TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › US Gun Owners Rights
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US Gun Owners Rights - Page 3

post #61 of 89
Can't argue with that!!
post #62 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
That's good for y'all but as Canadians it's hard for us to get our heads around the need for citizens to have a handgun in their home. It's not part of our upbringing and teachings and I personally wouldn't be comfortable with a handgun in our home. Oftimes the homeowner's own gun is used against them in the course of a breakin. Of course, it is also much safer to live in most parts of Canada than in the US so our need to have guns isn't on the same level, thus making it more difficult for us to understand this mindset.

And yes, most definitely, it is a "Canadian" thing.
Most homeowners do NOT need a gun in their house. And I agree with you, that more often the gun is used against the home owner than the other way around. Also, it seems to me that the people getting shot with the guns are family or acquaintances, either accidentally or in some sort of dispute.
post #63 of 89
In Nevada, if you have the necessary license, you can walk around in public with a gun and holster in plain sight. It is the old west you know.

I remember when Benny Binion, the owner of The Horseshoe, was alive, he was a character and he would walk around downtown and in his casino with his cowboy hat and boots on and a holster and his six shooters on his hip.
post #64 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
Which reminds me to send them another contribution to fight the good fight.
Although I frequently see the NRA referred to as though it's purely representing gun manufacturers, or perhaps some evil faceless entity, people seem to forget that it represents individual citizens: gun owners and people who support our right to own, keep, and carry guns if we so choose. I've been a member since before I ever purchased a gun of my own, because I support that constitutional right.

And yes, they do support both democratic and republican candidates, if the candidate supports gun owners' rights. It's not about partisanship, it's about our second amendment rights.

If I remember correctly, Howard Dean received an A grading from the NRA-ILA back when he was running for president for the 2004 election. I honestly believe he would have had a good chance of beating Bush in 2004 if the primaries weren't held first in northeastern states where gun control advocates rule. My husband, who usually votes republican, would have happily voted for Dean if he'd been able to, as I would have as well (I'm independent and choose candidates based on issues, not party affiliation). Personally, I abhorred Bush and much of what he did while not only as President, but also as governor of Texas. But I did applaud when he passed concealed carry here!

I feel it's safe to assume that if the Democratic party would let go of its gun control platform, they would enjoy a huge resurgence of popularity in the South and West.

Sometimes I wonder if the pro gun control platform alienates as many moderate voters from the Democratic party as the anti-choice radicals alienate from the Republican party.
post #65 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
In Nevada, if you have the necessary license, you can walk around in public with a gun and holster in plain sight. It is the old west you know.
Actually, you shouldn't need a license to carry open if the gun itself is licensed. In Wisconsin open carry is legal, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's the case in most states. That being said, I don't think you really want to do it. You're going to get stopped and have to do a lot of explaining more often that you really care to, and not just to law enforcement, either. Imagine what the Walmart greeter is going to do when you walk in with your six-shooter on your hip.

Not to mention I'm willing to bet most law enforcement officers don't even know it's legal to carry open.

The gun needs to be licensed and the holster needs to have a flap and the flap needs to be fastened. That's Wisconsin law.
post #66 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedokitties View Post
Sometimes I wonder if the pro gun control platform alienates as many moderate voters from the Democratic party as the anti-choice radicals alienate from the Republican party.
Much as I respect Charlton Heston's acting abilities as well as his pro-America values, his "cold dead hands" rhetoric was just a tad over-the-top. I think you may have a point.
post #67 of 89
Sometimes I like "over-the-top" statements, at least when I agree with them.
I thought it was funny when he said that, to tell you the truth I laughed.
post #68 of 89
Charlton Heston was the perfect choice at the time for the NRA. I'd like to see Tom Selleck become president of the NRA someday. Many people thought he would replace Charlton Heston.

I wasn't kidding when I said I was sending them a contribution. I'm a member, I do it annually.
post #69 of 89
The ammo is getting harder and harder to get by the bulk!!!!! Now people are trying to order reloading supplies and guess what? Bulk primers are getting hard to keep in stock.
post #70 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by abbycats View Post
The ammo is getting harder and harder to get by the bulk!!!!! Now people are trying to order reloading supplies and guess what? Bulk primers are getting hard to keep in stock.
The 11 year old that shot his father's girlfriend has no trouble getting to a gun or ammo.

That's the problem I have with every citizen having the right to have and bear firearms. Not every citizen is responsible enough to take the proper care of such firearms and keeping children away from them. To me it's like saying all women have the right to have children - doesn't mean they should have them. In fact some of them should never to allowed to have them. Having the right to do something or have something is no excuse for the deaths that occur in homes by accident to family members which happens much too often.
post #71 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
The 11 year old that shot his father's girlfriend has no trouble getting to a gun or ammo.

