Team SASS: Senators seek deal on gun-sale background checks

[crosscut hardy]

The VA clinics in Louisiana are asking if we own guns

 

in our homes. They have asked me personally and other

 

vet friends of mine. I played dumb like a fox and looked

 

shocked and told the Dr. "sure do, don't everyone in La."

 

....crosscut

[Badlands Beady]

While you anti-gun position is well known on this forum hopefully many other Americans will recognize that throwing out the rights of millions of Americans is excessive.

 

My "anti-gun position" is a matter of interpretation. It is only anti-gun in the sense that I don't march in lock-step with the folks who see any rule or regulation as a first step to subjugation. If that's anti-gun, then I'm anti-gun. We have a problem; it needs to be solved. If the only thing you can do is yell "NO!", how is that helping to solve the problem?

[Captain Bill Burt]

It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.

 

Your position BB appears to be that the government should act to keep citizens from falling into error. The majority of posters on this board seem to hold the view that citizens should be left alone by their government.

 

What part of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed' do you not get?

[Seldom Seen #16162]

Seldom Seen:

 

Yep, thats me.....Mr. Uninformed.

 

And I guess everyone who might express a different view than yours is also uninformed.

 

Thats nice to know.

 

Now excuse me while I crawl back into my shell.

 

 

..........Widder

 

 

What many gun owners and myself object to is your proposal requires permission for the Federal Government to buy and sell a firearm. Captain Bill Burt beat me to it in Post #12.

 

I was trying not to offensive when I said you are uninformed as I assumed your are basically conservative who has been taken by Obama's big lie.

 

On the other hand if you are a Liberal well...

[Seldom Seen #16162]

 

My "anti-gun position" is a matter of interpretation. It is only anti-gun in the sense that I don't march in lock-step with the folks who see any rule or regulation as a first step to subjugation. If that's anti-gun, then I'm anti-gun. We have a problem; it needs to be solved. If the only thing you can do is yell "NO!", how is that helping to solve the problem?

 

There are a number of Federal, State and Local laws restricting ownership of firearms in the United States which have not proven effective in preventing criminals from getting guns so this is hardly a "first step to subjugation." It is part of well organized systematic plan to disarm the American people.

 

Relaxing gun laws, not passing more restrictive ones, to allow citizens to arm themselves in public has proven to reduce violent crime.

 

I offered one solution which in fact is being started in Arizona. You just chose to either not to read my entire post or just ignore it.

[Captain Bill Burt]

What many gun owners and myself object to is your proposal requires permission for the Federal Government to buy and sell a firearm. Captain Bill Burt beat me to it in Post #12.

 

I was trying not to offensive when I said you are uninformed as I assumed your are basically conservative who has been taken by Obama's big lie.

 

On the other hand if you are a Liberal well...

Although I agree with your position with respect to background checks between private buyers and sellers I disagree with calling anyone who holds a different opinion uninformed. I can see informed people holding opinions that differ from mine. Part of what bothers me about the current gun control debate is the tendancy, on both sides, to demonize their opponents. I'm sure that many liberals really believe that depriving people of the right to own guns will result in a better society. What really bugs me is this desire to see the whole issue as a popularity contest with whichever side is in the majority having the right to inflict their beliefs on the other side. The bill of rights is there to prevent just such an occurence. Our nation was founded on the belief that the will of the people is important and in most cases should prevail, but that there are certain fundamental rights that are not subject to popular vote, such as the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Our nation was also created by people who had a justifiable skepticism about powerful governments and the ways such governments might use their power. That's why I oppose 'common sense' laws like requiring FFL transfers between ANY parties. But then I also oppose virtually all drug laws, prostitution laws, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, basically any law where the government tells the citizen what he or she may engage in 'for their own good.'

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

The majority of posters on this board seem to hold the view that citizens should be left alone by their government.

 

What part of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed' do you not get?

