Bangkoktraveler Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 In Arizona, like it is in some other States, it normally takes one minute (45 seconds to fill out the paper work and 15 seconds to check with the government) in order to complete a gun sale with a dealer. But even if there is a delay and no problems found, then by Arizona law, the sale can be made legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 How can a city like DC ban guns totally? I thought no one can make a law that denies someone a constitutionally afforded right? It can make it tougher to own one perhaps but if the constitution says you can not be denied the right to bear arms how can they ban it totally? Abortion is a right so states and cities can't ban it. Doesn't the same apply? I can see it getting tougher to own certain types of guns and making it harder but not an outright ban. I just can't see it. At least not for some time. Since 911 I would think it would be harder to disarm the nation. Any total ban would require both parties to go along. Anything major changes to society has always required both (civil rights for example). There are too many Dems that own guns. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio are trade union states, rust belt, and come out for Democrats and are also all big hunting states. Union and democrat but hunting season is big there. They were the so called 'Reagan Democrats' in the '80s who voted for him when the Republicans successfully scared them into thinking that a Democrat president will take away their hunting guns. The southern states would never go for it. The midwest won't. The mountain states (Montana, the Dakotas, etc.) have militias and will fight it out..lol. Even liberal California won't go for it. Its the large north eastern cities and states. The rest of the country will never go along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 As regards to Washington D.C. wikipedia says this: [color:red]"Like many other large cities, Washington, D.C., has enacted a number of strict gun-restriction laws. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 prohibited residents from owning handguns, excluding handguns registered prior to February 5, 1977. Other local laws prohibit carrying guns (concealed or not), and all guns and ammunition must be registered.[7]"[/color] Even strong gun States such as Texas, will not allow a hand gun to be carried out in the open. This law goes back to the 1800's. Almost every State has recenty made changes to their gun laws and the changes have been for more restrictions. If the laws are changed one at a time, people do not pay attention. And then when it becomes like Washington D.C., it is a little too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 Like an axe, a machete or a chainsaw? Those are far too personal. Most people don't have the balls to kill someone with those. But a gun is easy and you can be yards away, so it is just like a video game...and people pretend as such . That's the problem with guns IMHO. Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 How can a city like DC ban guns totally? I thought no one can make a law that denies someone a constitutionally afforded right? Depends upon if you read the Second Amendment as was intended or as the gun nuts want you to. I fail to see what part of "a well-regulated militia" they fail to understand (kinda like Xtians and the "thou shall not kill" thing, I guess).* The Second Amendment says nothing about Joe Citizen having assault weapons or handguns. If Joe Citizen wants them, he can join the National Guard and play weekend warrior. As a compromise, I have no issues with hunters having long guns. I have huge issues with Joe Citizen having easy-to-conceal and/or military weapons. You want a handgun for sport, then follow the UK model and they must be kept in shooting ranges. Regards, SD * -- Before you waste bytes on saying "they meant for everyman to be a part of the militia" recall that the original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives, was: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...; a revision read: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people... but that too was scrapped. Source 1. Source 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 [color:red]"Depends upon if you read the Second Amendment as was intended or as the gun nuts want you to."[/color] Please educate us as to what was intended. Your source material says: [color:red]"In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects."[/color] [color:red]"I have huge issues with Joe Citizen having easy-to-conceal and/or military weapons."[/color] I would say most people that are against guns are in favor of people having weapons concealed if they are carrying a CCW (Concealed/Carry Weapons permit). If you don't see them, you are not afraid. Plus having a permit generally means the person has had some training in regards to weapons. [color:red]"I have no issues with hunters having long guns."[/color] Some hunters prefer AR-15 rifles. Some like such rifles as the Remington 700 which some armies use as a sniper rifle. Some hunters like 12 gauge shotguns. From what you have previously said, I don't really believe you don't have issues with long guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted November 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Cities like NYC and DC have more or less banned handguns only. The 2d Ammendment's "militia" has been interpreted (probably properly) not to cover pistols. Originally, all white male citizens between 16 and 50 were required to keep at home a musket or rifle and 20 rounds of ammunition. Militiamen didn't carry pistols, except for the commissioned officers. Unfortunately, the anti-gunners always want to ban everything. I remember the disgust I felt when watching some of them present their arguments on the Dick Cavett Show years ago. The idiots had big charts showing the number of "handgun deaths" by year - including hunting accidents! Uh ... beg pardon, who hunts with a pistol? The usual banning of handguns has had nothing to do with safety either. e.g. Tim Sullivan was an NYC Democratic politician who got a law passed banning owning pistols without a police permit. The aim was to disarm the opposing politicians' poll watchers! Sullivan saw to it that his people got permits to carry, while the others didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 CS said [color:red]"There are various estimates as to gun ownership but I've seen stats ranging from 44 million gun owners to higher. Out of 300 million that is fairly high and those are the legal owners."[/color] That is a lot of guns. But if guns were as bad as some say, there should be a huge number of gun related crimes each day. If only 1% of the gun owners misused their weapons improperly each day, that would be 440,000 gun related crimes each day. But then if 1% of a group is considered 'bad', I would assume the group would be considered a really 'good group' because 99% of the group doesn't get into trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 [color:red]"Depends upon if you read the Second Amendment as was intended or as the gun nuts want you to."[/color] Please educate us as to what was intended. I did. You are changing the English language to mould to what you want. I have said (and proved) what was meant given the language that was excluded from the Amendment! [color:red]"I have huge issues with Joe Citizen having easy-to-conceal and/or military weapons."[/color]I would say most people that are against guns are in favor of people having weapons concealed if they are carrying a CCW (Concealed/Carry Weapons permit). That's your opinion. Not mine. The problem is that the "honest citizens" seem to lose their (hand)guns to robbers. Therefore, if they did not have them unsecured in their house (as opposed to a secured location like a gun club) then the number of unregistered (hand)guns on the street would decrease! It has already been proven in the assault weapon study by the federal government I cited earlier. [color:red]"I have no issues with hunters having long guns."[/color]Some hunters prefer AR-15 rifles. Some like such rifles as the Remington 700 which some armies use as a sniper rifle. Some hunters like 12 gauge shotguns. From what you have previously said, I don't really believe you don't have issues with long guns. Who are you to tell me what I think????!!! Don't be pedantic: you know what I mean! Long guns are NOT an issue here. Walk down the street with your rifle if you must. Then folks KNOW your are a menace to society and can act appropriately. And sorry (not really), if you are a hunter and *need* an AR15 or a Barret to score a buck, then you should look into another hobby cuz you're a pussy: you are NOT a sportsman. Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 So you don't think the original intent was for citizens to have guns? Or you do but think the problem are hand guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.