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

You did not ramble, there is on little problem with need, this need gets Amped up to the point dependent on carrying huge sums of cash or expensive items, your life is not considered precious enough, so called "self defense" in may issue jurisdictions.
Also, celebrities can often get licenses, however if you are a middle class blue collar worker, places like NYC will routinely deny your application for a carry permit of some sort.

 

With the current National standard, you have the Instant check system, NCIC, You are confirmed as to your identity and a person not currently prohibited from owning firearms, for concealed carry, the same applies, you are confirmed as to being a person not prohibited from owning firearms and depending on the State, other requirements.

 

I haven't heard one liberal politician like Hillary, call for regulating a militia. They are not for training or permitting because it would encourage gun ownership.

I have heard them call for banning semi auto firearms, limiting mag capacities, taxing guns and ammo, confiscating guns of the deceased and not allowing for them to be transferred to the rightful heirs, allowing firearm manufacturers and gun shops to be sued out of business when guns are used illegally.

You have no idea what NRA members want. You believe the spin of the left. You can look at my previous posts over the past few years on this forum. You will see where I have posted about NRA conferences where I have lectured to thousands of NRA members. I travel the country to compete, and attend trade shows. In other words, I meet and speak with thousands of NRA members and gun owners each year. I can say first hand that these people emphatically are against UBCs. They are against any further regulations.
They fully understand that any proposed legislation would make no difference and to let these proposals pass would embolden the left as they would only push for even more legislation.

As long as firearm are available to the lawful, they will be available to those with ill intent as well. If you got your wish and passed UBCs, when it becomes clear that it had no measurable effect, you WILL push for more. California is a perfect example. Give em an inch and they will take a mile.

Until guns are outlawed, there will always be those that clamor for more restrictions.

There is only one version of the 2a. You only need to read the quotes of the men that wrote it to interpret their intention.

 

Didn't the Brits run out of Guns to Ban ?
Now they ban air guns and other substitutes for guns ?
Also, personal defense is outlawed, any item is called an Offensive weapon under those guidelines !

 

Please tell me what this "gun show loophole" is and what a "over powered weapon" is? FWIW......there have been situations where people have protected themselves using a select fire weapon which was legally owned. Legally transferable "machine guns" are VERY expensive and those who own them usually keep them under lock and key. You do realize that the point of the 2A is to possess effective means with which to resist the government? It's sort of hard to do that with "under powered" weapons and no high capacity magazines isn't it?

 

Gun control only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals by definition don't obey laws. At some point in gun control, law abiding citizens are at a disadvantage to criminals. I won't be a victim. Our governments don't prosecute or they plea bargain down our gun laws anyway.

Besides, the post above me is also a valid reason.

 

Are there any infringements that you support? If so, under what pretext?

If a Right is unalienable, then it don't matter whether or not either of us would support an infringement because that word unalienable has a distinctive meaning all its own.

 

I know this wasn't directed at me, but to the first part of your post I call Buck Snort - or similar facsimile thereof. EVERY TIME we have these gun control discussions, I ask people if I could reduce gun deaths by half and NEVER mention gun control, could we work together, the thread dies - until the board troll comes along trying to revive it with Article 1 Section 8 arguments that are totally irrelevant to the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If they put me in charge of Congress and the Executive branch of government for a week, I could reduce gun deaths in the U.S. by half and NEVER touch the Second Amendment.

I think that anyone ought to be able to buy a firearm with zero restrictions. Furthermore, I think that once a person has served time for a crime, paid their fines, made restitution to the victims and been rehabilitated, we should absolutely guarantee ALL of their unalienable Rights, including the Right to keep and bear Arms. If a person cannot be trusted, why let them out of prison?

 

So what have you got stocked up to battle the government?

 

Feel free to share.

Okay.

 

Well maybe you could explain what an overpowered firearm vs what an underpowered one is first.

 

Is this directed at me? My feeling at the beginning of the thread was that I was wondering why someone would need the sort of weapon that I guess is considered by many an assault weapon. One that I thought went far beyond what someone would need sensibly to defend themselves, which I thought was what people basically wanted guns for.

But if the idea is to battle the government, than I could see why people would need all that the government has...infantry weapons from tanks to missiles to you name it.

So that's why I asked what people have stocked up to battle the government.

 

Who else would this be directed to? But then again..... you are a lib. DEFINE an overpowered weapon vs an underpowered one and perhaps provide an example, after all you used the terminology. And BTW can you define what "sensible" means in terms of self defense. Let me paraphrase what an old elephant hunter said. When he was asked why he used a 500 double Nitro, then the most powerful rifle round in the world, he replied after careful thought," Because they don't make a 600 double nitro." Underpowered and overpowered are terms actually used but in a different context. I suggest you know this before using these descriptions.

 

It's amazing and interesting how so many posts are littered with these sorts of comments.

Why are people always replying to questions with questions? That's a rhetorical question on my part, btw, you are a right wing whatever, so....