 

Yup - especially those that beleive in the rule of law, abide by it, and are not a threat to our communities...these are the folks that would be affected by increased firearm laws - the criminal will not. In fact, increased firearm laws only helps the criminal do what they do best - commit more and effective crime.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:/>

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Although I agree with your position with respect to background checks between private buyers and sellers I disagree with calling anyone who holds a different opinion uninformed. I can see informed people holding opinions that differ from mine. Part of what bothers me about the current gun control debate is the tendancy, on both sides, to demonize their opponents. I'm sure that many liberals really believe that depriving people of the right to own guns will result in a better society. What really bugs me is this desire to see the whole issue as a popularity contest with whichever side is in the majority having the right to inflict their beliefs on the other side. The bill of rights is there to prevent just such an occurence. Our nation was founded on the belief that the will of the people is important and in most cases should prevail, but that there are certain fundamental rights that are not subject to popular vote, such as the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Our nation was also created by people who had a justifiable skepticism about powerful governments and the ways such governments might use their power. That's why I oppose 'common sense' laws like requiring FFL transfers between ANY parties. But then I also oppose virtually all drug laws, prostitution laws, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, basically any law where the government tells the citizen what he or she may engage in 'for their own good.'

 

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." ~ Ronald Reagan :D/>

 

So I would chalk it up to being....MISinformed ;)/>

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:/>

[Captain Bill Burt]

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." ~ Ronald Reagan :D/>/>/>

 

So I would chalk it up to being....MISinformed ;)/>/>/>

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:/>/>/>

They want a nice cozy life where there are never any threats and bad things don't happen. Mommy and Daddy government protect us all from the big bad wolf and all the little children get participation trophies.

 

Any time free people have the right to choose what they want to do and not do you're going to get the occasional bad apple making bad decisions. The only way to absolutely prevent that is to make everything that isn't compulsory, forbidden. That's the ultimate result of current 'liberal' thinking.

 

BTW, I love the Reagan quote, it's very appropriate. Liberals just don't see the world, and people, as they really are.

[Utah Bob #35998]

.....Part of what bothers me about the current gun control debate is the tendancy, on both sides, to demonize their opponents......

Agreed. I believe the gulf between conservatives and liberals is as wide as it has ever been. Each side demonizes and insults the other incessently. The fact that we are all Americans no longer seems to matter.The art of compromise appears to have been lost as both sides dig in their heels on almost every issue.

If this continues unabated, I fear for the future of our country.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

You would think by reading some of the posts on this thread that keeping guns out of the hands of individuals with serious dangerous mental issues was a really bad idea. Are you serious?

[John E. Law]

If that's anti-gun, then I'm anti-gun. We have a problem; it needs to be solved. If the only thing you can do is yell "NO!", how is that helping to solve the problem?

 

I have been saying for months that you are anti-gun, your posts reek of it. The Pro-gun arguement is not just saying "No", they are saying why are we not inforcing the 20,000 laws that are already on the books! Adam Lanza tried twice in 1 week to by a semi-auto rifle and was denied both times by a background check so how is more background checks going to stop this? In addition why wasn't a flag sent up from these 2 failed attempts??

 

Yes, there is a problem in this country regarding violence and mental issues, but you cannot legislate violence by banning firearms and violating honest peoples rights!

 

You have Thomas Jefferson quoted at the bottom of your page, here's another one for you:

 

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms within his own land."

 

I don't march in lock-step with the folks who see any rule or regulation as a first step to subjugation.

 

and regarding your above comment, here's one from Patrick Henry during a speech about guarding the rights of an armed citizenry:

 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."

 

JEL

Who witnesses everyday that laws and legisalation does not stop violence and who does not trust this government at all.

 

(Edited to fix a italics error)

[Captain Bill Burt]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." B.F.

 

Who decides what constitutes 'serious dangerous mental issues'? The same guy who a few years ago described some folks in small midwestern towns as 'they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion'? I wonder if his definition of 'serious dangerous mental issues is the same as yours? And even if it is, will the one after him share that definition?

[KC Colt, SASS #69404]

It is enlightening to read the comments from liberals on this forum who have no problem with more gun laws. None of the laws currently on the books or proposed would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings but the libs are still ok with taking away more of my rights. Put a uniformed guard in every school and make gun free zones illegal and mass shootings will become as rare as hen's teeth. Here is a clue for the vocal libs on this board...Criminals and Mental Patients do not obey laws.

 

Your pard,

KC

[Subdeacon Joe]

You would think by reading some of the posts on this thread that keeping guns out of the hands of individuals with serious dangerous mental issues was a really bad idea. Are you serious?

 

I don't think anyone here thinks "that keeping guns out of the hands of individuals with serious dangerous mental issues was a really bad idea." What is being expressed is a distrust of the government, especially the current administration, in determining what "serious dangerous mental issues" are.

