Property can belong to the city, and most of the public areas in a city does. The city is charged with using the property in the best interest of the citizens of their city. It belongs to a representative of a population of people, but it does not belong to the people.

There are no costs associated with someone owning a firearm, in comparison to the costs associated with a large assembly of people. With a large assembly you often need extra garbage and restroom services, etc. It creates a real cost to the city which justifies the requirement of a permit to recoup the costs incurred by the city for the activity. If it's not held on city property, there is no need for a permit and in most places you don't need one.


The Constitution is not an all-encompassing document. Punishment for crimes is not the scope of the constitution, that's for the Legislative and Judicial branches created by the Constitution to work out. As for revoking rights, there is no promise that a right cannot be revoked. By being a right you inherently have it until it is revoked, without needing to apply for and be granted the privilege.

 

The city only owns the land because it serves the people to allow all people to use all public lands. This is far better than each individual person owning a small piece of land. Real ownership is still with the people. The city only represents the people collectively.



There are costs associated with people owning firearms. Extra policing and the enforcement of gun laws costs money.



If they can revoke a person's right to bear arms, they can require the issuance of a permit.

 

It was a well known quote from the Japanese admiral.


Gold,
Who are you and your political party to tell me what i can and can not own? And i concur, Watch your racist tongue, a redneck would have no problem killing you were you stand. you know why? cuz the have guns.

Tis better to be an a**hole then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt. You are a major a**hole, wait scratch that lets throw some in there since you calling all us 'rednecks' you obama banging pelosi loving left wing love child.




And yet there are still criminals out there with guns so guess what, criminals don't follow laws. I refuse to let ever more restrictive gun laws make me victim when the bad guys have more firepower then me.

 

Although that's true, I don't see how that relates to the argument about whether a government has the authority to require you to get a permit.

 

With a new law comes a new approach at attaining the same freedom once again. It usually has a price tag attached to it.

I've had a permit to carry over 10 years and I'm happy to pay the fee's for it. Do I carry, not hardly at all. I have it, so that if I do have a gun with me and the shells/bullets aren't in the right location and the gun in another location, I won't get in trouble. I just show my card smile.gif.

Now onto Goldi...With your education, I would expect a higher level of approaching some of the threads the way you do. You've already stirred it up a couple weeks ago in the H and W forum.

Everyone is entilted to their own opinion without being hurtful to another person or groups of people, people have feelings, and we all need to enjoy all the freedoms we still have left...cause tomorrow it may be a little harder to attain what you have today.

 

No, the people don't own it. If you did own it, you could use it as YOU see fit. You cannot, and you can also be charged with trespassing on some city property if it's posted or fenced. The city owns it and in theory anyways the city works to ensure that the property is used in a way that is most beneficial to the citizens of the city. It's similar to being a shareholder of a company, sure you "own" part of it, but that doesn't entitle you to unrestricted use of company property.


No, there are not, at least not necessarily. There has never been extra total policing because of gun ownership. If anything it's the opposite because a citizen is more likely to assist themselves or someone in trouble if they have a gun to defend themselves and others. You know what does raise the associated cost? Hiring staff to handle permitting and registration.


No, because if a permit is required it's no longer a right. A right is given to you at birth, even if it can be revoked. Anything requiring permission is a privilege. You are drawing a conclusion that is flawed.

 

There's where your logic is flawed. You're saying a person's right to bear arms can be revoked and at the same time saying they can't be required to get a permit because then it becomes a privilege. So, if they can revoke my right to bear arms, why can't they revoke your right by refusing to issue a permit? If your right cannot be revoked, than neither can mine. You can't have it both ways.

 

Lol. Yes you can. Because a right is yours by default unless it's revoked. A privilege is not yours unless you go through the process of obtaining it. That is the difference. They are two different things, but either can be revoked.

 

Sorry this thread seems a bit disjointed. Goldie's contributions have been removed and he's been suspended.

 

well, he brought it upon himself