Gun Control

I understood your point. My point is the reason we are allowed to own them is we are allowed to own them.

Everyone needs to precisely understand that the reason we have part of the mess we have now is the door got opened to qualify and dilute a right that is as precious and inalienable as free speech. Once you open that door with set of qualifications to be met even if they are impossible to meet, means that you are qualifying the right. Rights are not qualified, they are absolute.

If you watch and pay attention to the gay rights and gay marriage thing almost anywhere, you can find folks like myself that are staunch supporters of their right to marry and interact within the legal system to enjoy every single aspect of married and unmarried life the rest of us enjoy. The reason for that is I am able to put aside my prejudice and bigotry for a behavior that disgusts me on a personal level and support the pursuit of the same things I want which is unqualified equality. I do not want to wake up tomorrow and discover I am the victim or soon to be victim of a bunch of Prius driving morons that decided the carbon footprint of a Jeep was no longer tolerated and now they want to disarm me.
That was so well said and made so much sense that it made me rethink and change my opinion on the whole gay marriage thing. It's extremely hard to get my head around supporting gay marriage which I personally find disgusting but it's easier for me now. And if it wasn't guns the liberals were against, it'd just be some other personal freedom they'd be fighting to take away. Thank you Blaine.
 
Last edited:
That was so well said and made so much sense that it made me rethink and change my opinion on the whole gay marriage thing. It's extremely hard to get my head around supporting gay marriage which I personally find disgusting but it's easier for me now. And if it wasn't guns the liberals were against, it'd just be some other personal freedom they'd be fighting to take away. Thank you Blaine.
We aren't supporting gay marriage and gay rights, we are supporting equality. How does that line go? We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...

We need to be constantly evaluating why something bothers us to make sure that our view is not based in prejudice and bigotry which compromises our perceptions of equality.

Rightly, we as a nation abolished slavery. The anti-gay marriage law that was passed in California was exactly equivalent to one that would again make slavery legal because it singled out a specific group and limited their equality. That is the exact opposite of what we as a country believe in.

On a personal level, my distaste for the overwhelming inclusion of the gay lifestyle in many TV shows has affected my viewing habits greatly. If I never see another homosexual love scene on TV I'll be just fine with it. But, I also have the choice to turn the channel or use the DVR to satisfy whatever criteria meets my personal needs.

Gun control is a giant issue that isn't going away soon. It produces conflict in all of us and at times gives us pause to wonder if perhaps there isn't a better way? Then we figure out fairly soon that an emotion based response to the issue is precisely what we are fighting and come to our senses.

Myself, I am greatly saddened any time some psycho whack job takes out a bunch of folks and the instrument of evil happens to be a firearm and each time I deal with the internal struggle of wishing it hadn't happened and thinking perhaps this would be a better world with no guns. No one deserves to leave this planet in that manner and if no one deserves that, what can I do to help stop it from happening?

The immediate obvious answer is education and teaching. That will never work because the average anti gun supporter has an inherent fear similar to those about snakes, spiders, and creepy crawly things. You can not easily teach someone that is deathly afraid of snakes to no longer fear them. That is the level of fear we are up against and there are few words and almost no actions that will change that.

What I do know won't stop it is giving up my right to bear arms. After that, I have few answers.
 
Beautifully said, I actually had my wife Nancy sit down here at my desk to read what you wrote. That was profound. Again, thank you Blaine.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chris
We aren't supporting gay marriage and gay rights, we are supporting equality. How does that line go? We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...

It is not up to anyone to judge them, as with anyone who does not repent sin, the almighty will decide.

Gun control is a giant issue that isn't going away soon.

This issue will never go away.

It produces conflict in all of us and at times gives us pause to wonder if perhaps there isn't a better way?

The only conflict that this could give me is, if ever, someone knocks on my door wanting my guns. The only thing I have ever wondered about is why people wouldn't want guns.

Then we figure out fairly soon that an emotion based response to the issue is precisely what we are fighting and come to our senses.

What way are you heading with that?

Myself, I am greatly saddened any time some psycho whack job takes out a bunch of folks and the instrument of evil happens to be a firearm and each time I deal with the internal struggle of wishing it hadn't happened and thinking perhaps this would be a better world with no guns. No one deserves to leave this planet in that manner and if no one deserves that, what can I do to help stop it from happening?

I think, unless you are a muslim islamic terrorist, anyone would be very saddened by such events. Think for a minute if there were no guns. Would there be no mass killings? Then think if perhaps just one of those people had been carrying, would there be as many deaths?

