The second amendment discussion

glhs837

Power with Control
While there might not be anyone in favor or 'no regulations', the NRA has certainly fought against background checks and many other sensible regulations. They have even fought agaisnt things they had supposedly supported, that is until the government tried to make it into a law. They continue to fight background checks for private sales and have long fought against mental health reporting.


See, it's a "sensible" part. Like most things, when the proponent has to tart up the description, it's because they know if they didn't folks might actually read deeper into it. That ol honey and medicine thing. "It's a common sense gun law, says so right in the title, Archie"!!!!!! Implies that if you do not support it, you have no common sense. More gamesmanship like "OMFG, they voted down assistance for the 9/11 responders!!!!!!", without explaining that greedy policitians loaded that thing up with 10x more pork than the actual assistance for 9/11 responders. Not being partisan, the GOP is just as guilty. It's a politics things, yet another reason to stop voting for politicians.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
A little off subject but I'd be interested to know, since the Firearms Safety Act (snort) of 2013 went into effect, has anyone used an active/retired military ID to get around the Handgun Qualification License requirement?

Feel free to PM me if you don't to post in the open.
 
A little off subject but I'd be interested to know, since the Firearms Safety Act (snort) of 2013 went into effect, has anyone used an active/retired military ID to get around the Handgun Qualification License requirement?

Feel free to PM me if you don't to post in the open.

I know someone who used it to get around having to take the class. But I'm pretty sure they still had to get the license.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
The NRA supported the original initiation of background checks and the NICS. The following statement explains why it now opposes the expansion of the check system:
https://www.nraila.org/issues/background-checksnics/

You would be incorrect:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130124/mental-health-and-firearms

I can tell you why many oppose any more regulations. It's because every single time one more "common sense" regulation is adopted gun grabbers like yourself start advocating for just one more.

One step at a time for the eventual outlawing of firearms.

Meh, I don't need it explained to me, I lived it. I have been a member off and on my entire adult life. I have seen the NRA back out of supporting plenty of good laws.
I'd put my gun collection up against yours any day. I am far from a gun grabber

See, it's a "sensible" part. Like most things, when the proponent has to tart up the description, it's because they know if they didn't folks might actually read deeper into it. That ol honey and medicine thing. "It's a common sense gun law, says so right in the title, Archie"!!!!!! Implies that if you do not support it, you have no common sense. More gamesmanship like "OMFG, they voted down assistance for the 9/11 responders!!!!!!", without explaining that greedy policitians loaded that thing up with 10x more pork than the actual assistance for 9/11 responders. Not being partisan, the GOP is just as guilty. It's a politics things, yet another reason to stop voting for politicians.

No, there are such things as sensible gun laws. That's not 'tarting up' the discussion, it is an apt description. Background checks are sensible, as is mental health reporting. To me the term sensible indicates just that. Not all proposed or enacted gun laws meet that description, but some do.
 

NorthBeachPerso

Honorary SMIB
Meh, I don't need it explained to me, I lived it. I have been a member off and on my entire adult life. I have seen the NRA back out of supporting plenty of good laws.
I'd put my gun collection up against yours any day. I am far from a gun grabber



No, there are such things as sensible gun laws. That's not 'tarting up' the discussion, it is an apt description. Background checks are sensible, as is mental health reporting. To me the term sensible indicates just that. Not all proposed or enacted gun laws meet that description, but some do.

Meh, I didn't know it was a contest. However, you lied twice in the same post and I called you on it. No, "I was wrong". No, "Oh, I didn't know that". Just an offer to have a dick measuring contest.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Meh, I don't need it explained to me, I lived it. I have been a member off and on my entire adult life. I have seen the NRA back out of supporting plenty of good laws.
I'd put my gun collection up against yours any day. I am far from a gun grabber



No, there are such things as sensible gun laws. That's not 'tarting up' the discussion, it is an apt description. Background checks are sensible, as is mental health reporting. To me the term sensible indicates just that. Not all proposed or enacted gun laws meet that description, but some do.

