For U.S. Gun Enthusiasts

drgrant1 said:

But remember this, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Every one of us over 30 has seen it with our own eyes. And once politicians have the 2nd Amendment out of their way and our guns confiscated (That is the stated goal of many liberal politicians.) watch out as there will be nothing to stop them from doing anything they choose.

Click to expand...

Sounds like conspiracy theory to me.

Anyway, even with guns, do you really think that the American people would overthrow the government? Most of us are sheep. Now, please cite specifically which liberal politicians support confiscating our guns, and use exact quotes.

And please stop using Fantasy font. It's hard to read.

-Mark

rocketparrotlet said:

Sounds like conspiracy theory to me.  

Anyway, even with guns, do you really think that the American people would overthrow the government?  Most of us are sheep.  Now, please cite specifically which liberal politicians support confiscating our guns, and use exact quotes.  

Click to expand...

If you allow the government to start controlling something that is/was supposedly protected by the constitution, it's no longer is a right. How would you feel if you required a permit stage a protest?

As per your post, there may not be any specific politicians bent on confiscating your firearms but the fact that you let them take a step closer to violating your constitutional rights is a very obvious sign of what they plan to do next.

rocketparrotlet said:

Ugh... I hate it when they try to take away Constitutional rights.  But this isn't.  You still have the right to bear arms, they're just trying to tax them more.

Also, the "damn libs" approach is not the right one.  And this is not taking away Constitutional rights, either.  You still have the right to bear arms, they're just trying to tax them all.  Simply because a liberal president is in office does not mean that we are now a socialist country.  A bit o' government knowledge might help you to understand that better if you don't already.  We are a republic!  Not a "true democracy", not a socialism, not a communism, not a dictatorship, not an oligarchy, not a monarchy, not a tyranny, etc. etc.

I think that if you go way too far left, you are becoming just like the right.  Right-wing policies generally support military and governmental power over the power of the people.  Left-wing policies generally support increased freedoms, with the penalty of increased taxation.   However, too far to the left, and restrictions are quite similar to those in the far right (just over different issues.) Taxing is not restricting freedom...

-Mark

Click to expand...

Were you talking to me?

I certainly know that this is a "republic". If you want to be really technical, it's not a pure republic either. It's more a "representative democracy", but even the most learned academics have a hard time giving the US government 1 title only, because it's so complicated. A bit o' government knowledge might help you to understand that better if you don't already.

And of course the US is not becoming instantly socialist because of 1 president. But a liberal-leaning president and a liberal majority in congress, with the possibility of replacing supreme court justices in the near future, does have the possibility of changing the entire outlook of the court. The Heller decision on gun rights was a 5-4 vote, so one justice could make a BIG difference in that case. I'm not blaming "the libs" or whatever, and I never said the word socialist. But one of our 2 parties has a history of wanting to limit gun rights and increase gun laws, and that party currently has the power to pass *almost* any law that they want bad enough right now. Really, the only thing in their way right now is a republican senate filibuster, but that may only happen for extreme bills.

As far as this bill not limiting gun rights, that's just scary. If you have to apply to the government, then the government has the ability to reject you. By my definition, that means it's not a right. And taxing IS restricting freedom. You already have to pay sales tax on guns and ammo. AND, you already have to pay extra excise taxes on guns and ammo. Why tax it more? Maybe for keeping people from owning guns if you make them too expensive? Taxing is CERTAINLY used as a tool to keep people from certain activities, and excessive taxing certainly DOES limit freedoms.

And you "left is more freedom with more taxes, right is the opposite" is way too simplistic. The left most certainly does try to encroach on 2nd amendments rights, and leaders from BOTH sides have recently proven they are more than willing to violate 4th amendment rights when it suits them.

