No ma'am, I won't register my guns

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Ding ding ding....it was all legislation AGAINST the criminals...not the innocent. Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. There was no alcohol legislation saying someone can not purchase this alcohol...there was no legislation saying no one can consume a certain alcohol or limit that consumption. They are all acts of legislation...targeting and enforcing against the criminals. Nothing there targets the innocent or takes away their rights. Thank you.

wrong. they have limits of how much people can consume in public. there are laws possibly infringing in the right of the innocent to get hammered out of their skull. It's called getting cut off. Will the guy drive drunk or cause anyone else harm? Maybe, maybe not. But the bartender has a legal obligation (he can get sued if he serves too much and something happens) to make sure it doesn't happen, even if the possibility is there that nothing will happen.

just like limiting the arsenal of the gunner buying from a private enterprise, you limit the amount of alcohol one can consume at a privately owned establishment. can one be controlled in their own home or left to their own devices? nope. but you can do what it is you CAN control and stop them from hurting themselves and others where you CAN. no one NEEDS that much booze. No one NEEDS that much guns and ammo.

common. FUCKING. sense.

there's your fucking fork. it's DONE.

Also DUI laws target the criminals and the law abiding. It can deter both. I've driven with a buzz before. I dont do it anymore because I know its stupid and risky. I was the criminal. I am not anymore, but the DUI laws are my deterrent. And if I AM driving, I am able to have two beers in the course of three hours and stay under a .08 BAC. These are regulations in place...just like magazine capacities and the like.. that deter some criminals and some law abiding folks.

you know...there is something else...
you can choose to drink a little...not much and over the level...
but you cant choose to kill ...a little...there is no such thing..

dudeman wrote:

The thing to remember here is that the aforementioned Marine swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. From his perspective, a domestic enemy, (Feinstein) is threatening a critical component of the Constitution. There is a reason it is the Second Amendment, not the 10th, 50th or whatever. In his defense, any law infringing the rights protected by the Constitution is invalid, hence the ".....shall not be infringed" part.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-907167?hpt=hp_t2

PRODUCER NOTE - usmcdiorio served as a combat correspondent in the U.S. Marine Corps. He felt compelled to respond after reading about former Marine Joshua Boston's open letter on CNN iReport to Sen. Dianne Feinstein saying that he would not register his weapons with the government even if a ban on assault weapons was passed in his state. Boston's letter gained mass attention online and he appeared on CNN to explain his position.

This iReporter said of Boston's letter: 'Marines or anyone who has served should always strive to uphold the law. He outright said that he would disobey the law if gun-control legislation passed. This could be misconstrued by readers to assume that many or all Marines share this kind of attitude towards the law, that we follow it only when it suits us. It's embarrassing because it makes it seem that all Marines think their service justifies special treatment of some sort.

'Second, his letter seemed to disregard or not address the real concerns of gun violence and the horrible recent tragedy in Newtown. This is embarrassing because he makes Marines seem insensitive and uncaring. I was devastated when I heard about Newtown and devastated when I heard of Aurora, and all he could talk about was his right to own a semi-automatic weapon.'

This iReporter believes that the semi-automatic, assault style rifles used in the Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, massacres should be banned, as should high-capacity magazines. That said, he is pessimistic that 'meaningful' gun legislation will actually get passed. 'There are so many guns that banning new sales may not make much of an impact. We would have to follow Australia's lead and enact a retroactive ban, but I don't see that happening in today's political climate.'

I also dont particularly think that having someone register a deadly weapon is exactly infringing on their 2nd amendment rights. They still get to keep their guns, its simply registering them, isnt that what the point was?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-j ... un-control

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

Alex Jones is the biggest idiot iver ever heard. As soon as he heard there were only 35 gun deaths in the UK (a country with a gun ban)last year, he shouldve have given up.

Registering, limiting magazine capacity, type of stock options.........there is a lot more on the table than just registration. Registration failed horribly in Canada; so much so that they just pulled the plug on the program after wasting around a billion dollars on it. Guess what?: no benefit to reduction in crime.

Furthermore, I don't want the government telling me what I can own or not, just like I don't want them telling women that they can"t have abortions or denying same-sex couples the right to marry. It's not for them to decide. Gun ownership is a personal choice that one makes when they realize that they should take responsibility for their own protection and the protection of their loved ones.

Giving the government the authority to make decisions regarding (and specifically) limiting your personal freedoms is a dangerous game. Personally, I don't trust the government to do the job that best serves the people without first covering their own asses. Trust the government to do right by people, be fair, just and not trample an individuals right to freedom? Ask Damien Echols how well that worked out for him.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

dudeman wrote:

The thing to remember here is that the aforementioned Marine swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. From his perspective, a domestic enemy, (Feinstein) is threatening a critical component of the Constitution. There is a reason it is the Second Amendment, not the 10th, 50th or whatever. In his defense, any law infringing the rights protected by the Constitution is invalid, hence the ".....shall not be infringed" part.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-907167?hpt=hp_t2

PRODUCER NOTE - usmcdiorio served as a combat correspondent in the U.S. Marine Corps. He felt compelled to respond after reading about former Marine Joshua Boston's open letter on CNN iReport to Sen. Dianne Feinstein saying that he would not register his weapons with the government even if a ban on assault weapons was passed in his state. Boston's letter gained mass attention online and he appeared on CNN to explain his position.

This iReporter said of Boston's letter: 'Marines or anyone who has served should always strive to uphold the law. He outright said that he would disobey the law if gun-control legislation passed. This could be misconstrued by readers to assume that many or all Marines share this kind of attitude towards the law, that we follow it only when it suits us. It's embarrassing because it makes it seem that all Marines think their service justifies special treatment of some sort.

'Second, his letter seemed to disregard or not address the real concerns of gun violence and the horrible recent tragedy in Newtown. This is embarrassing because he makes Marines seem insensitive and uncaring. I was devastated when I heard about Newtown and devastated when I heard of Aurora, and all he could talk about was his right to own a semi-automatic weapon.'

This iReporter believes that the semi-automatic, assault style rifles used in the Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, massacres should be banned, as should high-capacity magazines. That said, he is pessimistic that 'meaningful' gun legislation will actually get passed. 'There are so many guns that banning new sales may not make much of an impact. We would have to follow Australia's lead and enact a retroactive ban, but I don't see that happening in today's political climate.'

I also dont particularly think that having someone register a deadly weapon is exactly infringing on their 2nd amendment rights. They still get to keep their guns, its simply registering them, isnt that what the point was?

dudeman wrote:

I don't think drunk driving is a Constitutionally-protected right.

then I guess it's pretty stupid to compare them, don't you think?

usamamasan1 wrote:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,
 
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
 
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
 
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
 
We, the people, deserve better than you.
 
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012




WOOT

:shock: Jesus. Sounds like a megalomaniac or something. Scary that people with such attitudes are in the US military. We need more even-headed thinking than that from troops. Not to mention a respect for the law.

I don't know why anyone other than myself does or says anything.

dudeman wrote:

I don't know why anyone other than myself does or says anything.

Huh?