Why do law abiding citizens have a problem with gun control?

I love that idea.

Democrats should all agree to that simple test.

They bleat all the darned time craving we innocent law abiding citizens are submitted to even more laws.

Serves them right.

 

My point has zero to do with cancelling my second amendment.

So anyone with further comments along those lines need not make them.

 

Well if he answers no, thats going to be fun for me because Ill be pointing out then hypocrisy and bs thread.

 

You crack me up because that exactly happened. I had to wait to be approved to post here.

I guess what you are saying then is there simply should be no rules and no control for anything here in the USA.

 

Fun..... is the BS coming my way. It's interesting you quote Bernie Taupin, wonder what he would make of this? I was going to ask a question about the use of certain music by politicians but judging by the replies I'm getting thus far, I won't bother.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay. Doesn't matter as the answer to that part of my question has been answered clearly and it is what I figured in the first place.

 

We do not have a law abiding government, and they do not trust it.

It has also become clear that it is impossible to awaken many of our countrymen to this fact, either because they have become successfully hypnotized by the media or have invested in gun running and warfare for personal profit.

 

Why do law-abiding citizens have a problem with sensible speech control and press controls? Or the reasonable quartering of troops? I mean if you are a law abiding citizen, why would you mind having a federal trooper stationed on your property or for that matter a key stroke logger installed on your electronic devices?

 

I thought you want rights of the second amendment to be infringed.

If not, you got off to a poor start.

 

Because law abiding citizens don't have a problem controlling their guns. Drunk drivers kill people, but restrictions aren't put on cars, or even the alcohol. Criminals don't follow gun laws, accept it.

 

You can pass gun control laws from now through eternity and it will solve nothing. Bad guys will always get guns, and gun control laws will leave the good guys unable to defend themselves and their loved ones.

 

Most of us have fire insurance on our homes. Do we need it? We hope not, but it is better to have it and not need it than not to have it and need it.

The entire purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee a Right (that already existed prior to the ratification of the Constitution.) That guarantee means that not only do you have a Right to self preservation, the Right to Life and a Right to Liberty, but that a well armed nation cannot be taken over by tyrants.

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Gun shows are subject to the same laws as all other firearm transactions.

Personally, I will never undergo a background check in order to exercise any constitutional guarantee. We are presumed innocent; all of us have a Right to privacy; we are guaranteed the Right to Liberty and background checks are just a step toward gun registration... which always precedes confiscation.

Next question?

 

This is the heart of the question aside from all the BS. And seeing as the high powered question has been answered just as I suspected.....

Explain to me if you buy a gun subject to strict but reasonable laws the same as a car or anything else subject to as strict rules and safety as possible, why can't you defend yourself and your loved ones?

It's a simple question. You get your gun. You own it, just like a car. You prove you are capable of using it like you prove you are capable of driving a car. You get a license. You follow the rules of the road. You have your second amendment right fulfilled. You protect your family. Where is there a problem? The whole point is to protect everyone in every way possible as much as possible.

 

Knob Creek Shoot.

https://youtu.be/1uUNL6rW-Ck

Lots of safe fun.

 

Look, I was a Police Officer, I have a Firearms Instructor certification, I have years of experience and training, and have trained others, I have retired status under LEOSA, and comply with some really strict standards.
I did not just pick up a gun and decide to carry it.

 

Like I said in another thread where that place was posted, I pretended playing "army" when I was 5 years old. Don't really understand how adults can find guns fun, but that really has nothing to do with my questions other than what has been answered about how people don't really need certain kinds of weapons other than for "fun", and certainly nothing to do with protecting one's family or 2nd amendment rights.

To me, making a party of guns is somewhat offensive, and makes a mockery of the seriousness of the issues, the Constitution, what the Framers intended, and the violence we face in America and around the world.

- - - Updated - - -

I appreciate that and respect that. I still don't understand why the average law abiding citizen would have a problem with what I'm suggesting.

 

The purpose behind a citizen's right to own and bear arms is so they can protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

 

you have to wait to get a gun permit too. We are talking about further regulation.
I asked you a question. You didnt answer. Looks like you dont agree with yourself.. a forum rule abiding member should have no issues with further regulation. If you dont agree with further regulation of your posts perhaps you could give us the exact reasons why you dont agree with further regulation. Im interested in your explanation.

