DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Waffle House shooting leaves 4 dead, several wounded in Tennessee

Wouldn’t a God given right be found in the Bible?
Maybe it’s in Two Corinthians and I missed it.
‘And thou shall arm theyself to the teeth and feareth thine neighbor. So sayeth the Lord.’

No, The right to own a weapon(if you can afford or have the means to get one) is a God Given Right...its very obvious you have never read the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, or The Law of Nations by Emerich de Vattel published in 1758 which is what our Constitution was based on. Did you know George Washington had an overdue by 221 years...guess what the title of that book was...Law of Nations by Vattel

The Founders understood from the get go that the right to own a weapon was one of the God given rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Infact, there was even debate at the Constitutional Convention to even include those God given rights(the Bill of Rights) because those rights were universally understood by everyone alive back then that they were inalienable, born with, and not able to be infringed, they ended up including them anyway for future generations.

Lets be clear here, I never said you had to given everyone a gun at birth, I said a person who has the means(cash, resources, etc) has the God given right to own a gun.

I can't even believe this is even debated. As far back as the Magna Carta and King John its instilled in English Common Law that each man was responsible to arm themselves as best they could to their ability to defend the Crown at any time...came in really useful against the Vikings...The American Constitution and our court law is based and inspired heavily on common law....how is this even debateable?

You will never get the 2nd amendment changed, even 100 years from now the 2nd amendment will stand...as long as freedom reigns supreme the 2nd amendment will stand the test of time...there isn't a flies chance any amendement to change that passes...there is 12.7 + million American Hunters and gun owners that will never vote for that...there is enough restrictions on getting guns as it is...and what have they done to stop anything? Nothing...

All your plan does is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and leave them at mercy of criminals who don't follow such laws and will have weapons anyways.

Regardless of what faith you believe in, The Founders of this country stated numerous times that owning a gun is a God given right....This is stated numerous times in all their writings and letters and reflected in the Constitution.

Im telling you, they will never repel the 2nd amendment, that would end up causing an uprising the likes of what hasn't been seen since the 1860's...its not going to happen.

Besides, our government relies on us being armed too much, it gives them leeway other nations don't have in terms of where to put troops at, etc...do you really think any other nation could get by on National Defense with the amount of troops we leave at home? We have our 200+ military bases around the world, most of our active military is not in the USA...we rely on armed citzens for our national defense far more then you think....changing rhe 2nd amendment just simply isn't going to happen...

There is a reason that in Europe they don't have drunk driving like we do. Or teen alcohol deaths like we do. Children are allowed to drink wine at a very early age in some countries over there. You don't think having knowledge and use of alcohol takes away the stymie of it? thus making it less a big deal to binge drink?

the right to own a gun is NOT given by government, it is a God given RIGHT.

J/C

If the first amendment covers radio, tv, and the internet....the 4th covers electronic wiretapping and video surveillance, how again is the 2nd amendment outdated and confined to the technology of the day?

However, if he has guns, they're now destroyed. And that is guns off our streets. Which is my main goal.

It's not confined.. but just as radio, tv, and the internet have brought about new challenges, which has caused new regulations to be put in place to cover them... and since wiretapping and video surveillance have also brought about a series of new regulations to control them... why then should the 2nd amendment, with advancements in weaponry, not also be subject to revising regulations which fit the current technology?

We know.

It's not confined.. but just as radio, tv, and the internet have brought about new challenges, which has caused new regulations to be put in place to cover them... and since wiretapping and video surveillance have also brought about a series of new regulations to control them... why then should the 2nd amendment, with advancements in weaponry, not also be subject to revising regulations which fit the current technology?

And they knew how to shoot it too because daddy believed his kids should be trained with firearms and know exactly how to handle one.

When Willit's home invasion cronies are pulled over for a traffic violation, having already had a prior conviction, all of their firearms are seized and destroyed.

And the ones I've mentioned who have prior convictions and are now caught with a firearm, will now do serious jail time. Because a condition with a prior conviction is a permanent ban of gun possession.

Our jails will fill up with actual criminals and we can let the ones with marijuana convictions go. Unless they have weapons charges too

Good question. I say gun. If you do not go to jail, then technically there's no crime. Apparently that person who was assaulted did not press charges.

I see a few people who hate my plan here because it's too general. And I know it's too general, and excessive. But it's a start. So lets work with it, tweak it, refine it, and make it so it does work. Don't just shoot it down. Pun intended.

Whats funny is when pro 2a people bring up Chicago and their extreme laws, yet high amounts of shootings....all the anti 2a people say "well that's because they bring in the guns from other places"

So what they are saying is that laws don't do crap, they will get the gun from wherever they can, however they can. lol. Thanks for playing. ....