That's the problem I have with every citizen having the right to have and bear firearms. Not every citizen is responsible enough to take the proper care of such firearms and keeping children away from them. To me it's like saying all women have the right to have children - doesn't mean they should have them. In fact some of them should never to allowed to have them. Having the right to do something or have something is no excuse for the deaths that occur in homes by accident to family members which happens much too often.
I am not going to get into a debate over the right to bear arms because I am sports shooter and my opinions will be very different than yours. We will butt heads on this topic and nobody will change their position.

What I don't want is the government changing the bill of rights. Once they get a foot in the door there will be no stopping them on our other rights. They are already infringing on our rights as citizens here in the USA.
post #72 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by abbycats View Post
The ammo is getting harder and harder to get by the bulk!!!!! Now people are trying to order reloading supplies and guess what? Bulk primers are getting hard to keep in stock.
That may be the weak point in the ammendment. Since the Supreme Court upheld the ammendment, maybe they're going to go after ammo and reloading supplies. Wasn't there a proposal once before for some huge tax increase or licensing fee or something that would make it too expensive for most folks?
post #73 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by abbycats View Post
I am not going to get into a debate over the right to bear arms because I am sports shooter and my opinions will be very different than yours. We will butt heads on this topic and nobody will change their position.

What I don't want is the government changing the bill of rights. Once they get a foot in the door there will be no stopping them on our other rights. They are already infringing on our rights as citizens here in the USA.
Just for the record, I don't have a problem with folks like you having arms - you obviously are responsible, use the arms for the right reasons, i.e., not holding up liquor stores or shooting people, and you probably keep your guns in a safe place and away from children. Unfortunately not everyone is like you and having a bill of rights that allows anyone and everyone to have arms allows people who have none of the above to own guns. You see it as infringing on the rights of every citizen - I see it as playing Russian roulette by allowing the lesser beings with no conscience, no morals and sheer ignorance to easily and legally own guns that are used for nefarious purposes.

I grew up with rifles in our home and a German luger. The guns were stored safely and we were taught at an early age to treat them with respect so I'm not against guns per se. I'm against anyone and everyone having the right to have one whether they are responsible or not.

Maybe the answer would be for folks to have to take a psychological test (like police officers do) before they are allowed to legally own a gun.
post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
You see it as infringing on the rights of every citizen - I see it as playing Russian roulette by allowing the lesser beings with no conscience, no morals and sheer ignorance to easily and legally own guns that are used for nefarious purposes.
"Lesser beings?" How egalitarian!! The rights of the U.S. Constitution require no aptitude test; they are inherent in every citizen from the least able to the most. Denying a right to the so-called "lesser beings" would mean any of their other rights could be denied as well, such as trial by a jury of their peers and due process. Rights discrimination in the U.S. was tried once -- it was called slavery, and it didn't work out too well.
post #75 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
"Lesser beings?" How egalitarian!! The rights of the U.S. Constitution require no aptitude test; they are inherent in every citizen from the least able to the most. Denying a right to the so-called "lesser beings" would mean any of their other rights could be denied as well, such as trial by a jury of their peers and due process. Rights discrimination in the U.S. was tried once -- it was called slavery, and it didn't work out too well.
Now how did I know you would find a way to take this out of context?

I'm afraid I must be very "egalitarian" (big words like watermelon) . I do think of persons with no conscience, no morals or ethics and care nothing about anyone or anything as lesser beings. I don't think I ever said they were not entitled to a trial by jury (one can only hope they would be judged according to their crimes) or anything about slavery (I thought that was abolished years ago). Perhaps you are reading more into the response than is actually there.
post #76 of 89
What I read there was that you'd like to see a qualifying test for one of our Constitutional rights; i.e. some citizens don't merit the Second Ammendment. Constitutional rights aren't aquired by merit; they're granted to every citizen regardless of their qualifications. The Founding Fathers created the founding documents based on the principles that certain rights were inherent in just being human, and that they were "self-evident", then they went on to enumerate which rights they believed were inherent in just being a citizen. If it turns out now that one of those rights they granted needs a qualification so that it applies only to some citizens and not all, then that could apply to any of the other rights as well.
post #77 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
What I read there was that you'd like to see a qualifying test for one of our Constitutional rights; i.e. some citizens don't merit the Second Ammendment. Constitutional rights aren't aquired by merit; they're granted to every citizen regardless of their qualifications. The Founding Fathers created the founding documents based on the principles that certain rights were inherent in just being human, and that they were "self-evident", then they went on to enumerate which rights they believed were inherent in just being a citizen. If it turns out now that one of those rights they granted needs a qualification so that it applies only to some citizens and not all, then that could apply to any of the other rights as well.
Well Tim, I won't go into the constitutional rights of minorities that don't seem to matter as much as this issue.

But I stand by my feelings on this - people should be psychologically evaluated before being given a gun license just as police officers and armed service personnel are evaluated for mental deficiencies before being allowed into the service.

