NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear so many times from everyone on the oppisite end of spectrums that whatever rights the other side has, are not rights..I enjoy my right to own a AK-47 with a 100 round helical feed clip, Im willing to bet thier has been a woman that enjoyed her right to have an abortion (for whatever reason that is) in here? Now because my gun has been grandfathered in, it was exempt from any bans. Now because this lady has a supreme court ruling upholding her right to have an abortion, she is exempt from any past rules and regulations also.

A good example is how my fellow Conservatives saying having an abortion is not a right (if you can do it, its a right)... another is liberals saying that owning a semi-auto 'assualt looking weapon' is not a right (if you can do it, its a right, especially if thier is a thing called a ban, yet you still can own them :confused: ).

No matter how narrow minded we all try to become we can never take away a right from another American by just saying that is not a right with our wishful thinking. That is just a opinion without any factual basis therefore a falsified opinion.

Let me be the first to say that If there could be a 100% effective rate then I would be all for removing every firearm on this earth, every chemical and biological and radiological weapon ever created by the technology for the sole purpose of taking lives ... But we know this will and can never happen, because we never know what one person owns (or country) without them telling what it is they own :confused: . The problem I see with the wishfull thinking of banning semi-auto's is that due to our grandfather laws, you will never get any of the ones currently on the streets and in people homes, these will continue to be on the streets and in peoples homes.

I still see it as an attempt of a vindictive fight between the two sides. The conservatives want to control whatever it is that you do with your body that they would not and the liberals want to control whatever tools you use that they would not.

Lets try to do a serious non flaming in depth discussion on how (with all the obstacles each side attempts to create) we can become happy with what we want in life.

The conservatives dont want to allow abortion, ok now they have attacked the partial birth abortion as a way to get closer to thier goal. The liberals have attacked legal gun ownership by the means of owning a semi auto (that has a military look) in order to get closer to thier goal.They have banned both (they did? :confused: ) yet you can still have an abortion and you can still own a ak-47 with a 100 round drum and any other weapon they list on the ban. So I guess what I am saying is that well by the time we are all 90 then the two may of gained some ground on restricting the freedoms of your fellow Americans, but by that time I am willing to bet we will have much more important issues at hand.

So really I am just looking for the moderate thoughts that are realistic for this discussion, not the extremist view that the mainstream America doesn't follow even though some of us wish they would be followed.

As you may have misinterpreted, I support the right to own guns. What sort of gun is in question, but I do support the right to own firearms.

I also support abortion as a side note.

In regards to the rights of gun owners, strictly following the second amendment, people do have the right to bear arms, but the federal government can limit it. Notice: not a single piece of gun-ownership legislation has been found unconstitutional.

Personally, I just don't see the need to own an AK47 with a one-hundred round clip. What are you going to do with it? Hunting certainly doesn't require it. What else is there for guns. Self-defence? Okay, but do you really need a gun that can shoot a hundred rounds a minute to defend yourself?

BTW, FF, did you ever provide a counter-argument on the debate from last night?

IA good example is how my fellow Conservatives saying having an abortion is not a right (if you can do it, its a right)... another is liberals saying that owning a semi-auto 'assualt looking weapon' is not a right (if you can do it, its a right, especially if thier is a thing called a ban, yet you still can own them :confused: ).

Just as an aside; I am allowed use these forums, but that can be taken away at any time by the administrators or moderators. Just because someone is legally allowed to do something, doesn't mean it is a right. It can be a privilege as well.

Anyhow. Sorry for dragging things off-topic.

On the gun laws, there are those who want to ban all guns - I am not one of them.

Unless you are certifiably crazy, a felon, or have some other thing that incapacitates you, any citizen should be able to own a gun if they want to. However, to say that they should not be licensed is ludicrous.

I hear all the time "guns don't kill people - people kill people" and I understand the point it is making. However, incompetent people with guns do kill people - and they don't necessarily do it on purpose. All I ask of gun laws is that they require the gun owner to prove that he/she understands how to properly use the weapon. The more powerful a gun is, the more proof that should be given.

I would support a law that gave a graded set of gun licenses. Handguns would obviously be the easiest to obtain - you would simply have to pass a test or take a gun safety class to obtain one. Assault rifles obviously would be different and separate training would be required to obtain a license that included them.

I have no problem with you wanting to own a gun. I have no problem with what type of gun you want to own (as long as it is a gun and you aren't getting into anti-air craft missile status). But I do not think that *anyone* without the proper training should own a gun. And that is all I ask.

All I ask of gun laws is that they require the gun owner to prove that he/she understands how to properly use the weapon. The more powerful a gun is, the more proof that should be given.

