So who will it be for everyone this time?

[Shorts]

An uphill battle is no reason to abandon the fight.

Without 1st or 2nd, you can't fight

Without 1st or 2nd, we're all subjects

Without the 4th, say bye bye to any privacy be it guns or personal activities within in our homes.

2nd is our insurance and should remain in our hands for as long as citizens cannot trust their government, which distrust has been inherent, lest the 2nd not put in the Bill. Latest example is how congress voted us all under the bus. Citizens didn't want the bailout.

The govt only has the power we give them. Allowing govt to take away our power is not what the Constitution was framed on. If the 2nd isn't important now, the time may come where the 2nd needs to be, and hopefully then its not too late.

Be careful what you wish for. The Bill of Rights is not a lunch menu, all or nothing.

[Nalian]

An uphill battle is no reason to abandon the fight.

Without 1st or 2nd, you can't fight

Without 1st or 2nd, we're all subjects

Without the 4th, say bye bye to any privacy be it guns or personal activities within in our homes.

2nd is our insurance and should remain in our hands for as long as citizens cannot trust their government, which distrust has been inherent, lest the 2nd not put in the Bill. Latest example is how congress voted us all under the bus. Citizens didn't want the bailout.

The govt only has the power we give them. Allowing govt to take away our power is not what the Constitution was framed on. If the 2nd isn't important now, the time may come where the 2nd needs to be, and hopefully then its not too late.

Be careful what you wish for. The Bill of Rights is not a lunch menu, all or nothing.

Obviously not so, as we are both advocating for those basic civil rights - me equal rights, you gun rights. We're on opposite sides, so you've chosen one over the other..we just differ on which ones to choose.

[the_sandman_454]

An uphill battle is no reason to abandon the fight.

I disagree on 2. I think that believing that we should keep and bear arms as a way of keeping ourselves 'safe' from our government or ready to oppose it should it go overboard is just unrealistic at this point. Technology has moved on too far, I think. If the government decided to

Yeah, like the Iraqi insurgents aren't causing our troops at least a little bit of trouble, some with very crappy weapons. Even relatively low numbers of insurgents can cause a significant problem to the military or a police force if they so choose.

Of course, the other valid reason for us all being allowed to keep and bear arms being the ability to defend ourselves against criminals, who contrary to some peoples' imaginary beliefs, do exist, even in nice neighborhoods.

Besides, like I said above..realistically the government cannot hope to keep guns out of the hands of citizens. That's been more than proven over the years. Yet one simple law banning gay marriage will effect me forever.

I don't think anyone has said it should be anything other than a state decided issue, the same way the state and the people should have the ability to control everything else not specifically granted to the National government to have authority over.

While all 3 "oppose" same-sex marriage - 2 of them do so very actively, the other 2 it's lip service. Obama and Biden have both publically told people to vote against Proposition 8 in California which will take away folks right to marry.

I don't believe this is a states rights issue, this is just an outright civil liberties issue which the courts are slowly changing, just as they had to do with race issues 50 years ago. Sure, we'll have lots of people crying that the courts are legislating from the bench because they are not allowed to legislate hate and discrimination. I think eventually through either an Article IV push with enough people willing to move and sue will help in some places as well.

Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage. I simply don't want to see such things, just like I don't want to see straight couples doing similar things in my presence.

I do have a problem with people banning or trying to ban me and millions of my law abiding countrymen (and women) from the ability to defend ourselves versus whatever might get thrown at us, be it a criminal or a criminal government.

If they continue to take guns away, someday if equally like minded people get in Congress and the Presidency who proceed to ban homosexuality completely (think V for Vendetta sort of things), how are you going to stop it? It's not particularly unrealistic, as plenty of unarmed people have been rounded up for other things in other countries and eradicated.

Johnj: it is not illegal to own guns in MA. You have to jump through a lot of hoops, but really they are not hard hoops. If I decided to own a gun today and go through all of the legal steps required to get one, it wouldn't be an issue. If I wanted one illegally, I could have it tomorrow. What they are doing in the home-to-home searches is going to neighborhoods that have daily gun violence and attempting to get people to give up their illegal weapons.

Yet the criminals have to jump through zero hoops. Why should we penalize millions of people for crimes they are never going to commit? That is essentially what all the anti-gun laws in the nation do, simply penalize the law abiding citizen by making him/her jump through hoops which do not prevent criminals from posessing weapons.

