In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Hey guy. Thanks for the kind words. I still might not be back entirely. I still have to high of an intolerance for certain people in these rooms. But I think if I can stay out of the politics room I "might" be ok.
This guy just hit a nerve I could not ignore. Again, thanks for the encouragement.
Aside from all the personal attacks and name calling. What he said is the reality of our world. Right or wrong, like it or not. The laws have been allowed to stand for along time and they can only be changed in two ways.
1. Judicial review.
2. Legislative action.
Unless, as I ask before, you are willing to start shooting.[;)]
We need people/voters and ALOT of money to accomplish this.
And if you want to start a shooting war you will need even more of the same.
By the way I have been under the gun from full auto fire both in RVN and CS, and I am damn glad there is a restriction on full auto weapons. Not everyone is as responsible as those on this site![xx(]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Aside from all the personal attacks and name calling. What he said is the reality of our world. Right or wrong, like it or not. The laws have been allowed to stand for along time and they can only be changed in two ways.
1. Judicial review.
2. Legislative action.
Unless, as I ask before, you are willing to start shooting.[;)]
We need people/voters and ALOT of money to accomplish this.
And if you want to start a shooting war you will need even more of the same.
By the way I have been under the gun from full auto fire both in RVN and CS, and I am damn glad there is a restriction on full auto weapons. Not everyone is as responsible as those on this site![xx(]
Except for one thing, Jim: full auto restrictions don't keep crooks from obtaining full auto capabilities. I think a criminal would have an easier time getting a full auto than an honest citizen. I can't even get one here in NY even though I am granted a concealed carry permit (yes, you have to "get permission" and it rankles the spirit) and passed all the background checks associated with NY laws. If NY thinks it's OK for me to carry a concealed ahndgun, why can't I have full auto? Am I all of the sudden going to change long-standing standards of personal conduct?
Some stuff just doesn't make sense, and here in the PRNY gun laws are about top of that list...........
quote:I am damn glad there is a restriction on full auto weapons. Not everyone is as responsible as those on this site!
Providing unrestricted access for our citizens, to "military equivalent" personal arms is the absolute basis of Amendment II's intent.
"Shall not be infringed".
Seems a simple concept to me.
"Bad acts" are to be punished. Arms are not to be restricted.
Well, at least not under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but we have already established, here in America, that the Constitution is largely irrelevant to the government and to most of our citizens.
Jeff,
The restriction passed into Law in 1934 was necessary at the time. If it is not necessary now then work to repeal it. I personaly think it is necessary. I do not agree with the states totaly out lawing them. I have several friends with several FA weapons. Many of the states, and local juristictions have violated our rights to a much greater degree than the feds. Now if these were violations of any of our 'other' of our 'civil right' the fed would intervine on our behalf. But they don't. This one of the thinks that really pi$$ me off in this fight![V]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Jeff,
The restriction passed into Law in 1934 was necessary at the time. If it is not necessary now then work to repeal it. I personaly think it is necessary. I do not agree with the states totaly out lawing them. I have several friends with several FA weapons. Many of the states, and local juristictions have violated our rights to a much greater degree than the feds. Now if these were violations of any of our 'other' of our 'civil right' the fed would intervine on our behalf. But they don't. This one of the thinks that really pi$$ me off in this fight![V]
No Jim, it wasn't necessary then and it isn't necessary now.
We simply had a number of criminal individuals, some banded together as gangs, who were committing heinous criminal acts while using full-auto firearms in some cases. Citizens were not running amok slaughtering one another, even though full-auto's were available to them.
Criminal individuals and gangs STILL commit heinous criminal acts while using firearms, even though many are restricted, or declared illegal. Full-auto firearms are STILL available to those who choose to obtain them "off the books" or illegally.
Responsible citizens are simply restricted in their ability to own, possess, or use full-auto firearms, contrary to the simple and clear language of Amendment II.
That is the 'reality' that you speak of Jim.
All that occurred was one of the first Amendment II violations by government, a government who used a method strangely reminiscent of the Hegalian Dialectic's "Triad of the Created Crisis".
This is a classic case of failing to focus on "bad acts" and rather focusing, due to an agenda, on firearms. There is a distinct reason for the focus on firearms by the government and collectivist-minded people.
The Triad...Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.
Step #1, Thesis....either create, or capitalize on an existing "crisis".
Step #2, Antithesis....whip the populace up with either anger or fear of the "crisis".
Step #3, Synthesis....step in and offer a "solution" to "fix" the "crisis", while taking additional government power, or restricting further on individual liberty, all willingly accepted, or demanded, by the people because of "the crisis".
rk,
No 'written' law, statute, regulation will ever 'keep' any criminal from doing anything or obtaining anything they want. The laws make it harder for them to accomplish their goals and give us the authority to take action when they do.
So I guess you think we need to just do away with them, correct. The statutes give those in authority, like Jeff and I and many others in LE, to take actions when there is a violation. Many of these law need to be taken off the books. Many need to be ammended, but LAWS (restrictions on people and their behavior) ARE NEED TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN A VERY ORDERLESS WORLD.
This is REALITY.[:)]
We will have to agree to disagree on the Laws restricting FA weapons.[;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
rk,
No 'written' law, statute, regulation will ever 'keep' any criminal from doing anything or obtaining anything they want. The laws make it harder for them to accomplish their goals and give us the authority to take action when they do.
So I guess you think we need to just do away with them, correct. The statutes give those in authority, like Jeff and I and many others in LE, to take actions when there is a violation. Many of these law need to be taken off the books. Many need to be ammended, but LAWS (restrictions on people and their behavior) ARE NEED TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN A VERY ORDERLESS WORLD.
This is REALITY.[:)]
We will have to agree to disagree on the Laws restricting FA weapons.[;)]
I understand how laws are needed, but most of these laws are mis-directed. How does keeping me from having FA facilitate law and order? Seems to me there should be more effort into criminal control. Since they can get them anyway, how are the laws having a positive impact for LE? I can see making stiffer penalties for using any firearm in the commission of a crime, but restricting honest citizens access to weapons while the criminals access is not impeded isn't helping anyone, LEO's or civilian.
Does the current Fed law keep you from owning a FA weapon? Why?[?]
I am sorry, (on edit) I just realized you said the state law keeps you from owning the FAW. This is wrong and the FEDS SHOULD have put a stop to this![:(!]
No offense guys,........BUT the only folks that will commit crimes, and "slaughters" with FA firearms, are criminal elements that don't worry about laws in the first place.
