Two questions for gun control people

[woody743]

The more talk about AR15s the more I think I will get one.

 

[chickened]

Are you reading and listening to the news? It will be done by the various States the same as New York just did. The State legislatures are being flooded with restrictive gun bills and eventually the US Congress will be forced to pass some National regulations. You can scream and holler all you want about it being an infringement upon your rights when, in fact, it will be interpreted by the Supreme Court as a reasonable regulation of the 2nd amendment. Those who dont like it can choose to violate those laws or, like I have seen some here suggest, they can attempt a revolution. Can you not see that all of these arguments are the same ones used by bigots when the Courts ordered desegregation? They screamed, they fought, they even killed, but eventually troops were sent in and it was accomplished and there are still some people today who believe that the forced desegregation was an infringement upon their rights granted by the Constitution. No sane, thinking person believes that any longer. It is just the radical fringe elements. Don't compare your perceived "right" to carry and use any weapon you choose with the right of a human being to sit on a bus. You will sound like that radical fringe and I know that you are not.

Even if you are half right there will be states that will not pass gun legislation. My guess is Texas will be one that won't and probably several in the South and West. Eventually the 2nd will be so watered down it will no longer be referred to as a right. Suppose after the passing of the 13th Amendment some thought it was "reasonable" to own just one slave. How would that go over? Talk about a slippery slope. I do agree with you about the government bringing in the troops to squash a revolution because that is exactly what they averted in the South regardless which side was right or wrong. If you want a good example of how the government treats those they profess to help look no further than the American Indian. The rights that gave Rosa Parks the courage to not move are backe by the same Constitution that backs the 2nd and one can only hope that the SCOTUS will apply those laws equally.

And you know as well as I do there is still segregation in the South. Go to the biker rally in Daytona Beach the first week and then the second week and then tell me what you observe that is remarkedly different.

I don't consider myself a radical but I can read and also know that the squeaky wheel gets grease.

 

[hemet dennis]

Dennis...I think that most people on whatever side they are on would recognize that I clearly answered your question. To be crystal clear, let me put it in ABC form. First, you must accept the FACT that it is the law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme Court that the 2nd amendment is subject to reasonable regulation. Second, the regulation that is currently being sought by quite a few of the individual States and the Federal Government as stated by the President is stricter laws on gun sales as it regards registration, smaller capacity gun magazines or clips, and some kind of a ban on what is being termed "assault type rifles" and that term has not been fully defined with the exception of NY which has already passed a ban. The fact that you say that "assault rifles" only account for a small part of homicides in this country is not the issue. The issue is....and get ready because here it comes for the tenth time.....are those types of restrictions reasonable regulations of the 2nd amendment. You may give all your reasons why they are not and others will give their reasons why they are reasonable. And guess what, neither you, them, the President or Congress will be the final arbiter of that question. It will eventually be the Supreme Court. You, and others have some legitimate arguments as does the other side. I can assure you that the question is not open and shut and whatever is eventually determined will be the law of the land, like it or not. At this point in time a pretty large majority of the American people believe that those types of restrictions are reasonable, but that alone, may not sway the Court. If the question went to the current court it would probably be a close decision, but I firmly believe that the Court would hold that the restrictions are reasonable for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that a similar restriction was previously in effect for ten years. Any argument that you make that says te previous restrictions were not effective would not only be irrelevant but would be effectively disputed as untrue because what is clear is that after the ban expired there were more crimes committed using assault type weapons.

I guess you don't understand the question, or just wish to spin the discussion away from it.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Point of historical reference...

June 1781 Massachusetts Privateer Frigate called Rattlesnake carried 20 cannon.

 

[Capvin]

Ed...I disagree again about Rosa Parks. The rights of Rosa Parks and most of the civil rights are those God given and inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are different then the rights granted by men in this country by the passage of the 2nd amendment and do not carry the same constitutional weight.

 

[chickened]

http://www.naturalnews.com/038722_New_York_gun_ban_criminals.html

New York's new gun ban.

 

[chickened]

Ed...I disagree again about Rosa Parks. The rights of Rosa Parks and most of the civil rights are those God given and inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are different then the rights granted by men in this country by the passage of the 2nd amendment and do not carry the same constitutional weight.

Which rights did she use? Which rights do gun owners use? did they not all come from the afformation of the Constitution? Are you saying that the other amendments are not backed by the Constitution. Some would argue that owning high capacity clips and assault type weapons with the approved permits was within their "pursuit of happiness" I am sure you have heard that line.

 

[Capvin]

Dennis...you really can not be serious. What part of that answer was spin...what part did you fail to understand, what part did you even disagree with? You really need some one to tell you that the focus of the intended restrictions are assault type rifles because just recently a young man with an assault rifle made hamburger out of 6 and 7 year old babies and well over 60 percent of the country is demanding that some restriction be placed on that type of weapon? Please don't tell me that you live in this country and missed that small point. You can either make serious and cogent argument or just bang on the table and eventually be ignored.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

http://www.naturalnews.com/038722_New_York_gun_ban_criminals.html

New York's new gun ban.

It banned cops to so now they are pushing to ad an exemption cause an I quote "You can't give more ammo to the criminals"

 

[Capvin]

Ed... If you really believe that owning a gun of any kind should come under the pursuit of happiness, then I am fine with that because I can take great comfort in the fact that anyone who makes that argument in any serious forum will be laughed at. I would love to hear the responses of the various Justices to that argument.