LaPIERRE ON MEET THE PRESS

vicvanb said:
Yes, but it's often hard to tell since when you don't want to respond to a point you're off on another tangent.

What I "believe" is that restricting sales of certain types of firearms (and component parts) is not necessarily an infringment of our second amendment rights. I "believe" this has been established as case law. You (and others) seem to think it is an infringment. It is certainly your right to believe as you do even if you are wrong. But then it always seems to somehow slide down a slippery slope so that all those who think it's not an infringment must want to ban private ownership of guns. Wrong again. Seriously wrong in my case.

Trust me, I've heard all the arguments pro and con. As I said earlier, both ends of the spectrum are similarly extreme (and similarly loud, similarly inflexible, similarly annoying, etc). As with any political issue, the extremes won't prevail in this case, in my opinion. As a gun owner, a hunter, a collector, and a target shooter, I'd like fellow gun owners to examine the issues carefully and constructively contribute to the debate rather than just yell, scream and obstruct. And I "believe" we can do this without infringing on our second amendment rights.
Click to expand...

How about the target shooters of High Power? Are you infringing on their rights? Home defense? Their rights? I won't even go into the arena of the real purpose of the 2nd. Yes, as a hunter and BR shooter your rights may not be disturbed greatly by a simple "assault weapon" ban. How about everyone besides yourself? Given any thought to them? Or is everyone besides yourself considered irrelevant? I'm not screaming, I'm asking because I do not understand your mindset.
 
vicvanb said:
Yes, but it's often hard to tell since when you don't want to respond to a point you're off on another tangent.

What I "believe" is that restricting sales of certain types of firearms (and component parts) is not necessarily an infringment of our second amendment rights. I "believe" this has been established as case law. You (and others) seem to think it is an infringment. It is certainly your right to believe as you do even if you are wrong. But then it always seems to somehow slide down a slippery slope so that all those who think it's not an infringment must want to ban private ownership of guns. Wrong again. Seriously wrong in my case.

Trust me, I've heard all the arguments pro and con. As I said earlier, both ends of the spectrum are similarly extreme (and similarly loud, similarly inflexible, similarly annoying, etc). As with any political issue, the extremes won't prevail in this case, in my opinion. As a gun owner, a hunter, a collector, and a target shooter, I'd like fellow gun owners to examine the issues carefully and constructively contribute to the debate rather than just yell, scream and obstruct. And I "believe" we can do this without infringing on our second amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clearly stating your position, thereby clarifying that you have no idea what the word 'infringed' means. Also, unlike me, you don't hare off on "irrelevant tangents." You're a black and white type a' guy....I know lots of you. The world is simple for you, you have one lens and you use it.

You have described yourself and your position perfectly by stating that the guns YOU like won't really be affected, therefore "you're not being infringed." It's hard for me to argue with such a bigoted stance since I simply don't think selfishly. This isn't about ME nor my preferences, a whole lot of this stuff doesn't pertain to ME nor to my lifestyle...... I have no need of hi-cap mags, never owned one, but TO ME that's irrelevant.

BTW, use of words like "carefully" and "constructively" don't actually enhance your argument, they just make you sound like you're trying to be "mature."

Ain't really working, you're still an obama apologist.

:)

al
 
alinwa said:
Thank you for clearly stating your position, thereby clarifying that you have no idea what the word 'infringed' means.

You have described yourself and your position perfectly by stating that the guns YOU like won't really be affected, therefore "you're not being infringed."
Click to expand...

Finally! Now I understand. You want to go way, way beyond what the second amendment says in reference to "infringed."

You know, I too am really angry that my freedoms have been "infringed" in so many ways by living in the USA. To take just one topic--I'd like to drink a beer while driving. Just one beer, way below the legal breath analyzer minimum. I'd like to drive 80mph from time to time. My reflexes are good and my vehicle can safely do 80. I really don't want to pay vehicle registration fees or have to pass an eye test to renew my license. My eyesight is 20/20. And most of all, I hate those &%$#* seat belts! But, there are DUI/open container laws, speed limits, seat belt laws, etc. that I obey. My freedom is "infringed" by these laws but as a member of society I obey them. And yes, I know automobiles are not mentioned in the constitution. But you are talking about a general definition of "infringment" and the analogy is valid.

So if there is some "infringment" of freedoms that result from restricting certain firearms (like fully automatic weapons, howitzers, etc) that does not infringe on our right to bear arms (the type of infringment I am talking about) I guess that's the price we pay for living in society.

You continue to assume things about me that you have no knowledge of--how could you possibly know which firearms I like and collect and which ones I don't? Simple answer--you don't.

BTW, as a conservative, I guess I knew that Ronald Reagan supported the 1994 assault rifle ban, but my memory was refreshed by recently seeing the letter he co-signed. It gives me hope that conservatives in Congress will be a little less extreme.
 
