Hey folks, you remember common sense?

[mrwho]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

The biggest gripes on this forum about guns or the Constitution are people who live in some other land.

Exactly. Although I feel like I'm free to express my opinion - which is worth what it's worth - on this forum, I never meant to impose anything to you, as I'm not american. On the other hand, all americans should have a voice on that matter - in much the same way I believe all my compatriots should have a saying on my country's matters, as it usually is.

Why not do a referendum on the matter?

[Jimbo1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

Exactly. Although I feel like I'm free to express my opinion - which is worth what it's worth - on this forum, I never meant to impose anything to you, as I'm not american. On the other hand, all americans should have a voice on that matter - in much the same way I believe all my compatriots should have a saying on my country's matters, as it usually is.

Why not do a referendum on the matter?

A referendum would be fine. It would go in favor of the Second Amendment. That's why there will never be one. There should have been a referendum on health care.

[Shadow1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

Why not do a referendum on the matter?

Because the 2nd Amendment is a ratified part of our constitution - to have a referendum to change it would be unconstitutional. There is a process to update our constitution, and if enough people want to change it they can make a push for another Amendment to overturn 2A. (as was done with Prohibition)

I think you'll find that even some of the liberals are a little spooked by all of the power grabs by the current administration (Some of which have just been ruled as unconstitutional) and agree with our founding fathers that the 2nd was to protect us from our own government as much as anything else.

[Darren King]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

[QUOTE=Jimbo1;337725]A referendum would be fine. It would go in favor of the Second Amendment. That's why there will never be one. There should have been a referendum on health care.[/QUOTE

I guess I just don't understand how people would rather have a gun than good healthcare for their family.

[Shadow1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

I guess I just don't understand how people would rather have a gun than good healthcare for their family.

Because Obamacare is not good health care. It's not even good health insurance. All it has managed to do is drive up the cost of insurance much faster than had congress done nothing, limit what care we are overpaying for, and give the government control over yet another area of our lives they know nothing about...

...but that's another thread

[Iowatech]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

The constitution is not ancient, but it is dated. Tell me, do you know anyone 200 years old? No, it was before yours, or my, or anyone presently living's lifetime. It was a different time then and should hold less bearing now for the exact reason I stated, it's dated.

I haven't been fed anything, as a Canadian citizen, if I want to own a firearm, I have to take a safety course first. It's really that simple, if someone can't pass a safety course they shouldn't be allowed to carry the responsibility of a firearm. 'Merikuh has it backwards wherein any jackass can buy a gun, but he doesn't need the safety course until after he's shot someone, assuming he doesn't just off himself right after.

Yeah, the Magna Carta is dated like that, too. I still think you can do better than this, though.
On the other hand, you do know that Canada is part of this "'Merikuh" you speak of by virtue of being the largest portion of the North American continent by land mass, right? Nice going there. Like I said, you can do better.

[Jimbo1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

[QUOTE=Darren King;337855]

A referendum would be fine. It would go in favor of the Second Amendment. That's why there will never be one. There should have been a referendum on health care.[/QUOTE

I guess I just don't understand how people would rather have a gun than good healthcare for their family.

I guess i just don't understand why you don't think they can have both.

[Akitu]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

Look if you are a Canadian citizen that is fine.

But don't preach to m about the Constitution. The biggest gripes on this forum about guns or the Constitution are people who live in some other land.
If you don't want the freedom that is likewise your business. We want it and have had it apparently according to you since ancient times. It's certainly not my fault....or any one else's in America, that your founders did not have the vision ours did.

This is the misconception I was referring to earlier. You react as though when someone mentions "gun control" they want to take all of your precious firearms away and never let you have them again - wrong - "gun control" simply implies that they're making sure the person who gets the gun is responsible enough to know that when they point it at someone and pull the trigger that bad things happen. Everyone in Canada has the "freedom" to buy a gun, but only after proving they're capable of the responsibility it carries.

There was a time - notably during the civil war era - when people had a just cause to require a firearm because anyone's neighbour could randomly walk out and shoot them upon disagreement. We have laws and a judicial system now to deter those actions, and if someone gets shot someone still gets shot, except the process is a little less "Inigo Montoya" and more "Judge Judy".