They buy them out of someone's trunk, plain and simple.
The only ones inconvenienced, and stripped of rights, as per usual, are honest, law-abiding citizens.
I don't personally give a hoot about "machine guns", as I prefer one well placed shot, over "spray, and pray",........but that isn't the point.
Our wonderful politicians, in an effort to avoid admitting that they cannot control crime efficiently, get behind these inane laws so that the "sheeple" populace can "feel good", and think they are being protected.
I could have 10 FA firearms, and it makes me no more of a danger to an innocent person than I am right now.
Reason being,.........I am a law abiding citizen.
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
quote:Originally posted by Duckster
You squirrels won't fight to any death. Big-talkers like you guys are always the first to fold and run. It's always been that way and always will be. It's easy to talk trash when you know that you're never going to have the chance to put up, but even if your fantasies did come true and a civil war broke out, the first bullet that cracks overhead will send every wanna-be warrior and faux patriot on this thread scampering off leaving a trail of poop behind.
I know real warriors. Ain't any (besides me) posting to this thread, let me tell ya. So you fat-bodied non-hackers can sit here and circle-jerk each other about how bad-assed you are. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain to you just how little you actually know about our founders, the Constitution, and how our government works. You can't fix stupid so I don't try.
Too broad-brush. (Item in red). I generally let the palaver ebb and flow, and just sit back and absorb. It's educating, and amusing too.
Just thought I'd jump in. Make my presence known. There's a lot of folks like me hiding in the wings. Make no mistake about that. Best, Joe
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Marc,
Then don't have a problem with the dealer of the FAW verifing that fact?[;)]
I have the same problem with that, as I do now going through NICS checks for anything, and everything.
I also feel the same way about having to spend hours of my time to get my CCW permit, and having to renew it with more fees.
The second amendment is clear, as is the rest of the Constitution.
Nothing in that, nor the BOR, that I have read concerning governance, nor "jumping through hoops" to have what was already there.
I DO see thousands of laws concerning improper use of firearms in crimes,.......including murder. There are already penalties by law for those that break them.
I say enforce the laws against the criminal element, and leave honest,..........and FREE law abiding citizens be.
Criminals belong in prison, or to have a swift execution,......problem gone.
How do you "verify" the criminal that buys one out of a trunk, as I initially mentioned?
Only an "honest" citizen will be "verified" by the authorities,........criminals have already lost their legal rights.
That includes the majority of our worries, such as illegal MS-13 gang members from the barbaric invasion of our country.
I guess I simply see things differently than you do. I once was part of the "I don't have anything to hide" gang, but I have grown tired of kissing butts over the years.
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
Yes, I do not agree we should have to go through this crap to buy a gun, unless it is the FAW or the like. Then I would support this.
The FAW's and other crew served types could and should be look at as WMD of the indididual type. I do think the governmnet as went to far in their efforts to keep 'bad' guys from lawfully purchasing guns. The DV clause really upsets me.[:(!]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Yes, I do not agree we should have to go through this crap to buy a gun, unless it is the FAW or the like. Then I would support this.
The FAW's and other crew served types could and should be look at as WMD of the indididual type.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Yes, I do not agree we should have to go through this crap to buy a gun, unless it is the FAW or the like. Then I would support this.
The FAW's and other crew served types could and should be look at as WMD of the indididual type. I do think the governmnet as went to far in their efforts to keep 'bad' guys from lawfully purchasing guns. The DV clause really upsets me.[:(!]
I must respectfully disagree with you on the above.
NOTHING in the Constitution about "crew served" weapons,......and BTW, I don't consider a FAW a "crew served weapon." I am not getting into details such as the M-16 as compared to a SAW, but I hope you understand my thoughts in the context of this discussion.
Wonder how many loaded the old brown bess while the shooters were firing? Was that an 18th. century "crew served weapon?"
There is a lot about having the ability, and the RIGHT, to eliminate a corrupt, and tyrannical government though.
I always thought that was what founded this once great nation.
I call a FAW, a machine gun,......they are of no value to me, as I am a good enough shot to drop an adversary at quite a range, without needing to spray 500 rounds.
Now if I am into horticulture, and want to "till" my garden,......then I might have a use, but it would be quite expensive with ammo prices the way they are.
I prefer to use the proper tool for the job.[;)]
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
Marc, you're not qualified to handle FAW just as you're not qualified to have an opinion on laws regarding FAWs and "crew operated" weapons. This is why we have Jim Raus of the world.
Thank you Marc, for RESPECTFULY disagreeing. The 2nd does not say anything about this class of weapons, how could it, they were not even imagined then!!! We have to deal with any 'new' classes of weapons as they are developed.
Because I have seen, first hand, what this class of weapon can and does do in the wrong hands I am compelled to try and see, with a minimal 'restriction' to our 'rights', us take some minor precautions to keep those who are known criminals from LAWFULLY buying them. The system we currently use to check ALL of us would be fine for this class of weapon. I DO NOT support either system currently in place requiring the check for 'common' firearms, nor the background check and tax stamp for the FAW.[V]
I think what is being said by Marc and maybe a couple of others is that the checks your talking about are ineffective. We have checks on everything today. Not just "FAW" weapons. And criminals still have no trouble getting them. Would there really be ANY difference if we limited our checks only to "FAW" purchases? The good guys would continue to be checked and the bad guys will not. Yet they will still be able to get their weapons. Just as they can now. No difference. No Change.
I think that "IF" any checks should be made, then it should be to find out whether or not your a U.S. Citizen. If your not, or at least a permanent resident, then you don't get our right to own a weapon. Just something I thought of.
As for what firearms were around at the time of the founding and the writing of the 2nd. That is irrelevent. By that reasoning, no firarm would be covered by the second because the founders never invisioned their existence. The 2nd covers all personal weapons. Be they a .22 or a Barrett .50 to a new SAW or M-60. I have know people who own cannons. And they fire them on occasion. Covered in the 2nd? Who knows. But I don't think he will be robbing any liquer stores with it. My point is, whether it fires at a rate of 10 shots per minutes or 500. Whether it muzzle loaded, magazine fed or belt fed. It's covered by the 2nd. Or should be as the founders intended.
Because I have seen, first hand, what this class of weapon can and does do in the wrong hands I am compelled to try and see, with a minimal 'restriction' to our 'rights', us take some minor precautions to keep those who are known criminals from LAWFULLY buying them.