While on the topic of civil liberties, as you so carefully brought up, the door to door searches of people who might not have the best foundation in Law, and don't understand that they can turn the officers away if they so desire, could have their civil rights trampled because they don't know any better. That is precisely what the door to door searches does. Preys on individuals who might not understand they have a right to deny a request by an officer to search the home unless the officers have a specific warrant for what they expect to find and roughly where they expect to find it.

If taking the position that the 2nd amendment "is an individual right and not just a right of the militia" is anti-gun, sandman, then I have no idea what to tell you. Just because Obama favors regulation and not free-wheeling lets let anyone have anything does not make him out to kill the 2nd amendment. I realize that some people think it should not have any restrictions, but I don't agree with that.

The militia is made up of individuals. Look at the historic context and you will see that the militia was made up of essentially everybody who could utilize a weapon.

If regulation was sufficient to prevent crime, I could maybe see your point. Regulations simply hinder law abiding folks. Regulations assume you are guilty until proven innocent, as evidenced by the fact that you are penalized (by having your access restricted) until you jump through hoops. I believe everything should be permitted until you prove you cannot be trusted with it.

I do not think gun control works as a legal measure. I do know that banning gay marriage and banning abortion works very very well as a legal measure, so I'll continue to push against those things.

I'm totally just repeating myself so I'm obviously out on this one, now.

Gun control does not work as a legal measure, and as such, should not be continued. At best it wastes taxpayer money and at worst it denys honest, law abiding folks the right to easily posess on his or her person the ability to defend themselves against criminals, etc.

[Nalian]

Yes, I thoroughly understand you're on the other side of the fence. You're choosing the 2nd amendment over the 14th. I understand what you're saying and why you're saying it.

I disagree wholeheartedly that right now, the fight for the 2nd amendment is more dire than the 14th. Right now you can own a gun in all 50 states. You can only get married, if you're gay, in 3. The Federal Government refuses to recognize any gay marriage as valid. I see this as a huge problem.

Why have any regulations? Well, this situation is a convenient example: 8 year old shoots self at a gun show.

Guns are advanced enough in this day and age that mistakes that are easy to make are easily fatal. I'd rather see gun control money instead go into gun education, and it be very easy for folks to attend gun safety courses. Much as I think that people should attend motorcycle safety courses before they get their licenses to ride. I don't know of any states that will let you have a license to ride/drive on the road without a skills evaluation test. I don't see why owning a gun should be any different.

I also don't like the idea of people being able to walk in off the street and walk out a short while later with something like an AR-15. I'd rather not see folks who have mental health issues, prior history of poor impulse control/violent crime, etc, not easily get their hands on such things. I also don't think kids should be able to go in and purchase guns whenever they feel like it. Sure, someone could go get one illegally and thereby putting themselves outside the system. But as others have pointed out, people who are already willing to go outside of the system are likely committing other crimes. Laws are not just there to keep people from doing what they want - they're also there sometimes to help us not shoot ourselves in the foot, so to speak (i know, I know, bad joke!).

Given the amount of damage a little mishap with something like an AR-15 can do, it's quite possible that you wouldn't hurt just yourself should you obtain one, have no idea what you're doing, and have some sort of accident. Hence, I think that needs regulation.

[the_sandman_454]

Yes, I thoroughly understand you're on the other side of the fence. You're choosing the 2nd amendment over the 14th. I understand what you're saying and why you're saying it.

I disagree wholeheartedly that right now, the fight for the 2nd amendment is more dire than the 14th. Right now you can own a gun in all 50 states. You can only get married, if you're gay, in 3. The Federal Government refuses to recognize any gay marriage as valid. I see this as a huge problem.

You may be able to own one, some places. Try having one in New York City, Chicago, or other ridiculously restrictive cities. People in these places deserve the same access to firearms that the rest of us have.

The right to self defense should be universal, and the most effective method is being able to posess a firearm, particularly on one's person. I'm sorry to point this out, but not having a marriage will not kill you, whereas not having a firearm or effective means of self defense could easily kill you if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Why have any regulations? Well, this situation is a convenient example: 8 year old shoots self at a gun show.

Guns are advanced enough in this day and age that mistakes that are easy to make are easily fatal. I'd rather see gun control money instead go into gun education, and it be very easy for folks to attend gun safety courses. Much as I think that people should attend motorcycle safety courses before they get their licenses to ride. I don't know of any states that will let you have a license to ride/drive on the road without a skills evaluation test. I don't see why owning a gun should be any different.