And for your later post asking for a direct politician quote that says they want to confiscate guns, you'll never find one, because they're politicians. They know that saying that would be political suicide; they would never be elected again in most areas, and say goodbye to a presidency anytime in their future. So they tiptoe around it. But go read the bills they have signed onto and voted for, read their histories. Many sites tabulate these things for you, and I think many politicians are a lot more against guns than you seem to think. Obama, for instance, filled out a questionnaire and checked that yes, he would support banning all semi-automatic weapons before he ever became a senator. How's that?


----------------------------

And for other posters (DTMF, I think), there's also a BIG difference between driver's licenses and tracking every gun purchase and attaching it to your address, photo, thumbprint, all that. Sure, you have to get a license to drive a car, but that's a privilege to drive on state-maintained roads, and the system is run by the states. This is a constitutionally-guaranteed right, and a federally-maintained database.

And wow privacy protection! A database of who you are, all your personal info, even your fingerprints, and a list of expensive items that you keep in your house all the time, all in one place! That's a NIGHTMARE for privacy implications, I hadn't even thought about that.

PullBangDead: Sorry if my post came out as directed towards you. It was not directed at anybody in particular.

Also, a lot of my post was definitely overgeneralization, and I should have elaborated further. I was a bit pressed for time at the moment, and I didn't proofread it for poor arguments, etc. I admit, some of my points are weak. The point I was trying to make was that it's not the fault of "the liberals" as an entity, but by certain individuals in the Democratic Party. I could find many hypocrises in the conservative side, but that would only lead to a flamewar and I don't want that. (I could also find hypocrises in the liberal side, I'm not trying to make a good vs. evil point, because it's never that simple.)

Taxation is partial limitation, but to a certain degree, it is much different than a permit due to the filing and application process required for a permit. I do not agree with this policy either; I was just trying to shed some light on the situation, as I don't see it as unconstitutional, just somewhat unethical.

-Mark

^Fair enough.

I still believe it is unconstitutional, because the government would be setting a condition to approve/disapprove of every individual applicant. If the government has the ability to set the "arbitrary" limit for regular citizens with no prior limitations on their gun ownership, then it is restricting rights. And the government WILL have that ability, so who's to say what citizens become "undesirables" in the future? This gives the government that ability.

If government has to sign off on you doing it, then it's no longer a right.

HumanSymphony said:

Don't they get it? People who wish to use guns for the wrong reasons will ALWAYS find a way to get them! They certainly won't be buying them legally anyways. They're just ruining it for the good, honest, hardworking americans!

Click to expand...

HumanSymphony gets it as I've always said bann them all or none.

and as far as the left and there liberal bannhammer.

HumanSymphony said:

[highlight]Don't they get it? People who wish to use guns for the wrong reasons will ALWAYS find a way to get them! They certainly won't be buying them legally anyways. They're just ruining it for the good, honest, hardworking americans! [/highlight]

Click to expand...

[highlight]Amen[/highlight]......I work for a Major Gun Manufacture and this does concern me. Even though our primary weapon that we make is an ar15 and our primary buyer is our Government.
FYI: We are located in Illinois where the Illinois legislation is trying to prevent the manufacturing of arms in their State. Why? Who knows. [highlight]We bring in millions of dollars of tax revenue to the state.[/highlight]

You "benevolent" parent (government) is trying to protect you from yourself.

They are only doing it because they love you and know that you are too stupid to protect yourselves
[/sarcasm]

< begins preparing the creosote and waterproof wraps, purchasing enough ammo for storage, and digging the hole in the backyard >

Peace,
dave

pullbangdead said:

[quote author=rocketparrotlet link=1235498818/0#9 date=1235522769]Ugh... I hate it when they try to take away Constitutional rights.  But this isn't.  You still have the right to bear arms, they're just trying to tax them more.

Click to expand...

May I say BS!! They are taking away the right to bear arms. It starts out small, but it will increase and it will only get worse untill we aren't allowed to have them at all. In Illinois, the Crazy Liberals are trying to take away all guns that basicly hold more than 3 rounds magazines will not be allowed. This also include the removal of all Assult Riffles as well.
Let me just say that all of the Hunters in this state are going to have several illegal riffles.

daguin said:

You "benevolent" parent (government) is trying to protect you from yourself.