I'm not sure I trust every (even sane and relatively normal) person to hold an assault rifle or the like, but I do agree with the above statement. If you intend to allow someone to keep a gun, of any power, dear lord make sure they know what they are doing. >_<

As you may have misinterpreted, I support the right to own guns. What sort of gun is in question, but I do support the right to own firearms. I also support abortion as a side note. In regards to the rights of gun owners, strictly following the second amendment, people do have the right to bear arms, but the federal government can limit it. Notice: not a single piece of gun-ownership legislation has been found unconstitutional. Personally, I just don't see the need to own an AK47 with a one-hundred round clip. What are you going to do with it? Hunting certainly doesn't require it. What else is there for guns. Self-defence? Okay, but do you really need a gun that can shoot a hundred rounds a minute to defend yourself? BTW, FF, did you ever provide a counter-argument on the debate from last night?

BlarG- You and I both may of misinterpreted the Constitution, before one of us can say the other has. We are neither Constitutional scholars but there are ones that agree with both of us in our arguments in some form. So you or I saying that the other is wrong in thier interpretation doesn't hold water, as long as there is a interpretation or case study that backs up our arguments. Also not a single piece of gun legslation has been challenged by our highest court (bans). I understand you not seeing a need for me to own a 100 round mag with my AK, just as I dont see a need for anyone to have an abortion (but I know and understand that millions of Americans enjoy both of these rights, so I dont care to see what your need is). I personally collect firearms and thier optional features and have through out my entire life. Many of my arms were handed down from my grandfather (a fully auto 45 tommy G exempt through grandfathering laws (hey I actually got it from my grand dad) . Also many from my father The AK and numerous others with high cap mags. I collect as a hobby (even though most of them have been handed down to me, because its hard to afford any new ones) I collect military stlyle wepons because I have 5 generations of military or (malitia) service through out my family history, including my own honorable service to my country which I became disabled through. Not something I try to think about, because its there to remind me each day I wake up.

I use a shotgun for defense inside the home, outside of the home I just carry a small revolver. Now there are no semi-autos that shoot 100 rounds a minute or more, these are fully auto's so that is a bland statement for a untrue effect. Our debate last night m8 is a lost cause if you are going to press something that has no case law or Cosntitutional scholars backing your view. An editorial opinion is nothing more than you or I having our opinions... Now if you ever .. I mean ever find anything remotely close to being where the regulate in the 2nd Ammendment means to regulate a weapon of any kind instead of the current interpretation ("regulate the training of the malitia member") Then I would bow down to you in a heart beat. I don't care about what I want the truth to be or anyone else wants it to be, I only care about the truth.

I consider myself to be a moderate when it comes guns and abortion.

I do believe that everybody of age has the right to own some sort of firearm, however they should be registered to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them wrongly.

And on abortion: I am personally anti-abortion, however I will (reluctantly) allow it during the 1st and 2nd trimesters. I believe that a fetus is too developed to simply be aborted come 3rd trimester. I am strongly against abortion after that (including partial birth), unless the mother's life it at risk

i have to agree wtih you, faithful
each "side" has its own set of pet rights and "wrongs" and they push their agenda as best they can. as *I* see it, sooner or later we wont be allowed anything. they take turns tightening the noose around the neck of our rights.

in a country with as many guns as people, all gun control laws are a sham. im pretty sure that most advocates of gun control own their own guns and would try their best to not hand them over if they ever succeeded in passing a ban. i will never support a law that would turn millions of law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen.

i also want all my personal freedoms, i want to marry who i wish (if the want is reciprocated), when i wish, how i wish and to divorce this same person as i choose. i want control over my sex life and my reproductive life.

i dont even support the idea of zoning and forced urban renewal. property rights are basic to a free society

i guess id be a libertarian if they werent all nutz.

people who live in "free countries" may enjoy many rights that others do not, but what about drug laws same-sex marriage laws, gun laws, fcc regulations. when you tally up all of our freedoms the list only weighs a **** hair more then the list of crimes whose only victims are political polices.

Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that owning guns is not widely considered to be a fundamental right in the world.

Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that owning guns is not widely considered to be a fundamental right in the world.
a world where only soliders/police could carry guns would be a very scary place to live in. how my freedoms would we have then?

Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The way I read the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, every citizen is entitled to the same privileges or immunities regardless of thir beliefs. Or their lack of beliefs. Or their insistence that I don't have those rights.

As to anything that is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution (or whatever the local equivalent Law of the Land may be), that's fair game. I'll go after the ones that annoy me, and I don't really give a damn about how it hurts them. So I cut into the income stream of a spammer or telemarketer? Fine by me. Get another job.