jtward01 said:
There has been tons of discussion on this, being a member of the NRA does not a true 2A supporter make. Pulling the NRA (or any other gun lobby) card in an RKBA disucssion is like pulling the race card when discussing welfare, it just doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Your actions and your intentions define you, not who you give $20.00 a year to.
had my first real gun at age seven (a Steven's Favorite .22 rifle), took my first deer at age 12, first elk at 16. Decided I really don't like to hunt much (too much walking and waiting, and try hauling 700 pounds of elk six miles to the nearest road sometimes) and preferred target shooting with handguns. Have owned everything from an RG .22 "Saturday Night Special" that was given to me when I was 16 by the father of a friend to a S&W Model 745 IPSC competition model.
Hunting as nothing to do with the 2A, period, so your interest or disinterest in it is irrelevant. As a side note, I felt the same way about hunting, but I can see how it appeals to others.
That said, I do believe it is too easy to purchase a gun in this country.
Typical daily language of Feinstein, the VPC and the Brady bunch.
No, I'm not worried about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. We have plenty of laws on the books now that if they were enforced and meaningful sentences handed down would solve most of that problem. I'm more concerned with the legal but irresponsible firearms owner who goes out and runs through a couple boxes of shells while knocking back a six-pack of Budweiser, or the jewelry shop owner who buys a gun for protection from robbers but doesn't get any training and the first time he's called upon to use that gun sprays and prays, endangering customers, employees and people walking down the sidewalk in front of his shop.
Find me at least 5 credilbe news sources where this has happened in the last 5 years, otherwsie you are simply guilty of the same stupid scare tactics used by the gungrabbers.
Every law abiding American should be allowed to own as many guns as he or she wants, including fully automatic weapons (if they can afford the ammo
) but with that ownership comes a great responsibility. Passing a written exam on firearms laws and safety procedures, and a proficiency test on the range shouldn't be too much to ask of someone wanting to take on that responsibility.
But it is, because
no other right requires such things. If you want more responsible firearms owners, campaign on your own dime and time, start a group, push the NRA to do more about education and safety.
jtward01 said:
Yeah, I know it's not in keeping with the Second Amendment.
Remember you said that, as it has defined you and exactly who we are dealing with.
But as I said earlier, the founding fathers never envisioned the kind of urban society that we have now, where most people grow up having never handled a firearm of any sort. They expected firearms safety and proficiency to be taught from father to son.
Did they envision the internet? Does free speech not apply to the internet because it was not envisioned? What about mechanical or elecitric printing presses? Televison, radio? Under you decree, giving equal weight to equal rights as it should be, no communication on any of these mediums would be protected under free speech.
Where is the difference?
Could the Federal government establish Wicca as the national religion simply because the fouding fathers did not forsee the possibility of so many alternative religions or faiths from other cultures being so prevalent in the United States?
Is our right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure null and void simply becasue the world is more dangerous today than it was then? Or does the whole terrorist scare negate it from the foundation on up?
:banghead:
Restricting where and how guns can be carried is nothing new. Wyatt Earp convinced the Tombstone town council to pass an ordinance banning the carrying of firearms in most of the town (particularly the area of town where the saloons, gambling houses and brothels were located).
Being old or recorded in certain traditions does not make it right. Half-way supporting the Second Amendment is like being "
sorta' pregnant", there is
no such thing.
You know what, here's what I propose, you want a test? Fine, here it is:
I submit that every single person that wishes to own a firearm must first pass a comprehensive course and test on the Second Amendment, the Federalist/AntiFederalist papers, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution before they are allowed to ever talk about, write about or otherwise discuss or communicate about firearms, firearms rights or any legal or political issue surrounding firearms.
You speak about some blissninny fear that you
have no substantial proof of whatsoever about untrained firearms owners negligently killing innoncent folks when my concern is far greater and far more real; gunowners willing to give up the rights of other gun owners and all free American citizens for the sake of some feel-good plight of safety against phenomena that doesn't materialize outside of those fears and the VPC offices (if it did, the VPC would be all over the statistics).
If you cannot speak intelligently about it and support it, don't talk about it. There, now I have just removed your right to free speech, sounds good huh? How do you think the awerful things you've proposed sound to
those of us that cherish freedom and liberty above all else,
including your unrealistic notion that you have a right to concern yourself and meddle into what other law-abiding citizens do privately. Here's a clue,
you don't.
You go ahead and willingly give up your own rights, leave mine the $%&^l alone.