Jim,
With all due respect, it is not a question of what a particular class of weapon(s) can do. The ensuing destruction wrought through the use of any weapon, be it a slingshot or a nuclear device, is first conceived in the mind of the user, not the weapon. Said destruction can be for good, or for evil, but is dependent upon the midset of the individual utilizing the weapon. Attempting to restrict a weapon due to it's perceived "potential lethality" is an exercise in futility.
Example:
M16A2 vs. Remington 700, both chambered for the 5.56x45. Given the same amount of ammuntion for each, equal results can be produced. Now, the individual using the M16 will accomplish those results at a much faster rate, but that in no way proves the point that an individual using a M16A2 is "more deadly" than another individual using the Remington 700. In fact, I believe the opposite is true.
Any individual wishing to do evil will exhaust all efforts possible to accomplish that goal. If that person does not have access to an M16, he may use shotgun. If not a shotgun, he may use a pistol. If not a pistol, he may use a machete. If not a machete, he may use a knife. If not a knife, he may use a ball-point pen. The weapon may change, but the evil doesn't, and neither do the results.
If we were to use the "class" of weapon argument, wouldn't it be logical to believe that a citizen has the right to confront his/her assilant with the same amount of force possessed by the assailant? I believe most would say, "Yes". With that being the case, why should a citizen have to jump through hoops and cut through red tape to possess an arm which the assailant simply obtains through "street channels"?
ws,
I have to disagree. In the 26 years 'on the street' I know of only one 'criminal' use of a FAW, and it was an illegally converted AK.
The carnage this guy caused when he cut loose in a bar 'full auto' can not be compared to what would have happened with a '700 Rem'. (But I did put a stop to it with just one shot from my 870[;)])
Again, the reality of the issue.
We live in the world/nation with people who do not see eye to eye on this issue. If you and others thing you are going to anywhere at all WITHOUT CONSIDERING the others you are badly mistaken. Again, the reality of this situation.
Compormise is a part of reality you refuse to admitt or accept, thus you are denying the reality of the situation. I don't like it any better than any of you, I know it WILL happen becasue it is part of the real world we live in.[V]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
ws,
I have to disagree. In the 26 years 'on the street' I know of only one 'criminal' use of a FAW, and it was an illegally converted AK.
The carnage this guy caused when he cut loose in a bar 'full auto' can not be compared to what would have happened with a '700 Rem'. (But I did put a stop to it with just one shot from my 870[;)])
Again, the reality of the issue.
We live in the world/nation with people who do not see eye to eye on this issue. If you and others thing you are going to anywhere at all WITHOUT CONSIDERING the others you are badly mistaken. Again, the reality of this situation.
Compormise is a part of reality you refuse to admitt or accept, thus you are denying the reality of the situation. I don't like it any better than any of you, I know it WILL happen becasue it is part of the real world we live in.[V]
So some guy goes bananas with an illegal weapon, but you want restrictions on legal weapons? How is that accomplishing anything but hampering the law-abiding while doing nothing to the criminal? People don't see eye to eye on the issue, but you're trying to compare apples to oranges here. Criminal access to weapons is not in the same league as lawful access, and you have even admitted that no law will have an effect on criminal misuse of firearms.
So tell me again how these laws are doing anything to curb crime? If they only apply to those least inclined to criminal activity, they are functionally useless, and any talk of compromise on the isse is purely a "feel good" maneuver. If people cannot accept the facts because they don't have the testicular fortitude to look the truth in the face they cannot be helped and all they are is sheep looking for a shepard.
OK, I will AGAIN![:(] The reality is we have to consider the views of others in this country. NOT EVERYONE SEES THINK AS YOU DO! Many others ask, 'do we need FAW's to defend our selves or to hunt with?'
Well the answer is no we don't. Do we NEED to have the 'right' to own them? The answer is YES we do. Now how are WE going to do this and still consider ours views (reality agian). We need to see, as best we can with as little restriction as possible, that those who have showen by their felony criminal history are not able to just walk in pay and walk out with a FAW. We can do this with the existing system we have in place. Will it stop criminals from getting FAW LEGALY? Yes it will. Will it stop them from ever get them, no it will not. Remember, (I say again) there are very few if any 'always or nevers' in the real world. Will this compermise stop you from obtaining a FAW legaly, not unless you have a felony criminal history. (As I have stated MANY times I am opposed to the DV restriction if it si not a felony).
This 'everything or nothing' stance has never worked in the 'real' world EVER. Why would it work now???[?]
Jim,,,,,26 years on the street and only ONE incident of a criminal using a FAW. Thats not bad. It's even a better argument for allowing the law abiding, non-criminal citizen to purchase and possess such weapons when you factor in the weapon you talked about was an illegal CONVERSION rather than a factory FAW. I know your trying to argue for the beenifit of keeping some weapons restricted. But so far your reasoning has done nothing but bolster the no restriction platform. The criminal in your case used an illegally converted ak-47. NOT a purchased full auto weapon. Any criminal can do that. One of the easiest rifles to convert is a ruger ranch rifle. So should they be restricted as well? because they MIGHT be converted by a criminal? I'm in California. The Terminator banned ALL rifles that use the .50 bmg round because they MIGHT be used in a crime. What BS is that? Made no sence what so ever. But that is the reality of this state. Bad law aimed at law abiding citizens that has ZERO effect on any crime or criminal in the state. Someone here said that the 1934 ban on FAW was needed to address a problem at that time. Really? Well unless I am mistaken, not one CRIME family, (ie Capone, Luciano, Shultz, ect. ect.), turned in their Thompsons. So what problem was addressed? Was it the problem of law abiding citizens owning FAW's? Because the ban did address that.
[V]Picture this. Me beating my head aginst the wall, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again!!![:(]
I give up, you keep scaring the folks away and I'll keep trying to get them back.[V]
Nuff said![:)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
[V]Picture this. Me beating my head aginst the wall, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again!!![:(]
I give up, you keep scaring the folks away and I'll keep trying to get them back.[V]
Nuff said![:)]
Jim,.....I think some of us are beating our heads against the wall also![:0]
You don't seem to understand that the unconstitutional regulations, forms, fees, taxes,.......etc., have ZERO effect on "crime."
A criminal with murderous intent, will use ANY means possible to carry out his goal,.....nothing will stop him.
All your idea does is cause honest citizens to jump through hoops, and opens doors for further loss of our rights.
Sounds like you are using the political mantra of "saving one child", and it is worth it all. That has never worked.
The scene that you ran into certainly sounds terrible, and I am glad you were able to stop it, BUT,........you stopped it, not any inane gun laws. The person converted an AK, which is quite simple to do.