Two totally different countries have two totally different methods of going about their business. We don't have a formally drafted constitution, but are still entitled to all the same rights and freedoms based off of what has been deemed as such by the Geneva Convention. We still have the freedom to buy a gun if we decide we want one, it's just given based off merit rather than cash. Any jackass in the US can buy a handgun and do what they wish without any knowledge whatsoever other than point and squeeze. This is the point everyone is making about gun control. It's not "take the guns away", it's "keep the guns away from people who aren't responsible enough to know it's not okay to spray up a school because someone made fun of your hairdo".

Which leads back to my original point, in that sections of a hundred plus year old document MAY no longer be entirely relevant to the needs of today. Though 'Merikuh seems to be heading back in that direction of fearing being shot by neighbours because everyone seems to think it's their right to own a gun, we come full circle back to the part of keeping the guns out of the hands of the crazies.

Now, take a look at everything from an objective standpoint. Do you NEED a gun to carry around for protection? No. Do you NEED a gun for hunting? Yes. Do you NEED to own anything larger than a hunting rifle? Absolutely not.
Are you FREE to purchase a gun? Yes. Does that FREEdom match the NEED and require it? If yes, then a gun may be for you.

If you own a gun but have never had to fire it, chances are you didn't need that gun at all. There is no "just in case" in this event. If there is a practical purpose for it, it will be used. For reference, see the PRIVILEGE of driving. Cars and vehicles have a practical use and are used far more frequently than firearms - so tell me why there's no RIGHT to drive? Because cars were invented and mainstreamed AFTER the civil war and AFTER the constitution was first drafted whereas guns were more popular back then.

I'll touch up more on this chain of thought some other time, I have service calls to attend now.

[MR Bill]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

Akitu, I do not agree with you one little bit on this statement .

You asked the question , do you NEED a gun to carry around with you for protection. NO.

Well tell me then why do the police carry them?? They don't need no stinking guns. And a lot of the police departments are telling there citizens to get training and know how to use a firearm. The reason in saying this is cause the police cannot protect you. You have to protect yourself.

I'm 60 years old , NOW I need my gun. It's all about defense my friend. NOT offense . Were not all nut jobs here looking for a shootout.

[Shadow1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

This is the misconception I was referring to earlier. You react as though when someone mentions "gun control" they want to take all of your precious firearms away and never let you have them again - wrong - "gun control" simply implies that they're making sure the person who gets the gun is responsible enough to know that when they point it at someone and pull the trigger that bad things happen. Everyone in Canada has the "freedom" to buy a gun, but only after proving they're capable of the responsibility it carries.

Nobody wants guns in the hands of crazies - We're not arguing that people with cirminal records or mental illnesses shouldn't be allowed to posess a firearm. Duh! We're not arguing that you should check these things before selling a gun to somebody - we're arguing about how those checks are performed. These checks are currently being done - every firearm I've purchased in the last 20 years has had this requirement - even at gun shows, though that's not the case in all states.

The process is quick and simple. You fill out a form with the required info, present some ID, and the info gets keyed into a computer - the FBI searches their databases for any information that would bar you from owning a gun, and approves or denies the request accordingly. It takes less than 5 minutes - basically the decision is already made before you even walk into the gun shop, they just have to look up the results.

There are 2 problems with this system:
1) The FBI database, by law, cannot contain certain very relavent information - HIPAA and ObamaCare regs do not permit the sharing of information relevant to a person's mental health. While that's good in most situations, it's pretty important in determining if you should have a firearm.
2) The government is using it as a registry. The only reason for them to register firearms is so they know where to come collect them when they decide to violate the 2nd A.

All the current "gun control" proposals the liberals are trying to push on us now simply place new restrictions on law abiding citizens, and do nothing to remove the loopholes that allow nut cases to buy a gun. I will only support new legislation under the following conditions:
1) It closes the loopholes. Mental health issues that disqualify a citizen must meet certain criteria that the person could be a real threat, so that the government can't just disqualify everybody because they had a prescription for Valium to get a good night's sleep, or some silly nonsense like that.
The law must update HIPAA and whatever other regs to allow for the transfer of this information, but still keep it protected from general release in the FBI's hands, and the FBI must report an attempt to purchase a firearm by a banned person to their mental health provider for investigation and treatment.
2) The process must remain quick and simple as it is now - no jumping through hoops to excercise a constitutionally protected right.
3) No form of registry is to be maintained. The purpose of the 2nd A was to give citizens the ability to defend ther life, property, and liberty from any menace, especially our own government. (again reference that Tyrant -> Declaration of Indepenednce -> Constitution -> 2nd Amendment chain of thought)
4) Firearms are for citizens ONLY. Sorry Illegal Aliens - you don't belong here to begin with, why the hell would I want to give you a gun.
5) No restrictions on personal arms - It's really no business of the government if I want a 1911 pistol with a 17 round magazine or an AR-15 with a 30 round mag - Don't punish me for being a law abiding citizen

There was a time - notably during the civil war era - when people had a just cause to require a firearm because anyone's neighbour could randomly walk out and shoot them upon disagreement. We have laws and a judicial system now to deter those actions, and if someone gets shot someone still gets shot, except the process is a little less "Inigo Montoya" and more "Judge Judy".

