"They wont take your guns" Yea right. Confiscation starts Buffalo, NY

we in NY believe requiring a permit to possess a handgun is right and fair.

 

The price we pay to be a free constitutional republic.
Criminals interviewed in prison say they mostly steal them or get them black market from friends.

 

That's not the belief of most gun owners who intend to keep their guns with no further restrictions after the next sandy hook style shooting. When the existing restrictions are proven not to stop shootings, they will continue the war on guns. It's a shame for the lawful firearm owners.

 

You clearly do not know what a strawman argument is. Failing to comprehend basic debate vocabulary is one of the more comical mistakes that anti-gun extremists make.

The comparison I made with guns and cars is apt: They are both potentially dangerous tools that can used (either purposefully or not) to facilitate death and injury. Cars are involved in approximately 3-4 times the number of deaths as guns are (excluding suicides), so it is an incongruous to believe that private sales of firearms should be regulated to the point where a handgun must be confiscated by the government instead of being bequeathed to a loved one, while cars (which are involved in many times more deaths) can be given to a loved one with no government background checks.

 

First of all, not everyone in NY believes that. Second, and more importantly, popular belief does not matter when that belief infringes on peoples' rights. If most people in NY believe that slavery should be re-initiated, do you think that would be a good idea? This is the point that you failed to address in my last post: Civil rights are far more important than popular sentiment.

 

Or I could actually be one of the good guys..... and that's even better than fabulous.

 

Guns. what guns? Oh those guns, sorry sold all mine. Nice bunch of guys too, didn't speak much English but they were here legally I guess.

 

we'll never know without a background check, and I'm not willing to take that chance.

nor would any other patriotic American who cares about their community.

 

What war on guns?

Well regulated militias as specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State.

 

still playing Constitutional contortionist?

 

Nope; I realize that there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

The Intent and Purpose is even in writing.

 

so you'd rather be a subject instead of a citizen. Hey, that's great, but I will be treated like a Citizen....

 

wanting to make sure felons and criminals don't get guns makes me a Patriotic American who loves his people.

 

so, you area cop after all.................
There is no way, short of total seizure can we even think about it, Ron. How are you going to take the guns away from everyone?
Suspend the Constitution and turn loose the dogs of war? Is that what you are calling for?
You do know that these laws you are demanding will not hinder the criminal in any way. They will always have guns......and you would see us stripped of our Rights...what a patriotic American you are.....

 

you say that, but, would you feel the same without a profit motive?

- - - Updated - - -

Only well regulated Militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

Why was I not allowed to have a gun on base in active duty military or in the national guard? I'm sure the families of the dead soldiers at Fort Hood wish their loved ones had been allowed to carry. Or are the people in your 2A militia infringed from keeping and bearing arms?

 

I am not sure what you mean. Only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Well regulated militias may keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

It does not mean they alienate or defease their rights in private property which may include Arms.

What part of a martial command structure is difficult to understand?

 

You're missing the point. When I was in active duty military and in the national guard, I was not allowed to keep and bear arms. The Constitution states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". By your twisted interpretation of the Constitution, I should have had the right to keep and bear arms when I was in the national guard, but it was not allowed. So how can you maintain that twisted interpretation of the Constitution when the rights of the military and national guard members is denied? I was never allowed to carry a gun while I was in the military. I was trained annually on the care and use of the M-16 for 10 years, but never carried one or was allowed to carry a side arm.

 

Not sure why; did you never perform guard duty anywhere? Some military specialties may not require constant practice and use of Arms. It seems to me, that you were allowed to keep and bear Arms in a (well) regulated manner for your State or the Union, not yourself.

Were you denied the acquisition and possestion of Arms for yourself as private property?

 

Sorry, but needed to correct a couple things. You don't need to be a permanent resident in order to buy a firearm in the US.

http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/faq/non-immigrant-aliens.pdf

 

FFL's conduct background checks, no registration. Private sales can conduct background checks, also with no registration.

 

Who would you think should be the holders of these guns? Police? Only army? Who since you don't think Americans should.

 

Now that the courts have stated that no police force have any obligation to protect Americans it's more important than ever to arm yourselves.

 

the handguns should be kept by the police until one of his heirs get a handgun permit, or sells the guns.