Unlimited "Guns, Fuck Yeah!" Thread

[P3nT4gR4m]

The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.

"Shall not be infringed upon".

Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.

Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.

To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.

Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?

The whole point of a right is that you don't have to explain it.

Just out of interest, are there any conditions under which someone would not be allowed a gun? I'm assuming yes but then I live in a non kill-crazed society.

[hirley0]

1:33&1/3

http://news.yahoo.com/fontana-calif-schools-high-powered-rifles-184934771.html

That is probably the best thing that could happen. Am I naive in thinking people would be less likely to waltz into a school for any reason they shouldn't at the prospect of being mowed down by a disgruntled math major?

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.

"Shall not be infringed upon".

Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.

Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.

To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.

Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?

The whole point of a right is that you don't have to explain it.

Just out of interest, are there any conditions under which someone would not be allowed a gun? I'm assuming yes but then I live in a non kill-crazed society.

think its felons and folks with mental health problems.

[AFK]

There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.

[Elder Iptuous]

The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.

"Shall not be infringed upon".

Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.

Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.

To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.

Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?

The whole point of a right is that you don't have to explain it.

Just out of interest, are there any conditions under which someone would not be allowed a gun? I'm assuming yes but then I live in a non kill-crazed society.

think its felons and folks with mental health problems.

also if you have a misdemeanor domestic abuse on your record, or a federal restraining order against you.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.

"Shall not be infringed upon".

Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.

Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.

To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.

Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?

The whole point of a right is that you don't have to explain it.

Just out of interest, are there any conditions under which someone would not be allowed a gun? I'm assuming yes but then I live in a non kill-crazed society.

If you've been convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor, you cannot own a gun unless you have your rights restored by a judge.  This is constitutional under amendment V & VI.

If a judge has declared you mentally incompetent, you also cannot buy a firearm.

You are only guaranteed the right to own a firearm if you are a citizen.

That's really about it, constitutionally.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.

Have you ever even read the constitution?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.

Have you ever even read the constitution?

Why would he read that outdated old document? 

[Elder Iptuous]

Roger, how does the argument go for the constitutionality based on these amendments?

If you've been convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor, you cannot own a gun unless you have your rights restored by a judge.  This is constitutional under amendment V & VI.

[AFK]

There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.

Have you ever even read the constitution?

It was tongue-in-cheek. 


It's funny how certain parts of the constitution (amendments V and VI) can allow regulation of the 2nd but others (commerce clause) can't.  How does that work?  Is this Constitutional A La Carte?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Roger, how does the argument go for the constitutionality based on these amendments?

If you've been convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor, you cannot own a gun unless you have your rights restored by a judge.  This is constitutional under amendment V & VI.

Well, it's like this:

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.

Given due process of law, meaning a trial and a conviction for an established crime, any or all rights may be removed from a person.

Due process of law is described in amendment VI:

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 defence.

It's pretty clear.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.

Have you ever even read the constitution?

It was tongue-in-cheek. 


It's funny how certain parts of the constitution (amendments V and VI) can allow regulation of the 2nd but others (commerce clause) can't.  How does that work?  Is this Constitutional A La Carte?

Amendments V and VI describe the events under which you can lose ALL of your rights.  The commerce clause does not.

Am I typing too fast for you, junior?  Shall I use smaller words?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.

Have you ever even read the constitution?

Why would he read that outdated old document? 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

For someone who "writes policy", RWHN doesn't know jack shit about the system in which he writes said policy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

For someone who "writes policy", RWHN doesn't know jack shit about the system in which he writes said policy.

Dude, he works for some rinkydink county nonprofit. Of course he doesn't know shit about state or Federal policymaking, regardless of what his degree in pencil-pushing taught him.