I agree there are such things. Sadly, politicians and gun rights opponents slap it on every gun rights restriction they dream up, diluting the worth of it. Guy committed for hearing voices telling him to kill us all? Maybe he should be in a database. Wife in the middle of a custody battle makes claims about a guy whose never exhibited any indications of violence? Maybe not. Background checks, done properly, can be a good thing. Adding folks on the no-fly list that has no stated entrance criteria, and no appeal process, in fact, you dont even get told you are on it? Lots of folks, including our President, will insist that's a sensible law. Most folks who understand how BS that list is will disagree vehemently. So, sensible is in the eye of the beholder.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Meh, I didn't know it was a contest. However, you lied twice in the same post and I called you on it. No, "I was wrong". No, "Oh, I didn't know that". Just an offer to have a dick measuring contest.

I didn't lie about anything, and I wasn't wrong. If anything you were wrong when you jumped to the conclusion that I am a gun grabber because I don't agree with the NRA 100% of the time.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
I agree there are such things. Sadly, politicians and gun rights opponents slap it on every gun rights restriction they dream up, diluting the worth of it. Guy committed for hearing voices telling him to kill us all? Maybe he should be in a database. Wife in the middle of a custody battle makes claims about a guy whose never exhibited any indications of violence? Maybe not. Background checks, done properly, can be a good thing. Adding folks on the no-fly list that has no stated entrance criteria, and no appeal process, in fact, you dont even get told you are on it? Lots of folks, including our President, will insist that's a sensible law. Most folks who understand how BS that list is will disagree vehemently. So, sensible is in the eye of the beholder.

That's true, and there are also people who refuse to admit that any gun laws can be sensible. Its two sides of the same coin. Somewhere in the middle is the truth.
 

NorthBeachPerso

Honorary SMIB
I didn't lie about anything, and I wasn't wrong. If anything you were wrong when you jumped to the conclusion that I am a gun grabber because I don't agree with the NRA 100% of the time.

Ok, you didn't "lie", you made a mistake about the NRA not having supported background checks or tightening up mental health reporting.

For not being a gun grabber you sure do have the verbiage and logic down.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Ok, you didn't "lie", you made a mistake about the NRA not having supported background checks or tightening up mental health reporting.

For not being a gun grabber you sure do have the verbiage and logic down.

No, I didn't make a mistake. You need to learn to read. What I said about BCs is dead on. The NRA opposes them whenever they are suggested as law even when they have supported them in the past. Same goes for mental health reporting.

Like I said, disagreeing with the NRA doesn't make me a gun grabber. They have screwed the pooch too many times to have my full support. You might not have been paying attention but I have.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
You might not have been paying attention but I have.

So what BC and other "common sense" gun control laws has the NRA opposed? Ones that would make a difference in gun crimes.

Or are you going to continue what you always do and mouth the standard left-wing talking points that you've been fed?

And you have the temerity to call me a troll.
 

DannyMotorcycle

Active Member
No, I didn't make a mistake. You need to learn to read. What I said about BCs is dead on. The NRA opposes them whenever they are suggested as law even when they have supported them in the past. Same goes for mental health reporting.

Like I said, disagreeing with the NRA doesn't make me a gun grabber. They have screwed the pooch too many times to have my full support. You might not have been paying attention but I have.


As a former NRA supporter/member, I have to agree. I believe they went the wrong way on, what case was itk, the heller case? Some other organization won that case when the NRA was on the wrong side, if i'm not mistaken.
 