Point being, what is the difference if that sick individual had purchased one already full auto, or converted it himself illegally?
Same horrible result,.........he converted a semi himself, so your registrations would not have had ANY affect on the ONE situation you experienced in all those years involving a FAW.
Keep in mind that this is from a person that really has no desire to own one, even minus the paperwork, and fees![8D]
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Wrong, I UNDERSTAND IT ALL TO WELL, but I also understand that the more people we chase away from our side, the worse it will get![V]
OK,......I think I understand what you are getting at now.
You are saying that unless we continue to enact more and more "feel-good" laws, that make the dumbazz sheep out there feel a FALSE sense of security,..........regardless of the FACTS, and the Constitution, that they will scream for more and more gun control.
Is that correct?
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
OK, I will AGAIN![:(] The reality is we have to consider the views of others in this country. NOT EVERYONE SEES THINK AS YOU DO! Many others ask, 'do we need FAW's to defend our selves or to hunt with?'
Well the answer is no we don't. Do we NEED to have the 'right' to own them? The answer is YES we do. Now how are WE going to do this and still consider ours views (reality agian). We need to see, as best we can with as little restriction as possible, that those who have showen by their felony criminal history are not able to just walk in pay and walk out with a FAW. We can do this with the existing system we have in place. Will it stop criminals from getting FAW LEGALY? Yes it will. Will it stop them from ever get them, no it will not. Remember, (I say again) there are very few if any 'always or nevers' in the real world. Will this compermise stop you from obtaining a FAW legaly, not unless you have a felony criminal history. (As I have stated MANY times I am opposed to the DV restriction if it si not a felony).
This 'everything or nothing' stance has never worked in the 'real' world EVER. Why would it work now???[?]
Jim,......this was what I was going by.
I think it matches fairly closely to what I said.
Point it out real clear for me if I am wrong![:D]
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
Simple. Everyone does not have the same EXACT beleifs you do. Acording to HB it's 3% who share this view. What can this 3% do to change things??? Zero, nota, nothing (by themselves)
Fact is the other 97% will be makeing the 2nd Amedment decissions for YOU![V] This the reality of the situation. Denial will not change this fact![xx(]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Simple. Everyone does not have the same EXACT beleifs you do. Acording to HB it's 3% who share this view. What can this 3% do to change things??? Zero, nota, nothing (by themselves)
Fact is the other 97% will be makeing the 2nd Amedment decissions for YOU![V] This the reality of the situation. Denial will not change this fact![xx(]
See,......I was correct! No need to have banged your head.
In other words, for us to keep more "sheeple" from going to the "anti" side,.......we need to agree to unconstitutional laws, and "bans" even, to keep a portion of the other 97% on our side.
Can't do that,.....not me.
I have spoken to a number of folks, and actually changed their prejudiced opinions about the laws being made for the purpose of feeling good.
I don't really believe it is that difficult to point out what I did above,........that criminals are not going to obey laws. That is why they are criminals.
I know there are a ton of truly stupid folks in this country, that are afraid of their own shadow, but making policy to suit them is not the answer for me.
Ban cars while we are at it,.......they result in a very high rate of death per user. Much higher than firearms.
Facts are called facts, because that is exactly what they are.
Feelings do not have a chance to enter into them.
We need to spread "facts."[;)]
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
quote:You are a 'convevtional' warrior, I am an 'unconventional' warrior
Really.
Pretty unconventional, all right..unbarring and opening the back gate for the entrence of the enemy into the walled city.
Agreeing to gun laws is absolutly no different.
The reason that you anti-gunners won't admit the REAL reason for the Second Amendment is pretty simple.
You either feel the Beast is too powerful to beat..or you feel taking up arms against the Beast is subversive to the nth degree.
The INSTANT one understands the meaning of and purpose of the Second Amendment is the instant that one understands that allowing government to control weapons is insane.
Lacking that knowledge..then gun controls is very palatable to the ignorant.
HB,
You and ws should be speech writers! For whom I don't know sinse you say you are 3%er's! (so you say)
Give it a rest, as I said before. I use to say the same thing your are now. I heard you. I get it. I am sorry you will not see your dreams come true!!![V]
Highball,,,,,,I understand where Jim is coming from. You and I both understand that paperwork and background checks do nothing to stop crime in any significant way. Jim is, (I think), trying use some reverse logic on the Anti-Gunners. Lets us have our guns and we will relent some of our conveinence in obtaining our guns. He thinks this will sway more of "them" to "our" side because it makes us look reasonable. Well reason soon falls in the face of tyrrany. (excuse the spelling). Again. You and I know that.
Personally, I would prefer that Felons not have legal access to guns. Having served their time or not. Primarily violent felons. But I understand the idea that they have served their time and should be given a fresh start. Here's a thought for that. Once out, off parole, And have shown themselves to be a productive member of society. OK. Let them go ahead and buy guns. BUT. IF they decide to use those legally purchased guns for more violence and wanton mayham and someone else dies by their hand, (not in self defence), Then they move to the front of the execution line and are put to death 2 weeks after conviction. Fair??
quote:BUT. IF they decide to use those legally purchased guns for more violence and wanton mayham and someone else dies by their hand, (not in self defence), Then they move to the front of the execution line and are put to death 2 weeks after conviction. Fair??
Ohh, indubitably.
Now we are getting someplace. Actually, the vicious animals we see committing the crimes we see today would NEVER leave a prison...vertically...in a sane world.
They would be hung by the neck till DEAD...the FIRST time. The less vicious would work rock piles till they decided they wanted to be good citizens.
Released, they would indeed GET the chance to be citizens again...and if, as you stated, they crossed the line again..well, the house would fall on them.
Continually repeating offenders would be dealt with in a manner that would leave no doubt we as a Society are FED UP with criminals and their crimes.
I am sorry you will not see your dreams come true!!![V]
Jim,
Do you honestly believe some of us feel an all-out shooting war would be a dream? It wouldn't. It would be an absolute nightmare. Many would perish; both good and evil.
However, there is a very simple solution. If those, whose powers are derived from the consent of the governed, would abide by the Constitution of this Republic, repeal any and all laws in contradiction to it, and cease the encroachments upon our individual liberties, all would be well.
I am also realistic, and know the vermin currently in power understand exactly what they are doing. They have no regard for the Constitution and the limits it prescribes for them. They have made it common practice to far exceed those boundaries, and venture into territory where they have no business; restricting and/or regulating our individual liberties. They do this with the goal of securing absolute power. What's sad is this sinister plot is working. Why?
