<p>
</p>
<p>Couldn’t stay away, huh, sally? </p>
<p>I don’t know what you are talking about with this paragraph. I have not asserted an opinion on this thread one way or another about BACKGROUND CHECKS, or closing gun-show loopholes. Please be more accurate.</p>
<p>I wish they’d do that (the chemical imbalance tests) for marriage licenses, drivers licenses and admission to public schools and running for public office.</p>
<p>I am proposing a license to be online too…</p>
<p>And to buy or consume alcohol. And to have children.</p>
<p>People have way too many rights. Lets start curbing them…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep- as usually secret backdoor meetings where politicians use influence peddling to trade away the rights of common citizens. </p>
<p><em>Even</em> if you supported then ends of this law, I dont know how you can support this kind of bought-and-paid-for, no-time-for-date behind the scene political fixing. What would be so bad about a representative government hearing from the public? Apparently thats problematic in New York.</p>
<p>I think these gun manufactures should stop selling to government.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could it be that NY will now provide funds for armed protection? </p>
<p>The NY proposal does grandfather assault weapons already acquired.</p>
<p>Newhope
Thanks for the forgiveness! You are right – it’s a long thread. It just seemed as though, by your last post, you were saying that stricter gun control would prevent these things. And even by your last statement it seems you feel that way:</p>
<p>“That said, it’s likely that some action will be taken in response to the Newtown slaughter. And since effective anti-violence programs are costly and time-consuming, the government will choose a response that’s quicker and simpler … something like banning the sale of high-capacity magazines.”</p>
<p>And I don’t disagree with you, but I don’t thing banning the sale of high capacity magazines will help either. There are enough of them out there already. It’s easy enough for a bad guy to change a clip. And you don’t have to buy them, you can manufacture them. And if one is not opposed to breaking a law, one will find a way to be terribly destructive if that is they way the mind is bent.</p>
<p>So all it does, when you limit magazine size, really, is to inconvenience everyone. Sad to say, but it’s just true. It seems like we’re just grasping for a solution because SOMETHING has to be done. I sympathize whole-heartedly with the sentiment, but I’m frustrated by the desire to make laws that are not effective and really accomplish nothing except to make us all “feel better” until the next tragedy happens…when we will probably slide further down the slippery slope.</p>
<p>Sally,
I’m not intentionally “bringing back” anything. Nor have I made any “claims” that I’m aware of. I have spoken from personal experience and from my own heart – that’s all. I stayed away from this thread through whatever resolution you feel you reached. But, in returning, I don’t see that any resolution has been reached at all. I think what has probably happened is that a lot of gun advocates left the thread and the other side of the argument felt like everyone was on the same page. </p>
<p>Right now, if I go buy a gun, there’s a background check, even with many vendors at gun shows. So that’s not really new. Now, even though it IS, I disagree that my name needs to be on a “She has a gun” list. Why? Well, for one reason, I don’t want it turning up on a map of a “they have guns” article in the newspaper. In other words, I’ve broken no laws, therefore, it’s really not anyone’s business whether or not I have a gun and which kind I have. I just really appreciate my privacy. And that’s why I object. I’ve never fired a gun at any living object. But I know how to use one, clean one, load one, have taken multiple gun safety courses and practice regularly. I don’t have a CHL, and I think of a gun as protection for my home and my family, and it’s my business. I would prefer that everyone else stay out of it. </p>
<p>There are already bans on automatic weapons. So that’s not new. I can think of many reasons for high capacity clips. There are multiple intruders in your home, it’s late, they’ve woken you up, you’re nervous and don’t kill on the first shot and now one of them is pointing a gun at you. Better fire quickly. The restriction of 7 rounds is ridiculous.
