RE: Calls for Anti-II Amendment Legislation, Guns & Ammo, and Internet Bans

[Sullivan*]

When I read through it, it seemed reasonable... Then I woke up and realized not everyone carries like you do, nor should they be required to by some arbitrary law trying to be represented as "reasonable" to an inherently irrational and unreasonable audience, i.e., anti-2nd Amendment liberals.

 

[Weston White]

When I read through it, it seemed reasonable... Then I woke up and realized not everyone carries like you do, nor should they be required to by some arbitrary law trying to be represented as "reasonable" to an inherently irrational and unreasonable audience, i.e., anti-2nd Amendment liberals.

Much of it is intended merely to serve as clarification, because at present there is not really any meaningful clarification on the matter of open carry and that subject is largely left to the courts to decide between what is and what is not proper. Which means that we end up with judges giving rulings where they state they because a magazine is apart of the gun and a person had been carrying that magazine inside one of their pockets, they were in-fact illegally concealing a firearm on their person, even though the firearm itself was prominently displayed on the persons waist. As well there is much confusion for open carrying, as many people think that you can only carry with the gun on your waste and that the holster must remain on the outside the person's pants; that the gun has to be on display outside of a person's jacket or sweater even though it will expose the gun to weather elements; etc.

Also there are public safety issues that need to be addressed on what defines a properly designed holster, e.g., there should not be a chance that the gun could work its way out on its own; that somebody walking by could quickly grab it out of the holster (or including the holster) and run off; that somebody could take it upon themselves to just use the waistband of their pants or underwear as a sort of makeshift holster; etc.

 

[Noob]

How about getting Rand to put forward bills to repeal Federal gun control laws like the Brady bill?

 

[pcosmar]

Here, my wife helped me better clarify that clause:

Clarified nothing,,

WHEREAS, acts of terrorism, gang violence, drug violence, mental illness that including drug, prescription, and substance abuse, have long become established as a national epidemic are all a result of BAD law, having resulted in a grave moral danger toward upholding civility and peacefulness throughout America A police state and corruption of the legal system, and effectively blockading the future of its social wellbeing;
Therefore the unhindered Right of the 2nd amendment is needed now , more than ever in the past.

But I took a shot at it.

 

[Weston White]

Clarified nothing,,


But I took a shot at it.

Regardless, placing the sum of your comments in this thread into context, there is simply no further point in arguing this idea with you. Although, thank you for your effort.

 

[TheTexan]

Surely, you realize that a reasonable compromise

Can't have a reasonable compromise with unreasonable people

 

[pcosmar]

Regardless, placing the sum of your comments in this thread into context, there is simply no further point in arguing this idea with you. Although, thank you for your effort.

No, Probably not.
I support the 2nd amendment and the restoration of the 2nd amendment,, and you support adding to and increasing the restrictions that have been placed on it.
You support added data bases, and increased intrusions and restrictions.

This is not compromise,, it is increased Gun Control.
It call for MORE Federal Law. More Data bases.

(i) confidential clearance of national (including: NCIC and INTERPOL) and in-state law enforcement database wants, warrants, court orders, and criminal history and affiliations of petitioner;

And WTF is that "and affiliations of petitioner".
The fact that you think someone should "petition" to exercise a Right is bad enough,, but "affiliations".
Are there acceptable and unacceptable affiliations? Who decides that?

And what's this,,

(iii) satisfactory completion of a gun safety course presented by a certified firearms instructor, range-master, or by law enforcement personnel, such course will consist of between 4-8 hours in duration and require upon completion that the petitioner display a reasonable knowledge in proper firearms shooting safety and overall responsibly in handling, stowing, targeting, firing, breeching, clearing, cleaning, repairing, and securing their firearms to be concealed and carried, as well as general knowledge as to statutory firearms laws and torts, and the purchasing, selling, or transferring of firearms;

Are you in this business? looking to increase business,, mandated by law?
And you want to make that another Federal Law.

Damn,, you can go through it line by line an see that you have no clue that Self Defense is a Human Right.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

if you are a lobbyist the representatives will listen to you.

 

[Weston White]

"Affiliations of petitioner", is intended to simply mean that if you are a gangbanging thug, or are a known crack-head, or are a raging alcoholic, or are associated with Mexican drug cartels, for example, then you will very likely be denied the right to “pack heat” while in public. Essentially all it really means (in boiling it all down) is that through your own prior contacts with state-by-state law enforcement, etc. you must be shown to be a responsible citizen with at least a fairly clean background to exercise this right in public. It is by no means intended to restrict gun ownership or prevent anybody from defending themselves (e.g., with exception to a few states here and there, if you wanted to you could carry a gun with you almost anyplace so long as it remains unloaded inside of a locked container that is kept inside of a bag or automobile), but only to hem and secure reasonableness on the subject of conceal carry and open carry at the national level.