So only the criminals should be able to get a gun and randomly shoot people? Legal gun owners aren't the problem here. If I fire my weapon defending my life, liberty, or property that shouldn't make me a criminal... and yes, I said property - it makes no sense that a burglar should be protected by law so long as he wears a sign while breaking into your house that reads "I'm not going to hurt anybody, I'm just going to steal everything you own... please don't shoot me"

Two totally different countries have two totally different methods of going about their business. We don't have a formally drafted constitution, but are still entitled to all the same rights and freedoms based off of what has been deemed as such by the Geneva Convention. We still have the freedom to buy a gun if we decide we want one, it's just given based off merit rather than cash. Any jackass in the US can buy a handgun and do what they wish without any knowledge whatsoever other than point and squeeze. This is the point everyone is making about gun control. It's not "take the guns away", it's "keep the guns away from people who aren't responsible enough to know it's not okay to spray up a school because someone made fun of your hairdo".

We do have a formally drafted constitution, and it says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringement, in part, means assuming somebody is stupid with no evidence to support it.

Which leads back to my original point, in that sections of a hundred plus year old document MAY no longer be entirely relevant to the needs of today. Though 'Merikuh seems to be heading back in that direction of fearing being shot by neighbours because everyone seems to think it's their right to own a gun, we come full circle back to the part of keeping the guns out of the hands of the crazies.

Now, take a look at everything from an objective standpoint. Do you NEED a gun to carry around for protection? No. Do you NEED a gun for hunting? Yes. Do you NEED to own anything larger than a hunting rifle? Absolutely not.
Are you FREE to purchase a gun? Yes. Does that FREEdom match the NEED and require it? If yes, then a gun may be for you.

1) You have no idea what sort of gun I need to hunt with. Should I choose to go after some of the ferrel hogs that are becoming a real problem around here, I really do need a semi-auto 12GA shotgun or an AR-15 both with a large magazine - them damn things are built like a tank, and sometimes can take several rounds of buckshot or even slugs and keep on charging at you. Point is, you don't know what my needs are, and neither does the government.
2) Freedom is exactly that. If I want to purchase an "assault weapon" as a trophy to have on my mantle that's my freedom. If I want a high grade 1911 pistol with 15 round magazine for competition shooting, that's also my freedom.

If you own a gun but have never had to fire it, chances are you didn't need that gun at all. There is no "just in case" in this event. If there is a practical purpose for it, it will be used. For reference, see the PRIVILEGE of driving. Cars and vehicles have a practical use and are used far more frequently than firearms - so tell me why there's no RIGHT to drive? Because cars were invented and mainstreamed AFTER the civil war and AFTER the constitution was first drafted whereas guns were more popular back then.

Have you completely misunderstood the concept of deterrence? Maybe I don't need a firearm, but if a would be mugger knows I'm packing he's a heck of a lot less likely to try stealing my wallet. So did I actually need my gun? Maybe not. Maybe if I didn't have it, then I would have.

Why would you assume you're going to need a gun? Violence tends to be random unless you are doing something to attract it's attention. Maybe you're rich and stand a good chance of being mugged for your $10k Rolex. Maybe you're a bookie and pissed some people off. Maybe you've requested one too many manuals on CTN... or maybe you are a gangster. We don't know, and it's not fair to make assumptions based off of nothing, but if you have cause to believe you will need a firearm, then you might just be a bigger menace to society than people who want a firearm "just in case." The whole point is that our legal system is based on the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty.

[Iowatech]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

This is the misconception I was referring to earlier. You react as though when someone mentions "gun control" they want to take all of your precious firearms away and never let you have them again - wrong - "gun control" simply implies that they're making sure the person who gets the gun is responsible enough to know that when they point it at someone and pull the trigger that bad things happen. Everyone in Canada has the "freedom" to buy a gun, but only after proving they're capable of the responsibility it carries.

