Most liberal states = least free states

WinterBorn said:
My point is, the states can already limit certain people's access to guns based on their mental state, criminal history and age.

They do this because they claim they are protecting us from criminals and crazies with guns.

The next step is to require that you prove you are not crazy in order to have a gun. They already have you prove you are old enough and prove you don't have a criminal record.

If they get to write the test to determine sanity how many of us gun owners would pass? Is wanting to have a gun for self protection going to be interpreted as paranoia?



Once any limitations were allowed concerning guns it is now a matter of degrees.
Click to expand...
Again you have demonstrated your ignorance of the Constitution and basic US laws.
1. Government cannot give people rights; they are inherent and unalienable.
2. A person is innocent until proven guilty.
 
Southern Man said:
Again you have demonstrated your ignorance of the Constitution and basic US laws.
1. Government cannot give people rights; they are inherent and unalienable.
2. A person is innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

The government may not give you your rights (if you believe in a creator who did), but it certainly protects your rights. The government violates people's rights often enough. They are not stopped from doing so. They are forced to admit they did and apologize afterwards.


If I am innocent until proven guilty why do I have to have a background check to buy a firearm? Is this not the same as forcing me to prove my innocence?
 
WinterBorn said:
The government may not give you your rights (if you believe in a creator who did), but it certainly protects your rights. The government violates people's rights often enough. They are not stopped from doing so. They are forced to admit they did and apologize afterwards.


If I am innocent until proven guilty why do I have to have a background check to buy a firearm? Is this not the same as forcing me to prove my innocence?
Click to expand...
You've just made my point for me; the government has no right to perform a background check on you, at least beyond a review of felony convictions. They certainly don't have right to make you take a two day course, then comb the records of mental heath hospitals for three weeks before they issue a CCW permit. But they do.
 
WinterBorn said:
If I am innocent until proven guilty why do I have to have a background check to buy a firearm? Is this not the same as forcing me to prove my innocence?
Click to expand...

you have to have a background check because the 'progressives' persuaded enough people that handguns were a menace and largely responsible for crime. Now, despite all the evidence that criminals don't get their guns from dealers anyway, you're forced to prove you're not a criminal before you can exercise a fundamental right, something clearly in violation of the ex post facto part of the constitution, but there it is.
 
Southern Man said:
You've just made my point for me; the government has no right to perform a background check on you, at least beyond a review of felony convictions. They certainly don't have right to make you take a two day course, then comb the records of mental heath hospitals for three weeks before they issue a CCW permit. But they do.
Click to expand...

And it makes my point that there are restrictions being placed on the ownership of guns. Now it is a matter of degrees.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so you're comfortable with restrictions in degrees despite shall not be infringed?
Click to expand...

For the most part no. I understand the laws that restrict the mentally ill and convicted felons from owning guns. But I do not agree with most of the gun regulations.

The idea that the guns are the problem shows a complete lack of understanding of both how a firearm works and what the problem is.
 
for all the RETARDS.
Please review European countries, with EXPONENTIALLY lower murder rates than us.
What is the missing ingredient.
Bueler?
 
Topspin said:
for all the RETARDS.
Please review European countries, with EXPONENTIALLY lower murder rates than us.
What is the missing ingredient.
Bueler?
Click to expand...

Considering that Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in Europe and the lowest armed robbery rate in Europe and yet they require every adult to own a rifle and have ammo, what would you say the magic ingredient to the lower rate would be?
 
WinterBorn said:
Considering that Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in Europe and the lowest armed robbery rate in Europe and yet they require every adult to own a rifle and have ammo, what would you say the magic ingredient to the lower rate would be?
Click to expand...

I'd say your a redneck gun toting retard.
Pick the outlier, look at country after country moron.
 
Topspin said:
I'd say your a redneck gun toting retard.
Pick the outlier, look at country after country moron.
Click to expand...
Yeah look at some of the African countries where folks aren't allowed or can't afford guns. They regularly have massacres and shit, using machetes to hack off the heads of women, children and old men.
 
Southern Man said:
Who here is arguing that the government does not restrict guns? Wow you're taking a real brave position.
Click to expand...

YOU also said "The Constitution says nothing about requiring this expensive, onerous process to do that".

My point was that the US Constitution is not the only reference in gun laws. Perhaps it should be, but in reality it is not.

Brave position? WTF? Since when did an internet debate involve courage at all? I was making a point about the laws restricting firearms. It is about degrees of restriction now.
 
18,000 murders annually in the US
England, France, Germany are wayyyyyy lower.
Only skinheads, nazi's, and worse christians think we need more guns here.
Guns don't kill people, christians with guns kill people.
You's a natural born killer bunny!!!
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
...



I suggest you do the research work instead of relying on your imagination. In effect, you want to carry a gun with little expense, training or any investigation into your character. Got news for ya, COPS go through far more than what you described in order before their given the right to carry that weapon. So pardon me if I don't see YOU as being given a pass that we wouldn't give our law enforcement....THAT would be "onerous" indeed.

Southern Man said:
I don't want to be a cop, I just want to be able to protect myself. The Constitution says nothing about requiring this expensive, onerous process to do that. Why do you want to make it difficult for a law abiding, innocent citizen to defend themselves?
Click to expand...

Amazing how you just ignore everything that transpired in previous post to just parrot the same BS as before. Bottom line: we have a police force, you can buy a gun for home protection, and if you want to carry one, there are procedures. The final point was brought forth by YOU in your example....I just merely pointed out that all your whining boils down to YOU wanting to supercede requirements that YOU (the taxpaying citizen) require of candidates for law enforcement. That is just absurd.....much like the contentions of the original article posted. So if all you've got is some BS dodge, I'd say we're done here.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what you did was logically and factually point out that you're a moron with no idea of what you're talking about and that you aren't capable of comprehending basic reasonable statements.
Click to expand...

Brilliant retort...my delusional friend....given the evidence of the recorded exchanges, how could one hope to prevail against such honest objectivie analysis from one so much smarter than the rest of us! :rolleyes:

You may have the last word....it's so important to you, you little Obama basher you! ;)
 
WinterBorn said:
Considering that Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in Europe and the lowest armed robbery rate in Europe and yet they require every adult to own a rifle and have ammo, what would you say the magic ingredient to the lower rate would be?
Click to expand...

Interesting.....I suppose you would have to take into account a more homogenous society, the registration procedures for weapons, what is their historical gov't charters regarding military and citizenry, etc. And then again, you look at geography and population. And the bottom line.....you STILL have crime. Go figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top