Oh dear ... let's start with the concept of "first to make sure those rights are not given too those who do not deserve them".

Because "rights" aren't given to you by a government. The right to defend ourselves is given to us by God. Just by being human, we have the right to defend our lives, defend the lives of family and friends, to defend our property, to provide for ourselves, and to rise up against an tyrannical government or enemy forces.

Always keep in mind ... every law in this country (every single law!) is eventually enforced at the point of a gun.

The right to bear and keep arms is the only right that makes us equal to the government because it is the one right that gives us the option to say "no" when governments get out of control. Do I ever want to see it get that far? Of course not! But just like the nuclear cold war, the fact that the possibility exists is what keeps everyone in check.

What if you had to go to a government agency to register before you write a letter to the editor at the local newspaper, or before you get on TV and give an interview about the abusive VA practices you witnessed? What if you had to endure a government background check in order to practice your religion? What if you had to give a list to your local sheriff's department of everyone who ever visited your home or everyone you ever spoke to on the phone just to make sure you're not, you know, committing some kind of crime? What do you have to hide?

 

There is no simple answer to your question. Opinions on both sides of the argument can be valid when well considered.

Regarding your initial question, many people do, in fact, think that there is no place for any gun-control laws because the wording of the second amendment, "...shall not be infringed.", is pretty clear. Despite all the arguing over the decades, there really is nothing ambiguous about the language of the second amendment. There is a well-placed comma after the statement about the militia, and the statement after the comma states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The could have chosen the word eliminated, they could have chosen a lot of other words, but they chose "infringed". If something can't be infringed, it can't be mitigated in any way. A strong word in this application.

Consider, too, that the second amendment did not need to be there to grant the right of the people to be armed. The right to self-defense is considered natural law, a God-given right. This amendment was written into our constitution by a group of victorious rebels who had just successfully cast off a tyrannical government. They knew well the implication of an armed populace and, in a context that every other nation in history would have considered the most dangerous manifestation of an armed populace, considered this to not only be a tolerable reality, but the only real insurance against the government they'd just built from destroying the freedom they'd just won. That's a heavy concept. The right of the people to be armed is the only way to guarantee the other rights they hold. The right to defend oneself against those who would do them personal harm is even more fundamental still.

So, with the heavy pontificating out of the way, consider what gun control laws mean and how they function.

What scares most people on the pro-gun-rights side of the debate is that gun control laws, or any right-restricting measures for that matter, operate like a ratchet. Small restrictions are built upon each other until a convoluted net of restrictions is in place that makes it difficult to exercise the right in question, and eventually changes the public perception of what the right means. When people first learn that it used to be possible to buy fully automatic weapons delivered to your door by postal service, the idea seems completely foreign to them. If the brakes aren't put on the ratchet, your children or their children will think that semi-automatics are only something that cops or action-movie stars can have.

And, it all begs the question 'why?'. It is already illegal to rob someone or commit murder. Do we need a law that makes it worse to use a gun to do so? If your family member is killed by a machine gun-wielding criminal, is it somehow worse that if the criminal killed them with a knife or a baseball bat? An automatic fire-control may make it easier to kill a lot of people in a short period of time, but can any gun kill more people faster than a bomb? Are you willing to put up with banning all of the substances that can be made into a bomb?

So, to put this all together in a way that I think answers your question directly: many people on the pro-gun-rights / no-tolerance side of the debate realize two key points - the restrictive laws never stop growing their encroachment, and they never really achieve the ends they intend. If a background check or a waiting period presents an obstacle to someone with nefarious intent, they will find another means. The only people affected by those regulations are those who already intend to follow the rest of the laws on the books, and the net effect is that the paradigm of what is acceptable keeps shifting until small infringements evolve into sweeping restrictions over time.

Laws can't eliminate ugliness and evil from this world. They only enable the people to punish those who violate them. Once we reached the point where all significant transgressions (murder, robbery, rape etc.) could be punished, further laws only serve to keep the law makers employed and limit the rights of those who aren't a danger to their neighbors to begin with.

 

I, do agree with JillyG, but then living in NYS we really don't have much choice do we.....
Although I have to somewhat disagree with Cookie2 specially with the .."Because "rights" aren't given to you by a government"..... I suggest you try living or just going out of this country and expressing your believed "god given rights" within another country and see where it lands you..... You will find that this gov (as good or bad as it is) operating within the bounds of the Constitution allows a person many, many freedoms not allowed elsewhere.