There was a time - notably during the civil war era - when people had a just cause to require a firearm because anyone's neighbour could randomly walk out and shoot them upon disagreement. We have laws and a judicial system now to deter those actions, and if someone gets shot someone still gets shot, except the process is a little less "Inigo Montoya" and more "Judge Judy".

Two totally different countries have two totally different methods of going about their business. We don't have a formally drafted constitution, but are still entitled to all the same rights and freedoms based off of what has been deemed as such by the Geneva Convention. We still have the freedom to buy a gun if we decide we want one, it's just given based off merit rather than cash. Any jackass in the US can buy a handgun and do what they wish without any knowledge whatsoever other than point and squeeze. This is the point everyone is making about gun control. It's not "take the guns away", it's "keep the guns away from people who aren't responsible enough to know it's not okay to spray up a school because someone made fun of your hairdo".

Which leads back to my original point, in that sections of a hundred plus year old document MAY no longer be entirely relevant to the needs of today. Though 'Merikuh seems to be heading back in that direction of fearing being shot by neighbours because everyone seems to think it's their right to own a gun, we come full circle back to the part of keeping the guns out of the hands of the crazies.

Now, take a look at everything from an objective standpoint. Do you NEED a gun to carry around for protection? No. Do you NEED a gun for hunting? Yes. Do you NEED to own anything larger than a hunting rifle? Absolutely not.
Are you FREE to purchase a gun? Yes. Does that FREEdom match the NEED and require it? If yes, then a gun may be for you.

If you own a gun but have never had to fire it, chances are you didn't need that gun at all. There is no "just in case" in this event. If there is a practical purpose for it, it will be used. For reference, see the PRIVILEGE of driving. Cars and vehicles have a practical use and are used far more frequently than firearms - so tell me why there's no RIGHT to drive? Because cars were invented and mainstreamed AFTER the civil war and AFTER the constitution was first drafted whereas guns were more popular back then.

I'll touch up more on this chain of thought some other time, I have service calls to attend now.

And why, pray tell, do you consider you have any idea what anybody else needs? Please let us know your qualifications in that regard, or that's just silly.
Also, like I said before, you do realize you are part of this "'Merikuh" you speak of? Might want to put more thought into your insults, lest they insult you personally as well. You can do better than that.

[kingarthur]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

I've been following this post from the beginning...i think common sense left this post a long time ago...i can see the point of both sides of the argumemt...but to be honest...isn't it about time everybody agreed to disagree....no matter what point is made...someone else is going to counter point it....i don't see the point in getting hot under the collar about what is happening in someone else's country...that is their laws & their constitution...so how about a return to common sense once more

[mjarbar]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

I've been following this post from the beginning...i think common sense left this post a long time ago...i can see the point of both sides of the argumemt...but to be honest...isn't it about time everybody agreed to disagree....no matter what point is made...someone else is going to counter point it....i don't see the point in getting hot under the collar about what is happening in someone else's country...that is their laws & their constitution...so how about a return to common sense once more

Sorry - I agree to disagree and disagree to agree!!!

I have also been following this from the beginning, and yes even though I do not live or work in the U.S. or Canada what goes on there still has an effect here in the UK, but there is more here than just the gun control issue, some are seeing this as an attack on the very bedrock of what their nation was founded on by their own gov. There is also the issue of what happens to any data that is held from the various checks that are done for any permits etc. By looking at just one issue you create ripples that radiate out through everyother issue in Gov.

Here in the UK when a lot of the drug gangs started tooling up with guns, the police changed their structure from the average bobbie signing out a hand gun to a dedicated firearms unit in high performance cars and the (at the time) latest H&K MP5's. There was also a lot of pressure from certain parties to change our laws to resemble that of the U.S. and allow the citizens to arm themselves as well, in the end that - thankfully - hasn't happened (and no it hasn't stopped some of the shooting we have had but I do think it has limited the number we have had)

This is one of those subjects where there is no right or wrong answer, and someone will always be left unhappy with the result.

[kyrenecopy]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

As soon as they start designing and selling cars specifically to kill, then I may do something other than LAUGH at your comment.
Sure, he had mental issues, he also had access to a lot of guns.

Just so you know, I have access to a lot of guns but I have never killed anyone! I will never understand why people with an IQ over 50 can not understand that the weapon used to kill is not the problem, it is the person that used the weapon. A large number of people die every day in this world from weapons other than guns, but you don't see them trying to ban those weapons; why? Because taking away weapons that realistically can't be used to overthrow a government is not worth it, now guns on the other hand.................