You may not realize this but there are over 20,000 anti-gun laws on the books currently. None of them prevented the unfortunate incident with this kid. You cannot force parents to be responsible or use common sense. Additional restrictions would not have done anything to prevent this.

I also don't like the idea of people being able to walk in off the street and walk out a short while later with something like an AR-15. I'd rather not see folks who have mental health issues, prior history of poor impulse control/violent crime, etc, not easily get their hands on such things. I also don't think kids should be able to go in and purchase guns whenever they feel like it. Sure, someone could go get one illegally and thereby putting themselves outside the system. But as others have pointed out, people who are already willing to go outside of the system are likely committing other crimes. Laws are not just there to keep people from doing what they want - they're also there sometimes to help us not shoot ourselves in the foot, so to speak (i know, I know, bad joke!).

First of all, an AR15 is no more dangerous than an automobile. We let all sorts of unqualified people drive automobiles with minimal instruction. Automobiles in this country kill exponentially more people than firearms do. Keep in mind the stats anti gun folks like to throw around about "kids" killed by guns typically includes adults (18y/o) even those with gang connections or younger kids taking part in criminal activity, etc who should not be included in such stats.

Secondly, an AR15, while it might look "scary" or "intimidating" is no more dangerous than grandpa's hunting rifle. it is merely a tool, and no more dangerous than the person using it.

I believe crime would decrease and/or less innocent persons would fall victim to crime, if more people were allowed to easily bear arms on their person. John Lott agrees with that based on statistics in the book entitled "more guns: less crime.". Makes perfect sense. Guns do not cause people to harm others. That is something inside them.

Given the amount of damage a little mishap with something like an AR-15 can do, it's quite possible that you wouldn't hurt just yourself should you obtain one, have no idea what you're doing, and have some sort of accident. Hence, I think that needs regulation.

As mentioned above, an AR15 is not really that dangerous versus other guns and way less dangerous than automobiles and other things. If I wanted to, I could kill way more people with my 1 ton diesel pickup truck than I could with even a fully automatic weapon. I do not want to though, so I do not harm people.

Edited to add:

The government doesn't regulate a lot of things that they maybe should. Things there are no Constitutional rights to, such as procreating. How about a 5 day waiting period and a background check before people are issued a permit to make a baby? That way we wouldn't need abortions even. Sounds great doesn't it? That makes as much sense as firearms regulations and restrictions. I mean this way would help make sure children don't have to suffer from bad parents. Interesting thought to ponder. In fact apply gun control "logic" to other things in life and you'll see just how silly and inappropriate it is.

[Shorts]

Yes, I thoroughly understand you're on the other side of the fence. You're choosing the 2nd amendment over the 14th. I understand what you're saying and why you're saying it.

Um, no, the 14th should be falling right into place

Re 14th:

If abortion is protected because “[a]t the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence,” Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992), the right of armed self-defense against violent criminal attack is surely deserving of incorporation.

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-conten ... issues.pdf

I disagree wholeheartedly that right now, the fight for the 2nd amendment is more dire than the 14th. Right now you can own a gun in all 50 states. You can only get married, if you're gay, in 3. The Federal Government refuses to recognize any gay marriage as valid. I see this as a huge problem.

From a legal standpoint, yeah, a huge problem.

The 14th should be directly applying the 2A. The Incorporation Doctrine makes a heckuva point. No one wants to see another AWB again, which Obama wants to reinstate.

Why have any regulations? Well, this situation is a convenient example: 8 year old shoots self at a gun show.

Yeah, a chilling tragedy no doubt. What regulation would you think is adequate to prevent it?

Guns are advanced enough in this day and age that mistakes that are easy to make are easily fatal. I'd rather see gun control money instead go into gun education, and it be very easy for folks to attend gun safety courses. Much as I think that people should attend motorcycle safety courses before they get their licenses to ride. I don't know of any states that will let you have a license to ride/drive on the road without a skills evaluation test. I don't see why owning a gun should be any different.

Because driving is not a enumerated right. Driving is a privilege. Gun buyers DO get background checked, DO have waiting periods. CCWers DO have to apply, DO get background checked, again, DO get finger printed, DO training classes, DO require PAYING to play, so to speak, DO act subject to laws directly applying to off-limit areas. By standards sets by regulations, buying a gun and even carrying is representing a privilege.

