Richmond Gun Rally

Guns were used to enforce the laws of the land at the time. Why? Because they were available tools. And now we have contorted beliefs that it was the fault of the tools. Not the laws. Leftie "logic": say anything to try to fool your listeners because sometimes it actually works,!

 

"regular folk" - who might wear tennis shoes or the occasional python boot???

Good post!

 

Can't say you don't have a completely invalid point on this seemingly rare occasion, but personally I'd rather see car registrations eliminated which itself could be considered a form of government overreach by some estimations.

 

I had a Libertarian friend discuss the matter of a man's right to travel freely in America, without being molested by some cop. He made some good points. I think a man should be able to walk freely from New York to California, and without paying tolls or some other fee. In many cases, the highways are restricted to cars or motorized vehicles, and one could not travel freely on foot. If for instance a state has no avenue for a man to cross to the other side in freedom, that would be in my opinion an infringement on his right to go to another state freely (see Edwards v. California)
Now when it comes to cars and hotels, the Supreme Court already ruled in the case of Ollie's Diner and in The Heart Of Atlanta Motel cases that the Commerce Clause can reach that far. When cars use interstate roads the Commerce Clause is applicable. When cars are made federal law is applicable. When cars are filled up with fuel, federal law is applicable. Guns also fall under Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The time is just around the corner for the new gun laws.

 

Over generalization...right back at ya! Please name these "many" anti-gun combat veteran politicians? Chuck Schumer? Nancy Pelosi? Dianne Feinstein? Michael Bloomberg? (*Wants* to be a politician, again) Any of the members of the "Squad"?

Please...*do* enlighten me!

You are misquoting me. I *never* said they have no function. I said that they "in no way affect the way in which the firearm functions". The firearm mechanically functions in the same manner, with or without these devices. A pistol grip and vertical grip are mere handles, by which the user grasps the firearm. A barrel shroud is pretty much the same...it's simply a device which prevents the user from burning his hand on the hot barrel. My point in mentioning these...was that these politicians were adamant that these features somehow manage to turn what would apparently be an otherwise "acceptable" firearm, into an evil, deadly, monstrous, killing machine! Whereas the truth is, that these politicians don't even understand how these firearms function, nor the purpose of these specific items, which they insist must be banned. During the time when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in force, various manufacturers produced firearms which eliminated the banned features, to create a firearm which was legal under the existing law. The politicians who had written the law were furious...because their lack of basic knowledge of that which they were attempting to legislate, had caused them to write a ridiculous piece of legislation...that law-abiding gun manufacturers were able to abide by the law, and still continue to manufacture a very similar firearm.

Perhaps no one on this forum, in this particular thread, said that the Founding Fathers were referring only to muskets...but that is the obvious implication. Otherwise...why bring it up at all? Which leads me to...what exactly *is* your point when you mention that "they were the most prevalent type of firearm at the time"?

Agreed. No argument here. With the understanding that when changing a law...it must conform to the Constitution, as it stands now.

So, what was the purpose of mentioning the type of firearms that existed at that time?

Okay. Did I suggest otherwise? Your point covers semi-automatic firearms as well, which you had suggested were somehow less safe. So, you've refuted your own premise...that modern semi-automatic firearms are inherently unsafe.

 

So...you want to ban guns, not because people use them to kill...but rather because people use them to intimidate? Well, that's very interesting. I've not heard that particular objection before.

 

[Sarcasm] Gosh! You're right! My having forgotten a point that I intended to make on a forum is completely analogous to mishandling a firearm! [/Sarcasm]

 

Actually...you said that many politicians are "combat"veterans. I can guarantee that not *all* veterans are combat veterans, not *all* combat veterans have much or any knowledge of firearms. Just as not *all* (or even many) police officers have much knowledge of firearms. And once again...my POINT is that many of these politicians are ignorant of the very objects which they are attempting to legislate.