It's very difficult to stab dozens of innocent concert goers from a hotel room hundreds of feet away. Or run them over with a car from a hotel room.

It's very difficult to kill a bunch of kids inside a school with a van, or go on a knifing rampage in that school.

Your arguments are invalid.

So it's jail time not the crime, in the example the person committed the crime but not jail time. So your suggestion doesn't work it's not a start you should think things out before throwing them out to take peoples rights.

Cool. Glad you picked up on that.

You haven't been paying attention. I've never denied wanting a ban on guns. But the plan I'm talking about here is a compromise to get as many guns off the street as possible and prevent law offenders from carrying a gun.

When Willit's home invasion cronies are pulled over for a traffic violation, having already had a prior conviction, all of their firearms are seized and destroyed.

No, I haven't changed my opinion on anything. I've been tweaking my plan. It started out as an idea, and I've been tweaking and refining it. No idea is ever perfectly conceptualized upon creation.

And yes, the person who spent 30 days in jail for a DUI should have his guns seized and destroyed. I'll ignore the fact that I've never heard of anyone spending 30 days in jail for a DUI where no one was injured. Regardless, a DUI is a serious offense. And should be treated a little more seriously than you do. You want to just shrug it off like it's stealing a pack of gum. DUI's end lives. DUI's kill innocent people. Wow. Terrible example there man.

And the ones I've mentioned who have prior convictions and are now caught with a firearm, will now do serious jail time. Because a condition with a prior conviction is a permanent ban of gun possession.

Our jails will fill up with actual criminals and we can let the ones with marijuana convictions go. Unless they have weapons charges too

I'd say give them non-lethal weapons.

But again, this is only if there's a ban on guns. In my plan I'm proposing, there is no ban. Just a bunch of guns being destroyed and taken off the streets. And a lot less people allowed to carry one.

And furthermore, that person who's lost their right to carry a gun, and gets pulled over and found to have possession of one, will now do some serious jail time.

This should help cut down on those people who illegally obtain a firearm too.

Whats funny is when pro 2a people bring up Chicago and their extreme laws, yet high amounts of shootings....all the anti 2a people say "well that's because they bring in the guns from other places"

So what they are saying is that laws don't do crap, they will get the gun from wherever they can, however they can. lol. Thanks for playing. ....

So it's jail time not the crime, in the example the person committed the crime but not jail time. So your suggestion doesn't work it's not a start you should think things out before throwing them out to take peoples rights.

You can also be guilty of a crime, with no jail time. They have probation and such. The "plan" is extremely flawed.

You're the one making assumptions with this home invasion scenario. I'm answering honestly. I don't have a gun. Nothing will change that.

You never answered my question about what good a gun will do your family if it's locked in a gun safe somewhere in the house?

Are you going to have it holstered on your side 24/7 in the living room playing with your beautiful baby and wife?

And I'm going to put this in all caps so you can read it and remember it.

IN MY PLAN, GUNS GET TAKEN OFF THE STREET AND DESTROYED. SO YES, CRIMINALS CAN ALREADY OBTAIN A GUN ILLEGALLY, BUT IT BECOMES HARDER AND MORE EXPENSIVE TO DO SO WHEN MY PLAN HAS DESTROYED SO MANY OVER TIME.

Supply and demand!

What about a bomb like use in Boston marathon and Austin Texas?

Will other counties stop making weapons that could be brought in illegally? Demand and supply!

Nobody pressed charges, therefore there was no trial, therefore there was no conviction. I can't help it if no one pressed charges. There needs to be a conviction, quite obviously.

Your conclusion that I should not try because my plan isn't perfect is ridiculous. By your account, no one should ever do anything or try anything because they won't be perfect at it the first time.

I answered this above. Needs to be a trial and a conviction.

This is a problem too. Not denying that. We've been dealing with bomb threats for a long time. I would say I think it's more difficult to make a bomb, especially large scale, than it is to buy a gun and shoot somebody.

Also, to make a large scale bomb, you need supplies. And a lot of those supplies will put you on a questioning/watch list if you purchase them.

But yeah, bombs sucks. I'm not sure what to do about them. Just because they're deadly too doesn't mean that my plan for gun legislation won't work.

I answered this before as well. Sure weapons will get in, and they'll be destroyed if found during any type of seizure of if used in a crime.

I suppose one wouldn't get destroyed if it was purchased illegally, and that person who purchased it was never caught with it. But if they were never caught with it, chances are they didn't use it. Yay.

So your law doesn't work.

But you still want to take guns from honest citizens who never used them?

Anywho, point being - we have revised regulations on firearms over, and over, and over, and over on current technology of arms.

The Austin bomber made his bombs with stuff from Home Depot.