RunRyder RC
WATCH
 18 pages [ <<    <     5      6     ( 7 )     8      9     NEXT    >> ] 10465 views POST REPLY
Home🌌Off TopicsOff Topics News & Politics › Gun Control Didn't work in Australia Why Will it Work Here
01-07-2013 07:07 PM  7 years ago
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
If your government was to pass a law banning all handguns for example, as they previously passed a law banning automatic weapons, then instructs the police to seize handguns which are not handed in, to obstruct the police in the course of their legal duties would be illegal. Just as refusing to hand over an automatic weapon would currently be illegal. You do not have that right, no matter what your constitution says.
They have never passed a law that required forfeiture of weapons. Ever...

They made automatic weapons class III weapons which require a $200 tax stamp and approval from local police chiefs. (Inherently causing a long waiting period)

I could buy an automatic weapon tomorrow if I wanted.
Tic Toc Tic Toc
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 07:08 PM  7 years ago
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Dusty forgot his Smile :

You do not have that right, no matter what your constitution says.

greyeagle
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 07:08 PM  7 years ago
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
None of which has any bearing on the fact that US citizens do not have a legal right, today, to use guns against their government.
You're wrong, the constitution does give us that right, the right is to have the weapon.

Legal vs. natural rights are different. If the govt is oppressive, it doesnt matter what the law is, they are oppressive. Opressive govts dont abide by the laws they make.

Let me ask you this Dusty, if you're govt starting putting you in concentration camps, and bombing your house and neighbors because there were "defectors" in the vicinity trying to overthrow their regime, what are you going to do when there is anarchy in the streets?

Are you going hide and get killed because you dont believe in going against a government that is willing to kill or enslave you?

What happened in 1921 in the UK? How come they couldnt just vote and make everything OK?

"Ultimate power corrupts ultimately" (History proves that beyond any reasonable doubt)
Tic Toc Tic Toc
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 07:52 PM  7 years ago
fla heli boy

rrElite Veteran

cape coral, florida

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The point is that regardless of what the 2nd amendment says, US citizens do not have the right to use guns against their government, today.
Point is, there are 10's of millions of us gun owners and we take that seriously. If they started knocking on doors to take weapons, you can bet your a$$ it wouldn't last long. They can't round up or kill 10's of millions of people. What's more, the only way it's feasible on even the smallest level, is to get the military involved and I can tell you, there's no way the military would follow those orders, if even at the singular soldier level. No way.
Consider this Dusty, there are undoubtedly more gun owners in this country than all of the men, women and children combined in any European country. Think about that for just a minute.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 08:14 PM  7 years ago
irocu88

rrApprentice

norfolk,va

MyPosts All Forum Topic
We have the right to own firearms...but you are correct, we do not have the right to use them against an oppressive Gov trying to take them away.....that we would do by choice.Caliber 90 FT os91 c-spec
Caliber 50, OS50 hyper
Caliber 30 OS37
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 08:44 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
You're wrong, the constitution does give us that right, the right is to have the weapon.
As I already pointed out, having a right to own guns is not the same as having a right to use them against your government.

You have a right to own guns. You do not have a right to use them against your government.

You have a right to do what is legal. You do not have a right to do what is illegal.

Owning guns is legal. Using them against your government is illegal.
They have never passed a law that required forfeiture of weapons. Ever...
They made automatic weapons class III weapons which require a $200 tax stamp and approval from local police chiefs. (Inherently causing a long waiting period)
So did local police chiefs approve everyone who owned automatic weapons at that time, and could they all afford the $200 tax? I would be surprised if nobody at all in the whole of the US had to forfeit any weapon, due to that law, - but I could be wrong again.
Legal vs. natural rights are different.
Are you arguing that you should have a legal right to use guns against your government, because of these ''natural rights,'' while you accept that doing so would actually be illegal, despite these natural rights?

The point others were trying to argue is that you do have an actual legal right to use guns against your government.
If the govt is oppressive, it doesnt matter what the law is, they are oppressive. Opressive govts dont abide by the laws they make.
As it stands, your government can legally assassinate US citizens without due process, in accordance with the laws it has made. While US citizens using guns to ''defend themselves'' against the government, remains illegal.

While I would not call the US government oppressive, a government which was oppressive, and decided to kill large numbers of it's citizens, could legally do so by having similar laws.

Oppressive governments do not need to act outside the laws they have made.
Let me ask you this Dusty, if you're govt starting putting you in concentration camps, and bombing your house and neighbors because there were "defectors" in the vicinity trying to overthrow their regime, what are you going to do when there is anarchy in the streets?
In that scenario, I would expect the government would resign. If they didn't, I would vote for someone different at the next election. But realistically, what do you think the chances of that happening are in either the US or the UK? We do not need to overthrow governments by force in our countries, because we can vote them out at elections.
What happened in 1921 in the UK? How come they couldnt just vote and make everything OK?
The Irish war of Independence? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Despite all the laws restricting gun ownership in the UK, pro-gun people are simply not numerous enough to have these laws overturned. If enough people wanted to own guns in the UK, we would elect politicians to de-restrict gun ownership. But it seems that the vast majority of people in the UK want to have strict gun laws.