Several reasons.
#1 - The majority of Americans have become lazy and apathetic. They are too busy focusing on what is most important; themselves. They have no time to be bothered with trivial issues such as individual liberty, besides, if daddy government says it's for our good, then it must be true.
#2 - The majority of Americans can't/won't think for themselves. They prefer to let Hannity, Limbaugh, the MSM, or the 'establishment' do their thinking for them. They have become bleating sheep. A prime exmaple of this is the 2008 Presidential race. This year, we had a candidate who stood 100% on the Constitution. The majority said "Nay". So be it. They will get exactly what they asked for. At times like this, I can't help but ask myself, "Where have all the Individualists gone"?
#3 - The American people have let it happen. That's right; we, the people, have let it happen. According to the Constitution, the power rightfully belongs to us. We have willingly let the transfer of that power occur. What have those who received that power done with it? They have abused it, just as the Founders envisioned they would. They realized how quickly corruption can set in. They were right; it has.
However, the Founders were a pretty wise bunch of guys. To ensure no government or entity ever tried to strip this power from the people, they made certain that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Unless this long trail of abuses and usurpations ceases, you, and everyone else, will quickly gain an understanding of why the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, sportsmen, or self-defense.
It's been fun guys. But my head can only take so much hitting the wall. You do what you must. I will do what I must.
45,
You can't arange for them to go to the head of the line, more wishful thinking. As much as I hate to admit it (that damn reality again), the death penaly will probably go away altogether in the not to distant future. I can face reality, much I do not like what I see.[V] Many here refuse to face reality becasue they can't handle the pain! [V]
Comments
Hey guy. Thanks for the kind words. I still might not be back entirely. I still have to high of an intolerance for certain people in these rooms. But I think if I can stay out of the politics room I "might" be ok.
This guy just hit a nerve I could not ignore. Again, thanks for the encouragement.
1. Judicial review.
2. Legislative action.
Unless, as I ask before, you are willing to start shooting.[;)]
We need people/voters and ALOT of money to accomplish this.
And if you want to start a shooting war you will need even more of the same.
By the way I have been under the gun from full auto fire both in RVN and CS, and I am damn glad there is a restriction on full auto weapons. Not everyone is as responsible as those on this site![xx(]
Aside from all the personal attacks and name calling. What he said is the reality of our world. Right or wrong, like it or not. The laws have been allowed to stand for along time and they can only be changed in two ways.
1. Judicial review.
2. Legislative action.
Unless, as I ask before, you are willing to start shooting.[;)]
We need people/voters and ALOT of money to accomplish this.
And if you want to start a shooting war you will need even more of the same.
By the way I have been under the gun from full auto fire both in RVN and CS, and I am damn glad there is a restriction on full auto weapons. Not everyone is as responsible as those on this site![xx(]
Except for one thing, Jim: full auto restrictions don't keep crooks from obtaining full auto capabilities. I think a criminal would have an easier time getting a full auto than an honest citizen. I can't even get one here in NY even though I am granted a concealed carry permit (yes, you have to "get permission" and it rankles the spirit) and passed all the background checks associated with NY laws. If NY thinks it's OK for me to carry a concealed ahndgun, why can't I have full auto? Am I all of the sudden going to change long-standing standards of personal conduct?
Some stuff just doesn't make sense, and here in the PRNY gun laws are about top of that list...........
Providing unrestricted access for our citizens, to "military equivalent" personal arms is the absolute basis of Amendment II's intent.
"Shall not be infringed".
Seems a simple concept to me.
"Bad acts" are to be punished. Arms are not to be restricted.
Well, at least not under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but we have already established, here in America, that the Constitution is largely irrelevant to the government and to most of our citizens.
The restriction passed into Law in 1934 was necessary at the time. If it is not necessary now then work to repeal it. I personaly think it is necessary. I do not agree with the states totaly out lawing them. I have several friends with several FA weapons. Many of the states, and local juristictions have violated our rights to a much greater degree than the feds. Now if these were violations of any of our 'other' of our 'civil right' the fed would intervine on our behalf. But they don't. This one of the thinks that really pi$$ me off in this fight![V]
Jeff,
The restriction passed into Law in 1934 was necessary at the time. If it is not necessary now then work to repeal it. I personaly think it is necessary. I do not agree with the states totaly out lawing them. I have several friends with several FA weapons. Many of the states, and local juristictions have violated our rights to a much greater degree than the feds. Now if these were violations of any of our 'other' of our 'civil right' the fed would intervine on our behalf. But they don't. This one of the thinks that really pi$$ me off in this fight![V]
No Jim, it wasn't necessary then and it isn't necessary now.
We simply had a number of criminal individuals, some banded together as gangs, who were committing heinous criminal acts while using full-auto firearms in some cases. Citizens were not running amok slaughtering one another, even though full-auto's were available to them.
Criminal individuals and gangs STILL commit heinous criminal acts while using firearms, even though many are restricted, or declared illegal. Full-auto firearms are STILL available to those who choose to obtain them "off the books" or illegally.
Responsible citizens are simply restricted in their ability to own, possess, or use full-auto firearms, contrary to the simple and clear language of Amendment II.
That is the 'reality' that you speak of Jim.
All that occurred was one of the first Amendment II violations by government, a government who used a method strangely reminiscent of the Hegalian Dialectic's "Triad of the Created Crisis".
This is a classic case of failing to focus on "bad acts" and rather focusing, due to an agenda, on firearms. There is a distinct reason for the focus on firearms by the government and collectivist-minded people.
The Triad...Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.
Step #1, Thesis....either create, or capitalize on an existing "crisis".
Step #2, Antithesis....whip the populace up with either anger or fear of the "crisis".
Step #3, Synthesis....step in and offer a "solution" to "fix" the "crisis", while taking additional government power, or restricting further on individual liberty, all willingly accepted, or demanded, by the people because of "the crisis".
No 'written' law, statute, regulation will ever 'keep' any criminal from doing anything or obtaining anything they want. The laws make it harder for them to accomplish their goals and give us the authority to take action when they do.
So I guess you think we need to just do away with them, correct. The statutes give those in authority, like Jeff and I and many others in LE, to take actions when there is a violation. Many of these law need to be taken off the books. Many need to be ammended, but LAWS (restrictions on people and their behavior) ARE NEED TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN A VERY ORDERLESS WORLD.