"Assault weapons" is a meaningless piece of jargon, invented by anti-gunners to define a firearm which they find scary looking, and intended to create negativity towards a particular class of firearm. It is, essentially, propaganda. Just as the meaningless label assigned to "cop-killer bullets". Any idea how many police officers have been killed by cop-killer bullets? Zero. (Unless something has happened relatively recently) So, why the moniker? Propaganda, begun by anti-gun politicians. See here: GunCite-Gun Control: "Cop-killer" Bullets

Do some research? I see. To that I must respond...try reading what I wrote! Yes...I just said, in my previous post, that these are essentially handles. They aren't shaped as the handle that you present, because they aren't shovels. It's telling that you need to even ask such a question. And no...they do not affect the "mechanical functioning" of the firearm. I'm sorry if that is confusing to you.

Yes...changing "any gun law" might very well be Unconstitutional. Laws must abide by the Constitution. Yes, the Constitution may be amended. Altering any of the Bill of Rights should be approached with extreme caution.​

 

There's something that I would like to say...to everyone. I realize that gun control is a real "hot button" issue, for many people...and that includes me. But the reality is, that most everyone on here has already picked their side of the issue. Sure, one or two might be swayed one way or the other. But, by and large that will be few and far between.

So, why beat ourselves up over this? I really detest arguing. I don't mind debating, but it seems that no matter how civil the discussion begins...it inevitably devolves into bad feelings, and angry words. And I'm not pointing fingers here...I'm just as guilty as the next person.

I'm a brand new member to this forum. I'd rather make a bunch of new friends, than a few friends, and a few enemies. I came here for a few specific reasons, but I have found more interesting people and topics than I initially suspected. I never wanted to get into political or religious discussions/arguments, and I certainly wasn't looking to alienate anyone.

So, I'm just going to politely bow out of this discussion...and I'm not going to get involved in any other political/religious/divisive topics, on HF.

Thanks for understanding. Best wishes to everyone. Good day!

 

Use your head. It's not this reason or that reason. It is a multitude of reasons. We the voters need to use the concept of morality when determining the issue of weapons in society. The NRA takes money from Russia and keeps yelling it's a right. People are saying OK, under our constitution it is a right, but we also have a right and a moral responsibility to amend the constitution. So now we ask: Should this right to keep and fondle arms remain in place?

 

"we the voters" lol.

 

The analogy is correct. It's apples versus apples, not apples against oranges. It's a safety concern based on your forgetfulness. Forgetfulness is exactly how gun accidents happen. Let's for a minute consider a young deer hunter who has been drinking and forgets that his model 700 Remington which is chambered in .300 Win Mag is loaded. Then the gun discharges inside his home when it is handled by his drinking buddy, who also has a desire to fondle guns. Ask your self: How many houses or how many walls does a .300 Win Mag go through before it stops? And also ask yourself: Does our government have a moral responsibility to address this issue of public safety? We have traffic lights to prevent car accidents and prevent injury to people who wish to cross the street. The matter of public safety is similar again. The nexus is the concept of public safety. Your rights and privileges concerning the ownership of cars and guns is very much linked to the matter of public safety.

 

Why is that funny?

 

Because "we" in your frame of mind really just means "you".
"we the voters" is just redundant, if there was a "we" there'd be no need to vote because "we the people" are on the same page.

 

The government overreach has no bounds!!!

Hahahaha!!! This is the most hilarious hallucination in this thread!!!

It's pretty obvious you have no association with deer hunters. You've never watched how fellow hunters treat and handle their tools, and yet you think you have a perfectly valid vision for how things go down.

Pure Hollywood!

And just goes to show how people use their imagination of what may happen in their quest to limit the freedoms of others.

I say bring back marksmanship to the high school curriculums and require successful completion in order to graduate. There's no need for Americans to live in ignorance and fear!

This, my friends, is what's called "the laundry list". When one reason is not strong enough to stand on its own, a whole list of pseudo-reasons is used instead, in an attempt to persuade.

How Untrained Brains Are Ruining America

 

Amen, bro. I've made the same promise to myself but it's a damn hard one to keep. I mean, if we could just turn one more person to the light with the voice of reason... Perhaps we're wasting our breath, but then again maybe there's some folks out there conscientious enough to want to carefully consider both sides of an issue rather than jumping to conclusions and hopping on a bandwagon. Suppose our contribution is standing up for what we know is right. Cheers and God be with you.

 

I support a repeal of the Second Amendment and the confiscation of diesel pickups and Confederate Flags.

 

My side is compassion and responsibility