Unlike in the US, there never really has been a culture of using guns in the UK, to anywhere near the same extent. We had a stable and long-standing government, while you were still shooting Indians. Had Sir Arthur Conan Doyle been American, I'm sure Sherlock Holmes would have carried a gun, rather than relying on Dr Watson's pistol.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 08:45 PM  7 years ago
spaceman spiff

rrKey Veteran

Tucson

MyPosts All Forum Topic
💎Sustaining Member
Kicking our govt out by force has always seemed like an extremely farfetched idea, but more recently with congressional approval rating at an all time low, all the divisive politics, chronic inability to even discuss a budget, and now an attack on the 2nd amendment/attempt to disarm... seems not so farfetched that they may actually need to be escorted out of DC in our lifetimes.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 08:47 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Point is, there are 10's of millions of us gun owners and we take that seriously.
That isn't the point you were making. The point you were making is that you have a right to use guns against your government.

The point I am making is that you do not, because doing so would be illegal.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 08:49 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Kicking our govt out by force has always seemed like an extreemly far fetched idea, but with congreessional approval rating at 18 % (an all time low, and surprisingly high IMO), all the devicive politics, and the chronic inability to even discuss a budget, and now an attack on the 2nd amendment, and an attempt to disarm...
Yet, that is the government that the US public voted for.
Still remote, but it seems not so far fetched that they may need to be escorted out of DC in our lifetimes IMHO.
Which would be accomplished by the US public voting for different politicians in the next election.

If your government did decide to ban guns, it would simply be a matter of voting for politicians who would repeal any such laws.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 08:54 PM  7 years ago
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
In that scenario, I would expect the government would resign. If they didn't, I would vote for someone different at the next election. But realistically, what do you think the chances of that happening are in either the US or the UK
This right here shows just how naive you are.

Our laws dont state that citizens cannot break into your house unless they are govt employees, or that only citizens cannot commit unjustified murder or use excessive force.

The constitution constrains the govt from acting beyond its power, so if congress passed a law that made gun ownership in fact illegal, then yes under the constitution we would have the right to retaliate.

Regardless this whole argument about it being legal to attack a government in power is ridiculous. Of course a powerful govt will not want it legal for its citizens to revolt against it.

That is the purpose of our constitution, the govt has to abide by it, not visa-versa.

I dont have time to respond to your other points, but just know that automatic weapons cost 10's of thousands of dollars, so I would not suspect their owners to just hand them over. If you can afford a weapon, you can afford a 200 dollar tax stamp. period.
If your government did decide to ban guns, it would simply be a matter of voting for politicians who would repeal any such laws.
It is illegal and treasonous to ban guns, the govt cannot do it. If they do then that makes every other amendment in the constitution vulnerable for reversal. It's a slippery slope, kind of the same situation the EU has with removing 1 country from its' group.

If one can go then they all can, thereby dissolving the power of the alliance all together.
Which would be accomplished by the US public voting for different politicians in the next election.
Not when your electorate is brain washed, bought out and marginalized. Note from history, great dictators were loved by their followers. You're obviously not a fortune teller and cannot predict the future.

We could get attacked, bombed tomorrow which would cause mass histeria, looting, rape, murder, burglery. We like to protect ourselves and be prepared. Luck favors the prepared, we are realists and recognize that humans can be evil.
Tic Toc Tic Toc
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 08:58 PM  7 years ago
TheWoodCrafter

rrKey Veteran

Costa Mesa, Ca.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
None of which has any bearing on the fact that US citizens do not have a legal right, today, to use guns against their government.
Maybe not but with a gun I can protect my family and myself the next race-riot or from looters the next earth quake.
Look what was happening after huricane Sandy.
Thanks, TheWoodCrafter
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 09:04 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
This right here shows just how naive you are.
Our laws dont state that citizens cannot break into your house unless they are govt employees, or that only citizens cannot commit unjustified murder or use excessive force.
Your laws do state that citizens using guns against your government is illegal, which is the point in question.
The constitution constrains the govt from acting beyond its power, so if congress passed a law that made gun ownership in fact illegal, then yes under the constitution we would have the right to retaliate.
The point I am making is that doing so would be illegal, regardless of what your constitution says. If something is illegal, then you have no legal right to do it.
Regardless this whole argument about it being legal to attack a government in power is ridiculous.
Yet that is exactly what is being argued here. Some folk do indeed seem to think that US citizens have a legal right to use guns against their government.
I dont have time to respond to your other points, but just know that automatic weapons cost 10's of thousands of dollars, so I would not suspect their owners to just hand them over. If you can afford a weapon, you can afford a 200 dollar tax stamp. period.
So nobody in the US had to forfeit their weapon, due to not being approved by a local police chief? A simple yes or no would answer the question.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 09:05 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Maybe not but with a gun I can protect my family and myself the next race-riot or from looters the next earth quake.
We are talking about ''defending yourself'' from your government with guns. Not from looters, or race-rioters etc.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 09:09 PM  7 years ago
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Yet that is exactly what is being argued here. Some folk do indeed seem to think that US citizens have a legal right to use guns against their government.
I dont understand what you're trying to say... what is your point?

