GT40s.com Paddock GUNS thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter

Attachments

  • E0FCA9BA-15DA-4BC1-9B50-C7122C77C9C7.jpeg
    E0FCA9BA-15DA-4BC1-9B50-C7122C77C9C7.jpeg
    107.2 KB · Views: 156

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
The question is:


Where in the 2nd Amend, or anywhere else in the constitution, did *The Founders* grant government the power to dictate exactly which arms "the people" could and could NOT keep and bear???

Where in the 2nd Amend - or anywhere else in the constitution - did THE FOUNDERS grant government the power to dictate what "arms" the people could and could NOT "keep and bear"??? Please point out to me where it can be found.

Now...WHERE IN THE 2ND AMEND - OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION - DID THE FOUNDERS grant/give government the authority/power to decide/dictate which "arms" the people could and could NOT "keep and bear"???


I'll wait...


;)




(Edit: It's now almost past this old man's beddy-bye time. I'm gunna hafta take this up tomorrow! :chug:)
 
Last edited:

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Thats a somewhat rhetorical question Larry..
The second amendment (see above) does not specifically quantify or qualify the arms a citizen can keep and bear. You know that and so do we. But then again, as the second amendment is just that (an amendment), I believe we will see the day soon where this amendment is either changed or repealed. Unfortunately, this will happen as a knee-jerk reaction by many people who demand that their elected officials make those changes.
The real unfortunate thing is that we will see the end of one of our rights the way we know it today - meanwhile the next deranged individual is stock piling other arms or weapons to wreck havoc on innocents to satisfy his/her own demeanted desires...
 
I completely screwed up that post.

What I wanted to say, besides the last paragraph, was you;re being intellectually dishonest with yourself, if you don't think the gun reforms in Australia reduced gun deaths. By alot.


Rod,

Your last statement is correct only in part.

Deaths by firearm in Australia have declined since 1996, which is often referred to in debate on the subject, but.....

The decline in death by firearm is exactly the same as the decline before 1996.

See this academic study;

Gun Laws and Sudden Death | The British Journal of Criminology | Oxford Academic


Please carry on.....
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Thats a somewhat rhetorical question Larry..

I completely disagree. The FFs either granted government that power - or they didn't. If they DID - it has to be spelled out somewhere in the constitution. I asked to be shown where in the constitution the FFs granted government that power. 'Nothing "rhetorical" about the question at all.


The second amendment (see above) does not specifically quantify or qualify the arms a citizen can keep and bear.

...NOR does it grant government the power to dictate same. Instead, the FFs stated very clearly that there be NO LAW passed that would infringe on the right to keep and bear. E.g.: BANNING this-or-that "arm" goes waaaaay beyond "infringing" on the right to "keep and bear" that "arm" - it forbids the ownership thereof. I could list example after example illustrating my point, but, one either 'gets' the idea or one doesn't.

...the second amendment is just that (an amendment)...

...which in no way makes it a more or LESS valid part of the constitution than any other part thereof.


...I believe we will see the day soon where this amendment is either changed or repealed. Unfortunately, this will happen as a knee-jerk reaction by many people who demand that their elected officials make those changes.

...and if that were to happen it wouldn't do a DARNED THING to change the behavior of crooks and loons. They'd STILL do whatever they darned well pleased using whatever weapon(s) they may choose to use - laws or NO laws. The ONLY actual "change" that would come of it (as you later stated) would be law-abiding people would lose their right to keep and bear...and THEY aren't - and never HAVE BEEN - the problem.

That'd be r-e-a-l-l-y stupid...stupid...S-T-U-P-I-D.
 
Last edited:
GUN CONTROL

MONTANA

AN 11 YR OLD WHO SHOT ILLEGALS thanks FOX NEWS for reporting it.

A Shotgun-armed Preteen vs. Illegal Alien Home Invaders.

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26,
probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11-year-old
Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.
It seems these crooks never learned two things:

They were in Montana, and Patricia had been a clay-shooting champion
since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two
men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her
father's room and grabbed his 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor, only to be the
first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the
11-year-old's knee-crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his
abdomen and genitals.

When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left
shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death
before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez
was armed with a stolen 45-caliber handgun he took during another
home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David 0'Burien, was
not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.

Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news? An 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself against two murderous, illegal immigrants and she wins.