Not casting stones nor do I want stones cast, just expressing my view as I know it to be having traveled to other countries. Also remember I live in NY and have chosen to abide by it's state laws like them or not.....

 

...Although I have to somewhat disagree with Cookie2 specially with the .."Because "rights" aren't given to you by a government"..... I suggest you try living or just going out of this country and expressing your believed "god given rights" within another country and see where it lands you..... You will find that this gov (as good or bad as it is) operating within the bounds of the Constitution allows a person many, many freedoms not allowed elsewhere....

Rights are not given to you by the government. The basic rights that are fundamental to our nation's founding are granted by God. The difference with our government was supposed to be that they recognized where those rights came from and pledged not to restrict those rights. No other government has made such a covenant with its people.

You are absolutely correct that when our government operates "within the bounds of the constitution", we are allowed "many, many freedoms not allowed elsewhere", but it is important to remember that the government does not grant us those rights, it just stays out of the way of them. Besides, the days of our government operating within the bounds of the constitution are LONG gone.

 

The most feared laws are the ones passed under the heading of "common sense". Passing new laws, while not enforcing existing laws is nothing but repression. Everytime a law is passed you lose the ability to make a choice. Being able to make a choice is one way of defining freedom. It is sad to say that the situation in our Country has deteriorated so that citizens realistically fear the governments knowledge of who is armed as opposed to the fear that a criminal might be armed. Of the tens of thousands of people who have failed to pass a background check, meaning they broke the law by trying to own a firearm, less then a handful have been prosecuted. Remember, our rights do not come from the government. Our constitution does not give us our rights, it LIMITS what the government can do. No law passed by the government has the ability to take away our rights, it only punishes us for using them. If the government was really serious about safety, about fighting crime, about keeping our streets safe, they would enforce the laws we already have. But that is not their intent.

 

If anyone thinks restrictive gun laws work, they just need to look at Chicago and Mexico. :cowboy:

 

To illustrate just how Bizzaro-land our nation has become, and prove the power of the paradigm shift, consider this:

As founded, our nation recognized the right to keep and bear arms as a God-given right that should not be infringed. As a constituent of the United States, the state of New York has any power not specifically reserved by the federal government in the constitution. Guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms is one of those few things directly in the purview of the federal government.

That's the way it's supposed to be. It's not a matter for debate or politics. It is in the simple black and white of our founding documents.

SO...when governor Cuomo signed the bill restricting magazine capacity for the citizens of NY, the justice department was supposed to stop them.

Eric Holder was supposed to sue the state of New York for enacting unconstitutional gun-control measures.

Imagine that. Can you?
The way things are supposed to work, according to the fundamental law of our nation, seem fundamentally foreign according to the current paradigm.

 

Give them an inch and they take a mile... .Read up on boiled frogs...

What do people not get about a few simple words.. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.....

 

why do we not give into their CONTROL forget the word gun , throughout history every nation has sought to restrict or deny the natural right to a defense to gain power over the subjects
in 1775 the England banned the import of rifled barrels , because it feared the range that the American rifleman would have against it's smooth bore infantry musket , England had no idea that it would even be at war with us a year later , but they feared it all the same because they wanted to control the subjects with fear and quartered often Ill behaved soldiers who where outside the law among the subjects.
the colonies had been living without such restrictions or problems of the crown for more than a hundred years at this point the rest is history and a few years later we had our founding document ratified by the 13 states

jump ahead in history , I know gun control advocates like to state how there where hundreds possibly thousands of municipalities with gun control laws in the 19th and early 20th century , if you more closely examine these laws and how they were used they were in fact very illegal and unconstitutional but those whom they were written to restrict could barely vote at the time , the majority of gun control law written in the 19th and early 20th century were set in place to keep blacks or persons of color from being armed or at least being armed in public

Dr. Martin Luther King applied for an was denied for insufficient need just months before he was assassinated
many southern blacks wouldn't have lived to tell their story had a Winchester repeating rifle not hung above their door and had in not been readily accessible to them.

in the early 1990s I worked for a company that worked on the homes of very well to do people in northern suburbs of Chicago and I learned that when Chicago implemented their hand gun ban that the very well to do would make a donation to the police department and take a some training that they would pay for and become Auxiliary officers therefore covered as police officers they could keep their guns buy more and carry them when no one else could the wealthy and politically well connected no matter which party will always find a way to be armed many of the most anti gun politicians in the country have their states MAY ISSUE only to special politically well connected people concealed carry permits and or have armed security.

so you can see that all throughout history gun control laws have been used not to prevent crime but to control