Why don't you tell me! You define them. From what I'm getting at this point, no weapon should be controlled in any way. The 2nd amendment says you have the right, no questions asked, to buy or possess any weapon. So if you want infantry weapons to battle the government, than that's your right, end of story.

My questions at this point are all for you all to answer. What do you want? What controls should there be? None? At all? No limits to anything?

And as was said above, gun violence can be solved without taking away peoples weapons, so feel free to share. You don't need or want my opinion on anything so no need to ask me questions. I'm giving you the floor to solve the whole deal.

 

If you don't even know the proper terminology or have even a modicum of knowledge ( that means you) it's difficult to respond in a meaningful manner. As a liberal, you have preconceived notions more often based upon feelings and not fact. Again, a cogent response is difficult. It's like trying to explain calculus to a first grader. The knowledge and abstract thinking is just not there.

 

You said "sensibly defend themselves". You do realize that there are times when one may need to defend themselves in a way that is not sensible in order to protect their life? A week ago today we had riots break out in a section of town here in Milwaukee. If I was living in that neighborhood it would seem to make sense to me to have a weapon that could accept a magazine that held more than 10 rounds and could fire as fast as I could pull the trigger. You asked me earlier what I have stocked up to battle the government. I'm a law enforcement professional with more than 24 years on the job and I have no intentions to "battle the government". Revealing what I have in an open forum would be a violation of OPSEC as well. These are very trying times sir and were are one terrorist incident away from economic collapse. I'm not talking about some mass shooter but some turd from the middle east detonating a suitcase nuke in a major city. It's not a matter of if but a matter of when. Are you beginning to see why someone might need these types of weapons? I'm not trying to sound like a doom and gloom type of guy but I want you to understand why these weapons are needed.

 

What difference does it make who I am or what I think. Do you think the Framers thought, gee, the idiots from 200 years from now won't get it so why bother? Just answer and I'll try my best to understand your big words and abstract ideas.

Otherwise, there is no need for you to reply at all, unless little insults are all this forum is about.

 

So in other words, simplified for a 1st grader like myself....you agree that there should be no restrictions on weapons at all, and that is your right under the 2nd Amendment, end of story.

You don't have to tell me what weapons you actually have. Just tell me if there should be any restrictions at all.

 

All machine guns, absolutely every last one of the less than a quarter million of them available for private ownership, are registered with the federal government and accounted for. Something that is simply not possible with all other firearms in the united states.

Meaning that you do not actually know how. You cannot explain how mandating background checks on private sales would stop someone from committing a straw purchase.

the united states leads the industrialized world in death rates regardless of category. The number of individuals in the united states murdered by bludgeoning, is higher than the homicide rate of some countries for all categories.

According to the FBI, the chief law enforcement agency for the united states, the homicide rate is the lowest it has been in more than five decades. Why do you continue to ignore that fact.

And the entirety of this would do precisely what to stop individuals from either committing straw purchases for known criminals, or using their own firearms to commit crimes?

 

Explain Malik Nadal Hassan. He held the rank of major in the united states military.

Beyond that, explain what training and regulation does to stop someone from using their firearm to go out and commit murder. Explain what good would come, that would warrant such an undertaking.

 

First, this is just one poll....can show you others
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/ny-poll-big-backing-for-assault-ban-086333

Secondly, time and time again, if you bothered to listen, they ( liberal) politicians) all say they support the second amendment. The second amandmanet supports a well regulated militia. National polititions have all supported universal background checks. There are none that have supported banning guns in general on the national level. Universal background checks are a form of regulation as in...a "well regulated militia".

During our founding fathers, many state state militia, made it mandatory that adult males be part of the militia and receive regular training. That was considered federally lawful. Regulation has always been part of out constitutions, both local and federally.

Regulation also included "mandating" that colonials be armed. I don't think that you guys get that regulation works both ways. Mandatory trainng on the part of some states, was considered constitutional. The strength of every individual depends upon the preparedness of the entire population.

You are not well regulated until you receive the trainng. On the other hand, it was accepted practice to deny the right of posessing firearms to slaves, some Indians and criminals. So, everyone does not get to be "armed". We have advanced well beyound these arcane concepts of bigotry in selecting those who could practice their civil rights, but the basic idea still remains in tact and constitutional. We regulate who can be armed and it still is in vogue with the second amendment which liberals support.

 

Because no politician has ever been known to engage in dishonesty, correct?

Was it not Barack Obama who told the public that if they liked their health insurance they could keep it, only for them to have their policies cancelled regardless?

 

Let us rephrase the question. Are you willing to support policies that will do nothing but fail?

 

I tell you what, I'll answer your question by rephrasing it back to my question. Are you suggesting that there should be zero restrictions on all weapons, end of story?

 

It is already well documented that such restrictions will be ignored, disregarded, and unenforced. Explain what is the logical reason of supporting something that will do no good. What is the logical explanation for supporting what is known will fail? It is no different then knowing that fire will cause serious burns, but still putting your hand in it regardless.