Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:My problem is not having enough faith in my fellow man to want them all to have unfettered access to an unlimited amount of guns and ammunition.

Well, they don't.

Quote:So say someone like me has 4 guns and a gun safe.  That also happens to be building an Ar15 (over the last few months).  Is a combat veteran and college grad who's going for a second bachelors at the moment.  Do you have faith in that fellow man, who has owned guns for the last 6 years without incident and doesn't bring them out in public unless they are going to the range.

 

If what you say is true, yes I have a certain amount of faith you'll be responsible about your firearms. I presume there are ways to prove your credentials, and I'm willing to accept the minimal chance you may go nuts some day.

 

If I understand flsprtsgod's position correctly, he thinks any restriction of gun ownership is an abridgement of the Constitutional right to bear arms.

 

I don't know you from Cain. Do you expect me to take your word that you are a qualified and responsible gun owner? Do you have faith in your fellow man that they will all be as qualified and responsible as you?

Quote:Well, they don't.

 

Isn't the fact that they don't mean their right to bear arms is abridged?

Quote:Isn't the fact that they don't mean their right to bear arms is abridged?

Yes.

Quote:If what you say is true, yes I have a certain amount of faith you'll be responsible about your firearms. I presume there are ways to prove your credentials, and I'm willing to accept the minimal chance you may go nuts some day.

 

If I understand flsprtsgod's position correctly, he thinks any restriction of gun ownership is an abridgement of the Constitutional right to bear arms.

 

I don't know you from Cain. Do you expect me to take your word that you are a qualified and responsible gun owner? Do you have faith in your fellow man that they will all be as qualified and responsible as you?

Often times no.  I'm okay with some gun legislation.  If I were to write the law the following would be who would be not allowed to buy or possess.

 

1. Any person who has immigrated from a conflict state/region
   
2. Anyone who has been treated for suicidal thoughts in the last 5 years
   
3. Felons
   
4. convicted violent criminals (does not have to be a felony)
   
5. Schizophrenic people (basically any severe mental condition that can be used as a defense of actions)  I do not mean disorders like OCD or anorexia.  
   
6. Known gang members.  I will add in radical groups (KKK, Westboro church members)
   
7. members and offspring(one generation) of former members of Isis, taliban, al queued, boca haram...
   
8. I think PTSD needs to be more thoroughly studied and a level system to be in place ex:1-5 5 being worst case and anything over a 3 you should not be able own a gun.
   
9. Finally if you are going to own a gun you need to be able to show proper training and MUST be in some kind of gun club and in good standing with the club as a responsible gun owner.
   

Quote:I'm truly sorry, murderers shouldn't be free. But that works the other way too, those who should never have been jailed lose their rights forever.


As for mental illness, homosexuality was a mental illness according to the experts not all that long ago. Should that have been enough to prevent them from owning legally? See, the catch to this is in who gets to decide, and I have very little faith in most of those who do.

Your version of the country isn't more free. It's damn scary!

Quote:Yes.

 

Do you believe there should be any restrictions on who can own a gun, how many they can own own, what type they can own and how much ammunition they can own? I'll presume the obvious, we're talking about citizens who are not incarcerated.

Quote:Do you believe there should be any restrictions on who can own a gun, how many they can own own, what type they can own and how much ammunition they can own? I'll presume the obvious, we're talking about citizens who are not incarcerated.

Not really.

Quote:Not really.

 

'Fess up, you're packin' a bazooka, aren't you?

 

I'm not sure if I'd want to be your best friend when it all unravels, or as far away from you as possible.

Quote:'Fess up, you're packin' a bazooka, aren't you?


I'm not sure if I'd want to be your best friend when it all unravels, or as far away from you as possible.

I still have a reservation on your couch, right?

Quote:I still have a reservation on your couch, right?

 

Oh, yeah. How's your aim whilst under the influence?

Quote:Oh, yeah. How's your aim whilst under the influence?

