Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by AJ

There is a difference here. A car is something used on the public roads, in fact, that training is specific to use in public. Use, every day. A gun is not. A gun is as private an item as a Playboy magazine if I choose for it to be. Self defense wise, if I can't get to my gun I always have a knife or 3, a rolling pin, baseball bat, and if needed a rolled up Playboy mag to beat someone senseless with.

And you know what, how many people have you seen on the roads and wondered how the hell they passed. But there they are. And drinking and driving. Cell phones and texting. Poorly prepped cars in bad weather. These are the aspects of danger. These are the items you can make a case for similar to gun control. It's the use of an item. How a person acts and makes decisions. Drinking and driving killed a family member of mine and I'm thankful no one else. But I won't want your right to drive taken away cause you are a more responsible driver any more than I want my gun rights taken away due to someone not being responsible. What I want are more options (and I mean options) for training, which there is a lot more of now, better help for mental health, and more $ to focus on the criminal aspects in our own communities.

I understand your point here. I am sorry to hear about losing a family member to a drunk driver. I lost my dad to someone whose car trailer disconnected when they used too small of a hitch ball, so I can relate the problems irresponsible drivers can cause. And I don't want everyone to lose they're right to drive because of that person.

And you are right, a car is something used on the public roads. A driver's license is a necessity for most people. Gun are not a necessity for the majority of people. The training requirement would likely deter many irresponsible gun owner from buying one in the first place. Those are the people I personally am most concerned about. The main problem that gets me fired up is guns getting into the hands of kids due to carelessness and negligence. I believe school shootings are at the heart most calls for stricter gun control. They are for me.

Originally Posted by AJ

http://www.civilresponse.net/04/2014...les-minnesota/

There are laws in place, and ways as a private party seller to protect yourself in a private sale. In your transaction, that criminal buying a gun is generally doing so from another criminal. And if not, may of purchased the gun legally years before falling on hard times and becoming someone intent on using it unlawfully. Or simply, guy broke into a house a stole it. Broke into a gun store and stole it. Was one of the many temp UPS workers who steal packages over the holidays. The thing is, regulations won't stop that. It simply tells those will ill intent that once they get away with the action of getting a gun there is less chance someone is on the other end to stop them. And don't say the cops will be there. Cause in most cases they aren't there till it's too late and you just hope you're alive to tell the story.

The law are pretty clear that a private sale, at least in Minnesota, that unless a person tells you they are a criminal, a criminal can buy a gun no problems. If someone is short on cash and needs to sell their gun they can sell it to any Joe on the street as long as there's no reason to believe the buyer is a criminal.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd...firearmsgd.pdf

Transfers Between Unlicensed Individuals: No Background Checks
In contrast to the provisions governing sales by licensed dealers, there is no provision in federal
or Minnesota law that requires background checks, record-keeping, or location restrictions for
firearms transfers between private individuals who are not FFLs, other than certain federal law
restrictions pertaining to acquiring or disposing of firearms across state lines.62
Exempted Transfers
Federal law authorizes an unlicensed individual (a non-FFL) who is not a prohibited person to
sell a firearm (handgun, rifle, or shotgun) to an unlicensed resident of his or her own state, as
well as to loan or rent a firearm to a nonresident of the state for temporary use for lawful sporting
purposes, provided that:
(1) the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is
prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal or state law;
(2) the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the laws of both states; and
(3) the transferor and transferee meet in person to make the transfer.
Since these types of firearms transfers are not regulated by either federal or Minnesota law, they
entail no legal requirements for background checks.
Federal law also provides that an unlicensed individual may sell or transfer a firearm to an FFL
in any state, but is prohibited from transferring interstate to a licensed collector any firearm other
than a curio or relic.63
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3) and (5); 922(b)(3); 27 CFR §§ 478.29; 478.30
Minnesota Penalties
It is a gross misdemeanor for any person, including a private party, to intentionally transfer a
pistol or assault weapon to another knowing that the transferee is disqualified by law from
62 However, there are limitations on the transfer of certain types of firearms (categorized as Class II), such as
machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, short-barred rifles, and firearm silencers.
63 A federal firearms collector’s license is limited in application to firearms that qualify as curios and relic. See
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(z)(2)(C); 921(a)(13).

[Halon]

I don't think it's fair to sum it all up by saying such a broad statement like "it's unregulated". There are regulations right?

