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.
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
I am for only one gun law. In PA we are required, presently, to pass a hunter's safty course to obtain a hunting license. I would expand this to include pistols, shotguns, etc., and award all who pass the test a license to own and carry firearms, regardless of type, for their lifetime. If people need a license to drive, I think it reasonable to assure a minimum of proficiency in the handling and use of a deadly weapon. This license would also be good for concealed carry. The test could be simple, objective, anonymous in sunmission, with multiple opportunities to pass - to preclude bias or politics.
quote:Originally posted by Hokkmike
I am for only one gun law. In PA we are required, presently, to pass a hunter's safty course to obtain a hunting license. I would expand this to include pistols, shotguns, etc., and award all who pass the test a license to own and carry firearms, regardless of type, for their lifetime. If people need a license to drive, I think it reasonable to assure a minimum of proficiency in the handling and use of a deadly weapon. This license would also be good for concealed carry. The test could be simple, objective, anonymous in sunmission, with multiple opportunities to pass - to preclude bias or politics.
More silliness.
In Pennsylvania,we dont require any handgun proficiency tests, etc, in order to aquire a CCL. I dont hear about people getting accidentally shot, I do not hear about abuse caused by people having CCLs now. So if there isnt a problem with the current system, why do you feel it is necessary to have more government control when it comes to having and using firearms??
A relative of an inlaw decided he wanted to give hunting a try. The state of Pennsylvania, certified him as a safe hunbter, by giving him a certificate that he passed his hunter safety course,. On his first hunting trip, the bozo had two accidental discharges, and blew up the gun because he got mud in the barrel(my gun-last time I lend a gun to an in law). Would you consider this fellow a safe hunter? I wouldnt, and will never hunt while he is in the woods-but the state of Pennsylvania considers him a safe hunter. Meanwhile, the other half dozen guys I hunt with, NEVER TOOK A GOVERNMENT MANDATED HUNTER SAFETY COURSE. These guys are good hunters, they are safe hunters, yet the government has never given them a seal of approval. Of course, many would argue that the actions of the bozo prove that EVEN MORE government control is necessary-
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Salzo, my only interest is safty. I am sorry if you think that is silly. I have seen far too many unsafe gun handling pratices. Your are right that no training can assure competence, but at least it is an effort in the right direction. Thanks very much for your reply.
Hokkmike, good to see a new user on the Gun Rights board. We need as many users here as we can get.
As for your comments... Hunting is a privelige, like fishing. Owning a gun is a right.
You mentioned rifles, pistols and shotguns. What do you feel about these "responsible" citizens who passed your tests having full autos or rocket launchers, etc.
I fully support law abiding citizens owning anything that an individual soldier could have.
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Mr.Fox, Sir....
Is it any easier to accept from an educated man...using 10,000 words ?
[:D]
May I suggest that you print the Snyder treatice out and use it in your ongoing education program ?
Perhaps we can argue less now..? [:D][:D]
Lets say Felon "A" is going to be set free. He plans on heading back to the hood and resuming his career in crime. Let's say he's going to get a gun to commit violent crimes. Gun laws will not slow him down for a minute. That much is proven every day in every state in the Union.
Now Felon "B" feels that he has done his time and has paid his dues. He works hard, pays his taxes and keeps his nose clean. Why shouldn't he be allowed to hunt or shoot trap?
Gun laws do not keep violent criminals from obtaining firearms. Period.
My two cents.
"When the going gets weird, the Weird turn pro"
Hunter S. Thompson"
The goobermint allows vicious criminals back out on the street every day...so they can keep a guy with a couple whacky baccas in jail.
The list of 'offenses' that are felonies grows longer every day.The ultimate aim of these people SHOULD be perfectly clear..even to the slowest amoung us....Gun control has NEVER been about controlling crime....only about controlling those who might take exception to freedom destroying rules,regulations,and laws...They learned well from Hitler and his ilk......
I have taken a stand that no AMERICAN worthy of being called that...would countenance gun control...or believe that gun control is anything but TOTALLY unConstitutional.
The "pro-felon" argument, or "anti-law" if you prefer, seems to always boil down to this:
1. No convicted felons should ever be released from prison, but if they happen to get released then they should regain the full Constitutional right to own a firearm.
2. No check should ever be done to learn if someone is a convicted felon, or even a citizen of this country, when purchasing a firearm. Firearms should be sold over the counter to anyone, no questions asked.
