We don't need to control guns, we need to control our government.

The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean the States must recognize the rights inherent in the US Constitution. It's not only Congress which may not abridge the right to bear arms, it's also States and State law. We don't have a gun problem in this country, we have a government problem.

Cars kill more people each year than guns, yet there aren't restrictions on cars.

Let's use some common sense.

 

Straw Buyers at heart of ATF gun-running scandal...

Operation Fast and Furious: The Straw Buyers
July 20, 2011 | When the Operation Fast and Furious indictment was announced back in January, it was depicted as a big bust. Twenty suspects were charged with numerous counts of conspiracy, money laundering, gun running and drug trafficking. The defendants faced 5 to 20 years on a single count.

 

No one else thinks gun control is misguided? No one else thinks the Federal government needs to be "controlled' by the US Constitution?

 

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance, they are the peoples liberty's teeth.?
George Washington​

 

It's a protected Right. It's too bad the government acts as if it is unrestrained by the constitutional document.

 

While I'm not a gun owner, I believe in the right to bear arms because I think that the ability to defend yourself effectively is a very important right. Taking away basic guns that the government is otherwise allowed to use, in my mind, symbolizes in some ways taking power away from the people. But, people who abuse gun rights in a way that potentially threatens others shouldn't get off easily and should face strong punishment.

The federal government should stay out of regulating guns and let the individual states do it themselves.

 

Wow, are you misinformed. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is specifically to limit the government, friend.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but the government is not "abridging" our right to bear arms. Do you not have one yet? If not, then you might well be the last one in this country (sorry about the hyperbole).

Common sense, perhaps, but how about applying some critical thought to your analogy? You claim that there are no "restrictions on cars", and yet the facts don't support this. We have restrictions on auto sales and registrations to account for 'VIN' numbers (a useful tool in the fight against auto theft and resale), we have restrictions on licensing to allow that only trained and proficient citizens are allowed to drive on our roads, we have traffic laws that restrict the use of alcohol use (something our current gun laws do not, by the way) to the users, and restrict the manner in which our autos may be driven on our roads.

Honestly, if this is your idea of "common sense" then I might have some nice land in FLA for ya'.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing against because most people agree that the right to defend oneself is a very basic right. Any data that one can find on this shows that only a tiny handful of our citizens actually would like to see all guns abolished. I find it odd to argue against the extremes when there are so many reasonable people in the middle (including gun owners) that have specific preferences for specific new regulations (ie, gun control).


As to the Fed gov...... there are some things that the Fed Gov can do better than the individual States, such as interstate commerce and illegal trafficking.

 

I admit that my knowledge of gun laws and regulation is limited. What would you personally like to see done about gun regulation?

 

Laws do cover the use or possession of a firearm while intoxicated, its a criminal offense.

A really good way to loose your gun.

 

I don't believe anything needs to be "done about it" per se. It WOULD be helpful, however if the public perception of gun control were not such a negative thing. We know that the majority of Americans favor requiring background checks on private gun sales at gun shows (and in private), something that is currently not mandated in most States. We know that most Americans favor that those on the terror watch list not be allowed to purchase guns, we know that most favor prohibiting gun use when under the influence of alcohol, we know that most favor that gun buyers must take gun-safety courses, we also know that most favor that handgun owners must at least be licensed and trained. Most States currently don't legislate these things.

These are a sampling of things (gun control) that gun owners and non-gun owners can agree on and yet are stymied by an energized and misguided electorate, fearfully goaded into believing even the most outrageous propaganda concerning gun control.

Admit it,.......you thought that 'gun control' meant the total ban of guns, right?

 

Perhaps in CO, but are you sure that this applies in ALL States?

 

Ha, not really, my state recently became the 49th state to legalize concealed carry of firearms. I knew it wasn't that simple, but I knew that there were extreme views shared by some people and I wasn't sure how many people actually held those extreme views. I can't say I disagree with any of those things you listed.

 

That's what I said. The Government should be restrained by the Constitution.

