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.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Slow hand;
Please read the post from Blues Stringer VERY carefully...then reread it.
He talks the language that you should apreciate...and does it very well. Nothing of the flame-thrower that I am in there....just a careful rendition of facts.
I don't EVER expect that I will stop trying to drag people over to the middle of the road..for that is where the Constitution is..a balance point between the extremes. The founders knew exactly what they were doing, arming the people...and the Elites know EXACTLY what THEY are doing today, disarming the people.
Disarmed peoples = piles of bodies..courtesy of governments.
I've reread the posting and BluesStringer's passion is evident.
But I'm not convinced that military weapons are a good thing for the average Joe to own. This is the real sticking point for me. For me, "molon labe" is not where this thread is at. Rather, it's about prudence and using good judgement. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.
Maybe weapons #8 on are for someone like you as you probably had to learn all about most of them in the Corps. You don't even bat an eye at the mention of them and so I figure you already operated many of them.
And then there are folks like me. Yes, I admit that I tend to be overly cautious but I do believe that I'm getting better.
You don't come from a very large city where you lived roughly 8 feet in any direction from a good neighbor - OR - a disgruntled and possibly unbalanced jibroni next to you, below you, on top of you - OR - just a complete blithering idiot who can barely remember to shut the gas on the stove off. In most cases in big cities, vertical living is the norm.
Do you really think that I would want a neighbor having one or a stash of these weapons in his or her apartment, 8 feet from my headboard? Or dining room table? Or just below my gas stove in the kitchen?
I know that you are a firm believer in people taking responsibility for themselves and their actions. I'd love for people to do just that. But they don't and some poor innocent slobs pay their price for their stupidity.
In a remote area, if there were an "accident" in a home or garage, how many people would get killed or hurt? 1? 5? 10?
In a high rise apartment building in NYC with 20 stories and 600 apartments and natural gas as the fuel, the number rises significantly to maybe 2,000 people plus damage to adjacent buildings and injuries to those tenants, cars and pedestrians on the streets below, etc.
My disagreement is not with the 2nd Amendment or its wording even though I know it probably sounds as if I do. You may be surprised to know that I consider the document to be sacrosanct.
My issue is with OUR wholesale underwriting sans any regulation or licensing or even just practical training of anyone and everyone having bigger and better and more destructive weapons just because WE believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees it.
Far too many people are idiots, blissful perhaps but still idiots. Despite wealth and social prominence, many cannot function above the basic dimwit level. As a matter of fact, there are convicted felons who would be far more cautious and responsible with weapons than some of the dopes I've already encountered. And yet they aren't allowed to have even a handgun. Ironic.
The idiots I refer to drink, then drive, kill someone else and escape unscathed. They clean loaded handguns and manage to kill the poor b*stard sitting across from them. They manage to burn and disfugure themselves trying to fry turkeys in their backyard. They burn their houses down with cigarettes in bed and kill their familiy. They store flammables in hot garages, attics and automobiles and kill their neighbors. They remove load-bearing walls in their apartments so as to open up the view and manage to cause the entire building to collapse.
I lived in NYC for 50+ years and saw far more of this stupidity firsthand than many people ever read about.
Not everything bad that happens to people is a simple accident. A lot of it has to do with another's sheer stupidity. And BTW, NEGLIGENCE is NOT stupidity.
That's what actually concerns me.
Consider a school or day care center directly across the street from a lifelong moron, paid up in full, who isn't quite sure how to operate or store a rocket launcher or a case of grenades or whatever.
I have no clue as to what the solution is and I do not profess to have one. I surely do not want the government to repeal, amend, etc. the Constitution and I'm truly not a fan of additional regulations for the sake of making Big Brother bigger.
Yet, I also don't want to be just a memory any time soon. If this all smacks of my NYC jading, oh well, I will not deny my roots.
And as an aside, Highball, and no matter what, if we ever get the opportunity to meet up down the road, steaks and beers are on me.[^]
Here's just one immediate example of what I'm referring to when I say that many people are "stupid" and cannot be left to their own devices when military weapons are involved.
Are there blithering idiots in this country? They abound.
Would there be accidents (deaths) if idiots are left to their own devices? Undoubtedly.
Why should I be denied MY right to bear arms, because of these idiots?
Are there crazies out there, that want to/will kill people? Obviously.
Will they use means other than "arms" to do it? Box knives and airplanes seem to work.
Why should I be denied MY right to bear arms, because of these crazies?
When faced with the age old rhetoric "The streets will run with blood" I use Vermont (and now Alaska) as an example. The cries went out that "the streets will run with blood" if decent law abiding citizens were allowed the UNRESTRICTED carrying of "concealed" firearms. Statistics PROVE that they are two of the safest states to live in, where firearms are concerned, seeing as how their crime rates are among the lowest in the country. Trusting decent law abiding citizens to "self-regulate" seems to work. Statistically that is.
Castle Doctrine laws are being passed in more and more states. The same tiresome cries went up from the same tiresome people. Statistics have PROVEN once again, that the cries were unfounded.
There are many MANY people out there with full-auto machine guns. Both legal (by government regulations, over 240,000 of them) and otherwise. Many soldiers brought back weapons from past wars. You hear about them every once in a while, when some widow takes a machine gun, a case of grenades, or a bazooka (with ammo) etc. into a police station, because she doesn't want it now that her husband is gone.
With all this firepower stashed around the country, (both legal and supposedly illegal) why is it that there is ONLY ONE reported case of a crime being committed with a registered full-auto weapon? And that was by a police officer. (By chance, police/military being the ONLY entity allowed to buy NEW machine guns? Hmmmmm) That said, it would seem that statistically speaking, machine guns are MUCH more dangerous in the hands of police officers, than civilians.
Consider that cannons are (at present) unrestricted. When was the last time you heard of a crime being committed with a cannon? When was the last time a building was brought down using a cannon. An armored truck? A bank? A murder? Why not, It's unregulated, readily available, mobile, and packs quite a punch.
Other than in war zones.
Cars kill more people than arms.
Doctors kill more people than arms.
Etc. etc. etc.
Now tell me again.....
Why should I be denied MY right to bear arms?
pickenup, you misread my post. I never said in my immedite post prior to your reply that I wish for anyone to deny you a right - I'm suggesting some kind of strict regulation to prevent unnecessary tragedies at the hands of idiots.
It seems like only when it hits home to one of YOUR, i.e. the royal YOUR, kinfolk or friends that suddenly heads perk up and the chatter on GB abounds.
So if a tragedy ever should happen and it's in your neighborhood (may God forbid that) and hurts you or a loved one, will you STILL feel as though having those particular military weapons in YOUR neighborhood AND in the hands of idiots next to you was actually necessary????
Please! Really think long and hard about that one.
Any answer other than that you wouldn't want it to happen to you or your loved ones is most likely good ol' country bulls*it or city sidewalk dogs*it. And I'm simply not buying it. No one wants to see tragedy happen, especially at home.
Being honest and candid isn't about winning a popularity contest. It's about telling it as you see and feel it. Nothing more.
I was 9 years old when I lost a revered older brother (the main picture in my mind yet today is him grinning behind a machine gun..a picture from the service)
To a jealous would-be suiter of a girl my brother sweep off her feet...run over by the suiter with a car.
My other brother, at age 14, died by a rope..a stupid mistake.
I didn't, even at that tender age, blame the rope...nor the car.
I placed the blame squarely where it belonged....
Blaming a tool for the insanity of individuals is playing right into the hands of those who would disarm us....a deadly mistake.
Remember the deaths of 87 people, a few years ago...up there in the Northeast ? You hardly hear about it any more...didn't hear much about it when it happened.
A firebomb was thrown into the building, and the front and rear door was blocked....Had that been gun fire..they would be talking about it every day or two....
Slow Hand...I have met a small handful of people from these forums. Not been disappointed yet in the quality of those I have met...course, I study carefully those posting...[:D] You I think would be an interesting evening discussing world affairs and partaking of said steak and adult beverage.
Highball, I see your point and understand your position. And I'm saddened to hear of the tragedies that have befallen your loved ones. You have seen a great deal in your lifetime. I will say a prayer for them and for you this evening.
To the scope of this thread, we're actually not that far apart, believe it or not.
The difference is partly due that none of what we're speaking about is "new" to you. You're an old hand at it as are many others here on GB and beyond.
I don't fear the people who have the conviction, the mettle and the nerve to do what is right no matter how tough or obstinate or "grizzled".
I dare say that I would sit next to you and have that steak even if you were babysitting one of those military weapons next to your chair in the restaurant. That's because I know the person and man you are. You're not a clown, not a jokester, not a showboater. I trust you. You strike me as someone who CAN lead men and that is not an acquired trait. It's in your "kishkes" (Yiddish for "gut").
A lot of other people however make me very suspicious and altogether nervous. Why? Because to a lot of people I've met in my lifetime (and I won't go into chapter and ugly verse here), life is an amusing game, an inside joke, a goof. For those who have the money, this stuff is a means for entertainment and staving off boredom. Nothing gets taken seriously. No real purpose. It's as if they believe you can yell "Do over!" without any consequence.
Haven't you come across a young man who just wasn't Marine material? Did "Sarge" give him chance after chance or just cut the Corps losses and move on?
In a city like NYC with so many people, you WILL come across an awful lot of irresponsible and stupid people. And stupidity is not indigenous to NYC. It's an equal opportunity human deficiency that is increasingly rampant here in America. Dumbing down is quickly becoming the National pasttime.
Yes, I'm terribly jaded and biased by all those years of living in a truly great city like NY and I won't deny that those years drive much of what I believe today, but I don't see that it's necessarily a bad thing.
I'll most probably never be the guy who owns one of those military weapons and so for me, it's all pretty much moot. I dig my heels here on GB not to rile, agitate or deny anyone the right but rather to draw attention to the severity of the responsibilty associated with having them, especially in populated areas.
Perhaps it's just my perception but after reading post after post after post, I believe that a few of the people roaming around here on GB are a danger to both society and themselves. My opinion. Not fact. No joke. No names offered.
I wouldn't want to stop you or pickenup et al from having them if that's what you feel is warranted. But we must not be cavalier about having the weapons themselves either. It is IMO an awesome right and and ever more awesome responsibility.
Time for bed. Thank you Highball. Have a good night, my friend.
The wisdom of your words are apparant to any that would read them with an open mind..the solutions we two would offer tho would be perhaps diametrically opposed.
The one area where I really run afoul of most honest, decent people...I do indeed recognise that predators and stupid people abound. My solution would be to allow Darwinisn to come into play...not fetter decent, honest people with cumbersome regulations.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
The royal?
A popularity contest?
That's your perception?
Thanks for the inquiry, pickenup.
Please allow me to answer and explain.
The term "the royal YOUR" that I used means belonging to everyone as in a general and larger, broader reference, not just one as in your, i.e that of one specific person. It has absolutely nothing to do with royalty, monarchs, etc.
Yes, I really do believe that on specific subjects, some folks post what they believe others want or expect to read, not necessarily their true feelings. That's what we back east called "gratuitous approval" or sometimes "gladhanding". Note I said "some folks" so I believe it's a minority of posters. This is not indigenous to to just the GB site either - it occurs on every single posting board out there. As well as at parties, in clubs, in organizations, in the workplace, in boardrooms, etc.
I'm not here on GB to stroke anyone's fur or to win a popularity contest. I'm hear to learn and to participate but also to say what I truly feel, not what will simply allow me to fit in or get the cliched "attaboy" etc.
Admittedly, I know very little about guns in comparison to the majority of folks here but I have a lifetime of what I believe to be very valuable experience and personal and career accomplishments - as well as failures, disappointments and a few tragedies - and as such I'm more than qualified to have and to express my opinions.
I may not be always be right but that has never stopped me or anyone else from having or expressing his or her opinion. And sometimes, being truthful and candid puts me into a minority of sorts. I feel it's a risk that's worth taking if I'm going to learn.
