A discussion about gun ownership

[TheQ]

Ladies and gentlemen: if we're going to quote the 2nd amendment, let's quote all of 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.

Looks to me like the founding fathers led with well-regulated.

Article 1 section 6 of the Michigan Constitution: every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.


...no militia. No go suck you thumb with the Brady Bunch. Better yet, MCRGO -- they like compromising rights.

[TheQ]

Mr ultra: I read the link and again you and I differ sharply on our world views. But granting for the moment the "not be infringed" phrase, please explain the following:

How does requiring potential gun owners to attend firearms safety and competency training "infringe" upon your rights? We require the same thing of hunters and CPL licensees and that seems to work fine.

How does tracking gun registration numbers to combat crime infringe upon your rights?

So don't try to paint me as indoctrinated, misinformed, stupid, or any other epithet you conjure up. I will match my intelligence, education, experience, weapons training, military service, and patriotism against yours any day of the week. I see a problem with OUR gun culture and I'm offering a few solutions to make our communities safer while respecting the rights of gun owners. I see change from within our community as being better than have change forced upon us from without. If you don't like my solutions, that's fine. You may think you're upholding the constitution. I see someone who is so intolerant and close-minded that they cannot even consider a different way of thinking, let alone adapt to a changing world. You, like some other gun owners, have decided that it's your way or no way. You have decided that you alone have unlocked the secrets of the universe. If you had the chance, you would force your worldview on everyone else, making them live as you want. That kind of mental arrogance is just another kind of tyranny.

1. Registration is a precursor to confiscation. What "constitutional" and "legitimate" state interest is served by tracking gun serial numbers to people?

[part deux]

Clearly someone eating from the Brady bunch trough

Let me help you here, since all you're doing is regurgitating trolling points.

The Second Amendment refers to “a well-regulated militia.”The right of the people to form citizen militias was unquestioned by the Founders.

The Second Amendment begins with the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” Some people argue that this phrase limits the right to keep and bear arms to militias only ... which they say means the National Guard. Very recent research shows, however, that it was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700’s to include a preamble. The Constitution has a preamble, the Bill of Rights has a preamble — yet people don’t argue that the Constitution is limited by the preamble. Professor Eugene Volokh at the UCLA Law School has examined numerous other state constitutions of the same general time period, and observed this kind of preamble language in many of them. (The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 793-821 (1998)). The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters.

B. The Second Amendment falls right within the style of legal drafting of the late 1700’s. The “militia” clause emphasizes the individual right to keep and bear arms by explaining one of its most important purposes. The militia clause does not limit the right.

source

[Ultra]

Free speech safety and competency training.  Free religion, after you register your religion with the state. Nope, no limitation on rights, as long as you can demonstrate to the elite political class that your free speech is "competent speech."  I know, you don't see the problem with that.  It would require you to want to understand. Clearly, you don't.

Well regulated means "a well oiled machine."  If you'd have read the link for comprehensions sake....

You are uninformed, misguided, out of place and lacking vision.  I know, you can't see that.

GAFC!!!

Edited P.S. Hitler was democratically elected.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/eHLsnzZgdPw

[freediver]

Mr theQ: the constitutional and legitimate reason for tracking gun serial numbers is to combat both gun trafficking and combat the flow of guns into criminal hands. These are two public safety problems that plague us all and require addressing. Registration is not a precursor to confiscation, except in the paranoid minds of many survivalist gun owners. So I'll ask these two questions again:

How does mandatory gun safety and competency training infringe on your rights?

How does gun serial number registration infringe on your rights?

[freediver]

Mr theQ, part deux, and ultra: In these last few posts you gentlemen have demonstrated EXACTLY why the general public is upset with various gun owner organizations. In this and other threads I have presented a few thoughts on how we can improve our gun culture before change is thrust upon us from the outside. Change that we would not want, change that probably would infringe on some of our rights. I have presented these ideas civilly and with supporting data. In return, on this and other threads, I have been told to shut up, go away, suck my thumb, drink bleach, and a few other unsavory ideas. Since I'm a gun owner and a member of this group and I'm not going away, let me offer a couple of conclusions:

Anybody, such as some of the members here, who has to resort to name calling or other personal attacks obviously has nothing to say. If they did, they wouldn't have to resort to such juvenile attacks. You gentlemen seem to fall into that category.

Second, and this is where the rest of our populace is learning to hate you, you exhibit such a close-minded intolerance for any belief or opinion other than your own as to appear angry, spiteful, and dangerous. If you exhibit such anger and intolerance in what should be a fairly civil discussion about gun policy, why would I, as your fellow citizen, want to trust you with a firearm? You mentioned that Hitler was democratically elected (albeit in a rigged election). Good point. The type of anger and intolerance you gentlemen exhibit does remind me of the Nazis. It's a very short distance from "my way or no way" on gun policy to Kristallnacht. In your minds the ends always justify the means, as long as you get your way.

[TheQ]

...sorry I'm not willing to support your gun control campaign -- wait, no -- I'm not sorry.

Good luck in finding a gun group that will go along with more gun control.

[Ultra]

First you complain about name calling, then you label people Nazis.  Pot meets kettle.

Infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens doesn't "improve" anything except opportunities for criminals.

Full stop.

[TheQ]

Someone is shot with a stolen or unregistered gun. Is the person any less dead?

An unregistered gun goes off in the forest when nobody is around, does it make a noise?