 

Witness the DHS report calling people with an "undue reverence for the Constitution" or "favoring state or local government over federal" or focusing on single issues such as being anti-abortion or pro-Second Amendment potential right wing militia extremists, implying some sort of mental instablity. I've seen some legislators here in CA make open mic gaffes and get caught saying that wanting to own guns is a sign of mental illness.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Now this thread has turned utterly halarious.

 

Me...Liberal ? I don't think so. That's funny.

 

Sooooo, the new definition of a Liberal is someone who thinks that an individual who has a medical 'HISTORY' of mental illness should not be able to freely purchase a firearm.

 

AND also, if I have to purchase my firearms thru a FFL, then what is wrong with everyone having to purchase their firearm thru an FFL?

 

True Story: a couple years back I was selling a Ruger SBH in .44 mag. My brother in college had a class mate that wanted to buy it. His name was Abdul ?

I ask: "Are you a U.S. Citizen?" SURE, was his reply...."But I think I'm gona look for another gun somewhere else"

 

My brother indicated later to me that ole Abdul wasn't a US Citizen but rather a foreign student wanting to buy a gun.

 

Sorri Abdul....Not Mine!

 

You fellers can buy and sell all you want without using an FFL. But the day it happens and that gun is used in a crime by a convicted Felon or non-citizen, you just remember WHO was informed and WHO really wasn't informed.

 

I been on this Wire for nearly 8 years and probably no more than 1 or 2 post have I ever made something personal...and that was unintended.

 

Agree or disagree, discuss points and counter points, etc.....but Pards, it does get alittle monotanous when some of you want to draw down on shooting pards with labels unfit for a dog.

 

"And thats about all I got to say about that".

 

 

..........Widder

[Seldom Seen #16162]

Our nation was also created by people who had a justifiable skepticism about powerful governments and the ways such governments might use their power. That's why I oppose 'common sense' laws like requiring FFL transfers between ANY parties. But then I also oppose virtually all drug laws, prostitution laws, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, basically any law where the government tells the citizen what he or she may engage in 'for their own good.'

 

Ah...it is a pleasure to hear from another Libertarian.

:)

[White Buffalo]

And who gets to decide who has a mental illness? What type of appeal process is there and how expensive is that going to be? What happens when you no longer have this mental illness? Are you banned for life when diagnoses with depression at age 20 by your family doctor?

 

Is being a Gun Addict considered a mental illness? My wife thinks so. <_</>

 

 

It is going to be like when the military BANNED all kids from joining the military if they ever took Ritalin as a kid. There are waivers but a lot of paperwork and statements that have to be provided for the waiver. It is easier to get into the military if you smoked pot then if you took Ritalin

[Seldom Seen #16162]

Now this thread has turned utterly halarious.

 

Me...Liberal ? I don't think so. That's funny.

 

Sooooo, the new definition of a Liberal is someone who thinks that an individual who has a medical 'HISTORY' of mental illness should not be able to freely purchase a firearm.

The standard is "adjudicated mentally defective" not "HISTORY of mental illness."

 

AND also, if I have to purchase my firearms thru a FFL, then what is wrong with everyone having to purchase their firearm thru an FFL?

 

I thought your position was requiring all private transactions to have a background check with the Feds. Now you state since all firearm purchases have to go thru a FFL that will ban all private sales.

 

Ask her; http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605 I wonder if it mattered where she got her gun from a FFL or private sale.

 

Perhaps you misspoke.

 

True Story: a couple years back I was selling a Ruger SBH in .44 mag. My brother in college had a class mate that wanted to buy it. His name was Abdul ?

I ask: "Are you a U.S. Citizen?" SURE, was his reply...."But I think I'm gona look for another gun somewhere else"

 

My brother indicated later to me that ole Abdul wasn't a US Citizen but rather a foreign student wanting to buy a gun.

 

Sorri Abdul....Not Mine!

 

Actually legal aliens with green card are allowed to purchase and own firearms in the United States. Even when their first name is Abul. Read the questions and instructions on Form 4473.

 

You fellers can buy and sell all you want without using an FFL. But the day it happens and that gun is used in a crime by a convicted Felon or non-citizen, you just remember WHO was informed and WHO really wasn't informed.

 

Again. If you are not comfortable selling a firearm to a individual don't do it. I have not see or heard of any method to relibily predict future behavior.