I will have to agree with you, there are some who do post with popularity in mind. I can only feel sad for those kind of people. Keep expressing your honest opinion, it makes for a good debate, as well as educating some on what growing up in places, such as where you came from, can do to a man's point of view. (NOT saying that it's bad. LOL)
While highball, I, (and some others) are definitely in the minority on some topics, and are NOT on the top of some peoples list (well maybe their HIT list) We have caused "some" to re-think their views on certain subjects, by posting honest opinions, mixed in with some facts, rather than what those people "wanted" to hear.
Glad you're here to learn, as I was when I first arrived, and I'm still learning. Do allow yourself to be open to change. Just look at what you have learned since your move. Since the advent of the internet, some of the information provided therein, has changed my views on a number of fronts.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand I'm not here on GB to stroke anyone's fur or to win a popularity contest. I'm hear to learn and to participate but also to say what I truly feel, not what will simply allow me to fit in or get the cliched "attaboy" etc.
This is a serious question Slow Hand, not an attack or an implied accusation of any kind, but what exactly have you learned from participating here? I mean more in terms of something you didn't know before, or held misconceptions about before being "taught" the accurate way to view/interpret/understand/accept something.
The reason I ask is that I have asked you several questions in this thread, about what you knew and/or accepted, and while you have remained civil, you have not bothered to directly answer any of them. Instead, you have argued basically the same premises that prompted me to ask the questions in the first place, so I'm just wondering, are you really learning anything about history or the Constitution, or even about guns themselves, or are you only learning about the personalities of the people who engage you in conversation?
In case you've lost track of the questions to which I refer, they're contained in the 2nd post of mine in this thread, plus a few subsequent ones in response to other posts of yours.
quote:Originally posted by BluesStringer
Slow Hand, before I would challange your opinion, I would need to know what precisely you base it on. Are you aware of any quotes by any Framers in which the word "arms" refers to anything other than those appropriate both as military arms and hunting/self-defense arms? I do not know of any specific quantifier that the Framers used BUT the original question of the thread and the one I replied to was "How do you interpret "Arms"...." I offered an answer based solely upon MY interpretation. Do you accept the premise that the 2nd Amendment was intended, among other intentions, as a bulwark against usurpations of power by an unchecked federal government? Yes. I do suspect however that the Framers were wholly suspicious and very doubtful on ANY new government that was about to be born. They were not addressing a newly formed one that was decades old. Or I guess I should say, do you accept that the Founders generally accepted that premise, regardless of the evolution of thought since then? Back then, absolutely. Remember, I'm only responding to your opinion that you, "don't believe that the founding fathers envisioned the average citizen having a cannon or a catapult in his or her front yard." And I still don't think that they consciously and deliberately thought that the average person would want them, need them or have them. But I believe that's pure speculation no matter what side of the argument you're on. If you take arms to include a nuclear warhead fired from a submarine then so be it. If you do not wish to draw an imaginary line for discussion purposes then we can bandy this one about just like the chicken and the egg. And, I'm okay with that.
Here's my problem with the notion that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is limited at a certain level of lethality of weaponry: First, nowhere that I've found does any Founder ever state such. Of all the people in the history of man who weren't shy about stating their intentions succinctly, articulately and unambiguously, Jefferson, Hamilton and all the rest were at the top of that list. It's hard to understand how one might assert that their true intentions are absent in the text of their speeches and/or writings. Blues, how could they possibly mention or discuss in their letters or texts ANYTHING that had not yet been devised, invented or produced? Do we know what weapon will be "vogue" for the armed forces in 2026? If you feel that anything and everything that comes along is included, then that's your interpretation of their intent and the origianl question of this thread.
Second, many Founders stated that a part of their intent was to guarentee citizens' rights of self-defense, among other things, from an emerging tyrannical government. If that was their intent, then by what logic should we surmise they intended us to be a weaker force with inferior arms to that government? I don't believe the Framers went through all of this just to keep everyone poised and on the verge of another insurrection and reviolution. I truly believe that they were trying desperately to create and maintain a living and functioning government that would serve the people going forward. Caveats - yes! Cautions - yes! Checks and balances - Yes! But not as antagonists with one hand on a musket and the other on a quill. If you define "self-defense" to include obliterating hundreds or thousands of people miles away with one big bang, then all weapons are in the mix. If however you look at defending "your own self" in the more common sense of the term, then a handgun, a rifle and even a full auto are in my opinion the more valid weapons. That comes down to interpretation and/or opinion.
Blues
BluesStringer, You deserve to have your questions answered and so I offer this to you. Granted you will most assuredly not like or agree with my answers or my position and that's okay. I keep an open mind so that I might learn. Right now, this is what I believe. Who knows? Maybe down the road I'll see things differently.
quote:Originally posted by BluesStringer
Slow Hand, before I would challange your opinion, I would need to know what precisely you base it on. Are you aware of any quotes by any Framers in which the word "arms" refers to anything other than those appropriate both as military arms and hunting/self-defense arms? Do you accept the premise that the 2nd Amendment was intended, among other intentions, as a bulwark against usurpations of power by an unchecked federal government? Or I guess I should say, do you accept that the Founders generally accepted that premise, regardless of the evolution of thought since then? Remember, I'm only responding to your opinion that you, "don't believe that the founding fathers envisioned the average citizen having a cannon or a catapult in his or her front yard."
Here's my problem with the notion that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is limited at a certain level of lethality of weaponry: First, nowhere that I've found does any Founder ever state such. Of all the people in the history of man who weren't shy about stating their intentions succinctly, articulately and unambiguously, Jefferson, Hamilton and all the rest were at the top of that list. It's hard to understand how one might assert that their true intentions are absent in the text of their speeches and/or writings.
Second, many Founders stated that a part of their intent was to guarentee citizens' rights of self-defense, among other things, from an emerging tyrannical government. If that was their intent, then by what logic should we surmise they intended us to be a weaker force with inferior arms to that government?
Blues
BluesStringer, I believe that these were answered in my previous reply to you.
quote:Originally posted by BluesStringer
Hey Highball, thanks to you for the welcome too.
Slow Hand, you are obviously more than welcome to your opinions, and I don't mean to single you out since others have voiced similar ones as yours. However, you made the statement that, "I personally don't believe that the founding fathers envisioned the average citizen having a cannon or a catapult in his or her front yard." and I am still curious what you base that on, especially in light of your new revelation that you have no interest in reading their own words on the subject to help you know what their thinking was. No, I can't say that I know unequivocally what their thinking would be on this subject. We have only 200+ year old "static" documents to pour over and from which to make determinations, assessmentments and educated decisions from. But, and there is a big "but" here, you cannot justify without the shadow of any doubt whatsoever any leap of faith across 230 years if you cannot support it. No mention per say of cannons and catapults, missles, rocket launchers or nuclear devices. And absolutely no mention to the contrary. Ergo, interpretation may be necessary and even appropriate. If what you're looking for is support for holding an opinion that is not based in fact, head on, you have my support. I don't understand why anyone would, as Highball described it, "get huffy" just because a countering opinion to yours is based in fact. Perhaps because you deftly tried to couch your disdain for my opinions in sarcasm and what we Yankees up North called the "backhanded slap". It appears to me that you want my opinions only to take aim at them and fire another salvo rather than have a real old fashioned discussion. But I'll gladly join Highball in that foxhole to defend your right to hold any opinion you wish to hold, as you say, "right or wrong." I initially let this one remark slide but now, since you asked for answers I'll tell you exactly what I thought then and think now. If you are suggesting that I wouldn't fight for your rights or those of others then where I come from that's a "diss" to me as a man. Not apppreciated and not warranted, BluesStringer.
HIghball, I agree, the Beast is alive and well and has given us many reasons to prepare beyond simple rhetoric. Insurrection is illegal and it should be. Quelling the usurpation of power by a run amock government is not only legal, it's our duty. Those who don't understand the distinction, or believe the latter to be factually wrong, are people I wouldn't want to share any foxhole with. I can only imagine that if and when the time ever comes, you won't be so selective as to which one of your fellow citizens is in the foxhole with you. You would do wise to never presume to know the truth worth of a man.
But I've been in here too long today and now I gotta go climb into my own personal little foxhole and see if I can't negotiate a cease-fire with the ol' lady for not helping around the house today! [:I]
Have A Good'un,
Blues
BluesStringer, I believe I've answered your questions to the best of my ability.
Gentlemen;
The discussions taking place here I liken to those that were held long ago, during yet another long, hot summer..there is more gut-wrenching, pro and con here then 100 threads over on general..and in the event of terrible events...the seeds of rebuilding a newer, better framework then what the Founders built.
I thank each of you for your thoughts in this ongoing debate...I wish some of the other posters would chime in with their imput.
None of us reading these threads in this forum leave here unchanged...you can make book on that.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Handquote:Originally posted by BluesStringer Here's my problem with the notion that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is limited at a certain level of lethality of weaponry: First, nowhere that I've found does any Founder ever state such. Of all the people in the history of man who weren't shy about stating their intentions succinctly, articulately and unambiguously, Jefferson, Hamilton and all the rest were at the top of that list. It's hard to understand how one might assert that their true intentions are absent in the text of their speeches and/or writings.Blues, how could they possibly mention or discuss in their letters or texts ANYTHING that had not yet been devised, invented or produced? Do we know what weapon will be "vogue" for the armed forces in 2026? If you feel that anything and everything that comes along is included, then that's your interpretation of their intent and the origianl question of this thread.
Are we involved in the same conversation? The above quote from me was uttered in the following context: "Remember, I'm only responding to your opinion that you, "don't believe that the founding fathers envisioned the average citizen having a cannon or a catapult in his or her front yard." We weren't, or at least I wasn't, asking you to go back in time and conjur up what weapons the Founders were contemplating being devised in the future, I was responding directly to your stated opinion that they didn't envision the heavy weapons of their own day in the "average" citizen's front yard.
But, whatever, I had previously asked what you based that opinion on and have come to realize that it's based solely on your own conjecture, which, like it or not, is completely contradicted by quotable writings by many, if not most Founders, my sig being just one among many examples of which I could quote chapter and verse if I really thought that you had any interest in truly learning the truth. I don't really think that though. I think that you think original intent is somehow outdated, obsolete and irrelevent, or possibly that it's just inferior to what you perceive as a modern, "moderated" view of the Constitution. If I'm mistaken, then I'm mistaken, but it's not a far-fetched conclusion to draw when you say you don't, "need to read volumes or crawl inside of 50+ dead men's minds to come up with an opinion - right or wrong." Crawling inside those dead men's minds, to the extent possible 220+ years later, is exactly what it takes to answer the question(s) being asked in this thread. A refusal to even try is an admission that you view their words as inferior to your own conjecture about what they thought. I have a very hard time taking that as a serious attempt to learn anything, or to even being open to learning anything.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Handquote:Originally posted by BluesStringerSecond, many Founders stated that a part of their intent was to guarentee citizens' rights of self-defense, among other things, from an emerging tyrannical government. If that was their intent, then by what logic should we surmise they intended us to be a weaker force with inferior arms to that government? I don't believe the Framers went through all of this just to keep everyone poised and on the verge of another insurrection and reviolution.
I agree that the Framers didn't go through their trials and tribulations just to "keep" people hyped up for more war. But what did they do to prevent that eventuality? They recognized the natural rights of man to rebel against tyranny. They acknowledged that the government was subserviant to The People. They codified that subserviance into law in the form of The Bill of Rights, which guarenteed The People the right to enforce that subserviance if the government ever forgot or lost its' place. In other words, they tried to calm the revolutionary mindset through the promise of self-governance and self-determination, two things which an unarmed (or under-armed) population have no chance of maintaining.
So you're absolutely right, the Framers did not want to keep revolution forever bubbling just beneath the surface, they wanted The People to live calmly in freedom and liberty, only with the tools they needed to enforce the Constitution as the law of the land....forever.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand I truly believe that they were trying desperately to create and maintain a living and functioning government that would serve the people going forward.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree, but I believe that they believed that the only way to truly "serve the people going forward" was to provide them with the power to overrule the government, as a last resort, by force when their will was subverted by that same government.
I get the distinct impression that you believe that notion to have been true at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, but that you believe it has lost its validity, or maybe its power of law, or both, over the intervening years for some as-yet-unexplained-reason.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand Caveats - yes!