In my opinion, this is the "throw the baby out with the bath water" model. The logic is that if we can't stop every single illegal firearms sale then we may as well throw our hands up and just let anyone buy a gun with no attempt to check their criminal history or citizenship. That way there is no such thing as an "illegal" firearms sale. Instead of getting rid of the crime itself, we just don't make it a crime anymore.
Highball, I noticed in your posts that you occassionally voice your frustration with the system for jailing people on dope charges. It is obvious that you are a staunch Libertarian. I have to say you are at least consistent. I am sure you probably feel that drugs should be "decriminalized" in general. If everyone in this country was a Libertarian, then your philosophy might work. But we are very far from that.
I have to assume that Liberals will always be around to advocate letting illegal aliens into our country. They will continue their attempt to "rehabilitate" murderers, rapists, and child molesters, and then release them back into our society. As long as that is the case, I will support background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of those individuals.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Mr.Fox, Sir....
Is it any easier to accept from an educated man...using 10,000 words ?
[:D]
May I suggest that you print the Snyder treatice out and use it in your ongoing education program ?
Perhaps we can argue less now..? [:D][:D]
We can only hope[8D]
But did you notice that the author posted some thoughts that mirror mine and a few others here?
Yes,indeed,Fox...I did notice.Those members on here that I do not hammer crudely share much of my beliefs.....and discusing the merits of this or that idea with decent people such as yourself hones ones wits.
WoundedWolf;
Don't really consider myself a Libertarian.They are weak on national defense....aliens..several other aspects....
More of what I consider a "Constitutionalist"...One who believes in the Constitution.
Rather then "Pre-punishing EVERYBODY"...The great idea is to punish the guilty...see,the idea of freedom is allowing people to make mistakes...or to do right.
Those that commit 'mistakes'..vicious crimes,I mean here...should pay the ulitimate penalty.Just because society is sick...allowing itself to be preyed upon by the vicious,unwilling to defend itself...is NO REASON TO GO ALONG WITH THE SICKNESS......
By the way...on a linear scale...the Constitution is a perfect balancing point between the administration we have now..facist...and the previous one...Socialist/Communist....
Hokkmike, sorry it took so long for me to get back to you.
As far as tanks go... I don't really want a tank. However, the shell of a tank is nothing more than armor. I put owning the shell of a tank in the same classification as owning an armored vehicle. As for being fully armed... I would treat the heavy guns on it as I would treat the heavy guns that are privately owned. I don't think it is a good idea for everybody to own a missile, but if you are referring to guns like .50 BMGs and the like or possibly conventional explosive shells, I can see no harm in having them on your armored vehicle.
The way I see it is this: Tanks cost many thousands of dollars. I don't believe that anybody would spend that kind of money on a tank to commit a crime. If they did, they would have to keep in mind that they would get blown up by somebody. National Guard, etc.
The reason I asked was to try to determine a parallel between owning a rocket launcher and a tank. I don't think I accomplished much. I wonder if anybody has a correct intepretation of what the right to bear "arms" is technically considered. In other words, what is an arm?
I have always considered it to mean rifle, shotgun, handguns. Maybe there is a broader definition that has been defined by case law?
Ok, now you have all had a say in this and I have to agree with the majority.....as far as I'm concerned, all laws devised since 1934 machine gun laws are illegal. Period!
But I have a new question........
Just what are we going to do about it. I don't mean the NRA, CCRKBA, 2nd amendment foundation, etc. but YOU and ME?
ME: I keep telling people that we need to form a 1 million "armed" man march on Washington, DC and arrest all of those Senators/Congressmen who are not following their mandate to support and protect the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights. What do you think of that? And, yes, WE CAN DO IT. Not only is it legal but our duty according to the Constitution, itself. DC firearms laws are not legal or binding! Hope this fires up some debate! Good Luck.
Forget the Jones's.....I keep up with the Simpsons!
Rocket launchers are devices of militias just like grenades. I believe that at the very least, the second amendment protects all "militia" weapons, including rocket launchers, grenade launchers, and machine guns. When it comes to missiles, and WMDs, I don't think they are supported, because they are not weapons individual soldiers would have.
#1 For it. What do you need an AW for anyways if you are a law-abiding citizen. My Rem 870 with OO Buck and 18" barrel is all I need in my house!
#2 If it keeps the one freak that could blow my butt away from having a gun, Yup!
#3 50/50. Lived in MI where we had it and WI where we don't. I can go either way? Again I got Bertha (my 870)! Come in my house and you can have a 44 Mag, I'm not afraid of you with my Bertha and OO!
#4 I am with most of you on this one... You must be rubbing off on me!