Yes, there are restrictions and regulations on many of our rights, including guns. We are arguing over whether we have reached a point where enough is enough. You say no, I say yes.</p>
<p>The Second Amendment does confer special rights or privileges. You believe it’s more of a collective right, I believe it’s an individual right. It’s not a new argument.</p>
<p>If I were Nancy Lanza, I would have done things very differently in regards to her son – but that’s me. I don’t disagree with you. They make bed-safes that have fingerprint recognition. If I had been her, I definitely would have owned a firearm, and I definitely would have kept it in such a safe. And there’s NO WAY a dangerous adult child would have had free access to my house with my permission. But I don’t know that she broke any law. What regulation would you put in place to “hold her accountable”? Would you say that all guns in your home have to be locked up? Is that enough? And the next time someone busts a safe open, will you say the clip has to be kept in a separate location? And then if that proved ineffective, what then?</p>
<p>
This would be hard, practically speaking. Human beings are not like cats, which you can neuter them.</p>
<p>If only this society could find an easy and effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancy in teens.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t hear about them because it would be counterproductive to the media’s agenda of convincing you that guns are bad in all cases.</p>
<p>Remington may have a surplus of semi-automatic hand guns since the UK announced yesterday that their armed forces are going with Glocks. The Remington clip holds only 13 rounds compared to 17 for the Glock.</p>
<p>[BBC</a> News - Glock 17 9mm pistols replace Browning for UK forces](<a href=“http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20978842]BBC”>Glock 17 9mm pistols replace Browning for UK forces - BBC News)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually it does, the flu is contagious which means it does essentially attack people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t have a right to not get shot with guns, but you do have a right to protect yourself with guns. The way you said it doesn’t even make sense because it means it’s dependent on other people, not dependent on you as an idividual. You can’t make people not kill you, but you do have the right to prevent them from killing you. Understand the difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all it doesn’t say anything about that in the constitution, and secondly you’re taking the “well-regulated militia” portion out of context. Here’s the context and the justification of each part:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.libertygunrights.com/2-A_Meaning_pg2.gif[/url]”>http://www.libertygunrights.com/2-A_Meaning_pg2.gif</a></p>
<p>Rofl on your link! The Supreme Court gets to interpret these things, not "senior editors at Houghton Mifflin who know how to diagram sentences.</p>
<p>Originally posted by me-
I like the idea of having references like NYS requires. I would also be in favor of having a urine test that shows chemical imbalances in the brain that costs less than a hundred dollars as well.</p>
<p>On second thought, this is just wishful thinking at best. Finding three family members to write something for you, and having someone else pee in a cup for you is not going to stop anyone.</p>
<p>One of the best points I’ve seen was from a Jewish man giving his opinion on the subject. He said can you imagine if the Jewish people in Europe were heavily armed against the Nazis?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The supreme court has backed up what that diagram says in all 2nd amendment related cases, so I don’t really see your point.</p>
<p>bl4ke360- the supreme court, right or wrong, has said the the right to own guns is in the constution. </p>
<p>My understanding is that they also said the constution does did not stop the type of gun, or ammunition from being regulated.</p>
<p>“One of the best points I’ve seen was from a Jewish man giving his opinion on the subject. He said can you imagine if the Jewish people in Europe were heavily armed against the Nazis?”</p>
<p>Nonsense. Neither the countries of Eastern Europe nor France could stop the Nazi’s from invading and taking over and you believe that if the Jews were armed they would have been able to stop them? Oy vey.</p>
<p>“You don’t have a right not to get shot with guns but you do have a right to protect yourself with guns.” Bl4ke360</p>
<p>This is the kind of nonsense that makes reasonable people think badly of the far fringe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s only if the weapon in question is an “dangerous and unusual weapon”, which means rocket launchers, artillery and the type. Semi-automatic rifles don’t fall under that category since they are not unusual by definition and history.</p>
<p>emilybee - I believe if Jewish families, en masse, had blown the heck out of anyone approaching them while cowering in their attics, the war would have ended much sooner, and there would have been much less suffering, and people would have seen much sooner the error of letting a tyrant lead, and would have been strengthened by each other.</p>
<p>I cannot imagine, in retrospect, any Jew that would not have rather fought for their right to remain free in their own home, than to be rounded up and shipped by boxcar to a concentration camp. Some things ARE worth fighting for.</p>
<p>Are you arguing that it would NOT have been a good thing if the Jews had been armed?</p>
![http://www.libertygunrights.com/2-A_Meaning_pg2.gif[/url]](http://www.libertygunrights.com/2-A_Meaning_pg2.gif%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