As to the gun safety course, it is simply designed to ensure that you are familiarized with state and federal gun laws and on how to handle yourself during confrontations when armed with a firearm, how to take proper safety precautions when taking aim and firing, your resulting civil responsibly, etc.; and most importantly you must show the course instructor that you actually known how to load, unload, clear, fire, clean, and stow your firearm. I have personally taken one a few years back (at a local gun range for just $70) and found it to be highly enlightening, and well worth the time.

 

[Sullivan*]

"Affiliations of petitioner", is intended to simply mean that if you are a gangbanging thug, or are a known crack-head, or are a raging alcoholic, or are associated with Mexican drug cartels, for example, then you will very likely be denied the right to “pack heat” while in public. Essentially all it really means (in boiling it all down) is that through your own prior contacts with state-by-state law enforcement, etc. you must be shown to be a responsible citizen with at least a fairly clean background to exercise this right in public. It is by no means intended to restrict gun ownership or prevent anybody from defending themselves (e.g., with exception to a few states here and there, if you wanted to you could carry a gun with you almost anyplace so long as it remains unloaded inside of a locked container that is kept inside of a bag or automobile), but only to hem and secure reasonableness on the subject of conceal carry and open carry at the national level.

As to the gun safety course, it is simply designed to ensure that you are familiarized with state and federal gun laws and on how to handle yourself during confrontations when armed with a firearm, how to take proper safety precautions when taking aim and firing, your resulting civil responsibly, etc.; and most importantly you must show the course instructor that you actually known how to load, unload, clear, fire, clean, and stow your firearm. I have personally taken one a few years back (at a local gun range for just $70) and found it to be highly enlightening, and well worth the time.

This thread was doomed from the beginning. About halfway through my proofread of your draft, I couldn't help but be distracted by Samuel L. Jackson screaming "WHAT part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you NOT GET MOTHAFUCKA?!" in my head over and over again.

If I know this forum, there are several others that suffered the same affliction that haven't yet expressed their disappointment in your attempt.

 

[Weston White]

This thread was doomed from the beginning. About halfway through my proofread of your draft, I couldn't help but be distracted by Samuel L. Jackson screaming "WHAT part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you NOT GET MOTHAFUCKA?!" in my head over and over again.

If I know this forum, there are several others that suffered the same affliction that haven't yet expressed their disappointment in your attempt.

1. Samuel Jackson (AKA: Mr. "I voted for Obama because he is black") is a complete intellectual moron.
2. You do not have an inherent right to tote guns wherever, however you desire; and if you think you do than you do not fully comprehend the II Amendment.

 

[Dogsoldier]

"You do not have an inherent right to tote guns wherever, however you desire; and if you think you do than you do not fully comprehend the II Amendment."

The 2nd amendment is very clear.Not just the words in the constitution but also the founders wrote down exactly what they meant in their own writings.

I don't think you compprehend it at all.The founders were VERY clear about this.

I question that you are really a Paul supporter.You don't agree with Paul on this issue thats for sure and its 1 of his big issues.

 

[Sullivan*]

1. Samuel Jackson (AKA: Mr. "I voted for Obama because he is black") is a complete intellectual moron.
2. You do not have an inherent right to tote guns wherever, however you desire; and if you think you do than you do not fully comprehend the II Amendment.

The Sam Jackson thing didn't have anything to do with his own views; just what popped into my head.

 

[pcosmar]

"Affiliations of petitioner", is intended to simply mean that if you are a gangbanging thug, or are a known crack-head, or are a raging alcoholic, or are associated with Mexican drug cartels,

Ah,, Now that is so very much more clear.

You want to deny rights to certain Undesirables.

http://constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws — and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, governments openly stated that gun control laws were useful for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place" and for quieting the racial fears of whites.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html

How right you are, General Laney. "All gun laws have been enacted to control certain classes of people...."

The Klan's Favorite Law
http://reason.com/archives/2005/02/15/the-klans-favorite-law

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

You do not have an inherent right to tote guns wherever, however you desire; and if you think you do than you do not fully comprehend the II Amendment.

I have the right to own, carry, or use any weapon that I see fit, in any manner or place that I see fit, as long as I'm not harming or recklessly endangering innocent people.

Although this is certainly the gist of the Second Amendment, I don't view my rights as being dependent on any constitution or laws. I have those rights simply by virtue of my refusal to acknowledge the right of anyone else to have absolute, uncontested power over me; such refusal jibes with my natural (God-given or evolution-given, depending on what you believe) sense of right and wrong. If necessary, I'm willing to die to defend those rights -- which, of course, is the only thing that can give rights "teeth."

 

[Weston White]

My goodness gracious, and many of us continue to ponder as why the status quo abhors Ron Paul supporters as “the fringe” or otherwise as political extremists? Just as the many shades of communism fail to bring about its intended result, neither does anarchy; anarchism is the polar-opposite of communism and in any case, neither ideology is capable of functioning successfully.