What caveats?
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand Cautions - yes!
Yes, and most cautions were warning against a growing complacency and/or apathy of The People which would allow the government to overstep the bounds to which it was tied within The Constitution.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand Checks and balances - Yes!
Indeed, and one of those checks on unlimited government power was the 2nd Amendment! I think you understand that and agree with me on the premise, but you seem to want to put limits on its meaning which would render it useless for that intended purpose. That's what's so hard to understand about your empassioned defense of, as you put it, "strict" government controls on who can own certain weapons and who can't.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand If you define "self-defense" to include obliterating hundreds or thousands of people miles away with one big bang, then all weapons are in the mix.
If those thousands of people miles away are government-controlled troops coming to disarm a town or state near you, then that's exactly why the Framers contemplated The People's unalienable right to access to weapons, even the ones that make a "big bang."
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand If however you look at defending "your own self" in the more common sense of the term
'Scuse me for interrupting, but if you substitute the word "common" for "modern" you'll be correct in your analysis. However, the "common" way of talking about arms back in the Framers' day was as military equipment, period. They were protecting the right of free men to break away from an oppressive, tyrannical government as evidenced by the fact that that's exactly what they themselves were doing at the time. "Self" defense in an individual sense was/is a given. There's no mention of it specifically in The Constitution or the Federalist Papers. However, the notion of The People having the right to defend itself from the government is either spelled out specifcally or easily inferred from nearly all, if not all, of the writings and debates regarding the formation of the 2nd Amendment leading up to the Constitution's ratification.
All I'm getting at is that one has to be careful to put words like "common" in their proper, time-sensitive perspective.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand BluesStringer, You deserve to have your questions answered and so I offer this to you. Granted you will most assuredly not like or agree with my answers or my position and that's okay. I keep an open mind so that I might learn.
So you've said. I'm just wondering what, if anything, you feel you have learned through all of this. I mean about the crux of the questions in the thread, and not about my personal passions about the Constitution or my idiosyncracies or whatever.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand Right now, this is what I believe. Who knows? Maybe down the road I'll see things differently.[/b]
It'll be interesting to see if that eventuality will come to pass.
The first two paraphrases of the 2nd Amendment read as follows:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state...."
A free state!!! Free from what, exactly?? Would you not agree that a state that is overrun by the gov't, or any other occupying force would clearly not be free? Could the same be concluded from a situation in which the streets are overrun by looters, thugs, and rioters? What about when the streets only have highwaymen on them?
No, none of these things indicate freedom in any sense of the word. It is for that reason alone that we have the Second Amendment.
What is the most useful thing any of us could have to secure a free state? Any small arm is a step in the right direction, and preferably, one that is similar to that which would be used by a trained military force.... it is not the tanks, to which are generally out of the price range of most Americans outright, nor is it aircraft, watercraft, or other heavy artillery pieces, all of which could be readily destroyed by use of portable explosives in the form of rocket launchers, grenades, explosives, Stinger missile systems, mortars and bazookas. For antipersonnel duties, a rifle with as many advantages as possible on them is the most useful for doing this duty. Things like select-fire options, high capacity magazines, supressors, grenade launchers, ergo features, and ease of use designs make them most ideal for this purpose.
I've said before, the use of military artillery, such as tanks, jets and other stuff should be fully protected, sure, but is not something that truly falls in the jurisdiction of a 2nd Amendment defense and justification. Sure, they are useful, but in following the example of a country that has a true militia, Switzerland, none of them are equipped with tanks, jets, or artillery, only select-fire rifles. I have yet to read in any founding documents where the 2nd Amendment was intended for the ownership of artillery, but this is the beauty of the 9th Amendment, which states our right to own and do things not specifically enumerated in the BoR.
Remember, a militia is a guerilla fighting force, and as long as its enemy has not won, they have not lost.
quote:Right now, this is what I believe. Who knows? Maybe down the road I'll see things differently.
It'll be interesting to see if that eventuality will come to pass.
Blues
And it will not matter in the great scheme of things if it never does.
Slow Hand;
Your are, I believe...wrong there. Ever decent man that the Beast can number in its' camp gives it strength..those around you, the children..all being taught how to think..by you....the ripples spread far beyond you personally.
You may well turn your weapons on the Beasts' men someday...but today by limiting the Second Amendment in your thinking...you weaken yourself and the postion of free men everywhere.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:Right now, this is what I believe. Who knows? Maybe down the road I'll see things differently.
It'll be interesting to see if that eventuality will come to pass.
Blues
And it will not matter in the great scheme of things if it never does.
Slow Hand;
Your are, I believe...wrong there. Ever decent man that the Beast can number in its' camp gives it strength..those around you, the children..all being taught how to think..by you....the ripples spread far beyond you personally.
You may well turn your weapons on the Beasts' men someday...but today by limiting the Second Amendment in your thinking...you weaken yourself and the postion of free men everywhere.
Thank you, Highball. Your point is a very good and accurate one. This is exactly why I will not take the low road, cop out and just say that my opinion on this one point has changed, a.k.a. "closeted opposition".
I respect the U.S. Constitution and I acknowledge the importance of these discussions going forward too much to do that.
And I wouldn't be much of a man if I just waffled and caved in because I was in the minority here on GB or anywhere else. My father always taught me to "be a man", no matter what the consequences.
The time may come about when I change my opinion. Lord knows, I've done that numerous times in my life already but only because I felt it was what I truly believed and because it was the right thing to do.
Between now and then, I ask questions, I listen closely, I reply when I feel it's appropriate and I actively think about things and how I relate to them.
Just know that I am not adversarial by my nature, that I am a supporter of TRTKBA and that I'm not a gun control activist.
Thanks to all for encouraging my participation on this topic and for carrying on a dialogue with me.
A good and peaceful Sunday to you, Highball, and to all.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Handquote:Originally posted by BluesStringerIf what you're looking for is support for holding an opinion that is not based in fact, head on, you have my support. I don't understand why anyone would, as Highball described it, "get huffy" just because a countering opinion to yours is based in fact. Perhaps because you deftly tried to couch your disdain for my opinions in sarcasm and what we Yankees up North called the "backhanded slap". It appears to me that you want my opinions only to take aim at them and fire another salvo rather than have a real old fashioned discussion.
I defy you to point to anything that I've said that has been based in sarcasm. And if disagreement with your opinions equals "disdain" then so be it. You're welcome to take incorrect wild-assed-guesses as to what's in my mind when I sit down here and type. I always thought a "real old fashioned discussion" included good, ol' fashioned point/counter point, but admittedly, I've never spent much time up Nawth, and dagnabbit, this ol' hillbilly jus' ain't got no handle on how big city folk take to conversatin' about such lofty things as freedom from big-guvment intruuushun.
(Yes, that was sarcasm. Now you know the difference.)
Is there a chance that you're just a tad bit over-sensitive about disagreements Slow_Hand?
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Handquote:Originally posted by BluesStringerBut I'll gladly join Highball in that foxhole to defend your right to hold any opinion you wish to hold, as you say, "right or wrong."
I initially let this one remark slide but now, since you asked for answers I'll tell you exactly what I thought then and think now. If you are suggesting that I wouldn't fight for your rights or those of others then where I come from that's a "diss" to me as a man. Not apppreciated and not warranted, BluesStringer.
I'm not "suggesting" anything Slow_Hand. I interpret what you've said in this thread, as well as the knife thread I passed on replying to, as you supporting the government's "authority" to tell me what weapons I'm "allowed" to own and which ones I'm not. I view overreaching government authority as an indisputable violation of my rights. So, am I to understand now that you'll fight for my right to own any weapon I choose to own, even though you consider the government's authority trumps what I believe to be my God-given rights? Why would you fight for something you obviously don't believe in? I don't think you would, and if that's a "diss" then again, so be it. I just call 'em as I see 'em, and have only responded to what you've either explicitly said or tacitly implied. "Diss?" Not intended as such, but I can't do anything other than tell you that. It's up to you to let disagreements get under your skin or not. All I am doing is giving my honest views and honest responses to what I take to be your honest views. I really don't know how I'd go about showing you any more respect than that.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Handquote:Originally posted by BluesStringer HIghball, I agree, the Beast is alive and well and has given us many reasons to prepare beyond simple rhetoric. Insurrection is illegal and it should be. Quelling the usurpation of power by a run amock government is not only legal, it's our duty. Those who don't understand the distinction, or believe the latter to be factually wrong, are people I wouldn't want to share any foxhole with.
I can only imagine that if and when the time ever comes, you won't be so selective as to which one of your fellow citizens is in the foxhole with you.
Hmmm...Had to ponder that for a second, but no, you'd imagine wrong on this point. The people who failed to understand and/or work to preserve and protect the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment, would be the ones mostly responsible for me and Highball having to duck into that foxhole in the first place.
It may sound cold-hearted, but there are absolutes in life where one has to decide on which side of the fence s/he resides. Some issues aren't appropriate for a "moderate" take on things, and the Constitution is one of those issues for me. I would no more share my foxhole with a 2nd Amendment fence-sitter than George Washington would've shared his with Benedict Arnold. Just as Arnold was partially responsible for putting The Revolution at risk of defeat, the modern-day, uncommitted "moderate" would be partially responsible for putting me and my family's lives at risk from an emerging tyrannical government. They'd be largely responsible for me having to make a choice between living on my knees or to die standing for what I believe in. If I die standing, it will be standing with like-minded compatriots, not those who sat on the sidelines and allowed the confligration to explode around them.
The fact is, I can't think of a time when I would be any more selective of who I associated with than when my or my wife's liberties and lives were on the line.
quote:You would do wise to never presume to know the truth worth of a man.
I only presume to know the worth of my own convictions, and brother, they are pricey! If stating my own beliefs somehow lessens your worth as a man, then that's on you because nothing I have said or will ever say is intended to devalue you in any way. If you state your opinions about the prudence of government controls on privately-owned weapons on a website that's dedicated to making those weapons easily avaiable, you're going to be challenged. That's all I've done. No disrespect intended, which should be obvious because telling the truth about what's in one's heart and soul is, in my book, the height of respect. Take it or leave it, it is what it is.
BluesStringer, let's not go 'round and 'round and 'round ad nauseum on this.
Validation sans innuendo is paramount to carrying on a productive dialogue and frankly, in my opinion, you either do not know how to do it or you simply choose not to. So be it. Your choice to make.
I've believe that I have expressed myself articulately, politely and more than adequately. I addressed your questions and those of other posters as well. Ironically, while I'm positive they don't agree with me, they've accepted my responses as responses and moved on.
You've zeroed in on me and chosen to preach "fire and brimstone" to me from your own personal pulpit.
You and I obviously have absolutely nothing of actual substance to discuss on this topic going forward because it is a standoff of sorts. Therefore, I believe it's now time for us to move on.
I truly do not wish to waste everyone's time - especially my own - and the associated server space here on GB.
I answered your questions as a gentleman and to the best of my abilities. I stand by my opinions and comments no matter what you feel.
And so, we're officially done, in my book at least.
With that, I encourage you to write as much as you like and to post often, perhaps on some different subject matter where you are "less knowledgeable" and more vulnerable to disagreement.
You are new to GB and it seems that most of your posts are directly involved with me. I'm terribly easy fodder for you especially since my individual opinion is not at all mainstream here on GB. And I think the more experienced posters here on GB would tell you that one upfront.
It would be interesting reading to see you engage some of the more vocal and highly-opinionated GB members on politics, religion, life experience, economy, psychology, ancient history, handguns, rifles, military experiences, etc.
It might behoove you to know - if you already don't - that there are some incredibly knowledgeable and experienced individuals sharing their thoughts across a vast number of other issues. There isn't a day that goes by where I don't learn something from one or more of them that I didn't know when I got up out of bed in the morning. Humility allows a man to see, hear and learn more.
And, these posters are not always polite or sensitive in their reponses to others' postings. Disagreements abound.
Actually, truth be told, the Minority opinions on this subject belong to Blues, Pickenup, myself and a very few others....most of the posters on GB support gun control in one form or another.
