doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Gun Show Follies

The above post points out the fallacy of "Gun Control".

Quote:
"I heard The Prez say in one of his campaign speeches that 'no one could tell him that America couldn't find a way to both protect the rights of the pheasant hunter in Pennsylvania and put an end to gun related gang crime in Chicago'. Much as I dislike the guy, that sentiment resonated with me and I'll bet with a lot of other folks "

I for one could care less about your rights as a pheasant hunter as this is NOT what the 2nd Amendment is about. It is about having the necessary tools to protect me and my family and avoid becomming a victum of "gang Crime in Chicago". which is a subject BTW I have more first hand experience with than the occupant of the WhiteHouse. I managed Section 8 housing on the South Side and had to interact with members of the Gangster Diciples and other gangs on a daily basis. The only thing these thugs fear is retaliation which in this case was if they didn't toe the line I'd permanately ban them from the property and their "girlfriends". The is nothing IMO that can be done from a legal perspective to keep weapons out of the hands of gang members in Chicago and if Obama doesn't know this he's more ignorent than I thought.
Oh and BTW: The reason for my statement about pheasant hunters rights is this would be a non-issue as the right to keep and bear arms falls under the 2nd Amendment umbrella and certainly includes the recreational use of firearms.
Jim

Interesting discussion; more light and less heat than many I have read. We won't settle this here, or anywhere else-- the whole point of freedom is that the discussion goes on, and the issues are NEVER closed.....otherwise the Constitution would be "The Commandments." It isn't. And we "build" on the Second Amendment--the one real common issue for us is making sure it's there to build on. WHAT we build is always up for discussion. The Devil IS in the details....but so is the Lord.

(I just got back from ten days in Mexico City and am feeling pretty damn' thankful....).

We have a severe difference of opinion with the government, not the military. Suppose instead of asking how long we'd last against the army, you should ask how long things would last if we started in on legislators and bureaucrats.

sv

Quote "The is nothing IMO that can be done from a legal perspective to keep weapons out of the hands of gang members in Chicago and if Obama doesn't know this he's more ignorent than I thought."

Obama is not ignorant. “Assault” rifles are the current poster child for gun control. 30 years ago it was handguns and the “Saturday night special”. It’s not about controlling crime its about controlling firearms and always has been. That is why as gun owners we must stick together. I am willing to work with Obama or whomever to control violent firearms crime but let’s target the criminals not the law abiding citizens. Use an “assault weapon in your crime and that triples the penalty. Use the laws we already have on the books and if the penalty is 15 years then keep the perpetrators incarcerated for 15 years. Developing laws which only the law abiding adhere to doesn’t make any sense in violent crime reduction unless controlling crime was not your original agenda to begin with.

Gun control is simply about control. Period.

sv

I wonder how the gestapo and other nazi thugs would have acted if they knew there was the possibility that the premises they were about to invade was inhabited by a gun owner with the latest semi-automatic weapon and the resolve to use it to defend himself until death if need be.

Google the Warsaw Uprising, and see what can be done with a few handguns and bolt-action rifles.

sv

Lets see here. We have an item that is easy to conceal, , powerful, fast functioning, cheap, easy to purchase with no restrictions, no age requirement, no training requirement, no limit on how many you can own, no limit on how many you can buy at one time, no forms to fill out, no registration, no training or licensing, no citizenship requirements, no ID, no justification, no controls of any kind. This item is used as a primary means of carrying out illegal activities such as drug sales, smuggling, trafficking in illegal aliens, facilitating gang activity All of which result in tens of thousands of deaths a year in the United States.

The Cell Phone. All of you BHO (lets protect pheasant hunters) supporters, work with me on this one, read on.

Lets see what would happen if the government put the same restrictions on cell phones as they do guns. After all, if you were to look into drug crime, you will find that the overwhelming majority of drug dealers arrested will have in their possession a cell phone used to conduct illegal drug sales. I bet if you looked into it, you would find the majority of criminals have had cell phones in their possession when committing crimes.

Now lets apply the gun control crowds logic and reasonable restrictions:
1. you must be 21 to buy an easily concealable cell phone.
2. you must apply for a permit to carry a cell phone. Of course this means a safety course which would cover driving while using etc.
3. You must justify your “need” for a cell phone, after all land lines and pay phones would work.
4. a judge or police chief would have the final say over you having a cell phone.
5. you have to fill out a federal form and have a back ground check conducted prior to purchase.
6. you must have a permit to buy minutes to load your phone
7. you cant carry your phone in a church or govt. building
8. if you want to dispose of the phone you must sell it back to a cell phone dealer . He is licensed by the government. No cell phone loop hole here, you cant sell your cell to another individual as a private sale.
9. all cell phones would be registered
10. legislation is being proposed to keep your phone under lock and key.
11. citizens in DC couldn’t own one.
12. any history of illegal drug use would prohibit your from owning or buying one.
13. any felony conviction or crime of domestic violence precludes ownership
14. have a cell phone in your possession while committing a crime, an extra 5 years, no parole.


Why would anyone object to these reasonable restrictions on cell phones. After all it is meant to reduce crimes involving cell phones. If it saves one life it would be worth it.

It would help reduce terrorism, reduce crime, save lives, keep us safer, etc etc.
Besides, where in the constitution is cell phone ownership protected.
And the casual user of a cell phone wouldn’t be prohibited, he/she would only have to follow these simple, reasonable laws.

Now, tell me who would agree to that? Who would stand for these reasonable controls on cell phones??

Why would anyone object?
No one is saying you cant have a cell phone, just that there are a few reasonable steps you have to take to have one.

The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting or target shooting.

Making crimes committed with “black rifles” more seriously punished makes no sense. Dead is dead, whether by rifle, pistol or baseball bat. Punish the criminal for the crime.

I did just that.While the outcome would probably had been the same,if the Jews had all had weapons equal to the nazis perhaps the germans would have learned a lesson about courage from the supposedly "sub-humans".The resolute armed individual is the final barrier to tyranny.We sit in our comfortable chairs,complacent and content that it can never happen here.....I don't believe that for a minute.Politicians are always going to seek more power over other men as they think they have the answers to all our problems and only need our compliance to make everything better.Sorry, I'm getting off topic.

Brian, AMEN to your post. All the folks who voted for BHO, and wanted change, well get ready, it's at our front door and in the process of kicking the door in, whether we want it or not, good or bad. The "Community Organizer in Chief" is busy "remaking" the USA.