examples such as:

"Can I legally marry a goat?" or "Can I marry my mom?"

Now we are seeing in the weapons for home defense folks using such extreme examples as:

"Can I use Sarin Gas?" or "Can I use a grenade launcher?"

Just food for thought I we return to "As The Board Turns"

And whenever the "marry a goat" argument was brought up it was immediately crushed by a simple phrase we all agree on, i.e. "consenting adult".

Now please tell me whwer the clear line is between what is allowed to be owned without w permiot and what is.  If you think that it is a silly argument then show it is silly by proposing a simple definition we can all agree on.

[fredtoast]

If you want to follow the Constitution regarding gun rights then you should be a member of the volunteer militia if you want your rights to own a gun protected.

Of course being a memeber of a militia requires that your name be placed on a list.