Anyone Proud to Not Own a Gun?

Wrong.

Barack Obama - 144 (so far)
George W. Bush - 291
Clinton - 364
George Bush - 166
Reagan - 381
Carter - 320
Ford - 169
Nixon - 346
Johnson - 325
Kennedy - 214
Eisenhower - 484
Truman - 907
Franklin D. Roosevelt - 3,522
Hoover - 968
Coolidge - 1,203
Harding - 522
Wilson - 1,803
Taft - 724
Theodore Roosevelt - 1,081
McKinley - 185
Cleveland II - 140
Harrison - 143
Cleveland I - 113
Arthur - 96
Garfield - 6
Hayes - 92
Grant - 217
Andrew Johnson - 79
Lincoln - 48
Buchanan - 16
Pierce - 35
Fillmore - 12
Taylor - 5
Polk - 18
Tyler - 17
Harrison - 0
van Buren - 10
Jackson - 12
Adams - 3
Monroe - 1
Madison - 1
Jefferson - 4
Adams - 1
Washington - 8

 

But my point was, should for example the "assault weapons" ban go back into effect, that will NOT be part of executive orders. Nor would the magazine capacity limit. All of that is on legislation to go to congress for a vote. The executive orders have already been laid out (and signed for that matter) and revolve around more funding for mental health conditions, strengthening/expanding and enforcement of current laws already on the books, expanding of background checks, increasing penalties for those that violate laws such as supplying known felons with firarms, etc. Merely pointing out that the most controversial issues regarding the gun debate won't be forced via executive order. I'm not sure who would disagree with their not being a vote on mental health funding and enforcing already existing laws especially seeing that is a lot of what the "pro gun" (for lack of a better term) people propose as alternatives.

But they won't. That would never fly. And the vast majority of Americans would disagree with that. You guys can spout off all the typical one liners "confiscation starts with regulation" blah blah blah. That doesn't mean it's going to happen the more it's repeated or shared on facebook pictures, etc. Just sounds good for the argument.

 

So I guess your good with being told how to live your life. What if they just decided for you that beer is bad. All the other booze is ok....for now, but the hops and barley in beer has been determined to cause SOME people to piss their beds, so for the safety of all mattresses and the sanity of anyone that does laundry, they need to ban beer.
Now, it doesnt happen to EVERYONE, just a very small percentage of the population, but its too hard to regulate that small percentage so we are just going to use a broad brush stroke and ban beer, but hey, your cool with that, because its not ALL alcohol, its just beer, I mean really!! Whats the big deal.

The sheep lines starts on the left. I prefer to be the badger or wolverine that minds its own business until I am pushed to far, but hey, I still have my claws if needed.

 

You make some of the shittiest arguments around, they are quite entertaining!

 

Its all for the fun of it. You cant argue with two totally disagreeing sides. Look at the civil war.

 

I didn't read through all 29 pages, but I noticed quite a few people mentioning that they wouldn't want someone (a child mostly) getting a hold of their firearms.
That shouldn't even be an issue. If you ask me, it should be a LAW to keep them locked up - it seems like most of these nutjobs get guns from their parents and friends with unsecured weapons. I own several rifles, shotguns, pistols and they are locked up and ammo stored separately.

The only exception is my handgun - it is kept loaded with spare magazine in a small finger-print quick open safe bolted down to my nightstand which is bolted to my bed. It is still very readily accessible if I need it, yet nobody else is going to be getting in there quickly or easily.

 

No really man without a typical internet type response (not meaning anyone specific), I'd really like for someone, anyone to explain how "shall not be infringed" can be understood in any way that includes any rules and or restrictions.

I don't agree that a crazy man needs a gun but, I just don't understand how, being consistent with the 2a, rules can be inacted regulating them (again not saying I agree).

Anyone care to attempt to educate me?

 

It is not that it is difficult to understand. The situation is that people differ in their opinion of what the wording states, and therefore what it means. For instance I have brought to bear the definition of infringed, yet some people still think that the phrase "shall not be infringed" means that they cant do ANYTHING. This is of course incorrect if one were to actually look up the definition of the word.

 

if any guns are banned, which they have been, then thats an infrigement.

when certain people arent allowed to keep and bear arms, thats an infringement.

when there are certain places a person cant keep and bear arms, thats an infringment.

we have massive amounts of infringement of the 2nd amendment in america right now. we dont need any more. we need alot LESS

 

anarchy 2013!!!

 

Funny. I just wrote a paper on this topic for an English class. Here in Texas, apparently I'm the only one in the state that agrees that there should be strict gun control laws. One guy tried to flame me in class, but I can argue a point pretty well. I'm not saying that nobody should be able to purchase a firearm, I just think there should be psych evals and such for a person to get one. This is only my $0.02.

 

how about a psych examination to vote ?

 

or post on TW.

 

Doesn't make it any less right, at least I looked it up before yaking off. I could have taken it from here. Same answer.. just more work for folks to work out the numbers.

Frank

 

Place would become a ghost town... and we would finally out number you.



Frank

 

Me. No reason. 39 and never needed one. Just one more thing to buy, store and take care of.

 

Can you image how gloomy that would be? I've been to Toronto and seen the lifeless souls walking around there. On top of that what could you complain about? or compare to the utopia that Canada is?

 

Because it boils down to interpretation. I don't think either side is "right." One side interprets it as your rights to own A gun while the other side interprets it as your right to own ANY gun.

I mean by your definition anyone (regardless of mental or criminal history) should be able to own any gun, does it not. Are the rights of a mentally disturbed not being violated if he can't have a gun if there should be no restrictions? I mean I know you say you don't agree with that but still.