#5 See #1! The Second Ammendment was written when the state of the Technology was a Flint-Lock! It would be very diffent if written now with Machine Guns. Are you saying 150 years from now it will be OK to own a "ray-gun" that can take out a city with one pull of the trigger!!!
#6. Felons should NOT have guns! If you are not a felon you can hae a gun...
#7 See #5. Again I do not need a silencer. If you come in my house with malice in your heart, Bertha may make a lot of noise. What do I need a sliencer for?
#8. See #1 and #5 Why would I want a .5 cal that can shoot 1000 yards and go through .5" of armour plate unless I was up to NO GOOD? You must be one lousy deer hunter if you need a .5!
#9 Why should a gun show be any diffeerent from my neighbor who owns a gun shop and trying to make a living? If I was a bad guy (felon) all I have to do is go a gun show? I got nothing to hide so I can register my guns!
#1 For it. What do you need an AW for anyways if you are a law-abiding citizen. My Rem 870 with OO Buck and 18" barrel is all I need in my house!
#2 If it keeps the one freak that could blow my butt away from having a gun, Yup!
#3 50/50. Lived in MI where we had it and WI where we don't. I can go either way? Again I got Bertha (my 870)! Come in my house and you can have a 44 Mag, I'm not afraid of you with my Bertha and OO!
#4 I am with most of you on this one... You must be rubbing off on me!
#5 See #1! The Second Ammendment was written when the state of the Technology was a Flint-Lock! It would be very diffent if written now with Machine Guns. Are you saying 150 years from now it will be OK to own a "ray-gun" that can take out a city with one pull of the trigger!!!
#6. Felons should NOT have guns! If you are not a felon you can hae a gun...
#7 See #5. Again I do not need a silencer. If you come in my house with malice in your heart, Bertha may make a lot of noise. What do I need a sliencer for?
#8. See #1 and #5 Why would I want a .5 cal that can shoot 1000 yards and go through .5" of armour plate unless I was up to NO GOOD? You must be one lousy deer hunter if you need a .5!
#9 Why should a gun show be any diffeerent from my neighbor who owns a gun shop and trying to make a living? If I was a bad guy (felon) all I have to do is go a gun show? I got nothing to hide so I can register my guns!
Fitz
Peeeeuuuuuuuuuu!
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
As I have stated on numerous occasions.
The avowed anti-gun puke (Fiendstein/Shumer/Kennedy) is not the worry about losing all the Second Amendment rights.
The REAL snake in the grass...is the "Gun Owner" that believes in gun control.This type person is what allows the Socialists to make their huge inroads on deprivation of rights.Too ignorant to actually READ the Constitution..they operate out of their 'feelings'..buying into the Socialists arguments...Judas goats leading other people to slaughter.
Ah, the old flint lock argument. We must have an NRA member in our midst. Seriously though, if you are even against SAWs, then what are you doing on gun broker? You can go pose with John Kerry and his double barrel shotgun.
Fitz: I do admire your honesty, if not your positions. I started this thread hoping someone like you would respond, maybe more will follow your example. The others on here have already said why they feel the way they do about registrations, bans, restrictions, ect...so I'll keep mine short and sweet
If people like you won't help me defend my right to own an AR-15, then people like me won't help you defend your right to own "Bertha"
"We must all hang together now, or we will all hang seperately later" - Ben Franklin
Also, one quick question. Since you don't believe someone should own a semi-auto rifle.....how do you feel about semi-auto shotguns i.e Benelli M1s? What about Semi-Auto handguns?
Molon Labe
I will admire his honesty when he admits that he is anti-gun.
There is a line being drawn,people....Socialists over there...Americans over here......Either one believes in the Second Amendment...OR YOU DON'T.
The Founders NEVER INTENDED us to turn back over to the OverLords total control of the populace..no matter HOW much people prattle on about 'muskets back in those days.."
Once again Highball is right. Those flint locks were the military weapon of the day. Now the military weapon of the day is a real Assault Rifle, as in select-fire.
If the revolution happened today, and the invading British army had full autos, try and say that the founding fathers would have only wanted the law abiding citizens to own flint locks.
quote:#1 For it. What do you need an AW for anyways if you are a law-abiding citizen. My Rem 870 with OO Buck and 18" barrel is all I need in my house!
So what! If you believe in only owning what you need, then get rid of that DVD player, your widescreen TV and your sportscars, because you don't "need" them, either. The beauty of being an American is that you don't have to need it in order to own it, all you have to do is want it.
quote:#2 If it keeps the one freak that could blow my butt away from having a gun, Yup!
