Yeah, I've heard that Ol' TJ himself had 17 Armalites, a couple kalashnikovs and every Remington shotgun..... oh, wait.....

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 09/11/19 at 14:19:42:



You "cold, dead hands" people confuse "Shall not be infringed" with "absolutely no limits of ownership".

Some form of trying to identify those who SHOULD NOT own a weapon, is not the same as forbidding a person of sound mind and law abiding....to owning a gun.

I am also in favor of sobriety check points, and face recognition technology, in law enforcement ( finding criminals ).  

A gun is a tool when used as protection, so are other forms available to us, with the goal of protecting the innocent, the same.

Yes, its sad we need to take these precautions, but it is just a price we pay for a open and free society, like taking off your shoes at the airport, scanners, etc....

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 09/11/19 at 14:19:42:




I just want to point out something first.....

None - repeat - NONE of us "terrible libs" on here want to ban guns et al.

NONE.


So - to the point at hand- I actually agree with Jefferson.  But to be clear, he wasn't talking about all arms, was he?  Armament then and armament now are two completely different things.  If you say otherwise, you're lying to yourself.

The point I interject is that there should be limits on ownership.  Those limits can be gotten to through background checks or weapon types or weapon capacity or any combination thereof.  But there needs to be limits.

I don't care if you like to shoot with bump stocks or semi-auto assault rifles... I like to drive really fast, but I can't because of speed limits.  The government doesn't restrict my right to drive, but yet I can't drive a Formula 1 down the highway either.  (yeah, I realize that there is no "right" to drive, so don't start).

The Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".  There is no mention of what arms are considered.  There's no possible way they could have foreseen 1- the size of the Country and 2 - the technology and killing power of modern guns.

So... there is no "question" - I said I agree with Jefferson.  I'm circumventing a pointless conversation about how you will equate "shall not be infringed" to "limitless ownership".

raydawg wrote on 09/11/19 at 14:47:45:

True.
The problem is, that is NOT the goal for the people that want to write the laws.

Take a 'red' law.
(Where anyone can 'tell on' anyone)
A girlfriend, a neighbor, someone who just doesn't like the way you look,
'can', say, "Hey that person .....".
Then, 'that' person has all their guns taken away !

Yes, 'red' laws are good, if they are written well.
Not written with the Goal, of JUST removing firearms.

Like the, 'law' Obama wrote. Where Mom/Pop sold everything, bought a motor-home, and are traveling around the country. Because each week they are in a different place, they 'assigned' a trusted person/child/etc, to take over their financial affairs, to pay their bills.
Under Obama, they were, 'Mentally Ill', because it was deemed, they could not handle their financial affairs.
That was written with the EXPLICIT Goal of BANNING Firearms.
(For the TDS people. One of the FIRST things Trump did was remove it)

Honest upstanding people absolutely should have the absolute ability to own a firearm.
And crooks, thief's, criminals, felons, terrorists, mental ill, should NOT.

Not a problem identifying who are, crooks, thief's,etc, by past behavior.
The challenge is, who will/could, be one in the future ?

And are ALL, Honest upstanding people, to give up their Freedom,
Just because, 'that', person, 'Maybe bad', 'because, 'she', said so?

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 09/11/19 at 15:18:29:

Then you're cool with every law abiding adult who wants to be able to engage in self-defense and be able to protect other innocents carrying , Ohhh, say a 9 mms, or anything it would be common seeing cops carry?

 
Would have to include, S&W 10mm, S&W .40, .44 Mag, .45 Colt, .45ACP, .460 S&W, 500 S&W.
Because police can, (not often) but they do carry those as well.

Oh, what does that 'gang banger' around the corner have ?

The GOAL, for the UL, FDS's socialists, is to BAN GUNS,
NOT save, or protect lives.

MnSpring wrote on 09/11/19 at 15:39:56:


I understand all of it, mn.

When I say "Those that are under-age" I'm talking about those under 21.

Unless they are in the Armed Forces, I think gun ownership should be restricted to 21 and older.

Legal adulthood in most states is 18.

So, you can stop trying to make yourself look smart... that will just never happen.

Bless your heart.