A lot of good points here, I like trolling this thread. I'm not much of a debater but I agree with a lot of points here. I do agree with what Vicious said though that you cannot protect everyone from everything. You can put things in place to protect to a degree, and that line is hard to define because everyone has such different opinions. Not just on this one topic, but on just about any topic. It's a sad situation, but accidents happen and will continue to happen until the end of time. Whether it be a kid accidentally dying from a gun, or a knife, or choking on candy, or falling out of a window. I also agree that people should be held accountable for their actions, whether it be an accident or not. But hold the individuals accountable, don't infringe upon the rights of others who are being responsible.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ving-wood.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...illed-her.html

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Three...276083451.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/ny...hoke.html?_r=0

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by Halon

I don't think it's fair to sum it all up by saying such a broad statement like "it's unregulated". There are regulations right?

A lot of good points here, I like trolling this thread. I'm not much of a debater but I agree with a lot of points here. I do agree with what Vicious said though that you cannot protect everyone from everything. You can put things in place to protect to a degree, and that line is hard to define because everyone has such different opinions. Not just on this one topic, but on just about any topic. It's a sad situation, but accidents happen and will continue to happen until the end of time. Whether it be a kid accidentally dying from a gun, or a knife, or choking on candy, or falling out of a window. I also agree that people should be held accountable for their actions, whether it be an accident or not. But hold the individuals accountable, don't infringe upon the rights of others who are being responsible.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ving-wood.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...illed-her.html

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Three...276083451.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/ny...hoke.html?_r=0

Thank you.

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by Halon

I don't think it's fair to sum it all up by saying such a broad statement like "it's unregulated". There are regulations right?

Yes there are regulations, and I use unregulated when talking to Vicious as I understand his position to be there should ideally be no regulation.

Your other point not is lost on me. From my perspective, any type of regulation on firearms are much more controversial and untouchable than just about any other topic. Absolute firearm rights are seen as a personal value among many that doesn't really seem to apply to any other subject. The attitude I see goes like this. - If the government says put up a fence around the pool, people are irritated, but understand. If the government says you need a trigger lock on your guns if you have kids at home, somehow the government is violating the constitution.

[Goat Blower]

This is sad. My cousin died from this same thing when I was a kid. Accidents happen and the parents suffer unbelievably.

If any laws were broken about having the gun accessible in this new case, they should pay any said fine. Punishment beyond that? Hell no, they've suffered enough.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by Goat Blower

This is sad. My cousin died from this same thing when I was a kid. Accidents happen and the parents suffer unbelievably.

If any laws were broken about having the gun accessible in this new case, they should pay any said fine. Punishment beyond that? Hell no, they've suffered enough.

Sorry for your family, I'm sure that was hard on them.

[AwdGSX13]

How about starting at the beginning and instead of gun control someone argues birth control.. You have people everyday having children that A. Don't have the know how to properly take care of a child. B. Are on welfare and government assistance as it is, so really can they afford a child? Have you ever heard of that?

This is all ok? When you take into consideration school shootings, Sandy Hook as an example. Some point to the problem as the person being "unstable" and the parents did nothing about it. How about Bullying? this leads to school shootings, has anyone argued anything regarding punishment for this? I know it gets highlighted these days, but is it enough?


I think the argument Vicious is trying to make is instead of pointing towards the gun everytime, how about making people own up to their mistakes? Punishment or not, both the parents and the brother will never be able to live this down.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by AwdGSX13

How about starting at the beginning and instead of gun control someone argues birth control.. You have people everyday having children that A. Don't have the know how to properly take care of a child. B. Are on welfare and government assistance as it is, so really can they afford a child? Have you ever heard of that?

This is all ok? When you take into consideration school shootings, Sandy Hook as an example. Some point to the problem as the person being "unstable" and the parents did nothing about it. How about Bullying? this leads to school shootings, has anyone argued anything regarding punishment for this? I know it gets highlighted these days, but is it enough?


I think the argument Vicious is trying to make is instead of pointing towards the gun everytime, how about making people own up to their mistakes? Punishment or not, both the parents and the brother will never be able to live this down.

Don't get me started on welfare and baby factories, it won't go well. LoL

Sandy Hook is something to take a hard look at. All is not as it seemss with that.

Exactly, do we blame the car for drunk driving, more people die from that than accidental shootings. Do we blame the spoon and gallon of ice cream when somebody sits in front of the TV for 4 hours everyday eating it and gets fat and dies of a heart attack?

[AwdGSX13]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Don't get me started on welfare and baby factories, it won't go well. LoL

Haha yeah no shit...

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by AwdGSX13

I think the argument Vicious is trying to make is instead of pointing towards the gun everytime, how about making people own up to their mistakes? Punishment or not, both the parents and the brother will never be able to live this down.