England tried very strict control of guns specifically pistols and when they failed to monitor and enforce their own Law an incident happened they then used this to confiscate all pistols and rifles and only the few large land owners or well connected wealthy people have any arms at all. this didn't stop crime or murder and they now have laws that you may not carry a knife with a point. when will it end

So when i hear a common sense gun control measure I will let you know , the best one i have heard yet is shall issue concealed carry , get as many of the good people carrying guns as possible in a safe manner , because the one thing all of the mass shooters have had in common is that they seek out unarmed victims they use the gun control measures against the law abiding , the specifically target schools and gun free zones , places that post no carry , and places where it is statistically unlikely any good guys will be present or armed.

criminals will always have arms of some type , restricting them only leaves those who follow the law in danger

I don't want to blame victims , but I will blame society , the reason we continue to have mass shootings is the lack of return fire , when it is expected that if a shot is fired 2 will be fired in return these cowards will do what they almost always do any way take their own life when met by resistance or end their sorry life before hurting anyone else because they will be assured that they will be met with resistance.


also know that "a sporting propose " is one of the most hatefully things you can say , these words were coined by Adolf Hitler to disarm Jews and Europe before he invaded them. gun control is as old as the gun but it took root under Nazi fascism they proposed "Common Sense laws" that swept through Europe as the thing to do to register arms and to only have sporting arms in the mid to lat 1930s

so you can see with such a deep and rich history in the control and enslavement of man why we are so opposed to Common sense gun control

the states with the least gun control and the most concealed carry availability have continued to prove the safest to live in ,why would we want your hell in our paradise.

 

I admit I didn't take the time to read all the replies,but need to throw this out there.The government has managed to lie to us on about every occation and people no longer trust them.There is a wave of people that are convinced the country is going down hill fast. If a person feels this way,how could you expect them to agree with the "just 1 more little law so we can track you gun" thing.We are always getting lied to! "you will never see the day when you get pulled over for not wearing a seat belt" "there's WMD's in Iraq " "Oswald did all the shooting" (even though the pro's can't do it today).There's plenty more.
another point,The second amendment wasn't written to address gun control. It was whoever written to establish a "second barrier" of security for the country to detour "enemies both foreign and domestic". It was intended to allow ALL citizens to have the ability to fight off "enemies" of our country.We lost our second amendment rights long ago and actually,it should have been considered "Treason" because is lessens the countries ability to defend it's self!
(so I have heard) during WWII a Japanese Officer was assigned to make a plan to take the USA. He reported that all of the major cities could be take within a 3 month period.But,he also reported that to take control of the entire country would take decades.When questioned about this he stated that "once you get away from the cities there is a gun behind every blade of grass". They did not invade! The detour-ant works!
Take the time to google kennasaw GA gun control and you will see that they had to lay off half the police force within a year when they passed an ordnance that all property owners had to register a weapon . It works,the bad guys didn't like the odds anymore and went to work in other places.

Our gun rights are actually part of "the right to life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness" . Individual gun ownership was never addressed in the way we think of it today because it was a foregone conclusion that everyone had a gun. That's how the got their food. It was no different than owning an ax ot saw or drill. It was a tool.There was no need to address it!
The 1920-30 are known as "the era of the gentleman". This is because people treated other people with respect. The reason they did that is because it was the introduction of the .25 and .32 "pocket guns" to the general public. You start something with someone and they could just reach into their pocket and end your reign of terror.
I got a lot more to say on this topic but this is way too long now anyway!


Wade

 

In short yes, Ill thought out laws enacted by emotion are always foolish.
Also all the people hury by wackos with guns, don't make me want to ban or restrct guns! It makes me wonder why somebody didn't have one on there hip, happens but for some reason it never makes the news? Doesn't fit into somebodies prejudice!
Dutch

 

First off it does not say that God gives you any rights in the Constitution.

Can someone explain how having a background check infringes on your rights? All it does is ensure you have not committed a felony or have been deemed crazy.

 

First off it does not say that God gives you any rights in the Constitution.

Can someone explain how having a background check infringes on your rights? All it does is ensure you have not committed a felony or have been deemed crazy.

I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says felons can't have guns... especially after they have served their time....

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

A felon is people...

Someone please define shall not infringe...

 

What, exactly, is the perceived "gun show loophole"? Seth

 

What, exactly, is the perceived "gun show loophole"? Seth

I would say that most anti-gunners would have to do some research to answer your question.

 

First off it does not say that God gives you any rights in the Constitution.