[freediver]

Actually, Mr Ultra, if you review this thread, you'll find that you initiated the lowbrow commentary by calling me misinformed, brainwashed, a pawn, etc. So right back atcha. If you want to discuss gun policy, I welcome that. If you want to ignore my reasoning then call me names, we can do that too. If you want to expound on how you and only you have all the answers and everyone else is screwed up, then, yes, I will comment that you are closeminded and intolerant. You words indicate that you are.

[part deux]

How about we meet 1/2 way?

Will you support constitutional carry?

[freediver]

Well, Mr theQ, your stance on gun control is fine with me. You have your opinion on gun regulation, I have mine. That's the beauty of free speech. We can agree to disagree. Beyond that, I don't think you speak for me or the entire group. We all have our opinions and these forums are a place to express them. Everytime I've expressed ideas that run counter to yours, you or someone else has told me to leave, get lost, join another group, drink bleach, etc. I fail to see how that is upholding the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. If you don't like what I say, don't pout like a child. Use reason, logic, and factual evidence to convince me I'm wrong.
If you want to suppress my or anyone else's free speech, then you are no different than the tyrants you profess to oppose.

[freediver]

Mr part deux, of course I support constitutional carry. I believe in every citizen's right to self defense. What I am talking about is changing our gun culture from within so that we can police ourselves. My intent is to get the criminals, the crazies, and the sheer idiots out of the equation so that competent citizens can carry, openly or concealed. As I've said many times, it's about raising the bar on gun ownership and personal responsibility.

My fear is that if we don't initiate these changes from within, they will be directed from without. We might not like the results.

[freediver]

One last note, since Mr Tuctom is so fascinated with replies to posts: a few posts ago I asked Mr gryphon to give me an actual example of where deregulating guns and adding more of them made a society safer and less volatile. Since he hasn't replied I'll have to assume that he couldn't think of any. I can't think of any either.

[TheQ]

Well, Mr theQ, your stance on gun control is fine with me. You have your opinion on gun regulation, I have mine. That's the beauty of free speech. We can agree to disagree. Beyond that, I don't think you speak for me or the entire group. We all have our opinions and these forums are a place to express them. Everytime I've expressed ideas that run counter to yours, you or someone else has told me to leave, get lost, join another group, drink bleach, etc. I fail to see how that is upholding the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. If you don't like what I say, don't pout like a child. Use reason, logic, and factual evidence to convince me I'm wrong.
If you want to suppress my or anyone else's free speech, then you are no different than the tyrants you profess to oppose.

While it's true no man speaks for an entire group, I know Tom Lambert quite well. I'm sure my views on the topic are closer to his than yours. I'm also a very close friend of the last president of Michigan Open Carry. I'm pretty sure I speak for him when I say: your views belong more with a gun control group
In fact, it's interesting -- of all your posts here, never once have you promoted an improvement in gun rights such as:

* Elimination of PFZs
* Constitutional Carry

It leads me to ask, if not to try to win the faithful over to gun control, why ARE you here?

[TheQ]

Mr part deux, of course I support constitutional carry. I believe in every citizen's right to self defense. What I am talking about is changing our gun culture from within so that we can police ourselves. My intent is to get the criminals, the crazies, and the sheer idiots out of the equation so that competent citizens can carry, openly or concealed. As I've said many times, it's about raising the bar on gun ownership and personal responsibility.

My fear is that if we don't initiate these changes from within, they will be directed from without. We might not like the results.

You support constitutional carry yet you want government mandated education to purchase a gun...?

Maybe you aren't familiar with the term constitutional carry: no education or permit required to open carry or conceal carry a firearm.

You sound more and more like someone from the enemy/anti-gun camp in our midst.

[fozzy71]

One last note, since Mr Tuctom is so fascinated with replies to posts: a few posts ago I asked Mr gryphon to give me an actual example of where deregulating guns and adding more of them made a society safer and less volatile. Since he hasn't replied I'll have to assume that he couldn't think of any. I can't think of any either.

Maybe he actually has a job and hasn't seen your post yet?  You seem to do nothing but sit on this thread clicking F5 all day.

[Ultra]

Knowledge is only attained if first one demonstrates the willingness to learn. Amongst a select few here, that is clearly absent.

If you feels this applies to you, deal with it. If you feel this is an insult or an unfair labeling, you're deep in the minority around here.

And, with this, my attempts at bringing light to those whom would rather remain in the dark have concluded. 

[gryphon]

One last note, since Mr Tuctom is so fascinated with replies to posts: a few posts ago I asked Mr gryphon to give me an actual example of where deregulating guns and adding more of them made a society safer and less volatile. Since he hasn't replied I'll have to assume that he couldn't think of any. I can't think of any either.

I haven't replied because we've gone through this before.  The example of where guns made a society more safe is America.  There are more "good" uses of guns in self-defense than "bad" uses in murders and shootings.

[freediver]

Mr TheQ: I haven't promoted either one of those because I think each is a complicated issue and deserves a little more than a straight black and white analysis. While I am a longtime gun owner and carrier, I'm still educating myself on the issues of open carry.

Which is why I'm here. To discuss, to debate, to learn, and even to teach. If my views don't march lockstep with yours, too bad. I'm not here to learn doctrinal purity. I'm an intelligent, educated man with a lot of firearms experience. I see a problem with some of the purist opinions expressed here and I think there may be a better way forward. I'm making suggestions as to that effect. Do with them what you will.

Because first and foremost, this is a forum; a place for exchange, for debate, for learning. There is no "enemy", no sides to choose, no right answer other than the one backed up by reality-based facts. What I have noticed is that any opinions that differ from the party line are blasted, shunned, ridiculed, or threatened. For an organization that claims to further the cause of personal liberty, that claim rings shallow. You're okay with an opinion ONLY if it agrees with yours.