The point I am trying to get at is that there is a lot of hype about guns. A large group of people own a lot of guns. In that group, there are people who own, but are not at all educated on their safety, use, or anything else for that matter. No knowledge or training is required to own or use a gun. Yet, it can be used to legally kill another person in the act of self-defense. It can also easily kill or severely injure others accidentally if handled carelessly. Had the owner of the gun in the recent shooting been trained a better way of storing the gun and had the risks drilled into him, this may not have happened.

People do need to own up to their mistakes. The model of learning to use a gun by trial and error though instead of required training is something I have a hard time with.

Originally Posted by AwdGSX13

How about starting at the beginning and instead of gun control someone argues birth control.. You have people everyday having children that A. Don't have the know how to properly take care of a child. B. Are on welfare and government assistance as it is, so really can they afford a child? Have you ever heard of that?

If we're going to mix the two subjects, oddly enough it's easier for the government to take one's children than to take their guns and there is no constitutional argument about that.

[Halon]

The right to bear arms is a "right". Having a drivers license is a privilege. Those are two very different things.

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by Halon

The right to bear arms is a "right". Having a drivers license is a privilege. Those are two very different things.

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.

It is a right, based on the foundation that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, no?

If a well regulated militia doesn't require any type of training, what does it mean to be a well regulated militia?

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

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.

It is a right, based on the foundation that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, no?

If a well regulated militia doesn't require any type of training, what does it mean to be a well regulated militia?

Here's your answer:

"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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 reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."


http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by Halon

The right to bear arms is a "right". Having a drivers license is a privilege. Those are two very different things.

+1

[tehehodi]

I still think the ad is pretty retarded

[AwdGSX13]

Originally Posted by tehehodi

I still think the ad is pretty retarded

Lol

[jeremy1375]

I understand what you are saying here. But this is the point I was trying to bring up before " that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government."

If it needs to be well regulated, just not by the national government, who is left but the state government?

You argued that the case I pulled up before was interpreted to intentionally manipulate the 2nd amendment to something they wanted it to mean, but knew it didn't mean.

In Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the first ten "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."

That case should make it pretty clear that there was no implied intention whatsoever to apply the Bill of Rights to states when it was written. A unanimous ruling is a good indication that there was no controversy in the decision. The Bill of Rights was undoubtedly written to restrict national power, not state power.

This is how militia was defined in "A Dictionary Of The English Language" published in 1756
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=fcVEAAAAcAAJ

MILITIA. f. [Latin.] The trainbands ; the standing force of a nation.

TRAINBANDS. / The militia ; the part of a community trained to martial exercise.

That was how it was defined when the constitution was written. The militia were the trainbands who were the part of the community. They were trained.

[JET]

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

I understand what you are saying here. But this is the point I was trying to bring up before " that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government."

You seem to be getting hung up on the "well regulated" portion. Please go look and see what well regulated meant at their time. The militia was made up of farm boys that were called up THEN they were trained, not before. They also used their own guns, hence the reason for the 2nd amendment to talk about both things. They were not talking about an organized militia being able to have guns, it is the people that would potentially make up that militia. Basically they wanted the people to be able to fight back if the government became oppressive.

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by JET

You seem to be getting hung up on the "well regulated" portion. Please go look and see what well regulated meant at their time. The militia was made up of farm boys that were called up THEN they were trained, not before. They also used their own guns, hence the reason for the 2nd amendment to talk about both things. They were not talking about an organized militia being able to have guns, it is the people that would potentially make up that militia. Basically they wanted the people to be able to fight back if the government became oppressive.

I've probably overstated the well regulated point a bit. Maintaining good focus on this discussion is hard. I'm trying to remain as objective and level headed as possible while being emotionally driven. Ultimately I want to end up understanding the truth of the matter whether I'm right or not. That's what's most important to me.

I do believe we are finally getting down to the heart of the matter though with the issue of whether the bill of rights were initially meant as a declaration of individual rights, trumping all other forms of government or just for restricting the federal government. All evidence I've found suggests the latter and that has big implications on the interpretation of the 2nd. This is all information I've come across while researching for posting on this thread and is all new to me, so I'm not defending a long held position here.

[1ViciousGSX]

Once again, for those of us who must be a little slow.

The Bill of Rights was written to protect the individua'ls rights, PERIOD. The fact that it does not specifically say "You too states, hands off" is irrelevent, it doesn't have to. The Bill of Rights is the supreme document that protects your rights from any form of government intrusion, federal or state, doesn't matter.