Can someone explain how having a background check infringes on your rights? All it does is ensure you have not committed a felony or have been deemed crazy.

first off , the constitution does not need to state it it is in the first paragraph of the declaration of Independence


"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"


second we have background checks , I just had one yesterday to buy a bolt action 22 rifle

but what is being proposed is not a background checks , a background check checks for past criminal activity and we have that , what is being proposed is a character examination not very different at all from those used to keep persons of color from exercising their right to vote not all that many years ago


so riddle me this - it is unacceptable to require ID to ensure that a person voting in an election for the candidate who will decide the law , the budget and goverment assistance and whom it is given to , but, you both require an ID and a background check to purchase a firearm , a clearly defined right in the constitution

should you either not require these things for purchase of a firearm or require them to vote if it is so unconstitutional for one it is so for the other

however we have accepted that in order to limit the number of persons with criminal past from easily attaining a firearm from a retailer or through the mail that persons would present ID and be subject to a background check.

perhaps this inch should have never been given , but we shall be darnd sure to keep the mile form being taken.

we are past reasonable , and the law has been unenforced hundreds of thousands of times , all faith in the federal management of such is lost

when the current laws are enforced and the agency's responsible for their enforcement stop contributing more to the problem than the solution perhaps we can meet you at the table again.

 

I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says felons can't have guns... especially after they have served their time....

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

A felon is people...

Someone please define shall not infringe...

There are so many laws that a person can commit and if found guilty, become a felon it isn't even funny!
I am 59 years old, and I am not a bad guy whatsoever, but according to the laws, I have committed more felonies than I have fingers & toes!
Nothing serious mind you, but still yet, felonies!
When I was 15 years old my father and my father had taught me to run a well machine, and that's before I had a drivers license and one Saturday we had set the machine up on a new well and had it cased out with the pipe, and that night he tossed his keys on my belly and when I looked up he asked me if I was going to drill the well or not? Then he told me I better get to bed because he wanted me gone by 5 am! I didn't sleep a wink that night but I drilled that well!
I also found out what it was like to drive without a permit!
If a cop spotted me speeding, which I did quite often, I was a gone puppy dog!
And I have done so since then also, but never in a place where I put innocent peoples lives at stake! Yet it was felonies!
If I weren't in the position to blow them away really fast, or if I was on a busy road, I'd pull over and take the ticket!
30 years ago I grew marijuana, or pot as we called it, and every single plant, regardless of the size of even a three day old seedling was a separate felony!
Can you imagine just getting one year of prison time for 200 seedlings and 9 out of 10 would die culled anyway?
How could they say that I can't buy a gun if I had been caught in any of those positions?
No one takes my guns away, period! A felon, yes I am! A convicted felon. No!
I have outran the cops when I had a gun, or guns in the car but I never shot at them to get them off of me and I'd never do so, unless they started shooting first, at which point they would probably never know who the better shot was!

Now I think that violent criminals should be kept in a cage and only let out in case of a war! Actually, I think they should be hung with a long rope, as soon as everyone is sure they are the culprit, but that's another subject altogether!

One major question that I have stems directly from the second amendment!
We all know that it gives us the rights to bear arms!
When it was written, what arms did they have at the time?
What arms did any enemy have that they didn't have! Cannons maybe, but as far as small arms, the enemy didn't have anything compared to what our police nor military has today, yet it is illegal for us to own a fully automatic rifle!
You can get a Federal permit to do so, but that is jumping through their hoops!
The 2nd doesn't speak of us having to jump through hoops, does it?
It states that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon!
This doesn't matter to me, myself! I am a long range shooter anyway, so short of an M-60, I'm personally happy, and I sure as the devil am not going to bark out .308 bullets as fast as a M-60 eats them trying to hit a few men 3/4 of a mile away the way my drill Sargent did years ago! Actually he was shooting at a broken down tracked vehicle on the next hill, but it took him half a can to walk the bullets up to it!
But where does it say that we are limited to a bolt action, which is what I like, or even a semi-automatic, which I also like, but where does it say we can't own a M-16, or fully automatic AK-47?
It seems to me that the 2nd was written so we could, if true need be, declare war on a tyrannical government!
Have they already taken that right away from us?
I will say something else! With a M-16, Ak-47, or even a .22 that will fire cleanly, a small 9 Vt. battery powered motor with a roller cam on the shaft, and the right mount will turn them into fully automatic incase the need ever arises, and need not be mounted until it is needed!
Me? I like one shot at a time! And an M-1A1 will reach way on out there and say good night!