Yes, absolutely, I personally do not agree with Ron Paul on all issues, and do you know why? Because I am entirely capable of engaging logical reasoning all on my own, that is why. However, this bears nothing on me not supporting him, which I do, to clarify for you. I for one do not blindly support Ron Paul, simply to support Ron Paul.

Ah,, Now that is so very much more clear.

You want to deny rights to certain Undesirables.

Well if you want to play the issue of race, which really has nothing at all, whatsoever, to do with any of this; while even if that were true (which it is not) it would create a XIV Amendment violation giving those wrong the causation to file suit in court on constitutional grounds. This has to do with the several hypothetical’s I had mentioned before and which you had selected to ignore (and you had done so for a good reason, because you realize that those examples destroy your hung-by-a-thread argument).

Simply, you are making connections that are simply irrelevant, nonsensical, and have no bearing at all or are otherwise nonexistent and I for one am not going to play that game with you or anybody else.

 

[Weston White]

I have the right to own, carry, or use any weapon that I see fit, in any manner or place that I see fit, as long as I'm not harming or recklessly endangering innocent people.

Although this is certainly the gist of the Second Amendment, I don't view my rights as being dependent on any constitution or laws. I have those rights simply by virtue of my refusal to acknowledge the right of anyone else to have absolute, uncontested power over me; such refusal jibes with my natural (God-given or evolution-given, depending on what you believe) sense of right and wrong. If necessary, I'm willing to die to defend those rights -- which, of course, is the only thing that can give rights "teeth."

Exactly, and what is so wrong with setting that right into statutory stone at the national level? That is so long as you are (1) willing to respect that right, (2) do not abuse the inherent power of it, (3) are not a likely danger to yourself or others, (4) while being wholly capable of functioning cognitively, and (5) you realize that should you decide to (A) act otherwise or (B) are wholly incapable of acting accordingly, you are thereafter compelled to surrender that right so as to ensure the continued safety of the public at large.

 

[pcosmar]

My goodness gracious, and many of us continue to ponder as why the status quo abhors Ron Paul supporters as “the fringe” or otherwise as political extremists?

The Status Quo abhors him because he tells the truth. Something that they seem to be allergic of;
And speaking of the Truth,, My position on this IS Ron Paul"s position. Yes, I have spoken to him personally about it, and he has mentioned publicly his intent to do away with the ATF,, He Abhors these type of data bases. and government intrusions.

Damn man,, read my sig line. THAT is Ron Paul.

Well if you want to play the issue of race, which really has nothing at all, whatsoever, to do with any of this;

Not playing anything. I'm not playing.
It is historically proven that Race/class was the reason for gun control in the first place,, which you want to expand on.
Not to mention,, your own statement.

 

[WesSeid]

Essentially all it really means (in boiling it all down) is that through your own prior contacts with state-by-state law enforcement, etc. you must be shown to be a responsible citizen with at least a fairly clean background to exercise this right in public.

They already have that. If you're a felon, you can't have a gun. ...which has its problems and isn't fair to various felons, but that's a different topic.

If I'm not a felon, then leave me alone.

As to the gun safety course, it is simply designed to ensure that you are familiarized with state and federal gun laws and on how to handle yourself during confrontations when armed with a firearm, how to take proper safety precautions when taking aim and firing, your resulting civil responsibly, etc.; and most importantly you must show the course instructor that you actually known how to load, unload, clear, fire, clean, and stow your firearm. I have personally taken one a few years back (at a local gun range for just $70) and found it to be highly enlightening, and well worth the time.

If you have a gun but don't know how to load it, you're not much of a danger to anybody.

If you want to make sure everyone knows this stuff, lobby to teach gun training in schools like it was done not that many decades ago.

 

[Weston White]

They already have that. If you're a felon, you can't have a gun. ...which has its problems and isn't fair to various felons, but that's a different topic.

If I'm not a felon, then leave me alone.


If you have a gun but don't know how to load it, you're not much of a danger to anybody.

If you want to make sure everyone knows this stuff, lobby to teach gun training in schools like it was done not that many decades ago.

That would be one of the purposes, so as to ensure that weapons offense related felons are not granted authority to prance around with a CCW or sidearm strapped to their side; and for that matter nutters, gang-bangers, Zetas, Mafiosos, etc.

And personally I agree, at least in-part. I think more legal constraint needs to be placed upon restraining order stipulations, sex registrants, felons, and the like. The way that laws are presently crafted, such individuals are virtually compelled to continue in a life of crime.

As to ensuring adequate gun training for individuals seeking CCW and open carry, simply equate it to passing both driver’s education and DMV requirements in order to obtain whatever class of driver’s license. In whatever case there are many other aspects to proper gun handling than simply loading a magazine or bullets into a handgun.