Reading comprehension?

 

You can buy a car, without a background check if you can afford one without a loan.

That's what I was talking about.

 

Well, somebody brush me up on the Constitution please. I thought, that the Constitution was written specifically to control the government.

Meaning, that is its purpose. Yes? No?

 

well to be fair only 1354 people were interviewed in that survey, and the questions were sort of loaded. Also gun rights is a state thing, not a simple majority. we could do the same survey in Chicago, and in Cheyenne, and I am sure the results would not even be close to each other.

here are some silly questions from said survey:

"Should semi-automatic, assault weapons or semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles
be sold to the general public or should their sales be limited to the military and police?"

Assault weapon describes nothing, it is a made up word. assault rifle is (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-rifle) not a semi-automatic weapon, it is a selective fire weapon allowing it to shoot semi-auto fire, but the way the question is worded it is leading an uniformed reader to assume that my semi-auto AR-15 is an assault rifle (which it is not).

"Currently under federal law, very high power, 50-caliber rifles that can penetrate armor
from a mile away are available to people on the same basis as standard hunting rifles.
Should such very high power rifles be 1) restricted only to the police and military, or 2)
available to civilians like standard hunting rifles as they are at present?"

high power rifles? the rifle is not the power, the cartridge is the power. this country was won from the British with .50 caliber firearms. There are a number of hunting rifles of this caliber, and have been since the revolutionary war. This is a very disingenuous survey IMO.

 

Yes, the Constitution is being ignored by the government. In some places, the government has already made owning a gun illegal.

Yes, the federal govenment would like to make all guns illegal for private citizens.

It isn't the Constitution that limits the governemtn but it's the citizens. The government will happily ignore the Constitution if we let them.

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”—George Washington (1732-1799)

I agree with President Washington.

 

Hmmmmm.,.... I am not sure. I would assume so, being that intoxication with a weapon is a crime that I am aware of, I would be surprised if it weren't a crime.

 

Very Accurate - Well Said.​

 

No, I understand perfectly what you wrote,.... do you? You said;

"No one else thinks the Federal government needs to be "controlled' by the US Constitution?"​

The point is that it already IS. It specifically IS controlled by the US constitution, which is what your question specifically asked. Perhaps you have a problem accurately getting your thoughts into words, I don't know.

Care to rephrase your question?

 

Then that's what you should have said. We can't read your mind, friend.


If you wish to use a broad argument stating;
"Cars kill more people each year than guns, yet there aren't restrictions on cars."
as you did in the OP to support an argument that we have a "government problem", then I would think that you could do better than comparing only one particular gun restriction out of many, with auto laws.

Frankly, it comes across as if you are forming your argument as you go along, which will typically produce a weak result as yours has here in this thread.

 

The fact that the survey erred by using the term "rifle" instead of the accepted term "weapon" with 'assault' doesn't really change the results at all, however, you'll note that I did NOT use that particular question in my response for that very purpose.

I'm not particularly fond of semantic arguments. It typically looks like you're whining and splitting hairs. Really, to say that it's not a high powered rifle because it happens to shoot a high powered projectile is the very epitome of being disingenuous. The fact remains that this weapon that the question refers to are specifically sniper rifles and not the revolutionary war arms you wish to muddy the waters with.

The question in the survey gives enough information to the respondent to allow them to make an informed opinion and thus response to the survey. Your objections have no merit.

 

I fail to see how the change of wording would not change the results.

For the sake of being an ass I have posted threads on other boards, dropping the term semi-automatic rifle and then "assault weapon". People have an issue with "assault weapons" but typically do not with semi-automatic rifle.

It a term used to demonize a group of semi-automatic rifles that look like machine guns. What better way to gain public support than to demonize them? Its easier to ban an assault weapon over a semi-automatic sporting rifle.

Just as if I ran a poll "Should Muslims be subject to government surveillance?" then another "Should terrorists be subject to government surveillance?".

I seriously doubt the two would produce the same results.