 

You are falling victim of the big lie that criminals purchase the guns they use in crime from legal gunowners and somehow universal background checks will keep all of those out of the hands of the criminals. Criminals instead turn to illegal means of obtaining guns such as stealing one or finding someone on the streets to sell or trade something for guns. Sometimes another person buys it for them and it's not unheard of for them to use the same guns in crimes over and over

 

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/2012-05-02+07%3A00%3A00

 

I been on this Wire for nearly 8 years and probably no more than 1 or 2 post have I ever made something personal...and that was unintended.

 

If you are referring to my comment I did not call you a liberal. In fact I assumed you are a conservative gun owner just misinformed and falling for Obama's big lie. I was attacking your position not you personally. I apologize for giving you the impression I was calling you a name you found offensive.

 

Agree or disagree, discuss points and counter points, etc.....but Pards, it does get alittle monotanous when some of you want to draw down on shooting pards with labels unfit for a dog.

 

As I have said repeatedly gun owners are our own worse enemies. Your position for universal background checks, at least for right now, is one of the positions of Obama and many Democrats.

 

"And thats about all I got to say about that".

 

 

..........Widder

[Blue Wolf , SASS# 29424L]

I don't get your point.

 

Is it that you are against keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill?

 

Or that you don't trust anybody to diagnose that someone is mentally ill?

 

Or that you don't trust anybody to keep a list of the mentally ill?

 

Seriously. What's your solution to the problem?

 

Several solutions are available:

 

1. Do nothing for more gun control.

2. Put God back in government and schools.

3. Re-open the mental hospitals that have been closed.

4. Quit trying to solve all problems on your own and turn to God for solutions.

5. Make abortions illegal.

 

These are just a start. I know some will say what about the seperation of church and state. This seperation is government from church not church from government. This country was founded on Judea-Christian doctrine and we have turned from that. Read the Bible for what will happen if this nation keeps turning it's back on God.

 

Just my opinion,

 

Blue Wolf

[Captain Bill Burt]

Let me be clear, I have never said, nor thought, nor implied that you're a liberal Widder. I also took issue with you being called uninformed, I adamantly object to you being labeled in that way. I disagree with you on the topic being discussed but have the utmost respect for you as a person and a shooter.

[Crazy Knife Al]

I guess my question is, are we really having a big problem with the mentally ill purchasing guns? Other than some high profile cases in the past few years what are the statistics on this? Some make it sound like every other person walking down the street is a nut with a gun. How are we going to pay for this? 42 states do not send the mentally ill information to the feds. How many more people do we need to hire for this and who pays for it. I live in WA. state and we are one billion dollars short on paying for our education system. We do not need more cost added on for what seems to me to very little return.

 

Also, my wife had to fill out a form for her doctor and on the form it asked about guns in the home. She left it blank.

[Captain Bill Burt]

Ah...it is a pleasure to hear from another Libertarian.

:)/>/>/>/> :)/>/>/>/> :)/>/>/>/>

LOL, I'm not much for labels and I've never been an adherent to any particular political philosophy. I march to the beat of my own drummer. I guess you could call me a 'free thinker'.

 

If I may, my objective in discussing this with Widder, and others, is to persuade them, or failing in that at least clearly articulate my position and the basis for it. What's your objective?

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

I'll take a crack at answering, not on the OP's behalf but my own. I speak for most of middle America if you didn't know.

 

 

I don't get your point.

 

Is it that you are against keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill?

Are the mentally ill entitled to inalienable rights or not? Nobody ever ask. Just sayin'. If there are stipulations, then they are privileges. Not arguing nut jobs need guns.

 

Or that you don't trust anybody to diagnose that someone is mentally ill?

Doctors can hardly diagnose anything as it is. A good vet will give it to ya straight cause they work outside of a convoluted system of insurance, malpractice insurance and politics. I'd bank my health care on a vet any day.

 

Or that you don't trust anybody to keep a list of the mentally ill?

Not just no, but hell know. Any statistics can be manipulated and perverted or used for ill intent.

 

Seriously. What's your solution to the problem?

I think we're so fractured as a society and no real leadership has emerged that will risk all they personally have in the name of freedom is no inspiration or incentive for common folks to do likewise. Bout all we can do is bitch and moan, maybe win few temporary victories. My only solution is for folks to exercise their rights and do it often and do so publicly. Often. Defy laws that are unjust. Defy a government that refuses to do what is right and implement what is right. C'mon, we can quote all the patriots of 1776 all we want. Uplift the teachings and principles of King and Ghandi but until we get off our butts and duplicate them, we, including myself, are little more than cowards.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

LOL, I'm not much for labels and I've never been an adherent to any particular political philosophy. I march to the beat of my own drummer. I guess you could call me a 'free thinker'.