Nothing to worry about...3 % of the population fought the great War of Independence...and nothing has changed to this day.Most people support the Beast..because it is easier then thinking.
One of the more telling arguments over gun control, in my opinion..the Founders had just won a war that started when Big Brother
attempted to confiscate powder,shot, and arms..no way in hell they EVER intended to give arms control back to Big Brother.
By the way, gunphreak, I agree wholeheartedly with your last post. I do make a lot of noise about what I believe to be my *right* to own any weapon I choose, but I have no interest in putting my life savings towards a tank or missle launcher. I've always seen the argument against accessibility to such weapons as a complete straw-man one. Nobody who's serious about survivalism, whether when facing Mother Nature or ol' out-of-control, senile Uncle Sam, is going to waste their resources on things that are hard to hide, hard to move and nearly impossible to operate without a platoon-sized cadry of help.
Truth be told, I doubt very seriously that any of us who are old enough to even buy guns now, are going to see the bababooey hit the fan in a political/military conflict in our lifetimes. My interest in this discussion is mostly theoretical, a way to visualize circumstances that might lead me to have to act on my beliefs, which are real enough and deeply-held, but the need for which I really doubt will materialize before I go to that big foxhole in the sky. (Oh jeesh, now I'm just gettin' plain ol' corny!)
Anyhow, like I said early on, I wandered in here after buying a Kel-Tec SU16-A .223 "assault rifle" off of GB. I am more or less expecting to get it tomorrow (Monday), surely this coming week sometime, and I'm excited as Hell about it. I own 3 other guns at this time, one tiny little Beretta mdl. 21A .22 LR pistol that I carry, one S&W mdl. 4563 TSW .45 cal. pistol that I keep in my "bug-out bag" just in case, and one S&W 12 ga. "assault" style (folding stock, pistol-grip etc.) shotgun that I keep for home-defense. After the Kel-Tec gets here, I'm probably done buying guns. Too old to hunt anymore. Two back surgeries ago I used to spend almost all my spare time in the woods either hunting or just consortin' with nature, but nowadays if I'm in the wilderness, it means our little "Great Experiment" went to crap and I'll be glad not to be tied down with tanks and heavy weaponry, and if'n y'all see a campfire when you're wanderin' through the woods of south Tennessee/north Alabama, stop in for some of my (in)famous possum stew that it only took one 30-round clip of .223 for me to get the meat for! HA! Hey, and that goes for you too Slow_Hand!
Have A Good'un,
Blues
Edit:
Just had to be a cheerleader for this:
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Most people support the Beast..because it is easier then thinking.
Truer words were never spoken Brother! Another lesson learned, brevity is indeed the soul of wit!
I'd say any arms, be it portable, or horse drawn(modern times that would be strap it on A truck or something), it was meant for the citizens to have access to bear upon demand.
quote:Originally posted by BluesStringer
....and if'n y'all see a campfire when you're wanderin' through the woods of south Tennessee/north Alabama, stop in for some of my (in)famous possum stew that it only took one 30-round clip of .223 for me to get the meat for! HA! Hey, and that goes for you too Slow_Hand!
Thanks for the invite, BluesStringer. I appreciate the gesture.
Although I've never eaten possum let alone possum stew - the "possums" people think they see in NYC are actually very large rats and from what I hear not very tasty ones either - there's always a first time for everything.[:)]
If I am ever out your way, I will take you up on your offer and break bread with you.
How do we vote in the poll? Other forums I've seen have a poll set-up that lets posters check a box or whatever.
I'd start at #9, the blowy-uppy stuff, as that marks the departure from personal touch weapons into kill radius weapons.
I always thought it should be a requirement for every citizen in good standing to own & qualify on the sixteen or whatever the standard issue rifle of the nation may be at the time.
How do we vote in the poll? Other forums I've seen have a poll set-up that lets posters check a box or whatever.
I'd start at #9, the blowy-uppy stuff, as that marks the departure from personal touch weapons into kill radius weapons.
I always thought it should be a requirement for every citizen in good standing to own & qualify on the sixteen or whatever the standard issue rifle of the nation may be at the time.
For the most part, I used to agree with this position, but the problem I have found is that rifles of any caliber do a poor job of taking out artillery, like tanks and cannons, and now, we have helicopters and jet aircraft, as well. These are things that any invading force will use, and as such, I say if it can be carried, it's good to go, and I stopped at artillery simply because a missile from a single LAW will destroy a tank. A mortar cannon is portable, and the modern-day equivalent of the cannon of yesteryear, and grenades are commonly used by military forces. These are the weapons we should be concerned with. Rifles of any action, caliber, capacity and extra support equipment should be a no-brainer, as well as handguns, shotguns and ammunition.
Admit it, a citizen army is at a serious disadvantage against an army equipped with the type of artillery of today. People most likely cannot beat a gov't military force with greater force; where they win is by inflicting greater damage to resources than what is being inflicted.
I'm not even going to start to get into everything that's wrong with that post. I came to this thread to vote in the poll, not argue with somebody who... never mind!
So who's got a tally of the poll responses so far?
MrOrange;
What ever is wrong with gunphreak's post ? Caused me to rethink my position, it did....The Founders (you HAVE heard of them ?) INTENDED we the people the means to take out a tyrannical goverment...and such a goverment today WILL send out the A-10's...and the attack helicopters...
If you do not wish to discuss the problems facing those of us believing in the Second Amendment...it is obvious that General Discussion would be the place to visit. Over there, what's for dinner is a popular topic.
^ Okay, just a bit: I'm not going to argue with someone who claims to have tried to take out "artillery, like tanks and cannons"(sic) with a rifle before there were such things as helicopters and jet aircraft. They're either insane or don't understand the language, and in either case an attempt at rational debate would be fruitless.
As to the whyfores: This is a poll thread. I voted and gunphreak jumped in my face trying to start a fight. A responder to this thread should pick a number and, perhaps, give a brief explanation.
Otherwise, go start another thread "to discuss the problems facing those of us believing in the Second Amendment".
About Gen Dis: This place could really use a separate "Fun" forum for all the funny video clips and jokes and such.
First...I am not 'defending' gunphreak...he being PERFECTLY capable of doing so himself. I find your responses interesting, however. I trust you will stay around and allow a dialogue...and don't worry about hi-jacking a thread. We are an understanding bunch over here...[:0]
^ quote: Okay, just a bit: I'm not going to argue with someone who claims to have tried to take out "artillery, like tanks and cannons"(sic) with a rifle before there were such things as helicopters and jet aircraft. They're either insane or don't understand the language, and in either case an attempt at rational debate would be fruitless.
Actually, There was no such 'personal' claim...merely an observation that small arms are useless against armor.
quote:As to the whyfores: This is a poll thread. I voted and gunphreak jumped in my face trying to start a fight. A responder to this thread should pick a number and, perhaps, give a brief explanation.
Life should be so simple. We tend to be a passionate lot over here..and people willing to limit their..and MY..rights are expected to defend their position. Most folks will not respond to a thread asking 'why' they are anti-gun...
quote:Otherwise, go start another thread "to discuss the problems facing those of us believing in the Second Amendment".
Read nearly ANY thread on 'Gun Rights'...you will find the discussion raging on about 'the problems'.
One very real problem..the most severe, in my opinion...is gun owners that are uneducated about the Second Amendment...and are perfectly willing to allow the Beast to make laws restricting gun rights.
quote:Originally posted by MrOrange
^ Okay, just a bit: I'm not going to argue with someone who claims to have tried to take out "artillery, like tanks and cannons"(sic) with a rifle before there were such things as helicopters and jet aircraft. They're either insane or don't understand the language, and in either case an attempt at rational debate would be fruitless.
As to the whyfores: This is a poll thread. I voted and gunphreak jumped in my face trying to start a fight. A responder to this thread should pick a number and, perhaps, give a brief explanation.
Otherwise, go start another thread "to discuss the problems facing those of us believing in the Second Amendment".
About Gen Dis: This place could really use a separate "Fun" forum for all the funny video clips and jokes and such.
I haven't tried starting nothing with anyone, dude.
And I see you are a little on the aggressive side where commenting is concerned.
Did I say I have ever tried to take out a tank or such with a rifle??? No I did not. Are you now going to argue that the rifle will do just that??? I'm not. Not even a .50BMG will do this unless God Himself wills it to happen.
Will a rocket launcher do that? For the most part, yes it will. Unless we're talking about something like a Stinger, which is a SAM.
This post has lost its "poll" property about a page ago.
Slow Hand-watched the go around. Nice work. My 2 is that I don't agree with your opinion. If fact, I think it downright sucks. Merely suggesting a "strict regulation and licensing" implies that you are pro gun control and would gladly sacrifice the rights of us all for sake of the safety of a few. Only a few, from the fewer bunch of idiots and whack jobs. This follows the "if it saves the life of just one child" mentality.
That said-it takes sack to banter that opinion here, and I respect that. Being Bronx born, I share that with you. The sack that is.
As some here can attest, a steak and adult beverage would be as generous at your side of the table as my own and would welcome the opportunity to break bread. I am generally personable, not too boisterous and only slightly vulgar. I do insist on a agreeable decor with a generous sprinkling of lovely ladies to gawk at.
KEEPING UP WITH THE TIMES. IN THE TIME THE SINGLE SHOT MUZZLE LOAD WAS FINE. THAT WAS AFTER ALL THE BEST THERE WAS FOR THE CITIZEN AND THE GOVERMENT OF THAT TIME.
SO I THINK THE FOUNDING FATHERS JUST WANTED THE PEOPLE TO HAVE THE SAME FIRE POWER AS THEIR GOVERMENT DID. SO IN KEEPING UP WITH THE TIMES, IF YOU HAVE THE BUCKS $$$$$$$$$$$ BUY THE NUKE. IN CLOSING IF ITS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE GOVERMENT ITS SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE. ITS ALL IN THE CHECKS AND BALANCES OF THE AMERICAN GOVERMENT.
BUT THATS ANOTHER STORY.
...at what point on the list you would start restricting possession of the listed items."
All those lised are currently protected under the 2A. I would support a Constitutional Amendment denying the militia possession of nuclear weapons, because I believe they should be considered solely for use against other nations in a conventional (international) war.
So my approved list would be:
1. Single-Shot rifle/pistol
2. Single-Action revolver
3. Bolt/Lever-Action rifle
4. Double-Action revolver
5. Semi-Auto pistol
6. Semi-Auto rifle
7. Full-Auto rifle/pistol (UZI, MAC-10, AK-47, M-16)
8. Machine Gun (stationary, not hand-held. M-60, unless you are Rambo)
9. Grenades
10. RPG
11. Mortar
12. Rocket Launcher
13. TOW (guided rocket)
14. Howitzer/Artillery
15. Missile
18. What was, is, and will ever be!!!
Additionally, I would add combat watercraft, and combat aircraft to this list, as tyrants, ( as well as the good guys), have a nasty habit of blockading ports and riverways, and of using airpower to control events on the ground..
I think all Semi-Automatic weapons should be legal, I think all legal citizens with a clean criminal record should be allowed to own Fully Automatic weapons.
Mortars and Grenades are touchy as we have lot's of foreigners that would use them in terrorist actions against us. So I'd make grenades and mortar rounds non-lethal for citizens use.
Perhaps heavier weapons should require a license but obviously nukes are to be outlawed.
I see very little reason why Missiles should be outlawed if they are non lethal.
quote:Originally posted by NeilTheBrit
"Keep and bear arms".
My take is based on the word "bear", if you can carry it, the Second Amendment protects it.
This is also my opinion. In those days the primary meaning of the word "bear" was "carry."
The term "militia" meant a "military-style" group of citizens, i.e. bearing military-style weapons. The term "well regulated" meant "well trained," reinforcing the "military-style" aspect.
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
quote:Originally posted by NeilTheBrit
"Keep and bear arms".
My take is based on the word "bear", if you can carry it, the Second Amendment protects it.
This is also my opinion. In those days the primary meaning of the word "bear" was "carry."
The term "militia" meant a "military-style" group of citizens, i.e. bearing military-style weapons. The term "well regulated" meant "well trained," reinforcing the "military-style" aspect.
