Personal protection

[samclem]

Seriously, when was the last time a gun law was passed that actually infringed on the rights of people who just legitimately want to own a firearm for sport or self protection?

There are plenty of these laws at the local level (city ordinances banning handguns or setting conditions for weapon/ammunition storage and locks that make them unusable for self defense, from a practical standpoint).

The "assault weapon" restrictions were just bad legislation, and done on a federal level. The legislation really just banned weapons that had a certain appearance, since two weapons could have identical functionality and one was banned, the other was not.

 

[Orchidflower]

I didn't say I thought that any President or the powers that be could really take away our gun rights. I just said some candidates want to abolish them. However, I want Fabio, and I don't see him calling me. Just cause you want it, doesn't make it happen.
Gosh, I've never been called delusional and paranoid before. I have been called shallow once...by a guy who had no depth whatsoever and was using every woman he met for money.

 

[ERD50]

I didn't say I thought that any President or the powers that be could really take away our gun rights. I just said some candidates want to abolish them.

Ok, but this line:

OR we can do absolutely nothing, continue as we always have and just lose our right to bear arms altogether.

and saying that gun owners better start throwing money at the NRA gave me a different impression. It gave me the impression that you thought you were in some imminent danger of losing your right to own firearms if a certain candidate got elected.

Now, had you said that you don't want to vote for someone that isn't on your wavelength on firearm ownership issues, OK.

A bit OT, but I *know* I can find an issue on *any* candidate that is important to me that I don't agree with. If I use that as a criteria, I will vote for no one. Which I may do, but that's another story.

As far as your second comment, geez, I BRACKETED it with 'joke' caveats. I guess you gun owners really *can't* take a joke can ya'

-ERD50

 

[saluki9]

A bit OT, but I *know* I can find an issue on *any* candidate that is important to me that I don't agree with. If I use that as a criteria, I will vote for no one. Which I may do, but that's another story.

As far as your second comment, geez, I BRACKETED it with 'joke' caveats. I guess you gun owners really *can't* take a joke can ya'

-ERD50

I'm with Orchidflower. Gun rights are THE first gate I use when choosing a candidate. If they fail that first test I don't bother looking at their position on any other issues.

Which of course means I have nobody to vote for this fall is the presidential election.

 

[Orchidflower]

I do feel strongly about the right to carry; however, I sit down and draw up a list of those issues I feel are important in any election, look at the positions of each candidate to the few issues I strongly believe in, and then vote for the one who comes closest to my own beliefs. That is the only way I can vote as there is NEVER any candidate who I am ever in total agreement with. NEVER...darn it. But I have to vote (it's my duty and right...and privilege), so I do it the way it works best for me.

I use strong language to make a POINT. If you are going to spout off alot of macho bravado that you would shoot someone who comes into your house like a burglar, then, baby! you had better be sure you are following the State's laws you live in and the Federal laws--unless you want to end up in the pokey, yourself. And in the State of Illinois it could easily happen if you shoot someone in your house.

I'm in Illinois now, and they really dislike gun ownership here (they discourage it to put it mildly); which, frankly, I feel tramples on MY right to protect myself in a dire situation. Heck, I never even thought of joining the NRA till I got here. The longer I am here--and the higher the crime rate rises here--the more irritated by Illinois gun laws I get. I'm outta here when my duties are done for sure.

So, yes, ERD50, a State can REAAAALLY limit your gun usage and make it very difficult for you. I see Illinois has done it. It does and can happen.

ERD50, I guess you just didn't get me, but it's cool.

Thanks, Saluki9, for understanding the importance, anyway.

 

[Milton]

Gonna be mighty hard to shoot anyone if they aren't allowed guns and their rights are taken away.

Well, that is the whole point of gun control legislation.

I agreed that this [-]thread hijack[/-] discussion should be moved to the Soapbox.

 

[Bimmerbill]

I always consider 2nd Amendment support first when choosing a candidate. I'm free as long as I can take up arms against an oppressive government.

I've been an NRA lifer for years and write my elected reps frequently griping about the newest proposed gun laws.

The majority of my guns are outlawed in the next state to the south (Mass). Most are military style semi automatic rifles (AR15, M1 carbine, M1 Garand, M14, etc) that I'd either shot in the Army or learned about there. I'd consider my rights abolished in MA, and will never live there. Heck, I try not to drive there or even visit.

 

[ERD50]

I'm with Orchidflower. Gun rights are THE first gate I use when choosing a candidate.

And that is your prerogative. That is why we each get a vote. I choose to take a broader look, but that's just me.

So, yes, ERD50, a State can REAAAALLY limit your gun usage and make it very difficult for you. I see Illinois has done it. It does and can happen.

But Orchid, you originally put this in the context of Obama and the Presidential campaign. Federal rights, not state rights. Did Obama get laws passed in IL that limited your freedoms (I honestly don't know)? If so, are you concerned that he would be able to get federal laws passed that would infringe upon your rights? I'm just trying to understand your concerns.

-ERD50

 

[mathjak107]

you should see new york city

 

[saluki9]

But Orchid, you originally put this in the context of Obama and the Presidential campaign. Federal rights, not state rights. Did Obama get laws passed in IL that limited your freedoms (I honestly don't know)?

He certainly tried hard, does that count?

It's hard in IL to infringe on our second amendment rights more than they already have.

 

[ERD50]

He certainly tried hard, does that count?

Yes, it might. If he was working hard to pass legislation you disagreed with, that is a valid concern for a person. I still see it as a giant leap to think that anyone could get the extreme restrictions that Orchid talked about through Congress.

It's hard in IL to infringe on our second amendment rights more than they already have.

Can you give examples of what you see as unreasonable restrictions in IL? Not being a gun owner myself, I'm not up on the details, so I may just be unaware of them. I don't support unreasonable restrictions on reasonable people, whether it impacts me directly or not, because... it does.

Just trying to learn. - ERD50

 

[Milton]

I'd consider my rights abolished in MA, and will never live there. Heck, I try not to drive there or even visit.

Well, at least you have the option of living in another state.

In Canada and most other countries, the gun laws are set by the feds (or equivalent) and citizens effectively don't have the ability to move to a more tolerant system.