2nd Amendment limitations...

oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3238874
What kind of analogy is that? What has registering your firearms have to do with giving them to someone? You afraid that if you register your guns, it gives the authorities the right to take them away from you? Come on. Registration is just a tracking mechanism. Do you have a problem with your insurance company knowing you own guns? Bet you don't. If someone were to break into your house and steal your guns, you'd want your homeowners insurance to cover the loss. Do you write down the serial numbers on your guns? What would be the point? If they're stolen, there's no way to track them in case they get sold at a pawn shop or used in a crime. You're just out a couple thousand bucks. Sucks to be you.

If there is no point in keeping track of serial numbers in case they are stolen, then why register them in the first place as the first thing the bad guy will do is file off the serial numbner and ding the bore to alter the forensic ballistics so it cannot be traced that way either.
 
fishtaco

fishtaco

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3239537
How long has he been carrying? How many people has he shot? As scary as it may seem those who do all the talking usually aren't much of the threat. Not saying you aren't right about him though, sounds like a beautiful human being

Reef, he is very worrisome because he has always been the most hateful rascist I have ever came across, recently he joined a crazy church with what seems to be filled with like minded individuals and with the election of Obama he has reached new levels in his insanity, to the point of sending a threatening and hateful letter to my wife because she asked for him to stop sending those ridiculous chain mail letters about Obama that we have all seen and he believes to be true. He has not broken the law and I am sure his gun carry permit is kept up to date, like I said it is a sticky issue, because I know deep down that he needs to have his guns taken away and rightfully so IMHO, but as a gun owner don't know a mechanism that would weed out the bad apples like this without infringing on responsible gun owners.
Fishtaco
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3239557
If there is no point in keeping track of serial numbers in case they are stolen, then why register them in the first place as the first thing the bad guy will do is file off the serial numbner and ding the bore to alter the forensic ballistics so it cannot be traced that way either.
That's where microchips come in. We have the technology to put a 'marker' on a weapon that cannot be taken off or modified. The chip carries all the registration information of the owner of the gun. Just like those little chips they embed under the skin of pets these days.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3239575
Reef, he is very worrisome because he has always been the most hateful rascist I have ever came across, recently he joined a crazy church with what seems to be filled with like minded individuals and with the election of Obama he has reached new levels in his insanity, to the point of sending a threatening and hateful letter to my wife because she asked for him to stop sending those ridiculous chain mail letters about Obama that we have all seen and he believes to be true. He has not broken the law and I am sure his gun carry permit is kept up to date, like I said it is a sticky issue, because I know deep down that he needs to have his guns taken away and rightfully so IMHO, but as a gun owner don't know a mechanism that would weed out the bad apples like this without infringing on responsible gun owners.
Fishtaco
I hear ya BUT. If we start assigning rights and privileges based on the opinion of others we start down a very slippery slope. Just being a racist isn't an illegal act, otherwise Obama's pastor would have been in jail
. You really can't take away his rights just because of what he thinks.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3239585
That's where microchips come in. We have the technology to put a 'marker' on a weapon that cannot be taken off or modified. The chip carries all the registration information of the owner of the gun. Just like those little chips they embed under the skin of pets these days.
How bout we start microchiping the criminals instead?
 
penpen

penpen

Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3239604
I hear ya BUT. If we start assigning rights and privileges based on the opinion of others we start down a very slippery slope. Just being a racist isn't an illegal act, otherwise Obama's pastor would have been in jail
. You really can't take away his rights just because of what he thinks.
You don't have to take his rights away because of what he thinks, perhaps he can be proven instable with a test, or screening, that would not infringe on rights. Yes, the government would set the standards, and we the people decide if those standards are correct, kinda like a political campaign, we vote for them, but the other way around? If I lost anyone, I can try to explain my idea a little better.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3239605
How bout we start microchiping the criminals instead?
Not a bad idea. Maybe if they microchiped that $ex offender that has apparently killed that 17 year old girl that was jogging, he'd would've had second thoughts about doing it.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by penpen
http:///forum/post/3239619
You don't have to take his rights away because of what he thinks, perhaps he can be proven instable with a test, or screening, that would not infringe on rights. Yes, the government would set the standards, and we the people decide if those standards are correct, kinda like a political campaign, we vote for them, but the other way around? If I lost anyone, I can try to explain my idea a little better.
There is already a law on the books that mentally unstable people cannot even own a gun so,,,,,
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3239735
Not a bad idea. Maybe if they microchiped that $ex offender that has apparently killed that 17 year old girl that was jogging, he'd would've had second thoughts about doing it.
No doubt. Now if we can just convince the ACLU
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3239386
Ahh, but we are not dealing with a lost language, we know exactly how the words were used at the time.
Are you sure about that?
The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.
You tell me which of the words had a different meaning in the 1700's than today.
You're quoting out of context. The part of the statement that is subject to interpretation is the one you left out: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3239764
Are you sure about that?
You're quoting out of context. The part of the statement that is subject to interpretation is the one you left out: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
, the right of the people to keep and bare arms.......
Not "the right of able bodies males" which would have been the only ones eligible for duty in the militia. In every other amendment contained in the bill of rights the people refer to individuals, not the militia. Why would the second be any different?
Once an amendment is passed it becomes part of the constitution and can never be removed or altered. It is there in stone. It takes a subsequent amendment to retract a right or prohibition or make changes to the subject at hand.
Even assuming the right was granted solely to arm a militia that doesn't change the provision ,the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. That can't be changed without a constitutional amendment. Don't believe me, just ask Dredd Scott
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3239956
This nutcase sure doesn't help the groups that are opposed to semi-auto guns bans...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35716821...me_and_courts/
Well let's apply a little logic here. California still has the toughest gun laws in the country and a ban on "assault weapons"and it didn't prevent someone with a "medical MJ" card and drug arrests from buying the guns he used in January.
Yep, those gun bans work really well
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3240031
Well let's apply a little logic here. California still has the toughest gun laws in the country and a ban on "assault weapons"and it didn't prevent someone with a "medical MJ" card and drug arrests from buying the guns he used in January.
Yep, those gun bans work really well

Whose to say he didn't buy the guns somewhere besides California? He did this Griswald trip across the country from Cali to DC. He could've pick the 9mm's up in Arizona or New Mexico, where they let anyone buy a gun.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3240048
Whose to say he didn't buy the guns somewhere besides California? He did this Griswald trip across the country from Cali to DC. He could've pick the 9mm's up in Arizona or New Mexico, where they let anyone buy a gun.

Reading about the story somehwere other than the propaganda pages of BSNBC

There are still looking into the source of the guns used, which were pistols but they suspect they were part of a purchase he made at a California gun range in January.
He would have had a hard time buying them on his way to DC as you can't buy from a gun shop out of state so how would he have passed a background check?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top