Vicvanb you really don't get it, I don't own one of these high capacity rifles I have no use for one. But if I did want one I have a NEW YORK pistol permit, that should allow me to have anything that is out there even a HOWITZER if I had a place to shoot it or afford the amo but I don't. Why can the Presidents bodyguards have fully auto guns on them and I can't. there is nothing in the law that says they can have them, we gave them that right, now they want to take ours from us! Sorry I won't give mine up.

Joe Salt
 
The democrats have been wanting our guns since John Kennedy, any excuse will do!! It's not about lives it's about control...if it was about lives they would have repealed abortion years ago!! The NRA is one of the few advocates that are working to save our liberty...if you are not a member you ought to be ashamed of yourself as a gun owner. These communist are already taking 60% of our income in taxes...if they take the guns away they will take the last 40% and our blood.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vicvanb said:
You know, I too am really angry that my freedoms have been "infringed" in so many ways by living in the USA. To take just one topic--I'd like to drink a beer while driving. Just one beer, way below the legal breath analyzer minimum. I'd like to drive 80mph from time to time. My reflexes are good and my vehicle can safely do 80. I really don't want to pay vehicle registration fees or have to pass an eye test to renew my license. My eyesight is 20/20. And most of all, I hate those &%$#* seat belts! But, there are DUI/open container laws, speed limits, seat belt laws, etc. that I obey. My freedom is "infringed" by these laws but as a member of society I obey them. And yes, I know automobiles are not mentioned in the constitution. But you are talking about a general definition of "infringment" and the analogy is valid.
Click to expand...

YAYYY!!!!! :) :) :)

You finally made my point, much more eloquently than I could!

YES, your analogy is valid, YES we disagree, a LOT!!

You say above My freedom is "infringed" by these laws but as a member of society I obey them.
 
Now here's the kicker vic......... gun ownership IS included in the Constitution.

IS IS IS included........ get it?

It IS included because it's a lot more important than rules for cars.

We disagree, strongly :)

al
 
And not only that, we disagree VISCERALLY. We think differently.

-I think that seatbelts save lives, I'm not against the laws requiring them.
-I think that drunk drivers take lives, I'm not against laws concerning them.
-I can't believe ANYONE would balk at eye/hearing exams for drivers..... but you do!
-I think speed limits are rational, AND they save lives.


And here's where we part ways, I DO NOT BELIEVE that "gun free zones" and mag restrictions and "assault weapons bans" and all the other restrictions liberals want will save lives. I DO NOT AGREE WITH Piers Morgan's analysis of crime rates UK vs US.

And you do.

We disagree, strongly :)

al
 
You guys are wasting your time trying to understand a liberal democrat (vicvanb) he would give ALL his rights up if Obama said it was the right thing to do! To be a democrat (communist) you must be able to give-up everything for the cause...most of the minds on this forum don't think that way. How could a gun owner be a democrat....they're better suited as followers not leaders?
 
" So if there is some "infringment" of freedoms that result from restricting certain firearms (like fully automatic weapons, howitzers, etc) that does not infringe on our right to bear arms (the type of infringment I am talking about) I guess that's the price we pay for living in society"
Interesting,
Infringement of our rights is acceptable even though the stats show it would make no difference in public safety? This is not the "price we pay for living in society" rather it's the result of a political class that fears an armed citizenry, our founders wanted government to fear the people. I'm guessing you dont own a so called "assault weapon" so what if they get their way on this, will they stop there? Doubtful, the next target they fear might be handguns, will it be acceptable infringement then? What about when they decide that YOUR hunting rifle fits their definition of a "sniper rifle" will it be acceptable infringment then? Gun owners MUST stick together on this, NO level of infringement is acceptable, we who are law abiding can be trusted with ANY weapon system, including a "howitzer" criminals on the other hand cannot be trusted with a sharp rock, we must never submit to being treated like criminals!
Gary Eliseo
 
The 1934 case of US v Miller was decided because "no evidence has been presented to indicate that a short barreled shotgun has any use to the Militia". Well Duhh! - No evidence was presented, because no defense team was present. Why? Because by the time it got to SCOTUS, Miller was dead. And there was no requirement that a defense had to be mounted. The result was that the NFA was not over thrown and the unconstitutional end round around sack of crap that it is. Did anyone notice that Obamacare was also allowed to pass through SCOTUS because it was a TAX.

The NFA was in 1934, and was unconstitutional.
The GCA was in 1968, based in a large part on the success of the NFA not being successfully challenged. (Slippery slope evidence - rock solid)
All other gun control laws since have been based upon these two in one way or another. An unconstitutional foundation does not get any more legitimate later.

So we've established clear infringement - which should be enough. But wait that's not all. There's dereliction of duty at play as well. The US Constitution leaves the DUTY of maintaining the "militia" to the States - and "the militia" is NOT the National Guard. It is every able bodied person between the ages of 16 and (the upper limit varies a bit) no longer able bodied. Used to be able bodied males - but females have equal rights now - and with equal rights come equal responsibilities.