We dont have a legal right, we have a natural right to defend ourselves. This is a moral issue, not a legal one.

If someone comes to my house and trys to attack me and through force perform theft on my property I will defend myself.

That is the difference between us Americans and you British, we fight for our rights.

"Give me liberty or give me death"

I will die for my liberty, will you?

Yes this is about both Govt and personal protection, from all threats.
Tic Toc Tic Toc
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 09:13 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I dont understand what you're trying to say... what is your point?
Perhaps you haven't read the discussion? My point is simply this:

US citizens do not have a legal right to use guns against their government.
We dont have a legal right, we have a natural right to defend ourselves. This is a moral issue, not a legal one.
No, it is a legal issue. You may be arguing a moral issue, but everyone else is arguing a legal issue.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 09:14 PM  7 years ago
fla heli boy

rrElite Veteran

cape coral, florida

MyPosts All Forum Topic

Watch at YouTube

Worthy of it's own thread...which will be up in 5 seconds.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 09:17 PM  7 years ago
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
No, it is a legal issue. You may be arguing a moral issue, but everyone else is arguing a legal issue.
No we are arguing for our natural right to defend ourselves from threats both foreign and domestic, being government or citizens.

You are the one trying to corner the argument into a legal issue when if in fact the govt trys to confiscate our property, then yes it is illegal, but at that point it doesnt matter because they are acting outside of the founding fathers document.

Legal or illegal, we will defend ourselves from tyranny and oppression. And yes if gun confiscation does happen, you can bet we will band together and protect our rights (whether the govt deems it legal or not).

This is a stupid argument and it being legal or not, doesnt matter, we are talking about oppression and tyranny. The legality of retaliation is a moot point.

Have a good day...

Would you die for your liberty?
Tic Toc Tic Toc
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 09:28 PM  7 years ago
koppter

rrApprentice

Virginia

MyPosts All Forum Topic
nowhere in the constitution is the right to retaliate. our country is built on a democratic system of checks and balances, not a military leadership that can be seized and deposed by the masses at a whim. and you don't get to decide whether a law is constitutional, that is the function of the courts. gun ownership is a constitutional fundamental right. so barring an amendment repealing the 2nd amendment, which ain't gonna happen, that right stands. but the federal government does have the right to regulate arms and determine what type of weapons will be allowed under the 2nd amendment - and it will be up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of those laws, not you.

you guys sure make a lot of noise and chest thumping -for all of your crying and whining about what is and what isn't constitutional, what you really want is dictator that aligns himself with your view of whatever is right at the moment. and not getting that, all you can do is complain.

so should the feds decides that assault weapons are barred from possession or sale, you either comply or face jail. it's just that simple.

tyranny and oppression - read history and disover what tyranny and oppression meant to people who were willing to fight against it. in your world, speed limits and the cost of postage are signs of an oppressive government. government has the right to seize property - it's in plain language in the constitution.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 09:47 PM  7 years ago
fla heli boy

rrElite Veteran

cape coral, florida

MyPosts All Forum Topic
So nobody in the US had to forfeit their weapon, due to not being approved by a local police chief? A simple yes or no would answer the question.
Look up aftermath of Katrina. Plenty of guns were illegally confiscated following the storm. And THAT was in a red state, because the Dem Governor bowed to the wishes of the Feds. One of the many reasons she was booted shortly afterwards. And one more checkmark against Bush IMO.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 09:51 PM  7 years ago
spaceman spiff

rrKey Veteran

Tucson

MyPosts All Forum Topic
💎Sustaining Member
Which would be accomplished by the US public voting for different politicians in the next election.
Yup. I would just like to point out that there have been a few "elected" govts that our own govts physically have fought against recently. Your grand fathers and both of mine fought against a few others that had turned bad... The normal checks and ballances found in most govt systems can and do fail. IMO having honest elections and arms is physical evidence that the authority of the citizens is being respected. Government meddling with votes, constitutional limits on government authority, or guns is not something we should take lightly.

Arguably our government is messing with all 3. That is cause for concern.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 18 pages [ <<    <     5      6     ( 7 )     8      9     NEXT    >> ] 10465 views POST REPLY
Home🌌Off TopicsOff Topics News & Politics › Gun Control Didn't work in Australia Why Will it Work Here
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 13  Topic Subscribe

Thursday, April 2 - 8:35 pm - Copyright © 2000-2020 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online