I also don't like the idea of people being able to walk in off the street and walk out a short while later with something like an AR-15. I'd rather not see folks who have mental health issues, prior history of poor impulse control/violent crime, etc, not easily get their hands on such things. I also don't think kids should be able to go in and purchase guns whenever they feel like it. Sure, someone could go get one illegally and thereby putting themselves outside the system. But as others have pointed out, people who are already willing to go outside of the system are likely committing other crimes. Laws are not just there to keep people from doing what they want - they're also there sometimes to help us not shoot ourselves in the foot, so to speak (i know, I know, bad joke!).

First, why is any gun "like an AR15" dangerous/bad/scary? What in particular about it makes an "AR15-like" gun "wrong"?

Second, felons cannot walk into a shop and purchase any gun. That is illegal. What happens when a person purchases a gun is a Form 4473 is filled out. This is a required background check for ALL guns. What happens is the shopkeep takes the app and calls NICS which then makes the determination if that person is eligible to purchase. If not, the purchase is denied. If the person clears, purchase is approved. There is a waiting period after purchase to physically take the gun home, anywhere from 3-5days. Lying on this form is a felony. There is also what is called the Lautenberg Amendment which bans the shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor or felony domestic violence, or who is under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse. This amendment DIRECTLY affects Law Enforcement Officers and Active Duty Military members. They are either discharged, fired or (if lucky) serve in positions where they are not in violation if this Amendment. Such positions are virtually nil for deploying forces (the majority of active commands both Conus and OConus). Not sure what LEOs can do that they wouldn't be in offense.


Third, kids cannot 'go in and purchase a gun when they feel like it'. There are minimum age requirements set by the states in order to purchase. Yes, someone could go illegally and get a gun from a private source. But then, that very action is against the law for both the buyer and seller if the seller is aware that the buyer is ineligible. That very action should be enforced and the person should be punished for breaking the very law that exists which makes it illegal.

Given the amount of damage a little mishap with something like an AR-15 can do, it's quite possible that you wouldn't hurt just yourself should you obtain one, have no idea what you're doing, and have some sort of accident. Hence, I think that needs regulation.

Mmmmm, again explain the AR15. The dangers are no different, and the gun is not treated, nor should it be treated any different than any other firearm. All firearms are treated the same way beginning with The 4 Rules. They apply to ALL firearms regardless of action, caliber, platform or purpose, including Airsoft, BB/Pellet, and paintball.



Now, the trouble with gun control regulation is the idiots thinking it up. The 2A is ALWAYS under attack, at the local, state and federal levels. Even on asinine levels, but still under constant threat.

[Nalian]

Shorts: My point with the paragraph about who I would and would not want to purchase guns is my point towards why we need regulation. Everything you described here:

Second, felons cannot walk into a shop and purchase any gun. That is illegal. What happens when a person purchases a gun is a Form 4473 is filled out. This is a required background check for ALL guns. What happens is the shopkeep takes the app and calls NICS which then makes the determination if that person is eligible to purchase. If not, the purchase is denied. If the person clears, purchase is approved. There is a waiting period after purchase to physically take the gun home, anywhere from 3-5days. Lying on this form is a felony. There is also what is called the Lautenberg Amendment which bans the shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor or felony domestic violence, or who is under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse. This amendment DIRECTLY affects Law Enforcement Officers and Active Duty Military members. They are either discharged, fired or (if lucky) serve in positions where they are not in violation if this Amendment. Such positions are virtually nil for deploying forces (the majority of active commands both Conus and OConus). Not sure what LEOs can do that they wouldn't be in offense.

That's all regulation. sandman asked why we should have any at all - and I responded. So did you! Thanks. I don't think regulation would have resolved the issue of the 8 year old. My point there is that guns ARE dangerous (sure, so are cars, but we're talking guns here) and a mistake can have grave consequences. I think that some laws do help people to realize that things are dangerous and should be thought about/take time before you own one.

Okay - so what I've tried to do in my past few posts is convey that I understand your position, I don't agree with it. To me the other things are more important to fight for. So what are you trying to convey?

I could go in and respond line by line as you folks have done - and trust me I have plenty to say, but... the bottom line is this:

Obama/Biden: pro-choice, will opppose federal bans on same-sex marriage, more likely than the other candidates to repeal DOMA. Iffy on gun rights.

McCain/Palin: pro-life, one for a federal ban, the other ones states to choose, the other outright opposed. Pro gun rights.

For me the choice is clear - Obama/Biden. Our political system has decided to make us choose between which rights we care more about, not me. And no, I don't think putting same-sex marriage at the state level is acceptable. States shouldn't be given the choice on whether or not they want to discriminate.