Yet if you read accounts of the skirmishes at Concord and Lexington, the British were not looking to confiscate rifles. They were searching for powder and shot. In addition, they sought cannon-owned by the locals- that were hidden between crop rows in fields to avoid detection. So, keeping with the founders intentions, your opinion is flawed in that the ability to "weild" is not the requirement, but "bear" as to actually mean-to deploy against.
soggy-you are so far gone as to merit a reply that I will not, but to express that I think so.
I am one of those who doesn't really post much here, but I lurk a lot and have received quite the education here over the past 6 months. My opinion on this probably won't sit well with the Canary *, but it is my opinion.
In theoretical terms, I don't believe there should be any restriction on any of the items on that list.
In practical terms, the courts have let us down so that we have a revolving door "LEGAL" system as opposed to a "JUSTICE" system. Because there is no justice in our system anymore we have people walking out of prison that should have been introduced to a short piece of rope.
Responsible "Citizens" would have no problem handling any of that list responsibly. (The problem being with missiles and Nukes is that they are indiscriminate killers and take out too many innocents. Remember, always be sure of your target.) The problem is how do you differentiate between responsible Citizens and irresponsible civillians? Does any one really believe that gang bangers are going to be responsible with what they can get now, let alone rocket launchers?
In theory, responsible citizens would not be involved in large numbers of shootings. In practicality, they would almost have to be in order to take back the streets. Can you imagine what the streets of LA would be like if any and all of the above list were legal? When you take into account that the gangs have less than legal funding options, it would make it very difficult for the law abiding citizens to keep up with what the criminal can do.
The bottom line is I have a chicken fooey position of "I DON'T KNOW.". Until we go back to a justice system instead of a legal system I don't believe there is any hope for this country anymore. I would like to see the whole list open but I don't see it as practical in this society anymore.
Comments
Slow hand;
Please read the post from Blues Stringer VERY carefully...then reread it.
He talks the language that you should apreciate...and does it very well. Nothing of the flame-thrower that I am in there....just a careful rendition of facts.
I don't EVER expect that I will stop trying to drag people over to the middle of the road..for that is where the Constitution is..a balance point between the extremes. The founders knew exactly what they were doing, arming the people...and the Elites know EXACTLY what THEY are doing today, disarming the people.
Disarmed peoples = piles of bodies..courtesy of governments.
I've reread the posting and BluesStringer's passion is evident.
But I'm not convinced that military weapons are a good thing for the average Joe to own. This is the real sticking point for me. For me, "molon labe" is not where this thread is at. Rather, it's about prudence and using good judgement. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.
Maybe weapons #8 on are for someone like you as you probably had to learn all about most of them in the Corps. You don't even bat an eye at the mention of them and so I figure you already operated many of them.
And then there are folks like me. Yes, I admit that I tend to be overly cautious but I do believe that I'm getting better.
You don't come from a very large city where you lived roughly 8 feet in any direction from a good neighbor - OR - a disgruntled and possibly unbalanced jibroni next to you, below you, on top of you - OR - just a complete blithering idiot who can barely remember to shut the gas on the stove off. In most cases in big cities, vertical living is the norm.
Do you really think that I would want a neighbor having one or a stash of these weapons in his or her apartment, 8 feet from my headboard? Or dining room table? Or just below my gas stove in the kitchen?
I know that you are a firm believer in people taking responsibility for themselves and their actions. I'd love for people to do just that. But they don't and some poor innocent slobs pay their price for their stupidity.
In a remote area, if there were an "accident" in a home or garage, how many people would get killed or hurt? 1? 5? 10?
In a high rise apartment building in NYC with 20 stories and 600 apartments and natural gas as the fuel, the number rises significantly to maybe 2,000 people plus damage to adjacent buildings and injuries to those tenants, cars and pedestrians on the streets below, etc.
My disagreement is not with the 2nd Amendment or its wording even though I know it probably sounds as if I do. You may be surprised to know that I consider the document to be sacrosanct.
My issue is with OUR wholesale underwriting sans any regulation or licensing or even just practical training of anyone and everyone having bigger and better and more destructive weapons just because WE believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees it.
Far too many people are idiots, blissful perhaps but still idiots. Despite wealth and social prominence, many cannot function above the basic dimwit level. As a matter of fact, there are convicted felons who would be far more cautious and responsible with weapons than some of the dopes I've already encountered. And yet they aren't allowed to have even a handgun. Ironic.
The idiots I refer to drink, then drive, kill someone else and escape unscathed. They clean loaded handguns and manage to kill the poor b*stard sitting across from them. They manage to burn and disfugure themselves trying to fry turkeys in their backyard. They burn their houses down with cigarettes in bed and kill their familiy. They store flammables in hot garages, attics and automobiles and kill their neighbors. They remove load-bearing walls in their apartments so as to open up the view and manage to cause the entire building to collapse.
I lived in NYC for 50+ years and saw far more of this stupidity firsthand than many people ever read about.
Not everything bad that happens to people is a simple accident. A lot of it has to do with another's sheer stupidity. And BTW, NEGLIGENCE is NOT stupidity.
That's what actually concerns me.
Consider a school or day care center directly across the street from a lifelong moron, paid up in full, who isn't quite sure how to operate or store a rocket launcher or a case of grenades or whatever.
I have no clue as to what the solution is and I do not profess to have one. I surely do not want the government to repeal, amend, etc. the Constitution and I'm truly not a fan of additional regulations for the sake of making Big Brother bigger.
Yet, I also don't want to be just a memory any time soon. If this all smacks of my NYC jading, oh well, I will not deny my roots.
And as an aside, Highball, and no matter what, if we ever get the opportunity to meet up down the road, steaks and beers are on me.[^]
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=210166
The article itself:
http://warrenreports.tpmcafe.com/blog/emma_zahn/2006/aug/10/latest_darwin_award_winner
Would there be accidents (deaths) if idiots are left to their own devices? Undoubtedly.
Why should I be denied MY right to bear arms, because of these idiots?
Are there crazies out there, that want to/will kill people? Obviously.
Will they use means other than "arms" to do it? Box knives and airplanes seem to work.
Why should I be denied MY right to bear arms, because of these crazies?
When faced with the age old rhetoric "The streets will run with blood" I use Vermont (and now Alaska) as an example. The cries went out that "the streets will run with blood" if decent law abiding citizens were allowed the UNRESTRICTED carrying of "concealed" firearms. Statistics PROVE that they are two of the safest states to live in, where firearms are concerned, seeing as how their crime rates are among the lowest in the country. Trusting decent law abiding citizens to "self-regulate" seems to work. Statistically that is.
Castle Doctrine laws are being passed in more and more states. The same tiresome cries went up from the same tiresome people. Statistics have PROVEN once again, that the cries were unfounded.
There are many MANY people out there with full-auto machine guns. Both legal (by government regulations, over 240,000 of them) and otherwise. Many soldiers brought back weapons from past wars. You hear about them every once in a while, when some widow takes a machine gun, a case of grenades, or a bazooka (with ammo) etc. into a police station, because she doesn't want it now that her husband is gone.
With all this firepower stashed around the country, (both legal and supposedly illegal) why is it that there is ONLY ONE reported case of a crime being committed with a registered full-auto weapon? And that was by a police officer. (By chance, police/military being the ONLY entity allowed to buy NEW machine guns? Hmmmmm) That said, it would seem that statistically speaking, machine guns are MUCH more dangerous in the hands of police officers, than civilians.
Consider that cannons are (at present) unrestricted. When was the last time you heard of a crime being committed with a cannon? When was the last time a building was brought down using a cannon. An armored truck? A bank? A murder? Why not, It's unregulated, readily available, mobile, and packs quite a punch.
Other than in war zones.
Cars kill more people than arms.
Doctors kill more people than arms.
Etc. etc. etc.
Now tell me again.....
Why should I be denied MY right to bear arms?
pickenup, you misread my post. I never said in my immedite post prior to your reply that I wish for anyone to deny you a right - I'm suggesting some kind of strict regulation to prevent unnecessary tragedies at the hands of idiots.
It seems like only when it hits home to one of YOUR, i.e. the royal YOUR, kinfolk or friends that suddenly heads perk up and the chatter on GB abounds.
So if a tragedy ever should happen and it's in your neighborhood (may God forbid that) and hurts you or a loved one, will you STILL feel as though having those particular military weapons in YOUR neighborhood AND in the hands of idiots next to you was actually necessary????
Please! Really think long and hard about that one.
Any answer other than that you wouldn't want it to happen to you or your loved ones is most likely good ol' country bulls*it or city sidewalk dogs*it. And I'm simply not buying it. No one wants to see tragedy happen, especially at home.
Being honest and candid isn't about winning a popularity contest. It's about telling it as you see and feel it. Nothing more.
To a jealous would-be suiter of a girl my brother sweep off her feet...run over by the suiter with a car.
My other brother, at age 14, died by a rope..a stupid mistake.
I didn't, even at that tender age, blame the rope...nor the car.
I placed the blame squarely where it belonged....
Blaming a tool for the insanity of individuals is playing right into the hands of those who would disarm us....a deadly mistake.
Remember the deaths of 87 people, a few years ago...up there in the Northeast ? You hardly hear about it any more...didn't hear much about it when it happened.
A firebomb was thrown into the building, and the front and rear door was blocked....Had that been gun fire..they would be talking about it every day or two....
Slow Hand...I have met a small handful of people from these forums. Not been disappointed yet in the quality of those I have met...course, I study carefully those posting...[:D] You I think would be an interesting evening discussing world affairs and partaking of said steak and adult beverage.
To the scope of this thread, we're actually not that far apart, believe it or not.
The difference is partly due that none of what we're speaking about is "new" to you. You're an old hand at it as are many others here on GB and beyond.
I don't fear the people who have the conviction, the mettle and the nerve to do what is right no matter how tough or obstinate or "grizzled".
I dare say that I would sit next to you and have that steak even if you were babysitting one of those military weapons next to your chair in the restaurant. That's because I know the person and man you are. You're not a clown, not a jokester, not a showboater. I trust you. You strike me as someone who CAN lead men and that is not an acquired trait. It's in your "kishkes" (Yiddish for "gut").
A lot of other people however make me very suspicious and altogether nervous. Why? Because to a lot of people I've met in my lifetime (and I won't go into chapter and ugly verse here), life is an amusing game, an inside joke, a goof. For those who have the money, this stuff is a means for entertainment and staving off boredom. Nothing gets taken seriously. No real purpose. It's as if they believe you can yell "Do over!" without any consequence.
Haven't you come across a young man who just wasn't Marine material? Did "Sarge" give him chance after chance or just cut the Corps losses and move on?
In a city like NYC with so many people, you WILL come across an awful lot of irresponsible and stupid people. And stupidity is not indigenous to NYC. It's an equal opportunity human deficiency that is increasingly rampant here in America. Dumbing down is quickly becoming the National pasttime.
Yes, I'm terribly jaded and biased by all those years of living in a truly great city like NY and I won't deny that those years drive much of what I believe today, but I don't see that it's necessarily a bad thing.
I'll most probably never be the guy who owns one of those military weapons and so for me, it's all pretty much moot. I dig my heels here on GB not to rile, agitate or deny anyone the right but rather to draw attention to the severity of the responsibilty associated with having them, especially in populated areas.
Perhaps it's just my perception but after reading post after post after post, I believe that a few of the people roaming around here on GB are a danger to both society and themselves. My opinion. Not fact. No joke. No names offered.
I wouldn't want to stop you or pickenup et al from having them if that's what you feel is warranted. But we must not be cavalier about having the weapons themselves either. It is IMO an awesome right and and ever more awesome responsibility.
Time for bed. Thank you Highball. Have a good night, my friend.
Thank you.
The wisdom of your words are apparant to any that would read them with an open mind..the solutions we two would offer tho would be perhaps diametrically opposed.
The one area where I really run afoul of most honest, decent people...I do indeed recognise that predators and stupid people abound. My solution would be to allow Darwinisn to come into play...not fetter decent, honest people with cumbersome regulations.
A popularity contest?
That's your perception?
The royal?
A popularity contest?
That's your perception?
Thanks for the inquiry, pickenup.
Please allow me to answer and explain.
The term "the royal YOUR" that I used means belonging to everyone as in a general and larger, broader reference, not just one as in your, i.e that of one specific person. It has absolutely nothing to do with royalty, monarchs, etc.
Yes, I really do believe that on specific subjects, some folks post what they believe others want or expect to read, not necessarily their true feelings. That's what we back east called "gratuitous approval" or sometimes "gladhanding". Note I said "some folks" so I believe it's a minority of posters. This is not indigenous to to just the GB site either - it occurs on every single posting board out there. As well as at parties, in clubs, in organizations, in the workplace, in boardrooms, etc.
I'm not here on GB to stroke anyone's fur or to win a popularity contest. I'm hear to learn and to participate but also to say what I truly feel, not what will simply allow me to fit in or get the cliched "attaboy" etc.
Admittedly, I know very little about guns in comparison to the majority of folks here but I have a lifetime of what I believe to be very valuable experience and personal and career accomplishments - as well as failures, disappointments and a few tragedies - and as such I'm more than qualified to have and to express my opinions.
I may not be always be right but that has never stopped me or anyone else from having or expressing his or her opinion. And sometimes, being truthful and candid puts me into a minority of sorts. I feel it's a risk that's worth taking if I'm going to learn.
I will have to agree with you, there are some who do post with popularity in mind. I can only feel sad for those kind of people. Keep expressing your honest opinion, it makes for a good debate, as well as educating some on what growing up in places, such as where you came from, can do to a man's point of view. (NOT saying that it's bad. LOL)
While highball, I, (and some others) are definitely in the minority on some topics, and are NOT on the top of some peoples list (well maybe their HIT list) We have caused "some" to re-think their views on certain subjects, by posting honest opinions, mixed in with some facts, rather than what those people "wanted" to hear.
Glad you're here to learn, as I was when I first arrived, and I'm still learning. Do allow yourself to be open to change. Just look at what you have learned since your move. Since the advent of the internet, some of the information provided therein, has changed my views on a number of fronts.
This is a serious question Slow Hand, not an attack or an implied accusation of any kind, but what exactly have you learned from participating here? I mean more in terms of something you didn't know before, or held misconceptions about before being "taught" the accurate way to view/interpret/understand/accept something.
The reason I ask is that I have asked you several questions in this thread, about what you knew and/or accepted, and while you have remained civil, you have not bothered to directly answer any of them. Instead, you have argued basically the same premises that prompted me to ask the questions in the first place, so I'm just wondering, are you really learning anything about history or the Constitution, or even about guns themselves, or are you only learning about the personalities of the people who engage you in conversation?
In case you've lost track of the questions to which I refer, they're contained in the 2nd post of mine in this thread, plus a few subsequent ones in response to other posts of yours.
Blues
Slow Hand, before I would challange your opinion, I would need to know what precisely you base it on. Are you aware of any quotes by any Framers in which the word "arms" refers to anything other than those appropriate both as military arms and hunting/self-defense arms? I do not know of any specific quantifier that the Framers used BUT the original question of the thread and the one I replied to was "How do you interpret "Arms"...." I offered an answer based solely upon MY interpretation. Do you accept the premise that the 2nd Amendment was intended, among other intentions, as a bulwark against usurpations of power by an unchecked federal government? Yes. I do suspect however that the Framers were wholly suspicious and very doubtful on ANY new government that was about to be born. They were not addressing a newly formed one that was decades old. Or I guess I should say, do you accept that the Founders generally accepted that premise, regardless of the evolution of thought since then? Back then, absolutely. Remember, I'm only responding to your opinion that you, "don't believe that the founding fathers envisioned the average citizen having a cannon or a catapult in his or her front yard." And I still don't think that they consciously and deliberately thought that the average person would want them, need them or have them. But I believe that's pure speculation no matter what side of the argument you're on. If you take arms to include a nuclear warhead fired from a submarine then so be it. If you do not wish to draw an imaginary line for discussion purposes then we can bandy this one about just like the chicken and the egg. And, I'm okay with that.
Here's my problem with the notion that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is limited at a certain level of lethality of weaponry: First, nowhere that I've found does any Founder ever state such. Of all the people in the history of man who weren't shy about stating their intentions succinctly, articulately and unambiguously, Jefferson, Hamilton and all the rest were at the top of that list. It's hard to understand how one might assert that their true intentions are absent in the text of their speeches and/or writings. Blues, how could they possibly mention or discuss in their letters or texts ANYTHING that had not yet been devised, invented or produced? Do we know what weapon will be "vogue" for the armed forces in 2026? If you feel that anything and everything that comes along is included, then that's your interpretation of their intent and the origianl question of this thread.
Second, many Founders stated that a part of their intent was to guarentee citizens' rights of self-defense, among other things, from an emerging tyrannical government. If that was their intent, then by what logic should we surmise they intended us to be a weaker force with inferior arms to that government? I don't believe the Framers went through all of this just to keep everyone poised and on the verge of another insurrection and reviolution. I truly believe that they were trying desperately to create and maintain a living and functioning government that would serve the people going forward. Caveats - yes! Cautions - yes! Checks and balances - Yes! But not as antagonists with one hand on a musket and the other on a quill. If you define "self-defense" to include obliterating hundreds or thousands of people miles away with one big bang, then all weapons are in the mix. If however you look at defending "your own self" in the more common sense of the term, then a handgun, a rifle and even a full auto are in my opinion the more valid weapons. That comes down to interpretation and/or opinion.
Blues
BluesStringer, You deserve to have your questions answered and so I offer this to you. Granted you will most assuredly not like or agree with my answers or my position and that's okay. I keep an open mind so that I might learn. Right now, this is what I believe. Who knows? Maybe down the road I'll see things differently.
Slow Hand, before I would challange your opinion, I would need to know what precisely you base it on. Are you aware of any quotes by any Framers in which the word "arms" refers to anything other than those appropriate both as military arms and hunting/self-defense arms? Do you accept the premise that the 2nd Amendment was intended, among other intentions, as a bulwark against usurpations of power by an unchecked federal government? Or I guess I should say, do you accept that the Founders generally accepted that premise, regardless of the evolution of thought since then? Remember, I'm only responding to your opinion that you, "don't believe that the founding fathers envisioned the average citizen having a cannon or a catapult in his or her front yard."
Here's my problem with the notion that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is limited at a certain level of lethality of weaponry: First, nowhere that I've found does any Founder ever state such. Of all the people in the history of man who weren't shy about stating their intentions succinctly, articulately and unambiguously, Jefferson, Hamilton and all the rest were at the top of that list. It's hard to understand how one might assert that their true intentions are absent in the text of their speeches and/or writings.
Second, many Founders stated that a part of their intent was to guarentee citizens' rights of self-defense, among other things, from an emerging tyrannical government. If that was their intent, then by what logic should we surmise they intended us to be a weaker force with inferior arms to that government?
Blues
BluesStringer, I believe that these were answered in my previous reply to you.
Hey Highball, thanks to you for the welcome too.
Slow Hand, you are obviously more than welcome to your opinions, and I don't mean to single you out since others have voiced similar ones as yours. However, you made the statement that, "I personally don't believe that the founding fathers envisioned the average citizen having a cannon or a catapult in his or her front yard." and I am still curious what you base that on, especially in light of your new revelation that you have no interest in reading their own words on the subject to help you know what their thinking was. No, I can't say that I know unequivocally what their thinking would be on this subject. We have only 200+ year old "static" documents to pour over and from which to make determinations, assessmentments and educated decisions from. But, and there is a big "but" here, you cannot justify without the shadow of any doubt whatsoever any leap of faith across 230 years if you cannot support it. No mention per say of cannons and catapults, missles, rocket launchers or nuclear devices. And absolutely no mention to the contrary. Ergo, interpretation may be necessary and even appropriate. If what you're looking for is support for holding an opinion that is not based in fact, head on, you have my support. I don't understand why anyone would, as Highball described it, "get huffy" just because a countering opinion to yours is based in fact. Perhaps because you deftly tried to couch your disdain for my opinions in sarcasm and what we Yankees up North called the "backhanded slap". It appears to me that you want my opinions only to take aim at them and fire another salvo rather than have a real old fashioned discussion. But I'll gladly join Highball in that foxhole to defend your right to hold any opinion you wish to hold, as you say, "right or wrong." I initially let this one remark slide but now, since you asked for answers I'll tell you exactly what I thought then and think now. If you are suggesting that I wouldn't fight for your rights or those of others then where I come from that's a "diss" to me as a man. Not apppreciated and not warranted, BluesStringer.
HIghball, I agree, the Beast is alive and well and has given us many reasons to prepare beyond simple rhetoric. Insurrection is illegal and it should be. Quelling the usurpation of power by a run amock government is not only legal, it's our duty. Those who don't understand the distinction, or believe the latter to be factually wrong, are people I wouldn't want to share any foxhole with. I can only imagine that if and when the time ever comes, you won't be so selective as to which one of your fellow citizens is in the foxhole with you. You would do wise to never presume to know the truth worth of a man.
But I've been in here too long today and now I gotta go climb into my own personal little foxhole and see if I can't negotiate a cease-fire with the ol' lady for not helping around the house today! [:I]
Have A Good'un,
Blues
BluesStringer, I believe I've answered your questions to the best of my ability.
The discussions taking place here I liken to those that were held long ago, during yet another long, hot summer..there is more gut-wrenching, pro and con here then 100 threads over on general..and in the event of terrible events...the seeds of rebuilding a newer, better framework then what the Founders built.
I thank each of you for your thoughts in this ongoing debate...I wish some of the other posters would chime in with their imput.
None of us reading these threads in this forum leave here unchanged...you can make book on that.
Are we involved in the same conversation? The above quote from me was uttered in the following context: "Remember, I'm only responding to your opinion that you, "don't believe that the founding fathers envisioned the average citizen having a cannon or a catapult in his or her front yard." We weren't, or at least I wasn't, asking you to go back in time and conjur up what weapons the Founders were contemplating being devised in the future, I was responding directly to your stated opinion that they didn't envision the heavy weapons of their own day in the "average" citizen's front yard.
But, whatever, I had previously asked what you based that opinion on and have come to realize that it's based solely on your own conjecture, which, like it or not, is completely contradicted by quotable writings by many, if not most Founders, my sig being just one among many examples of which I could quote chapter and verse if I really thought that you had any interest in truly learning the truth. I don't really think that though. I think that you think original intent is somehow outdated, obsolete and irrelevent, or possibly that it's just inferior to what you perceive as a modern, "moderated" view of the Constitution. If I'm mistaken, then I'm mistaken, but it's not a far-fetched conclusion to draw when you say you don't, "need to read volumes or crawl inside of 50+ dead men's minds to come up with an opinion - right or wrong." Crawling inside those dead men's minds, to the extent possible 220+ years later, is exactly what it takes to answer the question(s) being asked in this thread. A refusal to even try is an admission that you view their words as inferior to your own conjecture about what they thought. I have a very hard time taking that as a serious attempt to learn anything, or to even being open to learning anything.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Handquote:Originally posted by BluesStringerSecond, many Founders stated that a part of their intent was to guarentee citizens' rights of self-defense, among other things, from an emerging tyrannical government. If that was their intent, then by what logic should we surmise they intended us to be a weaker force with inferior arms to that government? I don't believe the Framers went through all of this just to keep everyone poised and on the verge of another insurrection and reviolution.
I agree that the Framers didn't go through their trials and tribulations just to "keep" people hyped up for more war. But what did they do to prevent that eventuality? They recognized the natural rights of man to rebel against tyranny. They acknowledged that the government was subserviant to The People. They codified that subserviance into law in the form of The Bill of Rights, which guarenteed The People the right to enforce that subserviance if the government ever forgot or lost its' place. In other words, they tried to calm the revolutionary mindset through the promise of self-governance and self-determination, two things which an unarmed (or under-armed) population have no chance of maintaining.
So you're absolutely right, the Framers did not want to keep revolution forever bubbling just beneath the surface, they wanted The People to live calmly in freedom and liberty, only with the tools they needed to enforce the Constitution as the law of the land....forever.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand I truly believe that they were trying desperately to create and maintain a living and functioning government that would serve the people going forward.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree, but I believe that they believed that the only way to truly "serve the people going forward" was to provide them with the power to overrule the government, as a last resort, by force when their will was subverted by that same government.
I get the distinct impression that you believe that notion to have been true at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, but that you believe it has lost its validity, or maybe its power of law, or both, over the intervening years for some as-yet-unexplained-reason.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand Caveats - yes!
What caveats?
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand Cautions - yes!
Yes, and most cautions were warning against a growing complacency and/or apathy of The People which would allow the government to overstep the bounds to which it was tied within The Constitution.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand Checks and balances - Yes!
Indeed, and one of those checks on unlimited government power was the 2nd Amendment! I think you understand that and agree with me on the premise, but you seem to want to put limits on its meaning which would render it useless for that intended purpose. That's what's so hard to understand about your empassioned defense of, as you put it, "strict" government controls on who can own certain weapons and who can't.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand If you define "self-defense" to include obliterating hundreds or thousands of people miles away with one big bang, then all weapons are in the mix.
If those thousands of people miles away are government-controlled troops coming to disarm a town or state near you, then that's exactly why the Framers contemplated The People's unalienable right to access to weapons, even the ones that make a "big bang."
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand If however you look at defending "your own self" in the more common sense of the term
'Scuse me for interrupting, but if you substitute the word "common" for "modern" you'll be correct in your analysis. However, the "common" way of talking about arms back in the Framers' day was as military equipment, period. They were protecting the right of free men to break away from an oppressive, tyrannical government as evidenced by the fact that that's exactly what they themselves were doing at the time. "Self" defense in an individual sense was/is a given. There's no mention of it specifically in The Constitution or the Federalist Papers. However, the notion of The People having the right to defend itself from the government is either spelled out specifcally or easily inferred from nearly all, if not all, of the writings and debates regarding the formation of the 2nd Amendment leading up to the Constitution's ratification.
All I'm getting at is that one has to be careful to put words like "common" in their proper, time-sensitive perspective.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand BluesStringer, You deserve to have your questions answered and so I offer this to you. Granted you will most assuredly not like or agree with my answers or my position and that's okay. I keep an open mind so that I might learn.
So you've said. I'm just wondering what, if anything, you feel you have learned through all of this. I mean about the crux of the questions in the thread, and not about my personal passions about the Constitution or my idiosyncracies or whatever.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand Right now, this is what I believe. Who knows? Maybe down the road I'll see things differently.[/b]
It'll be interesting to see if that eventuality will come to pass.
Blues
It'll be interesting to see if that eventuality will come to pass.
Blues
And it will not matter in the great scheme of things if it never does.
Pax vobiscum.
The first two paraphrases of the 2nd Amendment read as follows:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state...."
A free state!!! Free from what, exactly?? Would you not agree that a state that is overrun by the gov't, or any other occupying force would clearly not be free? Could the same be concluded from a situation in which the streets are overrun by looters, thugs, and rioters? What about when the streets only have highwaymen on them?
No, none of these things indicate freedom in any sense of the word. It is for that reason alone that we have the Second Amendment.
What is the most useful thing any of us could have to secure a free state? Any small arm is a step in the right direction, and preferably, one that is similar to that which would be used by a trained military force.... it is not the tanks, to which are generally out of the price range of most Americans outright, nor is it aircraft, watercraft, or other heavy artillery pieces, all of which could be readily destroyed by use of portable explosives in the form of rocket launchers, grenades, explosives, Stinger missile systems, mortars and bazookas. For antipersonnel duties, a rifle with as many advantages as possible on them is the most useful for doing this duty. Things like select-fire options, high capacity magazines, supressors, grenade launchers, ergo features, and ease of use designs make them most ideal for this purpose.
I've said before, the use of military artillery, such as tanks, jets and other stuff should be fully protected, sure, but is not something that truly falls in the jurisdiction of a 2nd Amendment defense and justification. Sure, they are useful, but in following the example of a country that has a true militia, Switzerland, none of them are equipped with tanks, jets, or artillery, only select-fire rifles. I have yet to read in any founding documents where the 2nd Amendment was intended for the ownership of artillery, but this is the beauty of the 9th Amendment, which states our right to own and do things not specifically enumerated in the BoR.
Remember, a militia is a guerilla fighting force, and as long as its enemy has not won, they have not lost.
It'll be interesting to see if that eventuality will come to pass.
Blues
And it will not matter in the great scheme of things if it never does.
Slow Hand;
Your are, I believe...wrong there. Ever decent man that the Beast can number in its' camp gives it strength..those around you, the children..all being taught how to think..by you....the ripples spread far beyond you personally.
You may well turn your weapons on the Beasts' men someday...but today by limiting the Second Amendment in your thinking...you weaken yourself and the postion of free men everywhere.
quote:Right now, this is what I believe. Who knows? Maybe down the road I'll see things differently.
It'll be interesting to see if that eventuality will come to pass.
Blues
And it will not matter in the great scheme of things if it never does.
Slow Hand;
Your are, I believe...wrong there. Ever decent man that the Beast can number in its' camp gives it strength..those around you, the children..all being taught how to think..by you....the ripples spread far beyond you personally.
You may well turn your weapons on the Beasts' men someday...but today by limiting the Second Amendment in your thinking...you weaken yourself and the postion of free men everywhere.
Thank you, Highball. Your point is a very good and accurate one. This is exactly why I will not take the low road, cop out and just say that my opinion on this one point has changed, a.k.a. "closeted opposition".
I respect the U.S. Constitution and I acknowledge the importance of these discussions going forward too much to do that.
And I wouldn't be much of a man if I just waffled and caved in because I was in the minority here on GB or anywhere else. My father always taught me to "be a man", no matter what the consequences.
The time may come about when I change my opinion. Lord knows, I've done that numerous times in my life already but only because I felt it was what I truly believed and because it was the right thing to do.
Between now and then, I ask questions, I listen closely, I reply when I feel it's appropriate and I actively think about things and how I relate to them.
Just know that I am not adversarial by my nature, that I am a supporter of TRTKBA and that I'm not a gun control activist.
Thanks to all for encouraging my participation on this topic and for carrying on a dialogue with me.
A good and peaceful Sunday to you, Highball, and to all.
I defy you to point to anything that I've said that has been based in sarcasm. And if disagreement with your opinions equals "disdain" then so be it. You're welcome to take incorrect wild-assed-guesses as to what's in my mind when I sit down here and type. I always thought a "real old fashioned discussion" included good, ol' fashioned point/counter point, but admittedly, I've never spent much time up Nawth, and dagnabbit, this ol' hillbilly jus' ain't got no handle on how big city folk take to conversatin' about such lofty things as freedom from big-guvment intruuushun.
(Yes, that was sarcasm. Now you know the difference.)
Is there a chance that you're just a tad bit over-sensitive about disagreements Slow_Hand?
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Handquote:Originally posted by BluesStringerBut I'll gladly join Highball in that foxhole to defend your right to hold any opinion you wish to hold, as you say, "right or wrong."
I initially let this one remark slide but now, since you asked for answers I'll tell you exactly what I thought then and think now. If you are suggesting that I wouldn't fight for your rights or those of others then where I come from that's a "diss" to me as a man. Not apppreciated and not warranted, BluesStringer.
I'm not "suggesting" anything Slow_Hand. I interpret what you've said in this thread, as well as the knife thread I passed on replying to, as you supporting the government's "authority" to tell me what weapons I'm "allowed" to own and which ones I'm not. I view overreaching government authority as an indisputable violation of my rights. So, am I to understand now that you'll fight for my right to own any weapon I choose to own, even though you consider the government's authority trumps what I believe to be my God-given rights? Why would you fight for something you obviously don't believe in? I don't think you would, and if that's a "diss" then again, so be it. I just call 'em as I see 'em, and have only responded to what you've either explicitly said or tacitly implied. "Diss?" Not intended as such, but I can't do anything other than tell you that. It's up to you to let disagreements get under your skin or not. All I am doing is giving my honest views and honest responses to what I take to be your honest views. I really don't know how I'd go about showing you any more respect than that.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Handquote:Originally posted by BluesStringer HIghball, I agree, the Beast is alive and well and has given us many reasons to prepare beyond simple rhetoric. Insurrection is illegal and it should be. Quelling the usurpation of power by a run amock government is not only legal, it's our duty. Those who don't understand the distinction, or believe the latter to be factually wrong, are people I wouldn't want to share any foxhole with.
I can only imagine that if and when the time ever comes, you won't be so selective as to which one of your fellow citizens is in the foxhole with you.
Hmmm...Had to ponder that for a second, but no, you'd imagine wrong on this point. The people who failed to understand and/or work to preserve and protect the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment, would be the ones mostly responsible for me and Highball having to duck into that foxhole in the first place.
It may sound cold-hearted, but there are absolutes in life where one has to decide on which side of the fence s/he resides. Some issues aren't appropriate for a "moderate" take on things, and the Constitution is one of those issues for me. I would no more share my foxhole with a 2nd Amendment fence-sitter than George Washington would've shared his with Benedict Arnold. Just as Arnold was partially responsible for putting The Revolution at risk of defeat, the modern-day, uncommitted "moderate" would be partially responsible for putting me and my family's lives at risk from an emerging tyrannical government. They'd be largely responsible for me having to make a choice between living on my knees or to die standing for what I believe in. If I die standing, it will be standing with like-minded compatriots, not those who sat on the sidelines and allowed the confligration to explode around them.
The fact is, I can't think of a time when I would be any more selective of who I associated with than when my or my wife's liberties and lives were on the line.
quote:You would do wise to never presume to know the truth worth of a man.
I only presume to know the worth of my own convictions, and brother, they are pricey! If stating my own beliefs somehow lessens your worth as a man, then that's on you because nothing I have said or will ever say is intended to devalue you in any way. If you state your opinions about the prudence of government controls on privately-owned weapons on a website that's dedicated to making those weapons easily avaiable, you're going to be challenged. That's all I've done. No disrespect intended, which should be obvious because telling the truth about what's in one's heart and soul is, in my book, the height of respect. Take it or leave it, it is what it is.
Blues
Validation sans innuendo is paramount to carrying on a productive dialogue and frankly, in my opinion, you either do not know how to do it or you simply choose not to. So be it. Your choice to make.
I've believe that I have expressed myself articulately, politely and more than adequately. I addressed your questions and those of other posters as well. Ironically, while I'm positive they don't agree with me, they've accepted my responses as responses and moved on.
You've zeroed in on me and chosen to preach "fire and brimstone" to me from your own personal pulpit.
You and I obviously have absolutely nothing of actual substance to discuss on this topic going forward because it is a standoff of sorts. Therefore, I believe it's now time for us to move on.
I truly do not wish to waste everyone's time - especially my own - and the associated server space here on GB.
I answered your questions as a gentleman and to the best of my abilities. I stand by my opinions and comments no matter what you feel.
And so, we're officially done, in my book at least.
With that, I encourage you to write as much as you like and to post often, perhaps on some different subject matter where you are "less knowledgeable" and more vulnerable to disagreement.
You are new to GB and it seems that most of your posts are directly involved with me. I'm terribly easy fodder for you especially since my individual opinion is not at all mainstream here on GB. And I think the more experienced posters here on GB would tell you that one upfront.
It would be interesting reading to see you engage some of the more vocal and highly-opinionated GB members on politics, religion, life experience, economy, psychology, ancient history, handguns, rifles, military experiences, etc.
It might behoove you to know - if you already don't - that there are some incredibly knowledgeable and experienced individuals sharing their thoughts across a vast number of other issues. There isn't a day that goes by where I don't learn something from one or more of them that I didn't know when I got up out of bed in the morning. Humility allows a man to see, hear and learn more.
And, these posters are not always polite or sensitive in their reponses to others' postings. Disagreements abound.
Pax vobiscum. Enjoy your Sunday. Enjoy GB.
Nothing to worry about...3 % of the population fought the great War of Independence...and nothing has changed to this day.Most people support the Beast..because it is easier then thinking.
One of the more telling arguments over gun control, in my opinion..the Founders had just won a war that started when Big Brother
attempted to confiscate powder,shot, and arms..no way in hell they EVER intended to give arms control back to Big Brother.
Truth be told, I doubt very seriously that any of us who are old enough to even buy guns now, are going to see the bababooey hit the fan in a political/military conflict in our lifetimes. My interest in this discussion is mostly theoretical, a way to visualize circumstances that might lead me to have to act on my beliefs, which are real enough and deeply-held, but the need for which I really doubt will materialize before I go to that big foxhole in the sky. (Oh jeesh, now I'm just gettin' plain ol' corny!)
Anyhow, like I said early on, I wandered in here after buying a Kel-Tec SU16-A .223 "assault rifle" off of GB. I am more or less expecting to get it tomorrow (Monday), surely this coming week sometime, and I'm excited as Hell about it. I own 3 other guns at this time, one tiny little Beretta mdl. 21A .22 LR pistol that I carry, one S&W mdl. 4563 TSW .45 cal. pistol that I keep in my "bug-out bag" just in case, and one S&W 12 ga. "assault" style (folding stock, pistol-grip etc.) shotgun that I keep for home-defense. After the Kel-Tec gets here, I'm probably done buying guns. Too old to hunt anymore. Two back surgeries ago I used to spend almost all my spare time in the woods either hunting or just consortin' with nature, but nowadays if I'm in the wilderness, it means our little "Great Experiment" went to crap and I'll be glad not to be tied down with tanks and heavy weaponry, and if'n y'all see a campfire when you're wanderin' through the woods of south Tennessee/north Alabama, stop in for some of my (in)famous possum stew that it only took one 30-round clip of .223 for me to get the meat for! HA! Hey, and that goes for you too Slow_Hand!
Have A Good'un,
Blues
Edit:
Just had to be a cheerleader for this:
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Most people support the Beast..because it is easier then thinking.
Truer words were never spoken Brother! Another lesson learned, brevity is indeed the soul of wit!
....and if'n y'all see a campfire when you're wanderin' through the woods of south Tennessee/north Alabama, stop in for some of my (in)famous possum stew that it only took one 30-round clip of .223 for me to get the meat for! HA! Hey, and that goes for you too Slow_Hand!
Thanks for the invite, BluesStringer. I appreciate the gesture.
Although I've never eaten possum let alone possum stew - the "possums" people think they see in NYC are actually very large rats and from what I hear not very tasty ones either - there's always a first time for everything.[:)]
If I am ever out your way, I will take you up on your offer and break bread with you.
A good night to you and to all.
How do we vote in the poll? Other forums I've seen have a poll set-up that lets posters check a box or whatever.
I'd start at #9, the blowy-uppy stuff, as that marks the departure from personal touch weapons into kill radius weapons.
I always thought it should be a requirement for every citizen in good standing to own & qualify on the sixteen or whatever the standard issue rifle of the nation may be at the time.
Sooo...
How do we vote in the poll? Other forums I've seen have a poll set-up that lets posters check a box or whatever.
I'd start at #9, the blowy-uppy stuff, as that marks the departure from personal touch weapons into kill radius weapons.
I always thought it should be a requirement for every citizen in good standing to own & qualify on the sixteen or whatever the standard issue rifle of the nation may be at the time.
For the most part, I used to agree with this position, but the problem I have found is that rifles of any caliber do a poor job of taking out artillery, like tanks and cannons, and now, we have helicopters and jet aircraft, as well. These are things that any invading force will use, and as such, I say if it can be carried, it's good to go, and I stopped at artillery simply because a missile from a single LAW will destroy a tank. A mortar cannon is portable, and the modern-day equivalent of the cannon of yesteryear, and grenades are commonly used by military forces. These are the weapons we should be concerned with. Rifles of any action, caliber, capacity and extra support equipment should be a no-brainer, as well as handguns, shotguns and ammunition.
Admit it, a citizen army is at a serious disadvantage against an army equipped with the type of artillery of today. People most likely cannot beat a gov't military force with greater force; where they win is by inflicting greater damage to resources than what is being inflicted.
I'm not even going to start to get into everything that's wrong with that post. I came to this thread to vote in the poll, not argue with somebody who... never mind!
So who's got a tally of the poll responses so far?
What ever is wrong with gunphreak's post ? Caused me to rethink my position, it did....The Founders (you HAVE heard of them ?) INTENDED we the people the means to take out a tyrannical goverment...and such a goverment today WILL send out the A-10's...and the attack helicopters...
If you do not wish to discuss the problems facing those of us believing in the Second Amendment...it is obvious that General Discussion would be the place to visit. Over there, what's for dinner is a popular topic.
As to the whyfores: This is a poll thread. I voted and gunphreak jumped in my face trying to start a fight. A responder to this thread should pick a number and, perhaps, give a brief explanation.
Otherwise, go start another thread "to discuss the problems facing those of us believing in the Second Amendment".
About Gen Dis: This place could really use a separate "Fun" forum for all the funny video clips and jokes and such.
^ quote: Okay, just a bit: I'm not going to argue with someone who claims to have tried to take out "artillery, like tanks and cannons"(sic) with a rifle before there were such things as helicopters and jet aircraft. They're either insane or don't understand the language, and in either case an attempt at rational debate would be fruitless.
Actually, There was no such 'personal' claim...merely an observation that small arms are useless against armor.
quote:As to the whyfores: This is a poll thread. I voted and gunphreak jumped in my face trying to start a fight. A responder to this thread should pick a number and, perhaps, give a brief explanation.
Life should be so simple. We tend to be a passionate lot over here..and people willing to limit their..and MY..rights are expected to defend their position. Most folks will not respond to a thread asking 'why' they are anti-gun...
quote:Otherwise, go start another thread "to discuss the problems facing those of us believing in the Second Amendment".
Read nearly ANY thread on 'Gun Rights'...you will find the discussion raging on about 'the problems'.
One very real problem..the most severe, in my opinion...is gun owners that are uneducated about the Second Amendment...and are perfectly willing to allow the Beast to make laws restricting gun rights.
^ Okay, just a bit: I'm not going to argue with someone who claims to have tried to take out "artillery, like tanks and cannons"(sic) with a rifle before there were such things as helicopters and jet aircraft. They're either insane or don't understand the language, and in either case an attempt at rational debate would be fruitless.
As to the whyfores: This is a poll thread. I voted and gunphreak jumped in my face trying to start a fight. A responder to this thread should pick a number and, perhaps, give a brief explanation.
Otherwise, go start another thread "to discuss the problems facing those of us believing in the Second Amendment".
About Gen Dis: This place could really use a separate "Fun" forum for all the funny video clips and jokes and such.
I haven't tried starting nothing with anyone, dude.
And I see you are a little on the aggressive side where commenting is concerned.
Did I say I have ever tried to take out a tank or such with a rifle??? No I did not. Are you now going to argue that the rifle will do just that??? I'm not. Not even a .50BMG will do this unless God Himself wills it to happen.
Will a rocket launcher do that? For the most part, yes it will. Unless we're talking about something like a Stinger, which is a SAM.
This post has lost its "poll" property about a page ago.
Slow Hand-watched the go around. Nice work. My 2 is that I don't agree with your opinion. If fact, I think it downright sucks. Merely suggesting a "strict regulation and licensing" implies that you are pro gun control and would gladly sacrifice the rights of us all for sake of the safety of a few. Only a few, from the fewer bunch of idiots and whack jobs. This follows the "if it saves the life of just one child" mentality.
That said-it takes sack to banter that opinion here, and I respect that. Being Bronx born, I share that with you. The sack that is.
As some here can attest, a steak and adult beverage would be as generous at your side of the table as my own and would welcome the opportunity to break bread. I am generally personable, not too boisterous and only slightly vulgar. I do insist on a agreeable decor with a generous sprinkling of lovely ladies to gawk at.
SO I THINK THE FOUNDING FATHERS JUST WANTED THE PEOPLE TO HAVE THE SAME FIRE POWER AS THEIR GOVERMENT DID. SO IN KEEPING UP WITH THE TIMES, IF YOU HAVE THE BUCKS $$$$$$$$$$$ BUY THE NUKE. IN CLOSING IF ITS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE GOVERMENT ITS SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE. ITS ALL IN THE CHECKS AND BALANCES OF THE AMERICAN GOVERMENT.
BUT THATS ANOTHER STORY.
All those lised are currently protected under the 2A. I would support a Constitutional Amendment denying the militia possession of nuclear weapons, because I believe they should be considered solely for use against other nations in a conventional (international) war.
So my approved list would be:
1. Single-Shot rifle/pistol
2. Single-Action revolver
3. Bolt/Lever-Action rifle
4. Double-Action revolver
5. Semi-Auto pistol
6. Semi-Auto rifle
7. Full-Auto rifle/pistol (UZI, MAC-10, AK-47, M-16)
8. Machine Gun (stationary, not hand-held. M-60, unless you are Rambo)
9. Grenades
10. RPG
11. Mortar
12. Rocket Launcher
13. TOW (guided rocket)
14. Howitzer/Artillery
15. Missile
18. What was, is, and will ever be!!!
Additionally, I would add combat watercraft, and combat aircraft to this list, as tyrants, ( as well as the good guys), have a nasty habit of blockading ports and riverways, and of using airpower to control events on the ground..
Mortars and Grenades are touchy as we have lot's of foreigners that would use them in terrorist actions against us. So I'd make grenades and mortar rounds non-lethal for citizens use.
Perhaps heavier weapons should require a license but obviously nukes are to be outlawed.
I see very little reason why Missiles should be outlawed if they are non lethal.
"Keep and bear arms".
My take is based on the word "bear", if you can carry it, the Second Amendment protects it.
This is also my opinion. In those days the primary meaning of the word "bear" was "carry."
The term "militia" meant a "military-style" group of citizens, i.e. bearing military-style weapons. The term "well regulated" meant "well trained," reinforcing the "military-style" aspect.
quote:Originally posted by NeilTheBrit
"Keep and bear arms".
My take is based on the word "bear", if you can carry it, the Second Amendment protects it.
This is also my opinion. In those days the primary meaning of the word "bear" was "carry."
The term "militia" meant a "military-style" group of citizens, i.e. bearing military-style weapons. The term "well regulated" meant "well trained," reinforcing the "military-style" aspect.
Yet if you read accounts of the skirmishes at Concord and Lexington, the British were not looking to confiscate rifles. They were searching for powder and shot. In addition, they sought cannon-owned by the locals- that were hidden between crop rows in fields to avoid detection. So, keeping with the founders intentions, your opinion is flawed in that the ability to "weild" is not the requirement, but "bear" as to actually mean-to deploy against.
soggy-you are so far gone as to merit a reply that I will not, but to express that I think so.
In theoretical terms, I don't believe there should be any restriction on any of the items on that list.
In practical terms, the courts have let us down so that we have a revolving door "LEGAL" system as opposed to a "JUSTICE" system. Because there is no justice in our system anymore we have people walking out of prison that should have been introduced to a short piece of rope.
Responsible "Citizens" would have no problem handling any of that list responsibly. (The problem being with missiles and Nukes is that they are indiscriminate killers and take out too many innocents. Remember, always be sure of your target.) The problem is how do you differentiate between responsible Citizens and irresponsible civillians? Does any one really believe that gang bangers are going to be responsible with what they can get now, let alone rocket launchers?
In theory, responsible citizens would not be involved in large numbers of shootings. In practicality, they would almost have to be in order to take back the streets. Can you imagine what the streets of LA would be like if any and all of the above list were legal? When you take into account that the gangs have less than legal funding options, it would make it very difficult for the law abiding citizens to keep up with what the criminal can do.
The bottom line is I have a chicken fooey position of "I DON'T KNOW.". Until we go back to a justice system instead of a legal system I don't believe there is any hope for this country anymore. I would like to see the whole list open but I don't see it as practical in this society anymore.