Correct ne uf I'm wrong

[Classic]

You started your post with "Before you start the hate mail,". That tells me you know you are at odds with many on this site. You were presented with plenty of reason and logic before I came along so I saw no need to repeat what others had already told you. YOU don't want to be confused with the facts so there is no room for intelligent discussion.

When you have reason on your side, hammer reason. When you have logic on your side hammer logic. When you have neither, hammer the table. You are doing nothing more than hammering the table at this point. "WAAAAAA, I want more gun control."

 

[Hkindiana]

HK You really need to read post #5 of this thread here, it sums it up pretty well. Credit to Kirk Freeman.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...d_amendment/284409-obama_joe.html#post4030513

Do convicted felons & mentally unstable people have a RIGHT to own firearms? If so, would you feel comfortable giving them one?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Do convicted felons & mentally unstable people have a RIGHT to own firearms? If so, would you feel comfortable giving them one?

Try this novel concept: If a person is too dangerous to be trusted with rights which are clearly enumerated and have no exception in the Constitution for 'improper' persons, then that person is too dangerous to be roaming free.

Incarcerate dangerous individuals and leave the rest of us the f**k alone.

While I am at it, I could address the construction of the new feudalism. It started, at least in legislation, in 1968 when for the first time in our history it became illegal for someone who had been convicted of a felony to possess a firearm. First, there is no exception to the Second Amendment in the Constitution. Seeing one was the construct of the imaginations of activist judges who make up their own constitutionality without being bothered with the constitution. Second, the is the first time since the abolition of slavery at which a de facto second-class citizenship was established. You will see that since then more, and more trivial things have become felonies. We have passed the point at which you could be a non-felon by simply not going out of your way to deliberately commit a crime. Now it takes a deliberate and diligent effort to remain on the right side of the law, which is unacceptable, and sets the stage for the time in which the only ones with full rights will be the special ones who by position or salutary neglect do not face the same consequences as everyone else. Is this the society in which you wish to live?

 

[Jack Burton]

Do convicted felons & mentally unstable people have a RIGHT to own firearms? If so, would you feel comfortable giving them one?

Hk is the kind of gun owner who causes the pro-firearm freedoms to take a 3/4 step backwards for every one step forward.

 

[SideArmed]

Do convicted felons & mentally unstable people have a RIGHT to own firearms? If so, would you feel comfortable giving them one?

If they are too dangerous to be trusted, why are they on the streets?

But I see that now you are clearly trying to divert the attention away from the fact that you are calling for UBC's, by questioning others moral fiber.

Nice.

 

[Hkindiana]

You started your post with "Before you start the hate mail,". That tells me you know you are at odds with many on this site. You were presented with plenty of reason and logic before I came along so I saw no need to repeat what others had already told you. YOU don't want to be confused with the facts so there is no room for intelligent discussion.

When you have reason on your side, hammer reason. When you have logic on your side hammer logic. When you have neither, hammer the table. You are doing nothing more than hammering the table at this point. "WAAAAAA, I want more gun control."

I think it is comical how some people confuse "reason" and "logic" with blind faith that they are "right", and any one who tries to have a discussion with them is a troll, or for gun control, or the anti-Christ.

 

[eldirector]

Do convicted felons & mentally unstable people have a RIGHT to own firearms?

Yes, they do. And any other arms they choose to "bear" for defense of themselves and country.

That right just so happens to be infringed at this point in time.

If so, would you feel comfortable giving them one?

Maybe? Depends. What was the felony? How unstable are they? If they are so dangerous, why are they walking the streets?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think it is comical how some people confuse "reason" and "logic" with blind faith that they are "right", and any one who tries to have a discussion with them is a troll, or for gun control, or the anti-Christ.

Are you for real or are you trolling us? Seriously?

The only thing you are bringing to the table is the question of how much of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT we can give up that will do nothing for the stated purpose as we receive ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in return for doing so. You sir are a traitor to the cause.

 

[popsmoke]

You and I both know that ANYONE can walk into a gun show and walk out with any number of handguns, rifles, and "assault weapons" without ANYONE verifying that they are not a criminal, mentally insane, an illegal, etc, simply by purchasing from individuals or those selling from "private collections".

How would UBCs stop this from happening if people continued to make private transactions, and skirting registered FFLs? Answer - it wouldn't.

Taking aside the whole "shall not be infringed" thing.
We've compromised enough. I refuse to let myself be further punished for the actions of criminals. You ought to be, too.