DannyMotorcycle

Active Member
My responses are in bold

How does a background check control your choices? It gives the gov't a defacto list and puts me on it. if there is a state of emergency, guess who's door they can come knocking on.. like they did during katrina You choose to buy a gun, if you have a clean background you can get a gun. No control there, you got your gun. It might delay your choices but it doesn't controll them. Delayed is denied. perhaps temporarily but still denied. A right delayed is a right denied -MLK As for carrying in public, I am all for that with the right permits and training. PR courts just ruled permits unconstitutional Now for the imminent threat, I don't know you. So that would have to be a judgment call on my part. If I see you openly carrying a gun I can only make 2 assumptions, that you are a law abiding citizen allowed to carry or you are a nut that is looking for the right opportunity to take out the maximum amount of people. perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions. Even as a law abiding citizen do I want everyone to have the opportunity to make the split decision to shoot or not shoot if they see a crime being committed. I can't remember where I saw the article but a couple months ago there was a woman that shot a guy running out of Wal-Mart because he was shoplifting. She shot a warning shot in the air. she did not shoot the guy. Now I hate crooks as much as the next guy but did that guy deserve to have her be his judge and executioner. And she wasn't. This is an isolated incident and it didn't even happen the way you mistakenly believe. your facts did not happen. but the easier it is to get and carry a gun the easier it is for incidents like this to happen. There you go again. There are states in the U.S. where you don't need any permits to buy and carry openly or concealed and there are no news stories of this happening. ths "easier for this to happen" about somethign that didn't happen totally invalidates your whole premise. Look, I am not necessarily against what you are saying. Good now hush. LOL kidding. I believe people should be able to buy and carry guns, I just think there has to be some regulation and training. By the group of people who wish to disarm us. If you are held accountable for your actions there is no need to have any extra regulation. There are states that do not require/have the regulation/training that you wish for and guess what, it's not the OK corral. Gun laws seem to promote crime vs inhibit it. You're fearing hypotheticals and the reality is opposite of your hypotheticals. Were gun carry isnt' prohibited crime is lower. I don't want to run out of a store one day because I am trying to catch up to a friend and have some so called good samaritan plug me in the back because they thought I was stealing something. and that doens't happen in states where it's legal to carry. paranoid much? You can make the penalties tougher on people that do this but that doesn't do me a whole hell of a lot of good if I am dead. don't need to make the penalties tougher, it doesn't happen and the penalties that exist are enough. This is not a real problem where people are carrying guns. Remember, in order to get some of what you want you have to make concessions to the ones that don't want to give you anything. wait what? It's not about what i want, it's about human rights, to self defense. some states have them. all states should have them. While you feel you have the right to carry to make yourself feel safe the people around you have the same right to be in public and not feel threatened by a bunch of people walking around with visible guns. If they feel threatened by a holstered weapon or a weapon not pointed at them, the issue is in their minds solely. This is where compromise comes into play. Perhaps we should compromise your human right to free speech.. because people feel offended.. you know, cuz someone wrote trump in chalk.. perhaps we should have everywhere be quiet and you just have free speech boxes to stand in and talk.. you know compromise so people feel safe. As franklin said, those who compromise freedom for security deserve neither.


and here is a bunch of nothign because it's telling me my response is too short.

Have you ever considered that your'e paranoid about hypothetical situations? i just watched a video
of the new black panther party and some anti abortion pro gun group both go to a protest, both armed,
and no one shot anyone. Guns dont' cause crime. Guns don't get up and fire. I can tell you what though,
a strong offense makes for a good defense. Yes people should be trained.. but we shouldn't leave that up
to the people who want to control and disarm us to state those terms. Make it mandatory in school or something. problem solved.
 

Vince

......
A little off subject but I'd be interested to know, since the Firearms Safety Act (snort) of 2013 went into effect, has anyone used an active/retired military ID to get around the Handgun Qualification License requirement?

Feel free to PM me if you don't to post in the open.

From SB281

The HQL is not required for an active or "retired" member of the armed forces of the United States or the National Guard, for active or retired law enforcement officers, nor will it be required for transactions by licensed firearms manufacturers or licensed dealers.
 

Pushrod

Patriot
In response to the question of the militia section of the Second Amendment, Scalia stated it succinctly in the Heller decision: The amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Think about this. Why would 'the people' in the Second Amendment be different than 'the people' in the other amendments such as the 1st and 4th? Also, why would there be an amendment to grant Rights to the State governments? That is nonsensical. All the first 10 Amendments did was tell the Federal government that these are the people's inherent Rights that you shall not infringe upon.
 
Top