 

It took one post to expose your gun grabbing bs. One.

 

See now I'm confused...
What do you mean by "machine gun"?

It can mean a lot of different things to different people but I would assume you mean full auto and in that case you will be happy to know that there is already much tighter controls on these. Including about a 9~12mo delay and gov registration and b/g checks. Its quite the PITA and pricey.

or do you mean any semi auto?
or maybe you just mean a big ol scary Ar15..

Your question on why there is a need to own one is stupid. It doesnt matter if someone has a need or not. Many things in life are not needed. Maybe they are a collector. Maybe its comforting to someone. Maybe they are trying to make up for small willie.... Each and evey person will have different reasons for the things in their own lives.

So many people live in their private little bubble and think everyone should fit into it with them. (on Both sides)

Im a gun owner and Im ok with some b/g checks before ownership Not a big deal since im law abiding citizen but much beyond that however is over reaching. Where does it end with you and your ilk on telling me whats aceptable?

Problem with regulations are they will keep getting tighter and tighter till your freedoms dissapear. Ill let you in on a secret.. For most its not about holding on to our guns its about holding onto our freedoms. Its whats suppose to be great about America remember? Land of the free?

After the 2nds gone do you think gov will stop? I bet they move on to another. Most likely freedom of speech is next. Then religion. A little Common sense knows Power currupts and those who rule will seek to control more and more. Eventually its all gone.

~ sorry I ramble

 

Suppose your proposed 'strict' controls include technology that does not allow anyone but myself to fire the gun? Suppose I am not home when an intruder breaks into my home and now my wife's life is in danger? How will she defend herself? Throw the gun at him? Or suppose I'll be required to have a safe that takes more than 6 seconds to open? Every split second counts. And by todays standards, I have to wait until I am cornered before I can take down the animal that wants to kill me and my family. All very misguided controls that cost innocent lives and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of bad people.

 

There is no such thing as a reasonable gun control law. I responded to this aspect and you chose to ignore it.

1) Background checks are an infringement on the Right to privacy; they fly in the face of the concept of innocent until proven guilty /presumption of innocence; they presume to control an unalienable Right. Worse, background checks cannot be enforced without firearm registration. Firearm registration has, historically, been the first step in weapon confiscation

2) Gun Registration leads to confiscation. It is the first step

3) Government cannot limit the kind and type of weapon you own because we cannot turn back the clock on technology and you don't need a government bureaucrat telling you what the best tool to defend your Life, Liberty and Property with.

Unalienable Rights cannot, by the very definition of the word, cannot be taken away, sold, traded, forfeited, or bartered. Even the Supreme Court has admitted that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. If you water down that Right, which Right will you water down next? Will you tell me what religions I have to be limited to? Will you tell me what books I can and cannot read and / or what I can say when the government offends my sensibilities? Bear in mind, the Second Amendment makes all the others possible.

 

FYI, you don't have to license a car to own one. You only have to follow the rules if you are going to use it on publicly funded roadways. My freedom isn't publicly funded.

Semi-auto firearms have been around for ~100 years. The only time they became a problem is with the progressive destruction of social norms. Address the real issues.

 

Then you support convicted criminals of child molestation working in elementary schools as school bus drivers and food service personell and custodians. It's ok if your pilot was arrested for being a habitual offender drunk driver too I bet......and his employer has no right to know when he is assigned as the pilot for your cross country flight. There are many occupations that need background checks. And, you support criminals continuing to have the right to buy guns, any where, any time, any type.

Fortunately you aren't running for office.

You'r supposition of being innocent until proven guilty is a farce for prove of qualification. . Otherwise, no one would be required to show an ID for anything. Criminals including forgers and credit card fraud would run more ramped when it does and any underaged kid could buy any weapon. Dumb ideas.

 

False equivalency. Do you believe a felon put in jail for a non-violent crime is a danger to society?

 

The left is the champion of criminals and criminal behavior.

When do we get to do background checks for voter ID?