Ranger

 

...
One major question that I have stems directly from the second amendment!
We all know that it gives us the rights to bear arms!
...
Ranger

Wrong! The second amendment outlines certain rights; it does not give us those rights.

9th amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

14th amendment, 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.

Most of the laws the Federal and State governments pass are unconstitutional. It's just that the courts have a vested power interest in letting them get away with it.

 

As to the question asked by the original poster:

How would you react to a law that lets the government come in and search your home whenever they like? As long as you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide or worry about.
By the logic within your questions, we are fostering criminals by not giving the government free range to go where ever they like, without cause or warrant, since they would likely find some criminals by these methods.

 

There were 2 stabbing deaths locally this week. Should people have to pass a background check to buy sharp objects? What about hammers, ball bats, pressure cookers? Just about anything can be used to kill another person.

Gun show loophole; transactions between private parties are not subject to background checks.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do gun control advocates not understand?????

People who should not have guns seem to be able to get them easier than the rest of us. If someone is going to commit a crime, stealing a gun won't be that much more out of line. Many of the perps in mass shootings obtained the guns they used illegally.

 

Usual responses to not enforcing all the laws, gun and otherwise, that we already have.

 

Jilly, as to who/what has the ability to give rights, although the Declaration of Independence clearly says "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" it isn't repeated in the Constitution for the simple reason it's an "understood". When you look at the wording of the 2nd amendment, the Right mentioned isn't used in a context of the government bestowing it. It's used in the context of an understood right, be it from God or the nature of man to defend himself and others, and shall not be infringed by government.

Back when I had guns (freak boating accident) not one of them was on any government list. I bought them from individuals, sometimes at gun shows but most times from friends and acquaintances. Do I trust the government to keep it's word? Got a couple hours to hear a partial list of broken promises? Even my ex-wife was better at it.

The old saying "an armed society is a polite society" is especially true when you consider the government is still somewhat polite. A brief look at world history will show you just how impolite a government can become to an unarmed citizenry.

 

This state had a 7 day cooling off waiting period for all handgun sales back in 1991. Didn't matter how many weapons you already owned, you were still subject to the short form background check and7 cool down wait period.

I purchased a pistol back then at the gun store indoor range I frequented wearing a 9mm holstered under my armpit, .38 on my ankle and a .45 derringer in my pocket but still had to wait a week to pick up my new pistol.

Thankfully now once we pass our background checks and the gun dealers run our DLs to make sure we are still qualified we can walk out with our new weapon.

 

OP - i have a question for you.

First let me tell you a story.

22 years ago, 3 days after my 18th birthday I was involved in a fist fight. There were Police nearby and I was arrested. Upon my arrest it was found that I had a small amount of Cocaine (less than 1 gram) in my pocket. I was charged with possession of a controlled substance, a felony. I ended up taking a Plea Deal and getting 3 years Probation.

That was 22 years ago. Since then I have NEVER been in trouble. I have a wife, children, own my home, enjoy gardening, camping, and my animals.

Based on your reasoning I should not be allowed to defend my wife, my home, my children, my possessions. If someone kicks in my door and wants to cause harm to my family I should have no way to protect them / myself, correct?

Is that what you are saying? I am prohibited from owning guns. I am prohibited from the ability to provide protection to my family because as a poor and dumb child I made a mistake. Is that how you feel?

We need stronger gun laws to keep people like me away from weapons, right?

I broke the law 22 years ago, I am a real menace to society, right?

tell me how these "gun laws' and 'restrictions' make any sense. tell me how they protect you from animals like me.

Real criminals do not care about laws. Look at Chicago for anxample. legal gun ownership has been highly restricted for decades, yet Chicago has a very high rate of shootings. How is that possible with such tight restrictions on firearms? It is because criminals, real criminals do not care about laws and no law passed would stop them from obtaining and using guns.

I would love to hear your side. I would like to understand how laws make us safer.

 

The so called gun show loophole refers to the fact that you can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. This is merely the law that says you can buy a gun from a private individual without a background check.

The reality is that most gun dealers at a gun show sell enough guns (I think it's 6) in a year that they have to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). If they have an FFL they have to perform a background check when they sell a gun just like they were selling from a gun store. Only a small percentage of sales at a gun show can be done without a background check and only if the seller isn't required to have an FFL.

The gun grabbers have spun this into a controversy because they want to make it illegal for one private individual to sell a gun to another private individual. In my opinion, restricting private sales of guns, directly infringes on my right to own guns by making them much harder to obtain.