Zach, are you trolling?

[quote=papa45]Zach, you can see by all the responses, this is a sensitive issue to many forum members. When I first read your original post, I expected lots of “not from my cold dead hands” and over-the-top liberal bashing. What you got was lots of thoughtful and well-worded feedback from fellow THFers. I’ll share a few of my thoughts, some of which may overlap ideas already presented here.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, or even self-defense. It is about the people’s right to keep government in check or even remove it by force, if necessary. We must remember what our country had just gone through before this was written. “The people” had just overthrown an oppressive, tyrannical government. They did it initially by regular folks showing up at the town square with their private weapons, not much different from what the British army had. These local folks were called a “militia” (now an evil word in the liberal dictionary) not any part of a standing army. Given what they had experienced, our founding fathers, were suspicious of big government and hoped not to have to go through another war for freedom. They knew that if a government could be allowed to restrict private ownership of weapons, we would become a nation of subjects, not citizens.

What, if any, parts of the second amendment would you be willing to give up in the quest for safety sake? I wouldn’t give up anything because of why it was written in the first place. Gun safety can be addressed a number of different ways without changing the Second Amendment. I would however consider deleting the reference to “militia” only because too many people think that the militia has morphed into our modern-day Department of Defense and only they “need” guns.

As has been said before, it is the Second Amendment that assures we continue to enjoy all the other amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.

What are your thoughts on universal background checks for ALL gun sales… I firmly believe there are some people who should not be allowed to have guns. The current background check system is an attempt to define who those people are, but doesn’t go far enough. It simply doesn’t work for all the reasons already listed in other posts above. Expanding that model will do nothing but generate more paper, hire more folks to shuffle that paper, and buy more votes for phony politicians who can say they did something to curb gun violence. My real concern with any background check system is that it can lead to a national registry of guns and eventual confiscation. We are told that background check records are destroyed after some period of time and no permanent record is maintained. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Even if specific firearm data is not kept, the guys in unmarked black SUV’s, wearing SWAT gear, will know your address and can find you when some future government decides your guns pose a threat to public safety, national defense, or their own power.

I cringe every time I hear the media, a politician, or some “expert” say “gun violence.” Violence is committed by people, who sometimes use a gun. Removing guns will not stop violence. There are all sorts of reasons for violence: poverty, race, religion, national pride, greed, mental illness, absent fathers, unwed mothers, moral decay, violent movies, music, TV , dysfunctional families, drugs, alcohol…the list goes on. It’s not politically correct to attack some of these and some are just too hard, so we focus on that evil inanimate object, the gun.
[/quote

Well stated, and on the money sir. !!

No, I promise I am not trolling. I was actually looking for, and got thanks to you guys, some feedback on my topic.

This many responses gives me the push to go ahead and write on this.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't give up any part of my 2nd Amendment either....

Once again, you guys come through in a pinch.

Ok Zach. I didn't answer your question.

I will not give up any of my God given rights without a fight.

Your question makes the assumption that giving up gun rights will definitely increase safety/security, even though there is no solid data to support this. For every study that proves this correlation, there's another that disproves it. You can see for yourself if you visit the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting website and review crime stats and compare areas with strict regulations to those with lax ones. I've done this myself and I can tell you that from what I found, crime is higher in "anti-gun" areas than it is in "gun friendly" ones with very few exceptions. They also have historical data so you can look at stats before/after legislation is passed. Do your own research and see what you find.

As any basic workplace safety course will tell you that YOU are ultimately responsible for your safety; not the company, not your boss, not the safety inspector, not OSHA or anyone else. SCOTUS backed up this assertion when they ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect people from harm. It's not a leap to add security this premise.

I do not agree with universal background checks for many reasons. I shouldn't have to get the government's permission to sell a firearm (or anything else) to a friend or family member. No one should have to pay extra for such a check. A background check that is "good" at the time of purchase is no indication of future activity. I shouldn't have to do more work to acquire a firearm than a criminal has to. While there is data on how many firearm sales were denied, there is no data to indicate that the denials led to a decrease in crime or that the person didn't go on to buy a firearm illegally - rendering the denial irrelevant.

Why do honest people worry about background checks? Right now, there is a presumption of innocence in all legal matters. A background check is the opposite - we, as citizens, are presumed guilty and have to prove we're innocent in order to exercise our 2nd amendment rights. In some states and cities, you also have to pay a fee, have extra insurance, etc... and register your firearm with the state. Let me ask you, would you support these same restrictions being applied to the 1st amendment? Why not? Just as you seem to believe that more firearm regulations would mean more public safety, others believe that more restrictions on free speech will have the same effect.

Why worry about a national firearms register? Because it's sole purpose would be confiscation. A register only works, after all, when a firearm doesn't have its serial number dremeled off. Again, this is a measure that only affects honest people and has zero affect on crime.

You are correct, there is no solution that would completely end gun violence, regardless of rights infringement. With the advent of 3D printing, hobby CNC mills and other emerging technologies, there will always be guns.

One thing you didn't mention was a tax. In that case, you'd have to ask yourself if you really want to live in a society where only the rich are allowed to protect their lives and loved ones. This has already been done, btw, when you look at "NFA" items like suppressors. The tax on a suppressor is $200, which, in 1934 when this tax was passed, was the equivalent of $5,000 - for an item you could buy in a hardware store for $2. An item which, it should be noted, is perfectly legal - and sometimes required - in EUROPE, where guns are nearly outlawed. And did this massive tax have an impact on crime? Of course not.

Basically, if stricter gun laws don't reduce crime, the police can't (or won't) protect me and I'm the person ultimately responsible for the safety and security of my family and property, would I give up any of my gun rights? Of course not.