This is REALITY.[:)]
We will have to agree to disagree on the Laws restricting FA weapons.[;)]
rk,
No 'written' law, statute, regulation will ever 'keep' any criminal from doing anything or obtaining anything they want. The laws make it harder for them to accomplish their goals and give us the authority to take action when they do.
So I guess you think we need to just do away with them, correct. The statutes give those in authority, like Jeff and I and many others in LE, to take actions when there is a violation. Many of these law need to be taken off the books. Many need to be ammended, but LAWS (restrictions on people and their behavior) ARE NEED TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN A VERY ORDERLESS WORLD.
This is REALITY.[:)]
We will have to agree to disagree on the Laws restricting FA weapons.[;)]
I understand how laws are needed, but most of these laws are mis-directed. How does keeping me from having FA facilitate law and order? Seems to me there should be more effort into criminal control. Since they can get them anyway, how are the laws having a positive impact for LE? I can see making stiffer penalties for using any firearm in the commission of a crime, but restricting honest citizens access to weapons while the criminals access is not impeded isn't helping anyone, LEO's or civilian.
I am sorry, (on edit) I just realized you said the state law keeps you from owning the FAW. This is wrong and the FEDS SHOULD have put a stop to this![:(!]
They buy them out of someone's trunk, plain and simple.
The only ones inconvenienced, and stripped of rights, as per usual, are honest, law-abiding citizens.
I don't personally give a hoot about "machine guns", as I prefer one well placed shot, over "spray, and pray",........but that isn't the point.
Our wonderful politicians, in an effort to avoid admitting that they cannot control crime efficiently, get behind these inane laws so that the "sheeple" populace can "feel good", and think they are being protected.
I could have 10 FA firearms, and it makes me no more of a danger to an innocent person than I am right now.
Reason being,.........I am a law abiding citizen.
You squirrels won't fight to any death. Big-talkers like you guys are always the first to fold and run. It's always been that way and always will be. It's easy to talk trash when you know that you're never going to have the chance to put up, but even if your fantasies did come true and a civil war broke out, the first bullet that cracks overhead will send every wanna-be warrior and faux patriot on this thread scampering off leaving a trail of poop behind.
I know real warriors. Ain't any (besides me) posting to this thread, let me tell ya. So you fat-bodied non-hackers can sit here and circle-jerk each other about how bad-assed you are. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain to you just how little you actually know about our founders, the Constitution, and how our government works. You can't fix stupid so I don't try.
Too broad-brush. (Item in red). I generally let the palaver ebb and flow, and just sit back and absorb. It's educating, and amusing too.
Just thought I'd jump in. Make my presence known. There's a lot of folks like me hiding in the wings. Make no mistake about that. Best, Joe
Then don't have a problem with the dealer of the FAW verifing that fact?[;)]
Marc,
Then don't have a problem with the dealer of the FAW verifing that fact?[;)]
I have the same problem with that, as I do now going through NICS checks for anything, and everything.
I also feel the same way about having to spend hours of my time to get my CCW permit, and having to renew it with more fees.
The second amendment is clear, as is the rest of the Constitution.
Nothing in that, nor the BOR, that I have read concerning governance, nor "jumping through hoops" to have what was already there.
I DO see thousands of laws concerning improper use of firearms in crimes,.......including murder. There are already penalties by law for those that break them.
I say enforce the laws against the criminal element, and leave honest,..........and FREE law abiding citizens be.
Criminals belong in prison, or to have a swift execution,......problem gone.
How do you "verify" the criminal that buys one out of a trunk, as I initially mentioned?
Only an "honest" citizen will be "verified" by the authorities,........criminals have already lost their legal rights.
That includes the majority of our worries, such as illegal MS-13 gang members from the barbaric invasion of our country.
I guess I simply see things differently than you do. I once was part of the "I don't have anything to hide" gang, but I have grown tired of kissing butts over the years.
The FAW's and other crew served types could and should be look at as WMD of the indididual type. I do think the governmnet as went to far in their efforts to keep 'bad' guys from lawfully purchasing guns. The DV clause really upsets me.[:(!]
Yes, I do not agree we should have to go through this crap to buy a gun, unless it is the FAW or the like. Then I would support this.
The FAW's and other crew served types could and should be look at as WMD of the indididual type.
why?
Yes, I do not agree we should have to go through this crap to buy a gun, unless it is the FAW or the like. Then I would support this.
The FAW's and other crew served types could and should be look at as WMD of the indididual type. I do think the governmnet as went to far in their efforts to keep 'bad' guys from lawfully purchasing guns. The DV clause really upsets me.[:(!]
I must respectfully disagree with you on the above.
NOTHING in the Constitution about "crew served" weapons,......and BTW, I don't consider a FAW a "crew served weapon." I am not getting into details such as the M-16 as compared to a SAW, but I hope you understand my thoughts in the context of this discussion.
Wonder how many loaded the old brown bess while the shooters were firing? Was that an 18th. century "crew served weapon?"
There is a lot about having the ability, and the RIGHT, to eliminate a corrupt, and tyrannical government though.
I always thought that was what founded this once great nation.
I call a FAW, a machine gun,......they are of no value to me, as I am a good enough shot to drop an adversary at quite a range, without needing to spray 500 rounds.
Now if I am into horticulture, and want to "till" my garden,......then I might have a use, but it would be quite expensive with ammo prices the way they are.
I prefer to use the proper tool for the job.[;)]
Because I have seen, first hand, what this class of weapon can and does do in the wrong hands I am compelled to try and see, with a minimal 'restriction' to our 'rights', us take some minor precautions to keep those who are known criminals from LAWFULLY buying them. The system we currently use to check ALL of us would be fine for this class of weapon. I DO NOT support either system currently in place requiring the check for 'common' firearms, nor the background check and tax stamp for the FAW.[V]
I think what is being said by Marc and maybe a couple of others is that the checks your talking about are ineffective. We have checks on everything today. Not just "FAW" weapons. And criminals still have no trouble getting them. Would there really be ANY difference if we limited our checks only to "FAW" purchases? The good guys would continue to be checked and the bad guys will not. Yet they will still be able to get their weapons. Just as they can now. No difference. No Change.
I think that "IF" any checks should be made, then it should be to find out whether or not your a U.S. Citizen. If your not, or at least a permanent resident, then you don't get our right to own a weapon. Just something I thought of.