 

[KW730]

The only way to enforce UBC is with a national gun registry. Without it the law is useless and only causes an inconvenience to law-abiding citizens. A national registry is unconstitutional and illegal (can't recall atm what case or law it was that made this illegal). This is why you should not support UBC.

 

[Hkindiana]

If they are too dangerous to be trusted, why are they on the streets?

But I see that now you are clearly trying to divert the attention away from the fact that you are calling for UBC's, by questioning others moral fiber.

Nice.

America already incarcerates more people than virtually any other country. If someone has an IQ of 15 and can function as a Wal-Mart greeter, do you advocate locking them up, rather than prohibiting them from owning a firearm (which would be like giving a firearm to a two year old)? We have to use reason.

 

[Birds Away]

I think it is comical how some people confuse "reason" and "logic" with blind faith that they are "right", and any one who tries to have a discussion with them is a troll, or for gun control, or the anti-Christ.

It is your right to be pro gun-control, pro gun confiscation if you want. I am just confused as to why you feel the need to pick a fight. You refuse to acknowledge reasonable explanations as to how you are misguided. If you want everyone to fall all over themselves agreeing with you, you might want to check out the Brady bunch website. You will fit right in there.

 

[SideArmed]

America already incarcerates more people than virtually any other country. If someone has an IQ of 15 and can function as a Wal-Mart greeter, do you advocate locking them up, rather than prohibiting them from owning a firearm (which would be like giving a firearm to a two year old)? We have to use reason.

Ok seriously, this is the last turn I can take in your little game, I really have to get back to work.

Find me a responsible gun owner, or a gun dealer that is going to sell a gun to a two year old.

 

[IndyDave1776]

America already incarcerates more people than virtually any other country. If someone has an IQ of 15 and can function as a Wal-Mart greeter, do you advocate locking them up, rather than prohibiting them from owning a firearm (which would be like giving a firearm to a two year old)? We have to use reason.

Are these people dangerous?

Now, as William Pitt wisely observed, necessity is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves. You, sir, have demonstrated clearly that you would make an excellent slave in practice if not in name.

One other thing, if your beloved UBC is so necessary, how did the United States survive this long without it and how did it survive until 1968 allowing felons and the 'mentally deficient' the same rights as the rest of us?

 

[SideArmed]

I think it is comical how some people confuse "reason" and "logic" with blind faith that they are "right", and any one who tries to have a discussion with them is a troll, or for gun control, or the anti-Christ.

You still haven't commented on my reasonable compromise I sugested.

 

[Hkindiana]

You sir are a traitor to the cause.

I actually expected this before post #68. Yes, I am for real, and maybe I am playing the devil's advocate. My point has been to see if we, as fellow gun owners, and strong advocates of our second amendment rights, could have a rational discussion without name calling, blind faith, and finger pointing. it seems like this is like a discussion about religion where someone is always right because their particular book tells them so.

What exactly is YOUR cause?

 

[Hoosier Carry]

Hkindiana,
What do you think is going to happen if a UBC becomes law and has ZERO effect on violent crime?
What will happen next?
What should we allow after UBC?

Hk, you still have not addressed the simple question of just how this is going to stop a bad guy from obtaining a firearm.

Since felons, by definition, don't follow the law just how is a new law that only applies to law abiding citizens going to affect the behaviour of one who is not a law abiding citizen?

Until you can answer that question then you are just proposing a "feel good" law that penalizes the 99.999 percent of gun owners who never harm anyone and letting the .001 percent that do off the hook.

Edit: [hat tip to caleb]

I also asked for rational discussion.

I did not find your discussion on these questions in the thread. I must have missed it.

 

[sepe]

Nope. There is too much going on already with the "shall not be infringed" part. No need to add to it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

What exactly is YOUR cause?

Freedom What is yours?

 

[eldirector]

America already incarcerates more people than virtually any other country.

Thanks only to the "war" on drugs. Violent crime is actually lower now than in the previous 4 decades.

If someone has an IQ of 15 and can function as a Wal-Mart greeter,

Not possible. An IQ of 15 is severely retarded, and non-functional.

do you advocate locking them up,

That sounds a little harsh, but they will need 24x7x365 care to even survive.

rather than prohibiting them from owning a firearm (which would be like giving a firearm to a two year old)?

They wouldn't even be able to figure out how to make it work. But still, that is quite silly.

We have to use reason.

We have tried. Some folks are just very resistant to it, and fall back on emotional arguments. We'll keep trying!