It won't, but keep believing it will. The masters love it when their subjects stupidly slit their own throats... especially ones like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein. And no, being an American does not make you special, and not subject to any of that.
quote:#3 50/50. Lived in MI where we had it and WI where we don't. I can go either way? Again I got Bertha (my 870)! Come in my house and you can have a 44 Mag, I'm not afraid of you with my Bertha and OO!
Talk about paranoid. I'm not coming in your house, not because I'm afraid of you, but because it isn't my house. An overwhelming majority of the populous feels the same way. And if you expect a home intruder will be a CHL holder, you're way out there. You need to get on some meds...
quote:#4 I am with most of you on this one... You must be rubbing off on me!
Well, anything is a good start, I guess.
quote:#5 See #1! The Second Ammendment was written when the state of the Technology was a Flint-Lock! It would be very diffent if written now with Machine Guns. Are you saying 150 years from now it will be OK to own a "ray-gun" that can take out a city with one pull of the trigger!!!
You are relying on your own understanding of the will of the Founders without actually reading what they said. They were not stupid, and forsaw technology bolstering to the point that we would one day have more sophisticated weaponry available to us. They wanted us armed with similar or exact weaponry as what could have been used against us, and suggesting otherwise is the same as pullng punches. It is clear to me that those people feared tyrannical gov'ts more than invading foreign powers.
quote:#6. Felons should NOT have guns! If you are not a felon you can hae a gun...
I'll agree here, but not for the same reason. Those who have made grievous acts against the populous should be jailed or executed. Our 2nd Amendment does not restrict, probably because it was written with the belief that those who do wrong will be judged.
quote:#7 See #5. Again I do not need a silencer. If you come in my house with malice in your heart, Bertha may make a lot of noise. What do I need a sliencer for?
Let me point out something obvious to those who believe silencers are bad. A person wise enough to use a silencer is also one who will catch you by surprise, and for you, it will undoubtedly be when Bertha has its trigger lock on it, and thus useless, and certainly not in your hand. It may be as you are walking to your car, or from across the street, or anywhere.... I've looked into their construction, and I know they can be easily built, and out of very inexpensive things, and with little actual effort, so, like it or not, the technology is here to stay. better get used to it.
quote:#8. See #1 and #5 Why would I want a .5 cal that can shoot 1000 yards and go through .5" of armour plate unless I was up to NO GOOD? You must be one lousy deer hunter if you need a .5!
That must be why there has not been a single misuse from anyone except a cop. What does that tell you? Time to flush your brain out and do a little research on your own, rather than be a talking head for those who don't give a damn about your rights.
quote:#9 Why should a gun show be any diffeerent from my neighbor who owns a gun shop and trying to make a living? If I was a bad guy (felon) all I have to do is go a gun show? I got nothing to hide so I can register my guns!
If you had a lick of damn sense, you would go to the black market, where the stuff available is pennies on the dollar, and from the right black market vendor, can get you full auto. This is another area that you should look into, because you'll find that this is the lowest area for obtained firearms to be misused at a later time.
And that crack about "I have nothing to hide", it simply is not their business. Only people in the business of genocide keep records like this. Crime control is merely an excuse for the dumber, less imformed gun owner.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
"I have nothing to hide"...is the crock of fecal matter that brain-dead servants have been trained into by their masters.
Americans have the RIGHT and EXPECTATION of privacy..free of government snooping. See..that is one of the pillars of a 'free country'....imagine that. So...naturally..that has been and will be under full assualt by those in power.
Aided and abeted by Quislings...you know.."I have nothing to hide"...Blind,stupid trust in government indicates a TOTAL lack of knowledge about history, human nature, or the irresistable thrill of all-consuming power that saturates those empty suited little men that seek control over their fellow citizens.
The very WORST people that can possibly be elected to high office ...is those actively seeking that office. They suffer from a Napoleonic complex...they imagine themselves to be MUCH greater then they really are.
NO GUN CONTROL,people....freedom's Liberty Teeth are too precious to be regulated by those seeking total control over the populace.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
"I have nothing to hide"...is the crock of fecal matter that brain-dead servants have been trained into by their masters.
Americans have the RIGHT and EXPECTATION of privacy..free of government snooping. See..that is one of the pillars of a 'free country'....imagine that. So...naturally..that has been and will be under full assualt by those in power.
Aided and abeted by Quislings...you know.."I have nothing to hide"...Blind,stupid trust in government indicates a TOTAL lack of knowledge about history, human nature, or the irresistable thrill of all-consuming power that saturates those empty suited little men that seek control over their fellow citizens.