She is still alive. Now THAT is Gun Control!


Thought for the day: Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented
immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist.'

I BELIEVE YOU'LL PROBABLY PASS THIS ON!
 
An PhD educator in her 50’s shoots and kills (using a .22 pistol) a man in his 20’s who broke into her home and confronted her with a kitchen knife.
The man may have been planning on raping the woman, based on his criminal past.
Fortunately the would be victim was fast thinking, fast acting and was able to turn the tables on her would be assailant.
Even though the suspect was not armed with a firearm, this is clearly a case where a gun was used as an equalizer.
A fully grown man with bad intentions could easily overpower an older female and commit deadly physical harm without even using a weapon.
 
A gun-toting 70-year-old grandmother took matters into her own hands early Saturday morning when she shot and wounded an alleged home intruder attempting to break into her Philadelphia residence.

Maxine Thompson told FOX29 she woke up around 4:30 a.m. and heard banging outside her house. Police said a 43-year-old man attempted to break into the grandmother’s Philadelphia home at the time.

“First I thought I was dreaming, and then I looked out the window, outside. I was still hearing the banging, banging, banging, so I yelled to whoever, ‘Who’s that on my door? Get off my door, get off my door,’” Thompson recalled.

Despite her warnings, the alleged burglar didn’t stop and continued to smash her dining room window and enter the house. Thompson, going into survival mode, grabbed her late mother’s handgun and shot at the suspect. She told FOX29 it was her first time using the gun.

“I shot at him. He turned around and he ran and when he ran, I ran down the steps behind him and shot at him some more,” Thompson recalled. “Kill him before he kills me. That’s what was going through my mind.”

The alleged burglar was struck while Thompson fired at him several times. He ran to a nearby car wash and called police to report he’d been shot, FOX29 reported. He was arrested, taken to the hospital and treated for a gunshot wound to his upper arm.

Thompson, whose son is a Philadelphia police officer, said the incident played out within 10 minutes. She recalled how the suspect could have killed her if she didn’t fire the gun.

“After everything was over, then I did get a little shaky. He could’ve killed me,” the grandmother said.

She added that she hopes she taught the alleged home intruder and other people a lesson.

“Stay the hell out of people’s houses,” Thompson said.

As for her broken window, she replied: “I have people that will come and fix this. It’ll be fixed in no time.”
 
According to Dr. Gary Kleck, criminologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America," a book used by many in the gun debate, 800,000-2,500,000 crimes are stopped by guns each year. The numbers are from different studies.
 
Excellent gun control legislation in MA.

This Is The Toughest Gun Law In America | HuffPost

Gun permit process:

Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.

If the police come to believe an applicant is a possible threat to public safety, they can refuse to grant the permit. And that is what happened in the case of this man from Newton.
 

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
We have similar laws in Minnesota Rod.
You are also vetted by the sheriff of your county before you can get a permit to purchase a weapon. The purchase permit is valid for 1 year.
Military experience and Scouting experience is also weighed. A Gun Safety Course is strongly advised, but waived by the Sheriff after interviewing you and searching your records.
Before purchasing a weapon from a dealer, you are once again required to apply. That application is entered into an online database and once again, your background is scanned for any offences considered to be of a violent nature. Even if the police are called to your home to settle an argument or to quiet a wild party that information is entered into the database and could well disqualify you from your intended purchase.
-
Where I really have a problem is in the private sale of guns. I will use myself as a subject here for illustration purposes — some of the timing here is from memory and I don’t know if it is still correct.
As an individual - If I wanted to sell a weapon, I could sell it to anyone. If it is a registered weapon, I have something like 7 days to report the sale to my local law enforcement. If its not registered, you are still required to report the sale, but who would know if you didn’t?
 