As for what firearms were around at the time of the founding and the writing of the 2nd. That is irrelevent. By that reasoning, no firarm would be covered by the second because the founders never invisioned their existence. The 2nd covers all personal weapons. Be they a .22 or a Barrett .50 to a new SAW or M-60. I have know people who own cannons. And they fire them on occasion. Covered in the 2nd? Who knows. But I don't think he will be robbing any liquer stores with it. My point is, whether it fires at a rate of 10 shots per minutes or 500. Whether it muzzle loaded, magazine fed or belt fed. It's covered by the 2nd. Or should be as the founders intended.
Because I have seen, first hand, what this class of weapon can and does do in the wrong hands I am compelled to try and see, with a minimal 'restriction' to our 'rights', us take some minor precautions to keep those who are known criminals from LAWFULLY buying them.
Jim,
With all due respect, it is not a question of what a particular class of weapon(s) can do. The ensuing destruction wrought through the use of any weapon, be it a slingshot or a nuclear device, is first conceived in the mind of the user, not the weapon. Said destruction can be for good, or for evil, but is dependent upon the midset of the individual utilizing the weapon. Attempting to restrict a weapon due to it's perceived "potential lethality" is an exercise in futility.
Example:
M16A2 vs. Remington 700, both chambered for the 5.56x45. Given the same amount of ammuntion for each, equal results can be produced. Now, the individual using the M16 will accomplish those results at a much faster rate, but that in no way proves the point that an individual using a M16A2 is "more deadly" than another individual using the Remington 700. In fact, I believe the opposite is true.
Any individual wishing to do evil will exhaust all efforts possible to accomplish that goal. If that person does not have access to an M16, he may use shotgun. If not a shotgun, he may use a pistol. If not a pistol, he may use a machete. If not a machete, he may use a knife. If not a knife, he may use a ball-point pen. The weapon may change, but the evil doesn't, and neither do the results.
If we were to use the "class" of weapon argument, wouldn't it be logical to believe that a citizen has the right to confront his/her assilant with the same amount of force possessed by the assailant? I believe most would say, "Yes". With that being the case, why should a citizen have to jump through hoops and cut through red tape to possess an arm which the assailant simply obtains through "street channels"?
I have to disagree. In the 26 years 'on the street' I know of only one 'criminal' use of a FAW, and it was an illegally converted AK.
The carnage this guy caused when he cut loose in a bar 'full auto' can not be compared to what would have happened with a '700 Rem'. (But I did put a stop to it with just one shot from my 870[;)])
Again, the reality of the issue.
We live in the world/nation with people who do not see eye to eye on this issue. If you and others thing you are going to anywhere at all WITHOUT CONSIDERING the others you are badly mistaken. Again, the reality of this situation.
Compormise is a part of reality you refuse to admitt or accept, thus you are denying the reality of the situation. I don't like it any better than any of you, I know it WILL happen becasue it is part of the real world we live in.[V]
ws,
I have to disagree. In the 26 years 'on the street' I know of only one 'criminal' use of a FAW, and it was an illegally converted AK.
The carnage this guy caused when he cut loose in a bar 'full auto' can not be compared to what would have happened with a '700 Rem'. (But I did put a stop to it with just one shot from my 870[;)])
Again, the reality of the issue.
We live in the world/nation with people who do not see eye to eye on this issue. If you and others thing you are going to anywhere at all WITHOUT CONSIDERING the others you are badly mistaken. Again, the reality of this situation.
Compormise is a part of reality you refuse to admitt or accept, thus you are denying the reality of the situation. I don't like it any better than any of you, I know it WILL happen becasue it is part of the real world we live in.[V]
So some guy goes bananas with an illegal weapon, but you want restrictions on legal weapons? How is that accomplishing anything but hampering the law-abiding while doing nothing to the criminal? People don't see eye to eye on the issue, but you're trying to compare apples to oranges here. Criminal access to weapons is not in the same league as lawful access, and you have even admitted that no law will have an effect on criminal misuse of firearms.
So tell me again how these laws are doing anything to curb crime? If they only apply to those least inclined to criminal activity, they are functionally useless, and any talk of compromise on the isse is purely a "feel good" maneuver. If people cannot accept the facts because they don't have the testicular fortitude to look the truth in the face they cannot be helped and all they are is sheep looking for a shepard.
Well the answer is no we don't. Do we NEED to have the 'right' to own them? The answer is YES we do. Now how are WE going to do this and still consider ours views (reality agian). We need to see, as best we can with as little restriction as possible, that those who have showen by their felony criminal history are not able to just walk in pay and walk out with a FAW. We can do this with the existing system we have in place. Will it stop criminals from getting FAW LEGALY? Yes it will. Will it stop them from ever get them, no it will not. Remember, (I say again) there are very few if any 'always or nevers' in the real world. Will this compermise stop you from obtaining a FAW legaly, not unless you have a felony criminal history. (As I have stated MANY times I am opposed to the DV restriction if it si not a felony).
This 'everything or nothing' stance has never worked in the 'real' world EVER. Why would it work now???[?]
I give up, you keep scaring the folks away and I'll keep trying to get them back.[V]
Nuff said![:)]
[V]Picture this. Me beating my head aginst the wall, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again!!![:(]
I give up, you keep scaring the folks away and I'll keep trying to get them back.[V]
Nuff said![:)]
Jim,.....I think some of us are beating our heads against the wall also![:0]
You don't seem to understand that the unconstitutional regulations, forms, fees, taxes,.......etc., have ZERO effect on "crime."
A criminal with murderous intent, will use ANY means possible to carry out his goal,.....nothing will stop him.
All your idea does is cause honest citizens to jump through hoops, and opens doors for further loss of our rights.
Sounds like you are using the political mantra of "saving one child", and it is worth it all. That has never worked.
The scene that you ran into certainly sounds terrible, and I am glad you were able to stop it, BUT,........you stopped it, not any inane gun laws. The person converted an AK, which is quite simple to do.
Point being, what is the difference if that sick individual had purchased one already full auto, or converted it himself illegally?
Same horrible result,.........he converted a semi himself, so your registrations would not have had ANY affect on the ONE situation you experienced in all those years involving a FAW.
Keep in mind that this is from a person that really has no desire to own one, even minus the paperwork, and fees![8D]
Wrong, I UNDERSTAND IT ALL TO WELL, but I also understand that the more people we chase away from our side, the worse it will get![V]
OK,......I think I understand what you are getting at now.
You are saying that unless we continue to enact more and more "feel-good" laws, that make the dumbazz sheep out there feel a FALSE sense of security,..........regardless of the FACTS, and the Constitution, that they will scream for more and more gun control.