The very WORST people that can possibly be elected to high office ...is those actively seeking that office. They suffer from a Napoleonic complex...they imagine themselves to be MUCH greater then they really are.
NO GUN CONTROL,people....freedom's Liberty Teeth are too precious to be regulated by those seeking total control over the populace.
Highball is right. I remember a few years back Komrade Klinton was trying to outlaw the use of strong encryption because "criminials could use it to get away with crimes." "If you don't have anything to hide, why do you need it?" Sayings like that. Here's somebody saying that we shouldn't be able to encrypt our email. He's saying that it should be archived for as long as the ISP cares to keep it, and that we have to accept a loss of privacy for the convenience of technology. Apparently the Demonazis have as little respect for the 4th Amendment as the 2nd and 1st.
That is the God honest truth, right there. You may be an upstanding law abider by your standards, but with 13 million pages of laws out there, and 95% of them meant to rule over your conduct, rather than punish bona-fide crimes, you're breaking the law in someone's eyes in this country. NEVER FORGET THAT!!!
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Well you guys certainly put me in my place! Didn't even take the bait? No matter.....sooner or later you all will be crying the blues and wondering "what are we going to do now?" I'd rather look into it now, then later when we have to fight not only our own military but the entire UN force also. So, until then, Good Luck. I'll keep watching this thread to see where it goes.
Forget the Jones's.....I keep up with the Simpsons!
I do think the Flintlock arguement is appropriate! Just to clear the record I am not anti-gun! I am for responsible gun ownership. I have nothing against semi auto rifles and shotguns but do not think you need a Full Auto!
In 1776 Conservatives were called "TORRIES"! (Still call them that in England today!)
tfitz54 Posted - 05/31/2005 : 9:37:12 PM
I quote: have nothing against semi auto rifles and shotguns but do not think you need a Full Auto!
That is the beauty of freedom..and the Second Amendment. What YOU THINK means nothing at all..the entire concept is that those responsible enough may own them...and those NOT responsible enough to own them...get shot very dead by the aforementioned RERSPONSIBLE citizen.
See..free speech means that you get to postulate YOUR theories...just as long as you don't go to congress and pass unConstitutional laws.
Tfitz, you supported the AW ban on semi-auto rifles. Don't condtradict yourself. People make arguments like "you don't need a full auto". Say that again if you were attacked by multiple armed criminals.
Also, while any particular individual may not need a full auto, there is still no doubt in my mind that he has the right to have it.
Although I probably slip and use the phrase "you don't need" this or that regarding firearms and equipment, by using that phrase or making that phrase acceptable you are harming the American citizens.
Think how much power it would give some already power person/group who wanted be control America.
You don't "need" that much freedom.
that much money.
that big a house or car.
that big a family.
that much freedom of speech.
that much freedom to come and go as you please.
that gun that holds more than one round.
that gun that will shoot that big a bullet.
that gun that will shoot that powerful a bullet.
that gun that will shoot a bullet that far.
that gun that will hold that many bullets.
In fact you citizens don't "need" a gun at all.
In America the citizens are the "parents" and all governments are the "children". We citizens are supposed to tell government what it "needs". Government is not suppose to tell us citizens what we "need".
I agree with TR. The "you don't need" argument is a dangerous trend.
However, in the back of my mind I continually wrangle with the idea of a "perceived threat". At what point do you allow your common sense to kick in and call-in the FBI on the Middle-Eastern neighbor who is stockpiling fertilizer in his garage and has just rented a Ryder truck? Maybe the guy is totally legal, but does that mean our hands our tied until we find out he has blown up a building and killed several hundred people?
I think the same parallel can be made to a guy that buys 10-cases of dynamite and 50,000 rounds of .50 cal. Maybe the guy is hosting a totally legit machine gun shoot, or maybe he is going to invade Fort Knox. Do we always have to assume innocent until proven guilty, even if our common sense tells us otherwise? That means we can never prevent a crime, only prosecute after the fact (if there is anyone left to prosecute).
I am curious to hear your responses.
WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
quote:I think the same parallel can be made to a guy that buys 10-cases of dynamite and 50,000 rounds of .50 cal. Maybe the guy is hosting a totally legit machine gun shoot, or maybe he is going to invade Fort Knox. Do we always have to assume innocent until proven guilty, even if our common sense tells us otherwise? That means we can never prevent a crime, only prosecute after the fact (if there is anyone left to prosecute).
This is totally bogus. Neither explosives nor .50 machine guns are readily available on the common market, and if they were, that's between $50,000-$100,000 in ammunition alone, much less the fact that the rest of that stuff would be quite expensive, also, and extremely heavy. Such a raid would be expensive, and could not be carried out by a single person.