The immediate obvious answer is education and teaching. That will never work because the average anti gun supporter has an inherent fear similar to those about snakes, spiders, and creepy crawly things. You can not easily teach someone that is deathly afraid of snakes to no longer fear them. That is the level of fear we are up against and there are few words and almost no actions that will change that.

Agreed, 100%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris
SHALL NOT be infringed.

In legalese, "shall not" is the most commanding language to use.

Having to pay the .gov for a permit to carry a firearm is an infringement.

With that said, we have the freedom of speech as well, but it's illegal to yell "fire!" in a movie theatre.

Some regulation is necessary but it's a very thin line and I believe that line has already been crapped upon (thanks, libs).

Pro-2A and pro-common sense!
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Carmony
With that said, we have the freedom of speech as well, but it's illegal to yell "fire!" in a movie theatre.

It actually isn't. The Supreme Court overturned the Schenck decision and afterwards the standard under which you can be charged and prosecuted changed considerably.

A bit of cut and paste from the article to help illustrate-

So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.

Basically you can view it as being punished for the results of your actions just as shooting someone with something other than self defense in mind can render punishment upon you. The act of exercising free speech is little different than the act of owning a firearm. It is not until you use them to cause harm that you are and should be breaking the law.

Some regulation is necessary but it's a very thin line and I believe that line has already been crapped upon (thanks, libs).

I'm curious how you can explain "shall not" in one breath and then accept the infringement thereof in the next one?

Pro-2A and pro-common sense!
 
I'm curious how you can explain "shall not" in one breath and then accept the infringement thereof in the next one?

That is from years of being bullied about his position on 2A, throwing that in there to lessen the blow he might receive. Or my opinion anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris
I'm going to throw a couple of other things out for comment here, just for giggles.

The Second Amendment, as originally written and ratified, only had one comma in it. "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." The other two commas got thrown in there by the scribe who made the original transcription for the official records. As it turns out, there was a lot of that going on back then. Commas were used by transcriptionists to indicate a possible place for a person speaking to throw in a pause to take a breath.

Another quick comment about the term "Arms". That covered way more than just personal firearms at the time. During wartime, no one back then would bat an eye over a fairly well off person building a Privateer, obtaining a "Letter of Marque and Reprisal" and then sailing off to essentially commit acts of piracy on the enemy. There were rules about how you could operate and the disposition of prizes. Some of the Privateers were better than, or at least equal to, anything in the US Navy. They were complete military grade weapons systems and very, very lethal. And very lucrative. Imagine for a moment if someone like Bill Gates built a Guided Missile Cruiser and applied for a Letter of Marque and Reprisal today. More than a few heads would pop just from the idea! It seems that everyone today is so focused on personal firearms, that the full meaning of Arms in the Second Amendment is hardly ever discussed.

Edited to add: As you can guess, I get bullied and argued with a lot when a discussion of the Second Amendment occurs. Being interested enough in history to actually search out and read historical source documents exposes you to lots of information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serbonze and Chris
It actually isn't. The Supreme Court overturned the Schenck decision and afterwards the standard under which you can be charged and prosecuted changed considerably.

A bit of cut and paste from the article to help illustrate-

So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.

Basically you can view it as being punished for the results of your actions just as shooting someone with something other than self defense in mind can render punishment upon you. The act of exercising free speech is little different than the act of owning a firearm. It is not until you use them to cause harm that you are and should be breaking the law.



I'm curious how you can explain "shall not" in one breath and then accept the infringement thereof in the next one?

I'm pretty well versed in law and I could have broken it down like you said but my point remains the same - although I do agree with what you're saying. It's the consequence of shouting "fire" that is against the law, not the word/action itself.

Regarding my statement agreeing with some regulation, I was referring to laws dictating things such as a required age for ownership and felon possession (I'm iffy on that). Like I said, common sense things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris
That is from years of being bullied about his position on 2A, throwing that in there to lessen the blow he might receive. Or my opinion anyways.

I'm very pro-2A and I'm a Texan - I've never been bullied about my perspective. I threw it in there because unfortunately, people are so stupid or lack common sense that certain laws are necessary. What bothers me is that even the most basic laws can eventually lead down a slippery slope, which is what I believe has happened with the 2A.

See, first it was felons, then it was "crazy people", and now they're going after veterans with PTSD. Who is next?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris
Some of the first laws on gun control were passed in the south disarming the newly freed slaves. Mostly before that it was laws about storing powder in the public arsenal as a fire safety issue. Black powder is explosive. Even felons were allowed access to firearms after they had served their sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris
If there is a yacht, and it's your yacht, I'll hop in. As long as it's yours.

Well I was going to invite you on my yacht, but if that's how you feel about it...

image.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris