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.
Hunter Mag
Highball
Member Posts: 15,755
Refresh my memory, please;
Did we not hotly debate the merits of Gun control a few months ago ?
Since I stand on only ONE side of that bright line..a debate meant that you were supporting certain measures designed to separate us from our weapons...
Please correct me if I am wrong..or if you have thought about it and come to the conclusion that Individual responsibility trumps government need to control us ?
Did we not hotly debate the merits of Gun control a few months ago ?
Since I stand on only ONE side of that bright line..a debate meant that you were supporting certain measures designed to separate us from our weapons...
Please correct me if I am wrong..or if you have thought about it and come to the conclusion that Individual responsibility trumps government need to control us ?
Comments
However I hope you don't think I'm on the gun grabbing side. If you do I'm not sure what to tell you.
Do you believe that the federal government has the authority under the Constitution to pass ANY law regulating, restricting, limiting, or passing judgment on civilian ownership of weapons ?
The answer to that question allows one to look at the inner workings of a mans' mind, as it were...
This, by the way, is not an adversarial contest, at the moment...just sort of a soft probe....
You putting me on trial here? If so why?
Why are you interested in what I think all of a sudden?
Why not the others?[;)]
Heller was only a good decision in the respect that it put in "writing" the fact that the 2nd. IS an individual right.
None of us here, needed the SCROTUS to tell us that,......as we have known it all along.
That being said, the majority of the decision is an abortion of the 2nd., and will open the door to many more infringements.
This is a decision adored by the NRA. Why should it not be?
It will give them reason to raise money from the zombies, under the guise of protecting their "rights" for many more years.
We already had our rights clearly outlined many years ago, by a group of very intelligent men that framed our Constitution.
It has slowly been stolen by a group of pathetic politicians, that would have been hung as traitors by those very same founders.
Yes,......I have paid my money to the scum for the right to carry.
I need not do that, and I don't do it with pride, or feeling that I have been approved by the nameless, and faceless slime. I do it to protect myself, and family,......and to remain viable per se.
I do NOT have pride in this fact. It is of necessity to remain in the fight.
No gun law has ever worked in preventing the criminal element from obtaining them for the purpose of their activities.
All that they have done, is to keep law abiding citizens jumping through hoops, and surrendering more cash to the King.
Collectivist thought dictates often that we must endure these procedures, as "if it saves only one childs life, it is certainly worth it."
How many of our freedoms have been stripped away using the same mantra?
We have more than enough laws,.......that ARE Constitutional, in relation to dealing with "criminals."
You use a firearm in a crime,.......you pay the price. Whether it be time in prison, or with your life,......that is the result of such activity. A swift trial, and sentencing of either is in order, NOT the restriction of law abiding citizens rights.
They take things from us "chip by chip",.........eventually the "stone" will be nothing but dust in the wind. Our fine country will follow right behind that last puff of dust.
We are getting closer by the day.[xx(]
Generally, I ask a rather simple question;
Do you believe that the federal government has the authority under the Constitution to pass ANY law regulating, restricting, limiting, or passing judgment on civilian ownership of weapons ?
Perhaps the question is simply-worded, but this is under no stretch of the imagination a "simple question"
I have previously given my "take" on this question, and have found my position to be similar to yours (so far as I can recall it).
If I remember your position correctly, it was that light, individual weapons, up to and including machine guns, should not be subject to any federal restriction.
This seemed to be tempered by your suggestion that crew-served medium/heavy weapons should be denied for private possession, but assessible to the public via armories, etc.
Does this not conflict with your position that the feds have no constitutional power regulate any weapon?
Generally, I ask a rather simple question;
Do you believe that the federal government has the authority under the Constitution to pass ANY law regulating, restricting, limiting, or passing judgment on civilian ownership of weapons ? tr fox here. Let me add some specifics here. Not passing "ANY" gun laws means legal gun ownership and use by children of ANY age, mentally unstable people, violent criminals with a long rap sheet, illegal aliens, etc.. With absoutely no gun laws whatsoever, I don't see how the police could disarm criminal prisoners when they go to jail/prison. The logic of the "no gun laws" clan would seem to apply in that case in that even though the bad guys (the prisoners) still have guns, they would be afraid to use them for fear of the guns possessed by the jail personnel. So, in theory, if the armed prisoner misuses their LEGAL firearm, then the jailers would simply kill the perp and the perp would never again be a problem for anyone. For everyone that is an extremist, what is not to like about that.
The answer to that question allows one to look at the inner workings of a mans' mind, as it were...
This, by the way, is not an adversarial contest, at the moment...just sort of a soft probe....
Ignoring the paranoia and panic of those needing security blankets, I address your statement.
There is a level beyond which I believe that it is indeed necessary to not travel ..and that level is crew-served.
You may call that `gun control, if you so chose.
The caveat to that is...those weapons MUST be available down at the local armory ..and the populace that wishes to be trained on them.
Reasonable men will at some future date will sit down and debate this subject for REAL...when freedom rings out across this land again...and given the nature of the men that will win, and their character ..perhaps I could be persuaded that anything up to atom bombs be made available.
At the moment, we live in a land of cowards and insane people...and there would need to be a transition period.
There is a level beyond which I believe that it is indeed necessary to not travel ..and that level is crew-served.
You may call that `gun control, if you so chose.
Maybe not "gun control" in the traditional sense of the term, but certainly "weapons control" at any rate.
This leads to the question "Why draw the line at crew-served weapons?"
Since you answered the first, allow me to throw my imput in on the second:
I believe the founders intent was to maintain a "nation of riflemen", able to assemble (with minimimal additional time and training) a body of soldiers for the common defense......minutemen, if you will.
As one moves farther from the individual weapon(s) of the militiaman, the "common defense" becomes less the goal than individual power, at the expense of others.
Rack, do you mind elucidating a bit, here ?
I am having a bit of trouble deciphering the meaning of this statement.
A Nation of Riflemen is PRECISELY what the Founders intended ..with most trained in a Militia that falls out regularly with the REAL weapons of war ..crew served and bigger.
All that they have done, is to keep law abiding citizens jumping through hoops, and surrendering more cash to the King.
Collectivist thought dictates often that we must endure these procedures, as "if it saves only one childs life, it is certainly worth it."
How many of our freedoms have been stripped away using the same mantra?
We have more than enough laws,.......that ARE Constitutional, in relation to dealing with "criminals."
You use a firearm in a crime,.......you pay the price. Whether it be time in prison, or with your life,......that is the result of such activity. A swift trial, and sentencing of either is in order, NOT the restriction of law abiding citizens rights.
They take things from us "chip by chip",.........eventually the "stone" will be nothing but dust in the wind. Our fine country will follow right behind that last puff of dust.
We are getting closer by the day.[xx(]
[/quote].
And that right there folks is about as well worded as could be, in plain and simple english, that even a troll (cough cough) could understand. Laws that only effect the law abiding are not worth the paper they are printed on. Pandering to criminals and the steady erosion of the honest citizens right due to said criminals actions will lead to the downfall of this nation. We need to bring swift, decisive action to the misdeeds of the depraved (being careful, though to make certain of guilt BEFORE judgement - we don't need more innocents paying the price for the actions of the lawless) and perhaps we can cease these discussions about how we need limits on this right or that right "for the good of the country".
Anyways, my point is this: With a rifle, or even a light machine gun, a man is little threat to the safety of the greater society. A madman can kill people, even several people, but not overthrow or put in danger the basic tenents of a society.
As the power of the weapon wielded becomes greater, so to does the power to disrupt society......Its one thing to pin down a sniper shooting a rifle from a few hundred yards away, but another thing entirely to find and destroy a mortar firing rounds from several miles away. Such a weapon, in the hands of a madman, could literally paralyze a region for days or weeks...
This in no way should be interpreted to mean that citizens shouldn't have such weapons availible by means of local armories, or that they have no buisness being trained in their usage.....the key is supervision.
I'll apologize preemtively if my response is rambling. Scotch, while tasty, doesn't exactly hone my communication skills.
There is pretty good consensus among those of us supporting the Constitution that weapons up to crew served are unique ..they are untouchable by a government that is working within the framework of the Constitution.
It gets a bit fragmented beyond that. That is as it should be. Total agreement would mean we are clones...and that we are not.
I am willing to debate.. AFTER we restore freedom ..the outer limits of that freedom.
That debate will be conducted accompanied by a FAL and .45 Sig.
Those advocating government control of firearms need NEVER APPLY..EVER AGAIN...for access to those meetings.
That debate will be conducted accompanied by a FAL and .45 Sig.
hogwash!
I'll keep my '06, thanks
Kin your 'ol '06 do that...20 times a minute ???? [:D][:D]
Your idea that it would be illegal for Police to disarm those under arrest is absolutly brainless. When your placed under arrest you give up certain rights for a period of time. Your are not free to leave. Your are not free to have in your possession certain things. When in jail, your rights are severly curtailed and limited only to the right to be treated humanely. Anything you have in the way of belongings are privliages and can be taken away at anytime.
Illegal aliens are ........What ?? Illegal. So being a criminal from the onset they are less likely to go down and purchase a legal firearm. Another flaw. The only one of your arguments that MIGHT have some merit is the Mentally unstable person. Even then it is highly unlikely. One, IF a mentally unstable person wanted a gun they would not risk going into a gun store to get one. The majority of gunstore owners I have known would not sell to them and would report the try. Those who do not appear to be unstable are getting them now so what difference would/has a law make or made. NONE.
I would say nice try, but it wasn't.
Kin your 'ol '06 do that...20 times a minute ???? [:D][:D]
It doesn't have to [:)]
There comes a time that there is no longer an excuse that can be made for his refusal to face facts. There comes a time to close the door on any hope of a breakthrough..and I think perhaps most of us have reached that point with him.
The mental health problem would be no problem if we as a society decided to handle the mentally ill properly.
Nice comeback. But...It MIGHT 'have to'...zombies aren't ALWAYS onesies and twoses...
Rack;
Nice comeback. But...It MIGHT 'have to'...zombies aren't ALWAYS onesies and twoses...
Who said anything about numbers?
Distance is your friend
AHHHAAA !!
So.. you intend having that discussion about the limits of weapon control...from a Looong distance ??? Hope your shouter is in good condition...[:0]
What was he saying about Mentally Unstable ?? *LOL*
quote:Distance is your friend
AHHHAAA !!
So.. you intend having that discussion about the limits of weapon control...from a Looong distance ??? Hope your shouter is in good condition...[:0]
Ever hear of a cell phone? [8D]
An epic hijack this was, btw
I bought mine for emergencies...nowadays, people call me all hours of the day and night. Funny thing ..I can say all I got to say in two moments ..and they gotta talk for an hour to say the nothing THEY say...
The thread is not hijacked ..HM decided that he was being picked on. Or something.
I do not intend going back and researching the debates ..I was going to allow for a man changing his mind.
The men you see standing up and admitting that they have lived a lie most of their lives...supporting gun control (and there are more then a few here that HAVE admitted it, publicly)..THOSE are men of character and strength.
Those men THOUGHT that they were supporting the Constitution all their lives ..and today, they finally are.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:Distance is your friend
AHHHAAA !!
So.. you intend having that discussion about the limits of weapon control...from a Looong distance ??? Hope your shouter is in good condition...[:0]
Ever hear of a cell phone? [8D]
An epic hijack this was, btw
And YOU named ME,......D.B. Cooper![:0]
I guess he must have had a twin.[8D]
And YOU named ME,......D.B. Cooper![:0]
I guess he must have had a twin.[8D]
In HB's defense, he hijacked his own thread [:)]
The purpose of the thread was to seek information.
None was forthcoming..so let the fun begin ..AND IT did !!