[Shorts]

Your darn right its regulation, and I pay for it, with my time and money. This sequence on purchasing is just a fraction on whats on the books. So why is more needed if this works so well? Sandman is right, we don't need more regulation - none would be absolutely wonderful. Especially this turkey story of "common sense regulations". Because the antigun politicians don't understand guns enough to make common sense decisions about them.



Re 8yr old: you told me we needed more regulation up there. Now you say we don't because it wouldn't have helped? Is "regulation" the knee jerk reaction to every incident? Think it is. And that mentality is what keeps the 2A in danger. Constantly. To spare the length, I'm not going to repost Obamas voting record, nor will I construct Bidens collage. While you don't see the legislation and proposals on more gun regulation everyday, I don't see all the proposals and regulation that comes out everyday against gay rights.

So what are you trying to convey?

lol Actually I realized earlier that I lost track a couple posts ago, I just though it'd be interesting to see where the thread went

[Nalian]

Re 8yr old: you told me we needed more regulation up there. Now you say we don't because it wouldn't have helped? Is "regulation" the knee jerk reaction to every incident? Think it is. And that mentality is what keeps the 2A in danger. Constantly. To spare the length, I'm not going to repost Obamas voting record, nor will I construct Bidens collage. While you don't see the legislation and proposals on more gun regulation everyday, I don't see all the proposals and regulation that comes out everyday against gay rights.

Shorts, there are two reasons for that. One, you aren't paying attention to gay rights. That's understandable, you aren't gay. But in many states, it's still perfectly legal to fire me from a job because someone finds out I'm gay. You'd think that wouldn't happen, but it does, every day. Some states have sexual orientation now along with race, religion, etc in their non-discrimination laws, but not all. Some of those states that have those protections now have large Christian organizations fighting to remove that protection.

Second reason you don't see it all the time is because for the most part, gays do not have rights to take away. Most states have already put discrimination into their state law and banned gay marriage outright. How the heck is that not an attack on gay rights?

And for the record, I hate the term "gay rights." Same as I hate "gay marriage" - it's just equal rights, and marriage. I mean, it's not like I come home from my gay job to my gay wife to cook gay dinner, etc. We're just people. It's too bad the law doesn't see it that way. All I want is the same rights as heterosexual couples. People are too busy being haters for that.

[Shorts]

sons for that. One, you aren't paying attention to gay rights. That's understandable, you aren't gay. But in many states, it's still perfectly legal to fire me from a job because someone finds out I'm gay. You'd think that wouldn't happen, but it does, every day. Some states have sexual orientation now along with race, religion, etc in their non-discrimination laws, but not all. Some of those states that have those protections now have large Christian organizations fighting to remove that protection.

Second reason you don't see it all the time is because for the most part, gays do not have rights to take away. Most states have already put discrimination into their state law and banned gay marriage outright. How the heck is that not an attack on gay rights?

And for the record, I hate the term "gay rights." Same as I hate "gay marriage" - it's just equal rights, and marriage. I mean, it's not like I come home from my gay job to my gay wife to cook gay dinner, etc. We're just people. It's too bad the law doesn't see it that way. All I want is the same rights as heterosexual couples. People are too busy being haters for that.

lol gotcha


Yep. I thought I wrote that in there, you aren't as involved in gun rights the same as I'm not as involved in marriage rights. (Sorry about the terms used 'gay rights/marriage'. I'm really left holding my butt on what's the informed/nonoffensive/pc/polite/personal preference thing to be said)


Here's a thought for you, and again, I'm taking this reference to guns. Although gun rights are protected in the constitution, there are state/local and city govts that constantly restrict those rights. Often times gun owners are arrested and/or their weapons are confiscated. Leading to the gun owner now jumping through hoops to get his property back, and now mount a legal battle over his rights being trampled. The most disturbing happenings are illegal home invasions/forced entries conducted by law enforcement (I won't cite cases now, but this happens alot in VA, PA, MD). That is the disgusting issue really, that public servants who are in the position to enforce LAWS are the very ones that are injecting their own personal bias into the laws and are not upholding them to the letter.


Essentially, I'm saying if you get constitutional support and/or the laws to support you, be aware that that is not the end of the matter. You might be fighting the same uphill battles that gunowners are in regards to getting lawful treatment. I'm not saying this to scare you or put you off. Rather I'm telling it to you as a 'watch out for'. As a segment of the population that is discriminated against, I understand what its like to be fighting uphill battles to change demonizing attitudes.