Comments on: Back to the Basics of Gun Control http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2009/10/18/back-to-the-basics-of-gun-control/ Mon, 14 May 2012 00:18:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Chris http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2009/10/18/back-to-the-basics-of-gun-control/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Chris Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:25:49 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=27#comment-14 You can shout it from the roof tops Mike but it doesn't change the fact that the Founding Fathers could not conceive of the armaments used today. Again, this Amendment has it's origins in someone else's work, "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." George Mason The lack of common sense restrictions has led to some tragedies and the imposition of unnecessary restrictions can probably be attributed to the cause of others. The Founding Fathers did not want the Federal Government to be able to infringe on our rights, but a State can infringe on them as it is for the State's protection that this right is listed. You can shout it from the roof tops Mike but it doesn’t change the fact that the Founding Fathers could not conceive of the armaments used today. Again, this Amendment has it’s origins in someone else’s work, “That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” George Mason

The lack of common sense restrictions has led to some tragedies and the imposition of unnecessary restrictions can probably be attributed to the cause of others. The Founding Fathers did not want the Federal Government to be able to infringe on our rights, but a State can infringe on them as it is for the State’s protection that this right is listed.

]]> By: Michael Buttman http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2009/10/18/back-to-the-basics-of-gun-control/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Michael Buttman Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:38:32 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=27#comment-9 "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED say it with me SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED say it with me SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

]]> By: Rich http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2009/10/18/back-to-the-basics-of-gun-control/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Rich Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:51:34 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=27#comment-8 Limitations have been imposed. People who have shown they can not be trusted are not allowed to own handguns and in most cases are limited from long guns as well. The Second Ammendment was placed in the Constitution primarily because the Founding Fathers knew what life under a tyrant was like and that the best way to guard against that in the future was to have a strong Constitution and the means to protect that document. The vast majority of shall-issue states do require training to get a concealed carry license. As for requiring training just to buy a gun, I believe that is best decided by the individual sates. I do agree that at a minimum, a hunter safety course should be required for rifles and shotguns. As for your argument against "assault" weapons, you can not provide any argument against them other than the fact that you do not see any reason for them. That in and of itself is reason enough to not ban them. A so called "assault" weapon is no more or less lethal than any other semi-auto rifle chambered for the same caliber. Or do you propose we ban all semi-auto weapons and go back to single shots and revolvers? As far as automatic weapons and "heavier" ordanance (whatever that is) these are already virually impossible for the average citizen to obtain. Limitations have been imposed. People who have shown they can not be trusted are not allowed to own handguns and in most cases are limited from long guns as well. The Second Ammendment was placed in the Constitution primarily because the Founding Fathers knew what life under a tyrant was like and that the best way to guard against that in the future was to have a strong Constitution and the means to protect that document.

The vast majority of shall-issue states do require training to get a concealed carry license. As for requiring training just to buy a gun, I believe that is best decided by the individual sates. I do agree that at a minimum, a hunter safety course should be required for rifles and shotguns.

As for your argument against “assault” weapons, you can not provide any argument against them other than the fact that you do not see any reason for them. That in and of itself is reason enough to not ban them. A so called “assault” weapon is no more or less lethal than any other semi-auto rifle chambered for the same caliber. Or do you propose we ban all semi-auto weapons and go back to single shots and revolvers?

As far as automatic weapons and “heavier” ordanance (whatever that is) these are already virually impossible for the average citizen to obtain.

]]> By: Chris http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2009/10/18/back-to-the-basics-of-gun-control/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Chris Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:16:56 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=27#comment-7 I agree with much of what you say and I agree with the Founding Father in principle, but they could not perceive of the advancements in ordinance and armaments that we have today. Some limitations must be imposed, and some people, regardless of how well intentioned should not be allowed to possess firearms of any type. I believe in the right to bear arms, but I believe that the accidental shooting of any individual is a tragedy that could be avoided if people are properly trained. Some will still occur but every individual seeking to possess a handgun should be required to jump through a few hoops to receive a license and the same goes for rifles and shotguns and the like. And I still believe that there is no basis for a private citizen to be allowed an assault rifle, fully automatic weapon or any heavier ordinance, and you have made no substantive argument to suggest otherwise. I agree with much of what you say and I agree with the Founding Father in principle, but they could not perceive of the advancements in ordinance and armaments that we have today. Some limitations must be imposed, and some people, regardless of how well intentioned should not be allowed to possess firearms of any type.

I believe in the right to bear arms, but I believe that the accidental shooting of any individual is a tragedy that could be avoided if people are properly trained. Some will still occur but every individual seeking to possess a handgun should be required to jump through a few hoops to receive a license and the same goes for rifles and shotguns and the like. And I still believe that there is no basis for a private citizen to be allowed an assault rifle, fully automatic weapon or any heavier ordinance, and you have made no substantive argument to suggest otherwise.

]]>