The two don't mix, we'll need a few others so we can take shifts.

Quote:The two don't mix, we'll need a few others so we can take shifts.

 

Quite a few, my stash is potent. It lasts awhile, though I'm sure a zombie apocalypse would be quite a buzzkill.

Quote:Why do you need 17 rounds in a magazine?

 

17 rounds, 30 rounds, whatever... it doesn't take but a few seconds to use all of it. What do you think a gun battle is like? One or two rounds and it's over? 

 

Quote:Quote me in the constitution where it says the clip capacity is a right... I'll wait

 

Quote me in the constitution where it says conversations over television or the internet is a right. 

 

This argument is naive. The same thing can be said about Free Speech or a Free Press. Do you think the Founders believed that modern-day media would have the influence it does, or the consequences of misleading the public would have the result that it does?

 

The 2nd Amendment is only unclear for those that don't want to believe its intent. 

Quote:17 rounds, 30 rounds, whatever... it doesn't take but a few seconds to use all of it. What do you think a gun battle is like? One or two rounds and it's over? 

 


 

Quote me in the constitution where it says conversations over television or the internet is a right. 

 

This argument is naive. The same thing can be said about Free Speech or a Free Press. Do you think the Founders believed that modern-day media would have the influence it does, or the consequences of misleading the public would have the result that it does?

 

The 2nd Amendment is only unclear for those that don't want to believe its intent.

That is why there are amendments. Laws written years and years ago, have different consequences.

Convicted felons who have been released?  Absolutely.  If they are still a danger why were they released?  And if not a danger they should have the right to protect their family and property like everyone else. 

 

The mentally ill?  What does that even mean?  ICD-10 adds hundreds of "new" mental illnesses.  At some point in the near future, the desire to own a gun will be considered a mental illness and a valid reason for denying gun rights.

Quote:That is why there are amendments. Laws written years and years ago, have different consequences.

I understand but the same argument can be made for the 1st Amendment. They didn't know someone could one day hold as much influence as many media outlets do. The point is that the Bill of Rights should be unwavering. Their intent is clear and the rights they provide are too.

Quote:Convicted felons who have been released?  Absolutely.  If they are still a danger why were they released?  And if not a danger they should have the right to protect their family and property like everyone else. 

 

The mentally ill?  What does that even mean?  ICD-10 adds hundreds of "new" mental illnesses.  At some point in the near future, the desire to own a gun will be considered a mental illness and a valid reason for denying gun rights.

 

Quote:I understand but the same argument can be made for the 1st Amendment. They didn't know someone could one day hold as much influence as many media outlets do. The point is that the Bill of Rights should be unwavering. Their intent is clear and the rights they provide are too.

 

This is exactly why the founders put certain rights outside the scope of government oversight. That people don't grasp that is a tribute to government education (another something that should be outside of government oversight).

Quote:I understand but the same argument can be made for the 1st Amendment. They didn't know someone could one day hold as much influence as many media outlets do. The point is that the Bill of Rights should be unwavering. Their intent is clear and the rights they provide are too.

The media back then influenced as well. But not to the extent it does today. I agree with you. Sadly, the media could be controlled somewhat if people weren't sheep and thought for themselves and now more than ever, do research.

In today's politics, if lies were enforced, the slander courts would be full. But , then again, the one doing the slandering just claims ignorance.

I'm of the belief the framers would be raising more of an eye brow today over the 2nd vs the 1st. Lies and influence was alive and well then. Muskets however, had far outgrown their usage.

Quote:Quote me where it says its not. Quote me where it says government can regulate firearms period. It doesn't.

 

IT'S IN THE FIRST SENTANCE!!!!  "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA"  WELL REGULATED....  IT'S LIKE THE 3RD WORD!!!  

 

Quote:Shoe me in the constitution where it says we are a nation of enumerated rights?

 

Both of these posts deserve this in ultra high definition: