Taxpayer-funded gun control?? lobyists on city payrolls ?

[lcfd91]

This is from MAIG website. These are the mayors in GA that are members!!
Mayor Barry Blount of Americus Ga
Mayor Kasim Reed of ATlanta Ga
Mayor Deke Copenhaver of Augusta Ga
Mayor William F Floyd of decatur Ga
Mayor Donna Pittman of Doraville Ga
Mayor Earnsetine Pittman of East Poing Ga
Mayor James Thomas of Hinesville Ga
Mayor Robert A B Reichert of Macon Ga
Mayor Jume D Bradfield of McRae Ga
Mayor Jere Wood of Roswell Ga
Mayor Patricia Wheeler of Stone Mtn Ga
Mayor ralph Moore of Union City Ga

 

[Bulldawg165]

thats retarded, because that argument could be made from someone about carrying guns at all. i could also say people shouldnt own big dogs because of the off chance they could hurt someone. or old people shouldnt be allowed to drive. or maybe ill need to wear a helmet when outside of my house to shield myself from falling debris

Each of the scenarios you mentioned has certain government laws/regulations surrounding it. Many areas require dogs to be in a fenced in area or on a leash, old people still have to have their license renewed and pass a vision test, and I don't even know what you're talking about when it comes to falling debris....? If you're talking about random things falling from the sky due to nature then that's completely irrelevant.

what is this nanny state mentality? even with training accidents happen all the time. if you want to be protected from stupid people, dont go outside. just keep your ideas away from my rights, and my concerns are not exaggerated. dont give them an inch, the idea is to errode our rights, not take them away at once.

A serious accident cannot occur unless you are breaking at least 2 of the 4 rules of gun safety, so ensuring people are educated on these 4 rules before they purchase a gun isn't that ridiculous of a proposition.

Plenty of states that require a test to receive your license to carry have already given away the proverbial "inch" without a threat of the state taking the mile as well, so I'm still holding the POV that your fear is a bit exaggerated.

Irregardless, I'm just trying to offer my personal viewpoint on things. Most people tend to welcome that as it expands the conversation and allows for more intelligent ideas. In no way, shape or form was I trying to get into a pissing match with you about whose opinions are better, so chill out.

 

[CAMSDADDY]

Provide his e-mail and perhaps we on the ODT can have him reconsider his allegiances.

Unable to aquire a professional email yet but one is blountbarry@yahoo.com

 

[kletzenklueffer]

Irregardless, I'm just trying to offer my personal viewpoint on things. Most people tend to welcome that as it expands the conversation and allows for more intelligent ideas. In no way, shape or form was I trying to get into a pissing match with you about whose opinions are better, so chill out.

I see your point, but agree with the other guy. Gov't has demonstrated a lack of ability to control their grubby fingers when it comes to requiring training or anything like it. It'll just be a springboard for an anti-gunner to use to institute further restriction. I think it's our (citizens) job to encourage firearms safety education. Gun stores could implement some simple info at the time of purchase by including the "4 rules" with each purchase, but again, shouldn't be legally required to do so.

I figure I'm safer with Jimbob "No-it-all" Wilson flagging me with his muzzle than with the government deciding I can't have a 32 oz soda, much less an 18 round mag in my pistol, or a pistol, or a firearm, or a sharp stick.

Expecting the government to handle the lack of training is symptomatic of what has gotten us in this mess.

 

[Bulldawg165]

I see your point, but agree with the other guy. Gov't has demonstrated a lack of ability to control their grubby fingers when it comes to requiring training or anything like it. It'll just be a springboard for an anti-gunner to use to institute further restriction...

Have you read any of my posts? It sounds like you haven't...

Let me repeat this: Plenty of states ALREADY require formal training to get your license to carry. The required courses are, to the best of my knowledge, taught by the NRA or another gun club and NOT THE GOVERNMENT! Pretty hard for the government to mess something up that it's not involved in, isn't it?

Additionally, none of those states have had a landslide of anti-gun laws instituted simply because they require formal training to get your license to carry. This fear is completely unfounded and the current evidence completely supports my notion that IT WON'T TURN INTO A HUGE TIRADE OF ANTI-GUN LAWS if a formal safety class is required for first time gun buyers. Really. It won't. Irregardless of whether or not you agree with whether it should be required, please stop responding with the same 2 phrases that I have rebuked multiple times.

Perhaps a better argument (and one that troubles me) is that it could prevent somebody from getting a firearm quickly when they fear they may be in danger (i.e. a girl breaks up with her boyfriend who then begins stalking her.. She needs a means to protect herself NOW and not after a few weeks). A good remedy for this is to require it within a certain period of time after purchasing a firearm, but that's another point.

Still, the point of my post was to start a discussion, not a pissing war for people to say "get da gubment out ma life! Gubment is bad and I don' truss dem! Derrrrr" Believe it or not, not everyone associated with the government wants to come to your house and take all of your guns. I agree that we should fight for our rights and keep up with current bills that are being proposed, but let's not get carried away here. The whole "give an inch and they take a mile" routine is pretty ludicrous.

 

[FredAlert]

It's kind of interesting because when these guys are sworn in don't they all roughly promise to uphold the constitution?