But if it makes you feel any better, explosives can be manufactured out of readily available chemicals, and there of course will always be the black market for everything else. I suspect someone that well financed will carry out with the operation, regardless of where they bought the materials. The aim isn't to control criminals, and never will be. It is to control law abiders. Don't fool yourself.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
quote:This is totally bogus. Neither explosives nor .50 machine guns are readily available on the common market, and if they were, that's between $50,000-$100,000 in ammunition alone
Obviously you have never been to my state, Nevada, nor Arizona. See following links:
50,000 rounds a day, no problem. At night they place balloons on the range with "reactive targets", typically a quarter stick of dynamite.
quote:But if it makes you feel any better, explosives can be manufactured out of readily available chemicals, and there of course will always be the black market for everything else. I suspect someone that well financed will carry out with the operation, regardless of where they bought the materials. The aim isn't to control criminals, and never will be. It is to control law abiders. Don't fool yourself.
So your basic stance is that there should never be any prevention of crime by any law enforcement because there would be too much potential infrigement on the rights of law abiding citizens. I think we have again come full-circle to the "baby with the bath water" argument. If you can't prevent every crime with 100% accuracy then we should make no effort to prevent any crime. How Libertarian of you.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Comments
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Sako Fan
I am for only one gun law. In PA we are required, presently, to pass a hunter's safty course to obtain a hunting license. I would expand this to include pistols, shotguns, etc., and award all who pass the test a license to own and carry firearms, regardless of type, for their lifetime. If people need a license to drive, I think it reasonable to assure a minimum of proficiency in the handling and use of a deadly weapon. This license would also be good for concealed carry. The test could be simple, objective, anonymous in sunmission, with multiple opportunities to pass - to preclude bias or politics.
More silliness.
In Pennsylvania,we dont require any handgun proficiency tests, etc, in order to aquire a CCL. I dont hear about people getting accidentally shot, I do not hear about abuse caused by people having CCLs now. So if there isnt a problem with the current system, why do you feel it is necessary to have more government control when it comes to having and using firearms??
A relative of an inlaw decided he wanted to give hunting a try. The state of Pennsylvania, certified him as a safe hunbter, by giving him a certificate that he passed his hunter safety course,. On his first hunting trip, the bozo had two accidental discharges, and blew up the gun because he got mud in the barrel(my gun-last time I lend a gun to an in law). Would you consider this fellow a safe hunter? I wouldnt, and will never hunt while he is in the woods-but the state of Pennsylvania considers him a safe hunter. Meanwhile, the other half dozen guys I hunt with, NEVER TOOK A GOVERNMENT MANDATED HUNTER SAFETY COURSE. These guys are good hunters, they are safe hunters, yet the government has never given them a seal of approval. Of course, many would argue that the actions of the bozo prove that EVEN MORE government control is necessary-
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Sako Fan
As for your comments... Hunting is a privelige, like fishing. Owning a gun is a right.
You mentioned rifles, pistols and shotguns. What do you feel about these "responsible" citizens who passed your tests having full autos or rocket launchers, etc.
I fully support law abiding citizens owning anything that an individual soldier could have.
...good show!!!
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Is it any easier to accept from an educated man...using 10,000 words ?
[:D]
May I suggest that you print the Snyder treatice out and use it in your ongoing education program ?
Perhaps we can argue less now..? [:D][:D]
Full auto, sure, I don't see a need for them but not everybody use guns for the same applications as me.
The 2nd Amendment does not specify guns for hunting, target shooting etc., In short, we do not have to justify possession by use.
As far as rocket launchers go will you give me some time to think about that one?
Let me ask you a question. Do you know if it is legal for a private individual to own and operate a fully functioning tank?
Sako Fan
Now Felon "B" feels that he has done his time and has paid his dues. He works hard, pays his taxes and keeps his nose clean. Why shouldn't he be allowed to hunt or shoot trap?
Gun laws do not keep violent criminals from obtaining firearms. Period.
My two cents.
"When the going gets weird, the Weird turn pro"
Hunter S. Thompson"
The list of 'offenses' that are felonies grows longer every day.The ultimate aim of these people SHOULD be perfectly clear..even to the slowest amoung us....Gun control has NEVER been about controlling crime....only about controlling those who might take exception to freedom destroying rules,regulations,and laws...They learned well from Hitler and his ilk......
I have taken a stand that no AMERICAN worthy of being called that...would countenance gun control...or believe that gun control is anything but TOTALLY unConstitutional.