People who cannot pass a driving test cannot get a license to drive a car - I see owning a gun as being no different.

But then I'm Canadian and we have a whole different mindset when it comes to guns and don't have as many accidental home shootings, but since this is IMO and this is an international forum, I voiced my opinion which is what it's all about.
post #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
What I read there was that you'd like to see a qualifying test for one of our Constitutional rights; i.e. some citizens don't merit the Second Ammendment. Constitutional rights aren't aquired by merit; they're granted to every citizen regardless of their qualifications. The Founding Fathers created the founding documents based on the principles that certain rights were inherent in just being human, and that they were "self-evident", then they went on to enumerate which rights they believed were inherent in just being a citizen. If it turns out now that one of those rights they granted needs a qualification so that it applies only to some citizens and not all, then that could apply to any of the other rights as well.
But hasn't that already happened when we deny some convicted felons the right to vote?
post #79 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by peachytoday View Post
But hasn't that already happened when we deny some convicted felons the right to vote?
That's just not right - that's unconstitutional and makes it look like they are considered lesser beings!

Sorry, I couldn't resist - the devil made me do it.
post #80 of 89
I don't know offhand if the Supreme Court has weighed in on the convict issue, but it has definitely affirmed the Second Ammendment. Losing the right to vote after you've served your time and paid your price does seem wrong to me.

There is no Constitutional right to a driver's license, so that's not even close to relevant.
post #81 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Maybe the answer would be for folks to have to take a psychological test (like police officers do) before they are allowed to legally own a gun.
This American agrees with you. Reasons were stated in a previous post. http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho...7&postcount=16
post #82 of 89
The Government is going to by pass the 2nd amendment rights and just make ammunition impossible to get and reload.

Because i work for a large company that sells ammo I see the ammunition shortage everyday. Everything in bulk is on backorder. There have been people who have been waiting months and months only to find out that there is an "unknown date" on when we will get it in.

Now, DOD sent out letters to Ammunition Manufacturers that they will no longer sell military spent Brass for manufacturers to make ammunition.

Our constitutional rights will be chipped away at until we have no more rights and that should concern every US citizen.
post #83 of 89
So, you think this is intentional, and not a supply and demand issue? There's been a lot of ammo expended by the US military in certain parts of the world. The spent brass is probably being picked up by Iraqi kids and Taliban women-folk for reloading and shooting back at us.
post #84 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
So, you think this is intentional, and not a supply and demand issue? There's been a lot of ammo expended by the US military in certain parts of the world. The spent brass is probably being picked up by Iraqi kids and Taliban women-folk for reloading and shooting back at us.
When this all started I was under the belief that it was the war. Not anymore. I have been doing my own research on this and I believe there is more to this than the war. The ammunition that is not used in the war is also Out of stock with unknown dates. They use .223, 9mm, 7.62 X 55(.308) in the war. Why are all sporting calibers and bulk primers on back order?. If I didn't work for a Company that supplies ammunition I would none the wiser. Why is it so hard to get .243, 6mm, 30-06, 7mm, .300 winmag, .338, .375, 7.62 x 39, not to mention the pistol ammo .380 auto, 45acp, .38/357, .44mag, .45LC, all in bulk quantities.
post #85 of 89
Then the next question is: why IS this situation so widely unknown and/or ignored? There were those who said this could be coming years ago. They were shouted down by those who said "it'll never happen here." Now it's happening. Why IS the general public none the wiser? I suppose most of them don't give a fig.
post #86 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Then the next question is: why IS this situation so widely unknown and/or ignored? There were those who said this could be coming years ago. They were shouted down by those who said "it'll never happen here." Now it's happening. Why IS the general public none the wiser? I suppose most of them don't give a fig.
Unless your ordering ammo and reloading supplies you wouldn't really know. The Government wants to encode bullets and eventually make reloading illegal.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?id=227
post #87 of 89
They're already putting tracer elements in explosives; I assume that includes gunpowder. I guess I don't have a problem with that, it helps law enforcement track down terrorist bombers. But what you're saying is outrageous. First they're going to make production ammo virtually unobtainable and then outlaw reloading? The intent is obvious.
post #88 of 89
One of the sad things about ammo become less readily available is that it may make gun owners inclined to practice less and to just keep the ammo for emergencies only...and regular practice is what helps to make and keep a gun owner skilled in handling and less likely to make errors.

A gun owner who has learned to handle and shoot the gun properly and hones her/his skills regularly is a safer gun handler.

Reducing/eliminating the availability of ammo is a terrible, underhanded way of restricting gun ownership and use nationwide, even in states and localities where individual right to carry enjoys overwhelming support.
post #89 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by abbycats View Post
Now, DOD sent out letters to Ammunition Manufacturers that they will no longer sell military spent Brass for manufacturers to make ammunition.
The NRA wins this round. The DOD will start selling military spent Brass again.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?ID=12244
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › US Gun Owners Rights