[Darren King]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

Nobody wants guns in the hands of crazies - We're not arguing that people with cirminal records or mental illnesses shouldn't be allowed to posess a firearm. Duh! We're not arguing that you should check these things before selling a gun to somebody - we're arguing about how those checks are performed. These checks are currently being done - every firearm I've purchased in the last 20 years has had this requirement - even at gun shows, though that's not the case in all states.

The process is quick and simple. You fill out a form with the required info, present some ID, and the info gets keyed into a computer - the FBI searches their databases for any information that would bar you from owning a gun, and approves or denies the request accordingly. It takes less than 5 minutes - basically the decision is already made before you even walk into the gun shop, they just have to look up the results.

There are 2 problems with this system:
1) The FBI database, by law, cannot contain certain very relavent information - HIPAA and ObamaCare regs do not permit the sharing of information relevant to a person's mental health. While that's good in most situations, it's pretty important in determining if you should have a firearm.
2) The government is using it as a registry. The only reason for them to register firearms is so they know where to come collect them when they decide to violate the 2nd A.

All the current "gun control" proposals the liberals are trying to push on us now simply place new restrictions on law abiding citizens, and do nothing to remove the loopholes that allow nut cases to buy a gun. I will only support new legislation under the following conditions:
1) It closes the loopholes. Mental health issues that disqualify a citizen must meet certain criteria that the person could be a real threat, so that the government can't just disqualify everybody because they had a prescription for Valium to get a good night's sleep, or some silly nonsense like that.
The law must update HIPAA and whatever other regs to allow for the transfer of this information, but still keep it protected from general release in the FBI's hands, and the FBI must report an attempt to purchase a firearm by a banned person to their mental health provider for investigation and treatment.
2) The process must remain quick and simple as it is now - no jumping through hoops to excercise a constitutionally protected right.
3) No form of registry is to be maintained. The purpose of the 2nd A was to give citizens the ability to defend ther life, property, and liberty from any menace, especially our own government. (again reference that Tyrant -> Declaration of Indepenednce -> Constitution -> 2nd Amendment chain of thought)
4) Firearms are for citizens ONLY. Sorry Illegal Aliens - you don't belong here to begin with, why the hell would I want to give you a gun.
5) No restrictions on personal arms - It's really no business of the government if I want a 1911 pistol with a 17 round magazine or an AR-15 with a 30 round mag - Don't punish me for being a law abiding citizen


So only the criminals should be able to get a gun and randomly shoot people? Legal gun owners aren't the problem here. If I fire my weapon defending my life, liberty, or property that shouldn't make me a criminal... and yes, I said property - it makes no sense that a burglar should be protected by law so long as he wears a sign while breaking into your house that reads "I'm not going to hurt anybody, I'm just going to steal everything you own... please don't shoot me"


We do have a formally drafted constitution, and it says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringement, in part, means assuming somebody is stupid with no evidence to support it.


1) You have no idea what sort of gun I need to hunt with. Should I choose to go after some of the ferrel hogs that are becoming a real problem around here, I really do need a semi-auto 12GA shotgun or an AR-15 both with a large magazine - them damn things are built like a tank, and sometimes can take several rounds of buckshot or even slugs and keep on charging at you. Point is, you don't know what my needs are, and neither does the government.
2) Freedom is exactly that. If I want to purchase an "assault weapon" as a trophy to have on my mantle that's my freedom. If I want a high grade 1911 pistol with 15 round magazine for competition shooting, that's also my freedom.


Have you completely misunderstood the concept of deterrence? Maybe I don't need a firearm, but if a would be mugger knows I'm packing he's a heck of a lot less likely to try stealing my wallet. So did I actually need my gun? Maybe not. Maybe if I didn't have it, then I would have.

Why would you assume you're going to need a gun? Violence tends to be random unless you are doing something to attract it's attention. Maybe you're rich and stand a good chance of being mugged for your $10k Rolex. Maybe you're a bookie and pissed some people off. Maybe you've requested one too many manuals on CTN... or maybe you are a gangster. We don't know, and it's not fair to make assumptions based off of nothing, but if you have cause to believe you will need a firearm, then you might just be a bigger menace to society than people who want a firearm "just in case." The whole point is that our legal system is based on the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Paranoia will destroy ya