Right rights

[BobM]

An interesting thought provoking short read about gun rights and perspectives:

The shifting semantics of anti-gunners - GUNS Magazine

First it was “gun control” and the “National Coalition to Ban Handguns,” the latter being a group formed back in 1974 that included religious, nonprofit and —according to an online history of this movement

gunsmagazine.com

 

[Annihilator]

Nice article, thanks for posting.

 

[KillerFord1977]

Good read

 

[OkiePewPew]

Good article, thanks. While it is about anti-gun activists and terminology, those all affect our 2A rights greatly, so I'm going to move this over to Armed With Knowledge.

 

[Grifter]

Good read.

I had a discussion a couple years ago with a peer and brought up the FBI stats about rifles being the cause of death versus other “objects.” Their stunned silence ended the convo very quickly.

 

[BobM]

When it comes to 2nd Amendment Rights, or any other right, the information is clearly stated, meant and intended.

Since 2nd Amendment is a National right, there should be no national or state debate or infringement on it. But, yet there is? My thoughts are there is no actual lawful need for licensing or registration, only a desire with or for some who may not fully understand the 2nd amendment's intended purpose and attempt to thwart it?

Like the Brady Bill for example? I understand the intention and reasoning, but according to 2nd Amendment, it is not Constitutional. It is an infringement.

 

[Bassbob]

When it comes to 2nd Amendment Rights, or any other right, the information is clearly stated, meant and intended.

Since 2nd Amendment is a National right, there should be no national or state debate or infringement on it. But, yet there is? My thoughts are there is no actual lawful need for licensing or registration, only a desire with or for some who may not fully understand the 2nd amendment's intended purpose and attempt to thwart it?

Like the Brady Bill for example? I understand the intention and reasoning, but according to 2nd Amendment, it is not Constitutional. It is an infringement.

All gun laws are infringement.

 

[somorris]

Thanks for the link, BobM. Good article.

My problem has always been I am not a good "debater." It is really difficult for me to remember the good come backs when someone makes a remark that I know is wrong. I need to work on that!

 

[BobM]

Thanks for the link, BobM. Good article.

My problem has always been I am not a good "debater." It is really difficult for me to remember the good come backs when someone makes a remark that I know is wrong. I need to work on that!

Anytime. Thank you.
"My problem has always been I am not a good "debater." - I'm not usually either.
But, believing in something helps.

 

[wmg1299]

My least favorite term used by anti-gunners is "weapons of war". Virtually none of the weapons politicians seek to ban are actually used by our military in any type of warfare. I don't get much support, but I think we should refer to semi-automatic weapons as "weapons of law enforcement". I am not trying to demean police with this term, but am actually trying to support a constitutional argument.

Anti's always claim that we don't need weapons because citizens aren't expected to report for military duty with their personal weapons. If that is truly their opinion, then we should politely point out that most states have laws allowing law enforcement personnel to deputize citizens. Citizens are only deputized in emergencies, and it is unlikely that many LEO's are riding around with enough weapons to spontaneously arm a posse. Deputized citizens would almost certainly need to have their own weapons.

The majority of states also have statutes that allow for "citizen's arrests" or "shopkeeper's arrest". If citizens have the statutory ability to engage in law enforcement activities (i.e. arrests), then they should be entitled to own any weapon that police officers in their jurisdiction use during enforcement. I have never seen this argument used, but I believe that it would be a sound legal position.

 

[BobM]

My least favorite term used by anti-gunners is "weapons of war". Virtually none of the weapons politicians seek to ban are actually used by our military in any type of warfare. I don't get much support, but I think we should refer to semi-automatic weapons as "weapons of law enforcement". I am not trying to demean police with this term, but am actually trying to support a constitutional argument.

Anti's always claim that we don't need weapons because citizens aren't expected to report for military duty with their personal weapons. If that is truly their opinion, then we should politely point out that most states have laws allowing law enforcement personnel to deputize citizens. Citizens are only deputized in emergencies, and it is unlikely that many LEO's are riding around with enough weapons to spontaneously arm a posse. Deputized citizens would almost certainly need to have their own weapons.

The majority of states also have statutes that allow for "citizen's arrests" or "shopkeeper's arrest". If citizens have the statutory ability to engage in law enforcement activities (i.e. arrests), then they should be entitled to own any weapon that police officers in their jurisdiction use during enforcement. I have never seen this argument used, but I believe that it would be a sound legal position.

Yes, on "Weapons of War" baloney.

Wartime weapons can involve anything from Bic pens, common dirt to a local bricks, garden and kitchen tools. - Also words. What's next? Ban and control them all? Things, implements weapons of war or not, are usually based, classified on intent, placement and usage at time. Amazing? Cheap media glitz and spectacularization is much to blame for some peoples thought? IE: Hoodies? In my opinion, words can sometimes be the deadliest weapon encroaching on our freedoms.