They are only doing it because they [highlight]love you [/highlight]and know that you are too stupid to protect yourselves
[/sarcasm]

< begins preparing the creosote and waterproof wraps, purchasing enough ammo for storage, and digging the hole in the backyard >

Peace,
dave

Click to expand...

This whole thing made me laugh. hahahahahahah ;D ;D

pullbangdead said:

[quote author=rocketparrotlet link=1235498818/0#9 date=1235522769]Ugh... I hate it when they try to take away Constitutional rights.  But this isn't.  You still have the right to bear arms, they're just trying to tax them more.

Also, the "damn libs" approach is not the right one.  And this is not taking away Constitutional rights, either.  You still have the right to bear arms, they're just trying to tax them all.  Simply because a liberal president is in office does not mean that we are now a socialist country.  A bit o' government knowledge might help you to understand that better if you don't already.  We are a republic!  Not a "true democracy", not a socialism, not a communism, not a dictatorship, not an oligarchy, not a monarchy, not a tyranny, etc. etc.

I think that if you go way too far left, you are becoming just like the right.  Right-wing policies generally support military and governmental power over the power of the people.  Left-wing policies generally support increased freedoms, with the penalty of increased taxation.   However, too far to the left, and restrictions are quite similar to those in the far right (just over different issues.) Taxing is not restricting freedom...

-Mark

Click to expand...

Were you talking to me?

I certainly know that this is a "republic".  If you want to be really technical, it's not a pure republic either.  It's more a "representative democracy", but even the most learned academics have a hard time giving the US government 1 title only, because it's so complicated.  A bit o' government knowledge might help you to understand that better if you don't already.

And of course the US is not becoming instantly socialist because of 1 president.  But a liberal-leaning president and a liberal majority in congress, with the possibility of replacing supreme court justices in the near future, does have the possibility of changing the entire outlook of the court.  The Heller decision on gun rights was a 5-4 vote, so one justice could make a BIG difference in that case.  I'm not blaming "the libs" or whatever, and I never said the word socialist.  But one of our 2 parties has a history of wanting to limit gun rights and increase gun laws, and that party currently has the power to pass *almost* any law that they want bad enough right now.  Really, the only thing in their way right now is a republican senate filibuster, but that may only happen for extreme bills.  

As far as this bill not limiting gun rights, that's just scary.  If you have to apply to the government, then the government has the ability to reject you.  By my definition, that means it's not a right.  And taxing IS restricting freedom.  You already have to pay sales tax on guns and ammo.  AND, you already have to pay extra excise taxes on guns and ammo.  Why tax it more?  Maybe for keeping people from owning guns if you make them too expensive?  Taxing is CERTAINLY used as a tool to keep people from certain activities, and excessive taxing certainly DOES limit freedoms.

And you "left is more freedom with more taxes, right is the opposite" is way too simplistic.  The left most certainly does try to encroach on 2nd amendments rights, and leaders from BOTH sides have recently proven they are more than willing to violate 4th amendment rights when it suits them.

And for your later post asking for a direct politician quote that says they want to confiscate guns, you'll never find one, because they're politicians.  They know that saying that would be political suicide; they would never be elected again in most areas, and say goodbye to a presidency anytime in their future.  So they tiptoe around it.  But go read the bills they have signed onto and voted for, read their histories.  Many sites tabulate these things for you, and I think many politicians are a lot more against guns than you seem to think.  Obama, for instance, filled out a questionnaire and checked that yes, he would support banning all semi-automatic weapons before he ever became a senator.  How's that?


----------------------------

[highlight]And for other posters (DTMF, I think), there's also a BIG difference between driver's licenses and tracking every gun purchase and attaching it to your address, photo, thumbprint, all that. Sure, you have to get a license to drive a car,[/highlight] but that's a privilege to drive on state-maintained roads, and the system is run by the states.  This is a constitutionally-guaranteed right, and a federally-maintained database.  