Dems say they don't want your guns.... But they really do:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/...gia-gun-owners/

They may not want our guns, they just do not want anyone to have them.

Like that is working out in Chicago, home of some of the most strict gun laws in the nation and are averaging a shooting every 3 hours this month

Well put sir, thank you for the thoughtful percise explanation. Beyond this let me clear something else up. This is not a Republican vs Demecrat thing, Yes as with most things the party's have both taken a stance, however party's are made of people, who's opinions vary. Many Republicans favor background checks, many demecrats do not. My mother in law, and sister in law are vocal steadfast republicans who have been opposed to gun rights( do not allow them in there home, husband not allowed to have one). My family are democrats and all have a licens to carry. I carry every where except work, where I am not allowed to carry. My boss who will not allow me to carry is verry republican, has guns but is against carry, especially open carry.

We live in a new and chalangeing times, solutions must be found, no one knows exactly where to start. Bashing each other will never get us there.

How about requiring comprehensive background checks (including ALL FINANCIAL records) of ALL those in public office that are in a position to make changes to laws/regulations regarding these/other constitutional rights?!?!?
(and making the results available to the public immediately via open-records and the web)

Things have changed since the 70's when i walked inta a bar in small town with me pistal on my hip on a dare... it was unloaded, i couldn't do that here in Fast draw was a hobbie, over the years updated my first deer rifle a .45 Kentucky, added few single shot pistals for me caveman days hog hunts... Now their useless, cause don't have he Freedom ta hunt... Cost money ta live... Dang Gov. been spying on me ever since reports of me alien body parts...

Our rights, including the right to defend our self and family, are non-negotiable.

Anyone willing to give up liberty for security deserves neither.

Kind of curious if any of our opinions made it to print? Are you going to post your assignment and tell us the grade you received?

I will do my very best to post the paper and the grade... Unfortunately for me, my professor is limiting our areas of research to a college database which, so far, is nothing but a bunch of liberal drool. I have read probably 50 articles on gun control and the issues surrounding it, and roughly 113% of them have been anti-gun. I simply have not been able to find any pro-gun articles as of yet.

113% ? is this some of that common core math

Frustration with the system... and some sarcasm.

Firearms training should be a part of every High School curriculum. If you make it to the 12th grade with
a C average you can take a class featuring the AR-15 in preparation for your enrollment as a good citizen
in the Selective Service.

Even the flunkies who only make it to 8th grade will know that everyone in the general public knows how
to shoot a gun, has a gun and is not going to take their $#!% anymore.

And you are paying for this "education"? Sounds like a brainwash to me... No wonder Bernie has gained traction with the youth.

http://texashuntingforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/6166476/The_2nd_Amendment:_Liberal_Edi#Post6166476

It seems like a very slightly more in depth analysis of the raw numbers associated with gun deaths in the US would indicate that a more formal and structured education and information system regarding gun knowledge and safety applied at an early age as part of the public educational system, more programs to both educate gun owners and promote/mandate or even subsidize proper gun storage systems for gun owners, development of a fair public "no buy" registry similar to a "no-fly" list for persons legally deemed through a due process ineligible for gun possession/purchase (with a formal , accessible, and thorough system of appeal), and more emphasis on establishing and funding useful functional and easily accessible community mental health programs would be of far more benefit than any additional legislation that either bans guns, imposes background checks on law abiding citizens, or puts additional unneeded and unheeded laws on the books that infringe upon the rights of citizens. Additionally secure borders and comprehensive immigration reform that better protect American citizens from the criminal element that may wish to enter the country would also go a very long way in reducing gun violence and crime in general.

When you consider that the majority of gun injuries and deaths annually are self inflicted (mental health, safety and storage, "no buy" registry) , a sizable portion are accidental or of undetermined cause (knowledge and safety, education, storage) , and that a large portion of guns that are used in the commission of crimes were obtained illegally after being stolen or purchased illegally or by deceit (proper gun storage, "no buy" registry, border security) it should be obvious that further regulation of actual gun purchases by law abiding "normal" citizens isn't really the issue, and neither is type or quantity of guns they are buying or the magazine capacity of said firearms. Add to this a "no buy" list that registers those known to have mental deficit, criminal backgrounds, and documented history consistent with violence that is easily accessible to the public for use in private party transactions, and you can see that the impact of these types of programs would have a far broader reach and effect than simply attempting to legislate away the right of tax paying law abiding citizens to purchase any number or type of firearm they wish to purchase.

I just don't see how or why anyone would think that banning, over legislating, or attempting to stigmatize something would make the problem go away. It clearly hasn't worked with regards to illegal drug purchases and abuse. I have to believe that politicians are far more interested in the "dumbing" and dividing of Americans, as opposed to actually creating an American that is well educated, well cared and provided for, and better able to function as an important part of the collective for the advancement of their people and nation. A divided public is easier to manipulate and control, an divided unarmed public is even easier, and a dumb, divided, sick, scared, and unarmed public easier still!

It is simply not possible to legislate Morality. There is but one who can (and could have) created the perfect world and people but he chose to give us free will. He created the shortest and easiest to understand (the only perfect) law in history, only 10 points to it. If we obey that law then there are simply no issues. Breaking that one law has the harshest penalty of any other law in history, yet we (I) break that law every day. (man am I thankful for GRACE). If humanity can not obey that simple law then we will always have evil, crime and criminals.

Zach, can you give us any kind of an update on your project?

NONE!!!! You are an idiot douchebag card carrying commie.

Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis



kind regards, terry