1. No convicted felons should ever be released from prison, but if they happen to get released then they should regain the full Constitutional right to own a firearm.
2. No check should ever be done to learn if someone is a convicted felon, or even a citizen of this country, when purchasing a firearm. Firearms should be sold over the counter to anyone, no questions asked.
In my opinion, this is the "throw the baby out with the bath water" model. The logic is that if we can't stop every single illegal firearms sale then we may as well throw our hands up and just let anyone buy a gun with no attempt to check their criminal history or citizenship. That way there is no such thing as an "illegal" firearms sale. Instead of getting rid of the crime itself, we just don't make it a crime anymore.
Highball, I noticed in your posts that you occassionally voice your frustration with the system for jailing people on dope charges. It is obvious that you are a staunch Libertarian. I have to say you are at least consistent. I am sure you probably feel that drugs should be "decriminalized" in general. If everyone in this country was a Libertarian, then your philosophy might work. But we are very far from that.
I have to assume that Liberals will always be around to advocate letting illegal aliens into our country. They will continue their attempt to "rehabilitate" murderers, rapists, and child molesters, and then release them back into our society. As long as that is the case, I will support background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of those individuals.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Mr.Fox, Sir....
Is it any easier to accept from an educated man...using 10,000 words ?
[:D]
May I suggest that you print the Snyder treatice out and use it in your ongoing education program ?
Perhaps we can argue less now..? [:D][:D]
We can only hope[8D]
But did you notice that the author posted some thoughts that mirror mine and a few others here?
WoundedWolf;
Don't really consider myself a Libertarian.They are weak on national defense....aliens..several other aspects....
More of what I consider a "Constitutionalist"...One who believes in the Constitution.
Rather then "Pre-punishing EVERYBODY"...The great idea is to punish the guilty...see,the idea of freedom is allowing people to make mistakes...or to do right.
Those that commit 'mistakes'..vicious crimes,I mean here...should pay the ulitimate penalty.Just because society is sick...allowing itself to be preyed upon by the vicious,unwilling to defend itself...is NO REASON TO GO ALONG WITH THE SICKNESS......
By the way...on a linear scale...the Constitution is a perfect balancing point between the administration we have now..facist...and the previous one...Socialist/Communist....
As far as tanks go... I don't really want a tank. However, the shell of a tank is nothing more than armor. I put owning the shell of a tank in the same classification as owning an armored vehicle. As for being fully armed... I would treat the heavy guns on it as I would treat the heavy guns that are privately owned. I don't think it is a good idea for everybody to own a missile, but if you are referring to guns like .50 BMGs and the like or possibly conventional explosive shells, I can see no harm in having them on your armored vehicle.
The way I see it is this: Tanks cost many thousands of dollars. I don't believe that anybody would spend that kind of money on a tank to commit a crime. If they did, they would have to keep in mind that they would get blown up by somebody. National Guard, etc.
I have always considered it to mean rifle, shotgun, handguns. Maybe there is a broader definition that has been defined by case law?
Sako Fan
But I have a new question........
Just what are we going to do about it. I don't mean the NRA, CCRKBA, 2nd amendment foundation, etc. but YOU and ME?
ME: I keep telling people that we need to form a 1 million "armed" man march on Washington, DC and arrest all of those Senators/Congressmen who are not following their mandate to support and protect the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights. What do you think of that? And, yes, WE CAN DO IT. Not only is it legal but our duty according to the Constitution, itself. DC firearms laws are not legal or binding! Hope this fires up some debate! Good Luck.
Forget the Jones's.....I keep up with the Simpsons!
I have always considered it to mean rifle, shotgun, handguns. Maybe there is a broader definition that has been defined by case law?
Sako Fan
Ohh yeah. Case law. The second amendment is so confusing. We need case law to tell us what it says.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
#1 For it. What do you need an AW for anyways if you are a law-abiding citizen. My Rem 870 with OO Buck and 18" barrel is all I need in my house!
#2 If it keeps the one freak that could blow my butt away from having a gun, Yup!
#3 50/50. Lived in MI where we had it and WI where we don't. I can go either way? Again I got Bertha (my 870)! Come in my house and you can have a 44 Mag, I'm not afraid of you with my Bertha and OO!
#4 I am with most of you on this one... You must be rubbing off on me!
#5 See #1! The Second Ammendment was written when the state of the Technology was a Flint-Lock! It would be very diffent if written now with Machine Guns. Are you saying 150 years from now it will be OK to own a "ray-gun" that can take out a city with one pull of the trigger!!!
#6. Felons should NOT have guns! If you are not a felon you can hae a gun...