 

If I may, my objective in discussing this with Widder, and others, is to persuade them, or failing in that at least clearly articulate my position and the basis for it. What's your objective?

Last position I saw from the NRA called for a national updated mental health/illness data base to be used in the background check system. Do you disagree with the NRA position?

[Captain Bill Burt]

Last position I saw from the NRA called for a national updated mental health/illness data base to be used in the background check system. Do you disagree with the NRA position?

Am I supposed to be impressed because the NRA endorses a position? What part of 'free thinker' did you miss? There isn't an organization, or person on this planet that I don't feel free to disagree with. My own drummer, my own thoughts, my own conclusions.

 

I disagree with the entire proposition that Uncle Sam should be in a position to restrict people's rights ex ante, or before they've done anything wrong, as in limit everyone's write to keep and bear arms, because someone somewhere might do something bad with one.

 

If you're going to keep a data base of people who are legally second class citizens then I couldn't support its existence unless I was intimately familiar with, and approved of, the methodology used to determine who would be entered into that database and have their rights as a human being diminished thereby.

 

In the event that I'm not convinced of the legitimacy of the methodology (which I'm not)) then I would err in favor of liberty.

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

Am I supposed to be impressed because the NRA endorses a position? What part of 'free thinker' did you miss? There isn't an organization, or person on this planet that I don't feel free to disagree with. My own drummer, my own thoughts, my own conclusions.

 

I disagree with the entire proposition that Uncle Sam should be in a position to restrict people's rights ex ante, or before they've done anything wrong, as in limit everyone's write to keep and bear arms, because someone somewhere might do something bad with one.

 

If you're going to keep a data base of people who are legally second class citizens then I couldn't support its existence unless I was intimately familiar with, and approved of, the methodology used to determine who would be entered into that database and have their rights as a human being diminished thereby.

 

In the event that I'm not convinced of the legitimacy of the methodology (which I'm not)) then I would err in favor of liberty.

 

 

The government had a draft, you need a drivers license, you pay taxes ,you need car insurance and on and on ALL government REQUIRED.your position is flawed.Unless you do none of these requirements. JUST SAYING

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

Am I supposed to be impressed because the NRA endorses a position? What part of 'free thinker' did you miss? There isn't an organization, or person on this planet that I don't feel free to disagree with. My own drummer, my own thoughts, my own conclusions.

 

I disagree with the entire proposition that Uncle Sam should be in a position to restrict people's rights ex ante, or before they've done anything wrong, as in limit everyone's write to keep and bear arms, because someone somewhere might do something bad with one.

 

If you're going to keep a data base of people who are legally second class citizens then I couldn't support its existence unless I was intimately familiar with, and approved of, the methodology used to determine who would be entered into that database and have their rights as a human being diminished thereby.

 

In the event that I'm not convinced of the legitimacy of the methodology (which I'm not)) then I would err in favor of liberty.

Did not realize how far from mainstream Conservative thinking you were. We are not even close enough for a discussion.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

I feel like I've jump on my horse and instead of landing in the saddle, I've somehow managed to hit the horn......

 

As far as a green card holder having the right to buy a gun, thats great. And I'm glad he/she has a place on The Form to state as such. Because if I'm a Citizen and Veteran and I have to fill out those forms, then legal visitors should also have to do the same. And that is my point.

 

Anyhow, I ain't gona go back and reread every post where I may have or have not misread something before I stated my thoughts.

 

I thought I read where the background check system/mental health issues was supported by the NRA. To me, that gave some credence to the issue.

 

I will share this in case any of you ever have to share a fox hole with me. And I'm not stating anymore than what many of you put in your signature line.

 

I'm Southern born and bred Conservative.

Southern Baptist ..... AND, I carry my pistol in Church. Not just to church...but IN church. Even my Pastor and other leaders practice their carry rights.

Totally against Abortions

NRA LIFE MEMBER ... since the mid 70's when I got out of the US Navy (honorably discharged)

TN Carry permit of which I exercise all the time.

I teach my Wife and 19 yr. old Daughter to shoot. And when my daughter get 21, she will gladly carry. My daughters boy friend carries, of which I encourage.

If it were up to me, I would legalize pistol carry privileges to 18 year olds.....ESPECIALLY Military personnel.