Is that correct?
OK, I will AGAIN![:(] The reality is we have to consider the views of others in this country. NOT EVERYONE SEES THINK AS YOU DO! Many others ask, 'do we need FAW's to defend our selves or to hunt with?'
Well the answer is no we don't. Do we NEED to have the 'right' to own them? The answer is YES we do. Now how are WE going to do this and still consider ours views (reality agian). We need to see, as best we can with as little restriction as possible, that those who have showen by their felony criminal history are not able to just walk in pay and walk out with a FAW. We can do this with the existing system we have in place. Will it stop criminals from getting FAW LEGALY? Yes it will. Will it stop them from ever get them, no it will not. Remember, (I say again) there are very few if any 'always or nevers' in the real world. Will this compermise stop you from obtaining a FAW legaly, not unless you have a felony criminal history. (As I have stated MANY times I am opposed to the DV restriction if it si not a felony).
This 'everything or nothing' stance has never worked in the 'real' world EVER. Why would it work now???[?]
Jim,......this was what I was going by.
I think it matches fairly closely to what I said.
Point it out real clear for me if I am wrong![:D]
Fact is the other 97% will be makeing the 2nd Amedment decissions for YOU![V] This the reality of the situation. Denial will not change this fact![xx(]
Simple. Everyone does not have the same EXACT beleifs you do. Acording to HB it's 3% who share this view. What can this 3% do to change things??? Zero, nota, nothing (by themselves)
Fact is the other 97% will be makeing the 2nd Amedment decissions for YOU![V] This the reality of the situation. Denial will not change this fact![xx(]
See,......I was correct! No need to have banged your head.
In other words, for us to keep more "sheeple" from going to the "anti" side,.......we need to agree to unconstitutional laws, and "bans" even, to keep a portion of the other 97% on our side.
Can't do that,.....not me.
I have spoken to a number of folks, and actually changed their prejudiced opinions about the laws being made for the purpose of feeling good.
I don't really believe it is that difficult to point out what I did above,........that criminals are not going to obey laws. That is why they are criminals.
I know there are a ton of truly stupid folks in this country, that are afraid of their own shadow, but making policy to suit them is not the answer for me.
Ban cars while we are at it,.......they result in a very high rate of death per user. Much higher than firearms.
Facts are called facts, because that is exactly what they are.
Feelings do not have a chance to enter into them.
We need to spread "facts."[;)]
You sir, are preching to the choir!!![;)]
You are a 'convevtional' warrior, I am an 'unconventional' warrior.[:)]
Really.
Pretty unconventional, all right..unbarring and opening the back gate for the entrence of the enemy into the walled city.
Agreeing to gun laws is absolutly no different.
The reason that you anti-gunners won't admit the REAL reason for the Second Amendment is pretty simple.
You either feel the Beast is too powerful to beat..or you feel taking up arms against the Beast is subversive to the nth degree.
The INSTANT one understands the meaning of and purpose of the Second Amendment is the instant that one understands that allowing government to control weapons is insane.
Lacking that knowledge..then gun controls is very palatable to the ignorant.
You and ws should be speech writers! For whom I don't know sinse you say you are 3%er's! (so you say)
Give it a rest, as I said before. I use to say the same thing your are now. I heard you. I get it. I am sorry you will not see your dreams come true!!![V]
Personally, I would prefer that Felons not have legal access to guns. Having served their time or not. Primarily violent felons. But I understand the idea that they have served their time and should be given a fresh start. Here's a thought for that. Once out, off parole, And have shown themselves to be a productive member of society. OK. Let them go ahead and buy guns. BUT. IF they decide to use those legally purchased guns for more violence and wanton mayham and someone else dies by their hand, (not in self defence), Then they move to the front of the execution line and are put to death 2 weeks after conviction. Fair??
Ohh, indubitably.
Now we are getting someplace. Actually, the vicious animals we see committing the crimes we see today would NEVER leave a prison...vertically...in a sane world.
They would be hung by the neck till DEAD...the FIRST time. The less vicious would work rock piles till they decided they wanted to be good citizens.
Released, they would indeed GET the chance to be citizens again...and if, as you stated, they crossed the line again..well, the house would fall on them.
Continually repeating offenders would be dealt with in a manner that would leave no doubt we as a Society are FED UP with criminals and their crimes.
I am sorry you will not see your dreams come true!!![V]
Jim,
Do you honestly believe some of us feel an all-out shooting war would be a dream? It wouldn't. It would be an absolute nightmare. Many would perish; both good and evil.
However, there is a very simple solution. If those, whose powers are derived from the consent of the governed, would abide by the Constitution of this Republic, repeal any and all laws in contradiction to it, and cease the encroachments upon our individual liberties, all would be well.
I am also realistic, and know the vermin currently in power understand exactly what they are doing. They have no regard for the Constitution and the limits it prescribes for them. They have made it common practice to far exceed those boundaries, and venture into territory where they have no business; restricting and/or regulating our individual liberties. They do this with the goal of securing absolute power. What's sad is this sinister plot is working. Why?
Several reasons.
#1 - The majority of Americans have become lazy and apathetic. They are too busy focusing on what is most important; themselves. They have no time to be bothered with trivial issues such as individual liberty, besides, if daddy government says it's for our good, then it must be true.
#2 - The majority of Americans can't/won't think for themselves. They prefer to let Hannity, Limbaugh, the MSM, or the 'establishment' do their thinking for them. They have become bleating sheep. A prime exmaple of this is the 2008 Presidential race. This year, we had a candidate who stood 100% on the Constitution. The majority said "Nay". So be it. They will get exactly what they asked for. At times like this, I can't help but ask myself, "Where have all the Individualists gone"?
#3 - The American people have let it happen. That's right; we, the people, have let it happen. According to the Constitution, the power rightfully belongs to us. We have willingly let the transfer of that power occur. What have those who received that power done with it? They have abused it, just as the Founders envisioned they would. They realized how quickly corruption can set in. They were right; it has.
However, the Founders were a pretty wise bunch of guys. To ensure no government or entity ever tried to strip this power from the people, they made certain that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Unless this long trail of abuses and usurpations ceases, you, and everyone else, will quickly gain an understanding of why the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, sportsmen, or self-defense.
45,
You can't arange for them to go to the head of the line, more wishful thinking. As much as I hate to admit it (that damn reality again), the death penaly will probably go away altogether in the not to distant future. I can face reality, much I do not like what I see.[V] Many here refuse to face reality becasue they can't handle the pain! [V]