Did I claim the founding fathers had everything figured out and were all-knowing?
Did I claim that the founding fathers ..."Give a man the freedom to think and do, and there is almost no limit to what he achieve"?
I wrote a rather length and point-by-point reply. Then I got this:
Which ate the post, unrecoverable.The server is too busy at the moment. Please try again later.
Apologies, not re-writing 15 min. of stuff with references because J.I. is acting the **** of late.
Maybe another time (great posts btw).
Still really can't see the link between gun ownership and liberty - and in actual fact think the facts show that mass gun ownership in the USA has produced the most extreme anti-libertarian conditions possible. Since Robert Kennedy was assassinated more Americans have died as the result of guns domestically than Americans have died in total in any war throughout history, stretching back to the American War of Independence.
This isn't (or should not be) an argument about personal liberty to own guns - and in actual fact such an argument shows extreme selfishness and a deliberate ignorance as to the result of this argument in the USA (ie the highest death-by-gun rates and murder rates in the developed world). It should be an argument about how to stop gun violence in America, and if you look at how other countries have done it, the only sure way to do it is to take away the guns. Sure, if you use a gun for work, or for sport or have some other legitimate reason for gun ownership, by all means you should have the ability to get one, but otherwise your personal "liberties" should be placed aside in view of the fact tens of thousands of Americans have had their own liberties snuffed out permanently as a result of a country awash in guns.
Let me ask you posters knowledgable with the law.
Do you think Feinstein's "Registry" invades on your rights? What about publishing people who have firearms in their homes like they're sex offenders or something?
If you have no criminal record, no history of mental illness, or anyone in your family, why should you have your rights taken AWAY from you in these regards? I understand people want gun control, but control and regulate them from the people who need regulating, not law abiding citizens. This is greater than just "gun control". What's the next step if this passes?
Selfish and ignorant says the pot to the kettle. Only those with a legit need, how about a need to protect my self and those around me.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the people of this great country are responsible for there own protection!
It is not a difficult concept. And I don't agree with any of your stats on gun violence, they are all cherry picked and misrepresent reality, for the largest extent.
Not a law scholar here.
I think every thing about Feinstein's registry invades on my rights. I think Publishing the names and address of legal gun owners is sleazy, back handed, and completely legal in NJ, but illegal in OR.
There are too many gun control laws on the books. Passed by no nothing tools who only relay care about making themselves look good and keeping there power.
Having said that my stats do not misrepresent reality, are indeed accurate - I just cannot understand a country that is very similar to my own having this absurd love affair with guns and even more absurdly equating it with "freedom", when in actual fact the opposite appears to be true.
Anyway, hope everyone has a great new years etc, and try not to become a statistic: remember a gun is 22 times more likely to kill or injure a loved one than to protect against an intruder. Happy New Years.
Let's not forget that Feinstein herself has a concealed carry permit in the state of California, if the pot's calling the kettle black.
Ah, but it makes your next door neighbor who is NOT on the registry a SOFT target, right?
And what about someone who wants to break in and steal YOUR gun when you're not home.
I believe the registry is an invasion of privacy rights.
How about, if on the internet, the names and addresses of the editor's wife and children, their schools and itinerary were published? Tit for tat?
Both are wrong.
Uh, gun grabbing morons of all nations unite?
According to lib geniuses, I mean the anti-American pukes here the laffs are coming at a rapid clip, fast and furious:
National Socialism = Right Wing
Ex post facto laws applied to guns are A-OK
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution be damned
FISA is scary - Islamokook phone calls to the Ummah are sacred
The 2nd Amendment has many, many restrictions not enumerated within
More guns in circulation makes us less free
Criminalizing the legal and vice versa - what the left does best!
I'm fully aware that in most of the US it is legal public information.
Although not in the great state of Oregon. Of course we don't register our guns out here. But we did have to pass a law to prevent our state's sleeze bag paper (The Oregonian) from publishing the names of concealed weapons permit holders, lucky for us our sheriffs withheld the info till we could get the law passed.
What I am saying is that when a newspaper tasks a reporter to gather all this info, then create an interactive map showing the location and names of those with registered firearms and or concealed weapons permits, and at the same time omit to include the address and name of the gun owning reporter who created the interactive map, it is an act of sleeze and punishment in reporting.
Fargin disgusting, I don't know how you all put up with it.
I wonder if the opinions would be the same if someone posted the home addresses and telephone numbers of all registered Democrat voters in a given area. I believe thats public knowledge as well.