So the biggest part of the answer is to require that .Gov live up to what was required of them.

Starting with educating each and every person that will ever become "part of the militia" (IE: each and every would be citizen) in the proper use and safe practices of handling and using firearms.

This will require that there be guns on each and every school campus.
This will also require that there be well trained people there to teach these subjects.
This will also provide the "good guy with a gun" needed to avert and deter any further attempts such as Columbine or Sandy Hook.

AND it will be in keeping with the US Constitution.
 
One distinction
Right to bear arms...is a RIGHT

Drivers license ........is a PRIVELEGE...big difference here.
 
Pretty sure I understand vicanvb's position - maybe not. I also understand my wife Judy's position - it's basically the same as vic's. I'm not going to put words to vic's position as others have done but I will concerning Judy's position. Judy is weakened by those kids getting shot up. If we went to the poles today our votes would cancel. Anyone that has been weakened to the point of modifying their position concerning our rights is not thinking straight at the moment. That to say this...

Any fight won, to maintain any freedom as is, will encompass/include that won by compromise. Any compromise, and freedom is lost.

Don't give even a millimeter as it will turn into a mile before you can say "Jack Robinson".
 
Wilbur tell Judy the Dem's don't care about those kids, they let women kill thousands every day through ABORTION! Besides all there kids are protected by guns.

Joe Salt
 
These are sad times for "US" all. The death of these children should affect all American's, I am personally heart broken that this has happened. I feel a loss almost like it was personal, and I didn't know anyone there. It will take a very long time ( decades I am sure) for many people to get some breathing room over this.

At times like this emotions run high, that is understandable, but we as a People must not lose our bearings here. There are no grey areas in this fight, and it is going to be a fight thats for sure. It is simple Black and White, Right or Wrong. Either we are a free people with certain rights or we are not. Those folks willing to GIVE some of those rights away are just wrong------In My Opinion, it is after all the only one I am qualified to speak too.

For me this is a simple thing, I can grieve for this horrible loss and still be willing to fight ( if necessary) to keep the rights I have. I personally do not and "WILL NOT" understand any other position.

Vicvanb, I do not know you sir, and from your writings do not care to. It has been my experiance that when anyone has to explain something as simple as our rights under the Constitution to anyone it is a waste of breath. If it has to be explained you wouldn't understand it anyway, it is simple just beyond your understanding what some of these men are saying.

You are certainly, and should be, given the right under that same Constitution to express that opinion. Maybe the way you think we should change that as well. One other point in a previous post you asked Alinwa the following question: "BTW, which militia do you belong to?" This is a perfect explanation of not understanding.

You don't belong to a Militia, you "ARE" the Militia.

Roland
 
Joe Salt said:
Wilbur tell Judy the Dem's don't care about those kids, they let women kill thousands every day through ABORTION! Besides all there kids are protected by guns.

Joe Salt
Click to expand...

Sadly, from where I sit, Judy is like the rest of us. You ain't gonna tell Judy nothin'! Her mind is made and that's that.

That Judy is wrong is inconsequential. Again, if we voted today our votes would cancel. All she sees is those kids getting shot and she ain't even looking elsewhere. I know for sure (as sure as I can be) she didn't vote for Obama and that magnifies the gravity somewhat.
 
Roland, thank you for your correction :)

from above

You don't belong to a Militia, you "ARE" the Militia.
Click to expand...

I was answering vic, I used "militia" in the sense that he meant it. This was a mistake on my part, an attempt at portraying an individual idea to an individual entity on a public forum.

My bad, THANK YOU for your clarification.

Semper Fi

al
 
OK, I know this is kinda' glurgie........ kinda' 80's sentimental....... but I'm proud to be a part of this thread. :)

Some of you guys (the ones I agree with LOL :) ) have really put it down in words.

And some that I don't agree with have ALSO said what you really believe.

This is important.

Good On Ya's All

al
 
I am also proud to be part of this thread. We have all had the time to reflect on these issues we all realize these these are big issues.

I guess I am somewhat in the same camp as Judy and my own wife, Kay. I would not miss the military type of "assault weapons" (I truly wish that they were not out in the public) but I don't want this President or this Vice President or anyone trying to add additional restrictions on us law abiding gun owners. I would not want to see these clowns spiking the ball on the top of the NRA and us gun owners.

Note: I have just paid my NRA dues for another year.
 
Please don't take me wrong, I have two grand children that I love very much, and I can't imagine something horrible like that ever happening to them. But when our government will pay for abortions, that to me is sick! And for so called assault weapons, you know as well as I do the gun makers will just build something that look different that fires the same way! Its the people that are making the laws, that don't have a clue about guns. Just like California outlawed the 50 cal. So barret built the 416 it will never end, that's why they want them all.

Joe Salt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top