All true, but all the laws will not stop a bad guy from owning a gun.. Private sales can be a problem.. No way to document or track the gun.. More laws will not fix it. Training is soooooo important... Safety classes, practice, practice, practice. You can't beat the training i had in the military.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
We have similar laws in Minnesota Rod.
You are also vetted by the sheriff of your county before you can get a permit to purchase a weapon. The purchase permit is valid for 1 year.
Military experience and Scouting experience is also weighed. A Gun Safety Course is strongly advised, but waived by the Sheriff after interviewing you and searching your records.
Before purchasing a weapon from a dealer, you are once again required to apply. That application is entered into an online database and once again, your background is scanned for any offences considered to be of a violent nature. Even if the police are called to your home to settle an argument or to quiet a wild party that information is entered into the database and could well disqualify you from your intended purchase.
-
Where I really have a problem is in the private sale of guns. I will use myself as a subject here for illustration purposes — some of the timing here is from memory and I don’t know if it is still correct.
As an individual - If I wanted to sell a weapon, I could sell it to anyone. If it is a registered weapon, I have something like 7 days to report the sale to my local law enforcement. If its not registered, you are still required to report the sale, but who would know if you didn’t?


Once again I ask: since when does one need anyone's permission to exercise a R-I-G-H-T...whether it be government's permission or anyone else's? Where within the constitution did The Founders say one must take a course, or pass a test, or pay government a FEE, or meet any other prerequisites before one could exercise his right to buy, own or carry a gun? The FOUNDERS certainly laid out no such conditions...and darned if I can find anyplace in the constitution wherein The Founders granted government the authority/power to establish any either. Instead, what The Founders said was gov't shall pass NO LAW infringing on the R-I-G-H-T to keep and bear...and yet all the "prerequisites" you mentioned above do just that.

If The Founders had intended there be any 'strings' of any kind attached to the right to keep and bear, they'd have listed them...don'tcha think?

Answer: Yes...they most certainly would have.
 
Excellent gun control legislation in MA.

This Is The Toughest Gun Law In America | HuffPost

Gun permit process:

Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.

If the police come to believe an applicant is a possible threat to public safety, they can refuse to grant the permit. And that is what happened in the case of this man from Newton.

Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha you know not of what you speak. I live in western MA. I moved here from CT 20 years a go. The gun laws are no big deal, easy peasy lemon squeezy! If your not a convicted felon NBD!
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Excellent gun control legislation in MA.

This Is The Toughest Gun Law In America | HuffPost

Gun permit process:

Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.

If the police come to believe an applicant is a possible threat to public safety, they can refuse to grant the permit. And that is what happened in the case of this man from Newton.


I find it amazing/curious/strange/hypocritical of you and your ilk that you all but dance for joy and turn cartwheels in the streets in support of what are obvious infringements on the right to keep and bear...but at the same time scream bloody murder in opposition to voter I.D. laws.


...a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer(???!)"...If the police come to >believe< an applicant is a possible threat to public safety, they can refuse to grant the permit.


Gee...I can't see any possible opportunity for abuse of power that might result from implementing either or both of those provisions. (sarc)

E.g.: I seem to remember a certain LIB Homeland Security Secretary who opined that U.S. armed forces vets (specifically those returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...but who's to say that view couldn't be expanded to include any vet?) are possible "domestic terrorist" candidates. You don't suppose THAT "belief" on the part of any person 'in authority' could/would/might one day result in all vets being denied their 2nd Amend rights under the above law, do you???

Naaaaaaaaaaah - of COURSE not. Nope. No possible way. 'Never happen. Not in THIS country...right, Rod? (more sarc)
 
Last edited:
GIVING A ROBBER WHAT HE WANTS DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK..

A man used his gun to protect himself and his two-month old son from a robber in Columbus, Ohio.
Kelby Smith was in the driveway of his brother’s house when a man approached him, put a pistol to his head, and demanded money. While Mr. Smith handed him money he also drew his own weapon. The robber grabbed the money and ran.



But he turned around and pointed the gun at Mr. Smith and his baby. Mr. Smith quickly shot the robber while shielding his baby from the robber.

The robber continued to run, but was found at a nearby hospital. He is now under police guard while he recovers.
 
I find it amazing/curious/strange/hypocritical of you and your ilk that you all but dance for joy and turn cartwheels in the streets in support of what are obvious infringements on the right to keep and bear...but at the same time scream bloody murder in opposition to voter I.D. laws.

Only you would find it "amazing/curious/strange/hypocritical." A gun is weapon. When was the last time a voter ID card killed someone? :laugh:

And I'm not a Democrat. I'm an Independent. And I'm not sure how I feel about voter ID cards. I see value in both sides of the argument. Maybe if the local governments implemented them over a 5 +/- year time frame and somehow made it easier, in terms of access and help filling out the forms, not in terms of being a citizen, for people to get them, then I could be OK with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top