 

[FredAlert]

The bit about the government being involved in training is true to a degree but yet not true at the same time. I've got permits from four states that require training (nebraska, utah, nevada, florida) and while the government technically doesn't do the training they are intimately involved in the training process and require that the curriculum AND the people teaching the courses be explicitly approved by the organization that oversees the permit process (in most cases state or county law enforcement)

Secondly alot of the states that have these these requirements have them because it took this measure to even pass the law allowing CCW at all and getting past the people that would put forward a huge tirade of anti-gun laws. Nebraska (I lived there for 15 years) was so closed to passing concealed carry legislation for more than 10 years until they finally did.

As it relates to the second amendment specifically The constitution is not a list of things that the government is allowed to do so much as it is a list of rules about what the government isn't allowed to do. The words are very specific. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

The important bit about this is that it says very clearly that the government is NOT allowed to pass any law preventing the people from both having AND CARRYING firearms. In the time that this document was written bear literally meant to have on your your person/carry. So what this means is that ANY LAW MADE TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM CARRYING THEIR FIREARMS or making it functionally impossible for them to do so is unconstitutional ..... period. You make a law that requires a training class that costs money a requirement for carrying a firearm and someone can't afford to pay then you have infringed on their RIGHT to bear arms.

Moreover, the supreme court justices that voted that this wasn't the case should be jailed for treason immediately.

Have you read any of my posts? It sounds like you haven't...

Let me repeat this: Plenty of states ALREADY require formal training to get your license to carry. The required courses are, to the best of my knowledge, taught by the NRA or another gun club and NOT THE GOVERNMENT! Pretty hard for the government to mess something up that it's not involved in, isn't it?

Additionally, none of those states have had a landslide of anti-gun laws instituted simply because they require formal training to get your license to carry. This fear is completely unfounded and the current evidence completely supports my notion that IT WON'T TURN INTO A HUGE TIRADE OF ANTI-GUN LAWS if a formal safety class is required for first time gun buyers. Really. It won't. Irregardless of whether or not you agree with whether it should be required, please stop responding with the same 2 phrases that I have rebuked multiple times.

Perhaps a better argument (and one that troubles me) is that it could prevent somebody from getting a firearm quickly when they fear they may be in danger (i.e. a girl breaks up with her boyfriend who then begins stalking her.. She needs a means to protect herself NOW and not after a few weeks). A good remedy for this is to require it within a certain period of time after purchasing a firearm, but that's another point.

Still, the point of my post was to start a discussion, not a pissing war for people to say "get da gubment out ma life! Gubment is bad and I don' truss dem! Derrrrr" Believe it or not, not everyone associated with the government wants to come to your house and take all of your guns. I agree that we should fight for our rights and keep up with current bills that are being proposed, but let's not get carried away here. The whole "give an inch and they take a mile" routine is pretty ludicrous.

 

[Bulldawg165]

As it relates to the second amendment specifically The constitution is not a list of things that the government is allowed to do so much as it is a list of rules about what the government isn't allowed to do. The words are very specific. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

The important bit about this is that it says very clearly that the government is NOT allowed to pass any law preventing the people from both having AND CARRYING firearms. In the time that this document was written bear literally meant to have on your your person/carry. So what this means is that ANY LAW MADE TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM CARRYING THEIR FIREARMS or making it functionally impossible for them to do so is unconstitutional ..... period. You make a law that requires a training class that costs money a requirement for carrying a firearm and someone can't afford to pay then you have infringed on their RIGHT to bear arms.

Moreover, the supreme court justices that voted that this wasn't the case should be jailed for treason immediately.

I'm not sure I completely agree with you. The government is allowed to place certain reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights when not doing so would allow you to infringe upon the rights of others. For example, the first amendment allows us freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean I can walk into a bank and yell "I have a gun so give me all of your money or I will murder you!" There are too many instances to name where you can say something that can get you in trouble with the law so I'm not even going to delve into more, but you get the idea.

In regards to the 2nd amendment in particular, do you also think it is unconstitutional that convicted murderers, rapists, etc are prohibited from owning firearms? Technically they are citizens too...

I think we can all agree that there are circumstances where reasonable barriers should be placed upon your constitutional rights in general and your right to bear arms in particular. The question we all disagree about is what constitutes "reasonable." Wouldn't you concur with that?

 

[chucklenut]

Each of the scenarios you mentioned has certain government laws/regulations surrounding it. Many areas require dogs to be in a fenced in area or on a leash, old people still have to have their license renewed and pass a vision test, and I don't even know what you're talking about when it comes to falling debris....? If you're talking about random things falling from the sky due to nature then that's completely irrelevant.




A serious accident cannot occur unless you are breaking at least 2 of the 4 rules of gun safety, so ensuring people are educated on these 4 rules before they purchase a gun isn't that ridiculous of a proposition.

Plenty of states that require a test to receive your license to carry have already given away the proverbial "inch" without a threat of the state taking the mile as well, so I'm still holding the POV that your fear is a bit exaggerated.

Irregardless, I'm just trying to offer my personal viewpoint on things. Most people tend to welcome that as it expands the conversation and allows for more intelligent ideas. In no way, shape or form was I trying to get into a pissing match with you about whose opinions are better, so chill out.

let me explain this again

i happen to like america because it is about individual freedoms. keep your ideas away from them. i honestly didnt even bother reading most of your post. my liberties are something i dont argue about nor compromise with

if you wanna live in a place where the communities "feelings" and insecurities affect your day to day life and rights, i suggest moving to new york city. other than that, i live in the great state of GA, and even if there were "sensible" (cause thats a fun anti-gun lobbyist word, sensible gun legislation) id still continue to do what i can do.

 

[jsquared]

Irregardless

Oh no you di'int