The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Countertrey wrote:ESSAYONS, brother! I miss the chest clearing WHUMP! of a cratering charge, and the concept of using too much TNT or C4!

There is no statute of limitations on the tenets of the Bill of Rights (it is timeless). It is absolutely as applicable today as it was in 1791... and as it was in 1936, when the government in power invoked all gun ownership to the Third Reich. That is the real reason Madison and others viewed this UNALIENABLE right as critical, making it clear in the SECOND amendment that it may not be abridged by man. The right of gun ownership, as I noted, was NOT contingent upon membership in a militia... but was viewed as a hedge against a tyrannical government... which, frankly, remains as valid today as when written. It is clear that the very first act of a tyrant is to find the guns... and take them... as has been demonstrated multiple times in the 20th Century. Registration simply makes it easy to find the guns. The reason we have these debates is that there are those who would compromise their freedom for the illusion of security. How is that security working in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit? How is it working in so many declared "gun free zones"?

Yessir. This 12B has seen a few M12s is his day and even a handful of M6s. I'm not arguing what the right should be. I think I made it clear in a previous post I am a gun owner. But I have serious concerns about the language of the law being manipulated by both political parties, depending upon which one controls SCOTUS at any given time. They will never try to take away our guns. There are over 300 million of them and over 100 million of us who own them and they can't go door to door. What they can do though and are doing is regulating "law-abiding" gun owners into small corners because federal gun law does not apply to the states. States can be as restrictive as they choose. So can private businesses. New York's seven round magazine law doesn't bother me because I won't need seven shots and I can reload awfully fast if one jams. But if I'm in New York I don't carry seven round magazines. They can kiss my ass. I carry the ones that came with my pistols. They're 15 rounds and if the police can carry 33 round magazines I can carry 15 round ones. So, I'm no longer a law-abiding citizen and don't claim to be one. The law is ignorant. In my opinion, all gun free zones do is advertise to criminals "Come Here! Soft Target!"

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:They will never try to take away our guns.

They already are trying.

Deadskins wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:They will never try to take away our guns.

They already are trying.

The federal government? Where?

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:They will never try to take away our guns.

They already are trying.

The federal government? Where?

You've never heard of legislation introduced to restrict gun ownership? What is the ATF, and have they ever been involved in any actions to take guns away from citizens?

Deadskins wrote:They already are trying.

You've never heard of legislation introduced to restrict gun ownership? What is the ATF, and have they ever been involved in any actions to take guns away from citizens?

The ATF doesn't show up unless you're in violation of a federal law. Stockpiling weapons may not be illegal but it damn sure creates suspicion that you may be up to no good. If you want to be David Koresh or Jim Jones you're going to draw negative attention for the other no good you're probably up to. If you're referring to things such as FFL licensing requirements those are governed by the interstate commerce clause:

Article 1, Section 8: Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states. Congress shall have the power to To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

It would be incredibly inconvenient for firearms, ammunition, and and accessory manufacturers to have a registered place of production in every state in which they conduct business.

If you want to argue the language of the Constitution means what it says and is applicable today as it was in 1791 then you also have to accept the Framers included these provisions in the original document, not as an afterthought in the Bill Of Rights, meaning this was more important to them in the framing of the nation's laws.

Insofar as legislation introduced to restrict gun ownership, I have full faith and confidence in SCOTUS to shoot down any unconstitutional legislation. But the fed does already infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Try carrying one into a federal building sometime. That's why I argue the language of the law should be changed. Both sides try to loophole the law in their favor. I'd prefer it be cut and dried.

I'd just like to point out that we're on page 4 of a gun-control discussion, with differing points of view, and it's been completely civil with no name-calling or insults.

Good show

Hooligan wrote:I'd just like to point out that we're on page 4 of a gun-control discussion, with differing points of view, and it's been completely civil with no name-calling or insults.

Is that a challenge?

Hooligan wrote:I'd just like to point out that we're on page 4 of a gun-control discussion, with differing points of view, and it's been completely civil with no name-calling or insults.

Good show

Reasonable people understand you don't advocate for stripping a constitutional right because the right is abused by a few. There have to be viable solutions to those who abuse rights without infringing upon the rights of everyone. Perhaps if we invested more in mental health prevention and less in punitive prison cure we'd actually get somewhere.

I take an outsiders approach to guns and gun control, I've fired weapons and rather enjoy it..I have no
ambition to ever own a gun at all. I don't think stripping away an ammendment that guarantees our
very right to own them is the answer, especially when we know for a unequivical fact these 3 things!
government won't lift a finger to protect us, criminals won't turn in their guns so why in the hell
should we be left as defenseless when this is the case? and part of our right to bare arms is in
case there is ever a need to rise up against the tyranny of the government (constitution) so I
again ask why the hell should we be left defenseless???

but what really burns me ass in all of this is, the fact our government doesn't even lead by
example. look at how many weapons have been sold illegally to guerilla groups and even
Al Quada extremists and they want us to put down our guns but they can sell them to those
who do far more harm

I'll put down mine when they stop selling their's