I would encourage Teachers to carry.

and I could probably list dozens more items that would make you think I'm toooooo conservative.

 

Y'all have a good day and try to keep a good thought!

 

 

..........Widder

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

Yup - especially those that beleive in the rule of law, abide by it, and are not a threat to our communities...these are the folks that would be affected by increased firearm laws - the criminal will not. In fact, increased firearm laws only helps the criminal do what they do best - commit more and effective crime.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:/>/>

 

But, Burt said shall not be infringed. That means everyone has the right to have as many guns and any type they want and can carry them whenever and where ever they want. SEE anything wrong with this so called Shall not be infringed . Let us all go out and get a NUKE or how about some Hand Grenades.

The Bill of Rights comes with restrictions.

[Captain Bill Burt]

The government had a draft, you need a drivers license, you pay taxes ,you need car insurance and on and on ALL government REQUIRED.your position is flawed.Unless you do none of these requirements. JUST SAYING

I rarely respond to you TJB, because usually I think you're full of it, but this post is like coming to the plate down 3 bases loaded and the pitcher throws you a hanger that looks as big as a beach ball.

 

I was to young for the draft, but since I served honorably in the Navy and support the concept and purpose of the Military as being one of the true legitimate excercises of government power I would have done what I view as my duty as a citizen.

 

I pay taxes because the government is the 800lb gorilla and I don't fight battles I can't win unless the principle is incredibly important to me. Plus some of the things my taxes get spent on are actually what I view as legitimate expenditures and I have a duty to the society I exist in.

 

I buy insurance because I'm not an idiot and I understand the concept of liability and I recognize how our legal system functions.

 

To sum it up, just because I am a free thinker does not mean I'm a free actor. I accept the societal restrictions in place because that acceptance allows me to remain 'relatively' free and live as close to the type of life I would like to live as I can. If the restrictions became too burdensome I would take a different path.

 

 

 

Did not realize how far from mainstream Conservative thinking you were. We are not even close enough for a discussion.

I'm sorry to hear that GCK. I've agreed with you more often than not over the last couple of years, but I follow no man or organization's lead. I support the NRA because I agree with 65-85% (roughly) of what they are trying to do. But I don't feel that my support has to be all or nothing. I supported Romney because I agreed with more of his positions than I did Obama's, but I didn't agree with either one of them 100%, not even close. The fact that the NRA, or any other conservative organization supports an issue is enough for me to give serious thought to it, but it's not conclusive.

 

Do you view that type of thinking as a negative? Are there people or organization out there that get the last word on what your position should be?

[Captain Bill Burt]

But, Burt said shall not be infringed. That means everyone has the right to have as many guns and any type they want and can carry them whenever and where ever they want. SEE anything wrong with this so called Shall not be infringed . Let us all go out and get a NUKE or how about some Hand Grenades.

The Bill of Rights comes with restrictions. ;)/>

Name them.

[KC Colt, SASS #69404]

I wonder how we have let so many ANTIs into our den. The pro "more gun laws crowd" are the same libtards that I have debated here for the last 8 years and they are frankly not worth the time. If SASS allows these idiots to spread their poison here then it is probably time to find another place.

 

If we try and be the better man and bend over so folks think we are "decent middle of the road people" then we get it stuck in there, no comprimise on a God given right. Personally I will not obey any new gun law since there are thousands of gun laws and they are not obeyed by the criminals or mental patients and I am done being the better man and not going to be a sheep and will not give up my God given rights like some of the outspoken libs here.

[KC Colt, SASS #69404]

double tap

[Captain Bill Burt]

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Restricts the government, not the people.

 

2. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Restricts the government, not the people.

 

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

Restricts the government, not the people.

 

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Restricts the government interactions with the people.

 

5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

 

Restricts the government interactions with the people.

 

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

Sets forth the rights of those accused of a crime.

 

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 

Sets forth the rights of those accused of a tort.

 

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Restricts the government's ability to punish citizens.

 

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Best one of all as it says just because we left out some rights doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Hey big government, if we didn't say you could do it, you can't, those powers belong to either the states or the people

 

 

Where are these restrictions you speak of? Like many liberal you're confusing ex ante restrictions on rights with punishments for abusing rights. You have a right to speak, even though you may yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre. The government does not have the right to limit your speach before the you yell fire, but they have the power to punish you if you do. An important distinction, particulary with respect to the second amendment.