Poll: 2/3 of American voters would defy gun laws

Post Reply New Topic

From what I read that's what they could do previously to warn potential victims or police. Now they are required to report it up the chain and until it's resolved it's a red flag in any firearms related background check. Previously only those who had been committed would be ineligible. So a judge determined your status. Now a mental health professional can put a gun hold on you directly. In NY anyway.

In many ways, such "muskets" were more dangerous than today's weapons. Often people would die from poisoning of the bullets. Today's weapons are much more multi-faceted and not solely used for killing, but rather maiming and as a deterrent as well. It was much more dangerous to be shot in 1790 than it is in 2013.

i read in the paper today, that in england police held a random firearms sweep and in one house [turns out it was a criminal's house] they found a flintlock, a repurposed flaregun and a single-action 6-shooter revolver. so at least in england it would seem that even crooks have some difficulties in getting their hot hands on a real bonafide modern gun.

^ your basic criminal will probably care more about defense from other criminals, who're probably "poorly" armed for the most part; illegal firearms are expensive after all (same with legal ones). Doubt they care much about getting involved in shootouts with the Federal government or better armed criminals (such as those in the US -- the guns are all there after all, and they're not going anywhere).

A single-action sixshooter will work all the same nowadays if you're only fighting other poorly armed criminals. A Flintlock rifle will still work all the same for long range "assassinations" too (except giving away your position post-shot by the cloud of smoke).

That doesn't translate into low crime or good national security policy. A government that rarely if ever needs a warrant anymore to enter a house (save for people with an incomplete sentence like probation or parole) is a good cause for overthrowing it!

Good to read about some proper policing for once! I've already mentioned in another thread how we need to make these sweeps more regular, easier and with less paperwork to be effective, along with some further improvements.

Which paper though? Please, please, do not say the Daily Fail.

^^^
it was my local paper the tacoma news tribune which got the story off a wire service.

We could form a Constitution Free Zone where those who would be ruled by mob hysteria driven by media seeking ratings to get more ads could live.

They could give up all Rights as Citizens, and let government do whatever they want.

Then those of us who own our government, and are only governed by consent, within a strict Constitutional framework, could live as we always have.

A lot of blood has been shed to preserve this form of government.

Our founding fathers said that was the price each generation must pay to maintain our form of government.

They knew of crime, the homicide rate was much higher, there were crazy people, and traitors.

In conditions much worse than our own, the greatest stability came from allowing no laws to regulate the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.

Freedom of owning arms is not less than the right to speak, hold to your religion, publish anything, and have your property and person not subject to search without warrent. It is a set of basic rights that are supported by the people, and used to regulate the government.

Those who would burn our flag and Constitution, have no place in our Nation.

We have several hundred million guns, and a common cause that unites us. Our Freedoms were paid for in blood.

What we got from our experiment in self government is the strongest Nation, Economy, with the greatest degree of personal freedom, on earth.

We pledge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the cause of seeing that this freedom does not end.

Join us or die.

Just to be clear, who exactly gets to decide who is going against the Constitution. Is it an individual thing? Does each person decide independently to take up arms against the rest of us, or is there some extra-constitutional body that will give the word? What separates someone who decides the federal government is in violation of the Constitution, and therefore takes up arms against the government, from a random murderer?

For the record, I think we have been violating the constitution since probably around 1810. I do agree that many proposed laws would violate the second amendment, but I think you are all a bunch of hypocrites if you only care about constitutional law when it comes you your own personal rights. How many of you guys are in the ACLU?

A cursory examination of the period from 1776 to 1864 suggests that the difference between traitors and revolutionaries is victory.



I think you are casting a very broad net there. I know many advocates of liberal access to firearms who are equally strong on a wide range of other civil liberties issues. Dox47 leaps immediately to mind as a person on this forum who could not be accused of hypocrisy in this matter.

I don't see anything wrong with a person focussing their attention on a single political issue if that is what engages that person. Just because I have a political opinion about just about everything does not mean that other people have to behave as I do. If the only thing that gets you off the couch and into the polling station is firearms policy, so be it. Because there are other people who will have other single-issue perspectives.

Being against gun control doesn't make anyone a hypocrite. Sitting around for 200 years of injustice and then saying second amendment violations are the first just cause for taking up arms does make one a hypocrite.

With that I will certainly agree.

Patriot Act, eh? I remember the protest and civil war against that act, for the protection of freedom. Oh wait, you just bent over and took the GOP big one.

Hypocrisy, eh?

And then there was the whole 'lets put Americans of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps' program. That was a real great time for the old Constitution. How about voter intimidation?

it doesn't behoove you to condemn those of us who simply don't have the right stuff to be handling weapons. we know what is best for us. i don't begrudge you your weapons, i would like the same civil regard in return.

Word up, dude.

I ain't a fan of cars and driving, but if that's your thing, cool for you; I ain't going to lobby anyone to ban them 'cause people misuse them (no one "needs" a car either).