And wow privacy protection!  A database of who you are, all your personal info, even your fingerprints, and a list of expensive items that you keep in your house all the time, all in one place!  That's a NIGHTMARE for privacy implications, I hadn't even thought about that.

[/quote]

here in california you already have to have a basic firearms safety cert to buy handgun's .and you have to have a valid state i.d or a state d.l to purchase a firearm . and good luck finding a free place to shoot your gun's . the 2nd amendment has already been trampled on by our government . thats old new's . Q what are you willing to do about it how far would you go to protect your own right's

@dave im already one step ahead of you now where did i hide the map :

DTMF said:

[quote author=pullbangdead link=1235498818/16#18 date=1235544104]
@[highlight]dave  im already one step ahead of you now where did i hide the map  :  [/highlight]

Click to expand...

Now, The question is, Where is my metal detector and where do you live?!!!

DTMF said:

here in california you already have to have a basic firearms safety cert to buy handgun's .and you have to have a valid state i.d or a state d.l to purchase  a firearm . and good luck finding a free  place to shoot your gun's . [highlight]the 2nd amendment has already  been trampled on by our government [/highlight]. thats old new's . Q what are you willing to do about  it  how far would you go to protect your own right's

@dave  im already one step ahead of you now where did i hide the map  :  

Click to expand...

That's key here. The entire constitution has been repeatedly altered since 1789. In fact, there's not much left of the original as law. The US is supposed to be a free country too. It's not. I doubt that it's even the "most free" country on earth anymore.. DTMF has hit the nail square on the head here. Whether or not any of these changes are for the best or not is a never-ending argument that will most likely never be won. Also, the original constitution was written in a different time for a different generation, and a much smaller populace. This fact is what has driven most of the changes to the constitution. Regarding the 2nd amendment, there was no other form of police protection for most citizens of the US in the late 18th century than self-protection. Times have changed, and so must the constitution.

Let me be very clear. By saying what I just said, I am not taking sides in this debate. I value my right to own a firearm, and would hate to see any legislation get passed that severely impairs any American of sound mind and judgment from possessing one. While I didn't read the entire piece of legislation (I'm at work right now) what I did see didn't contain any statements that would seriously keep anyone who wanted a firearm from having one except in certain cases of mental instability and/or a history of crime. The main issue that I didn't like was the fees involved in obtaining the license.

Much of this talk from the gov refers to "sensable" legislation. Registration, training and taxes to make the country "safe" for the children.
What they don't say is that these laws don't apply to criminals at all. Because of their criminal status, it would be self incrimination to regester thereby violating THEIR rights under the constitution
These laws only apply to the honest citizen.

Mike

ElektroFreak said:

Let me be very clear. By saying what I just said, I am not taking sides in this debate. I value my right to own a firearm, and would hate to see any legislation get passed that severely impairs any American of sound mind and judgment from possessing one. While I didn't read the entire piece of legislation (I'm at work right now) what I did see didn't contain any statements that would seriously keep anyone who wanted a firearm from having one except in certain cases of mental instability and/or a history of crime. The main issue that I didn't like was the fees involved in obtaining the license.

Click to expand...

Those fees I disagree with, as well. (Remember? I don't support this bill?) I am in favor of what ElektroFreak is saying here; he seems to share my opinion. I don't think it's unconstitutional to TAX guns, but to make them illegal IS unconstitutional. This is my argument.

-Mark

California law is already extremely unfriendly to gun owners. "licensing" part is concerning but that whole bill was mess to read (terrible format). I'm glad I already have my firearms and don't have to worry about future purchases so much. Of course I'd happen to "accidentally lose" my guns if the government ever made extreme changes to the law and wanted mine. Return my .45 colt? Sorry, I lost it...