#7 See #5. Again I do not need a silencer. If you come in my house with malice in your heart, Bertha may make a lot of noise. What do I need a sliencer for?
#8. See #1 and #5 Why would I want a .5 cal that can shoot 1000 yards and go through .5" of armour plate unless I was up to NO GOOD? You must be one lousy deer hunter if you need a .5!
#9 Why should a gun show be any diffeerent from my neighbor who owns a gun shop and trying to make a living? If I was a bad guy (felon) all I have to do is go a gun show? I got nothing to hide so I can register my guns!
Fitz
You asked!
#1 For it. What do you need an AW for anyways if you are a law-abiding citizen. My Rem 870 with OO Buck and 18" barrel is all I need in my house!
#2 If it keeps the one freak that could blow my butt away from having a gun, Yup!
#3 50/50. Lived in MI where we had it and WI where we don't. I can go either way? Again I got Bertha (my 870)! Come in my house and you can have a 44 Mag, I'm not afraid of you with my Bertha and OO!
#4 I am with most of you on this one... You must be rubbing off on me!
#5 See #1! The Second Ammendment was written when the state of the Technology was a Flint-Lock! It would be very diffent if written now with Machine Guns. Are you saying 150 years from now it will be OK to own a "ray-gun" that can take out a city with one pull of the trigger!!!
#6. Felons should NOT have guns! If you are not a felon you can hae a gun...
#7 See #5. Again I do not need a silencer. If you come in my house with malice in your heart, Bertha may make a lot of noise. What do I need a sliencer for?
#8. See #1 and #5 Why would I want a .5 cal that can shoot 1000 yards and go through .5" of armour plate unless I was up to NO GOOD? You must be one lousy deer hunter if you need a .5!
#9 Why should a gun show be any diffeerent from my neighbor who owns a gun shop and trying to make a living? If I was a bad guy (felon) all I have to do is go a gun show? I got nothing to hide so I can register my guns!
Fitz
Peeeeuuuuuuuuuu!
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
The avowed anti-gun puke (Fiendstein/Shumer/Kennedy) is not the worry about losing all the Second Amendment rights.
The REAL snake in the grass...is the "Gun Owner" that believes in gun control.This type person is what allows the Socialists to make their huge inroads on deprivation of rights.Too ignorant to actually READ the Constitution..they operate out of their 'feelings'..buying into the Socialists arguments...Judas goats leading other people to slaughter.
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
If people like you won't help me defend my right to own an AR-15, then people like me won't help you defend your right to own "Bertha"
"We must all hang together now, or we will all hang seperately later" - Ben Franklin
Also, one quick question. Since you don't believe someone should own a semi-auto rifle.....how do you feel about semi-auto shotguns i.e Benelli M1s? What about Semi-Auto handguns?
Molon Labe
There is a line being drawn,people....Socialists over there...Americans over here......Either one believes in the Second Amendment...OR YOU DON'T.
The Founders NEVER INTENDED us to turn back over to the OverLords total control of the populace..no matter HOW much people prattle on about 'muskets back in those days.."
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
If the revolution happened today, and the invading British army had full autos, try and say that the founding fathers would have only wanted the law abiding citizens to own flint locks.
So what! If you believe in only owning what you need, then get rid of that DVD player, your widescreen TV and your sportscars, because you don't "need" them, either. The beauty of being an American is that you don't have to need it in order to own it, all you have to do is want it.
quote:#2 If it keeps the one freak that could blow my butt away from having a gun, Yup!
It won't, but keep believing it will. The masters love it when their subjects stupidly slit their own throats... especially ones like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein. And no, being an American does not make you special, and not subject to any of that.
quote:#3 50/50. Lived in MI where we had it and WI where we don't. I can go either way? Again I got Bertha (my 870)! Come in my house and you can have a 44 Mag, I'm not afraid of you with my Bertha and OO!
Talk about paranoid. I'm not coming in your house, not because I'm afraid of you, but because it isn't my house. An overwhelming majority of the populous feels the same way. And if you expect a home intruder will be a CHL holder, you're way out there. You need to get on some meds...
quote:#4 I am with most of you on this one... You must be rubbing off on me!
Well, anything is a good start, I guess.
quote:#5 See #1! The Second Ammendment was written when the state of the Technology was a Flint-Lock! It would be very diffent if written now with Machine Guns. Are you saying 150 years from now it will be OK to own a "ray-gun" that can take out a city with one pull of the trigger!!!
You are relying on your own understanding of the will of the Founders without actually reading what they said. They were not stupid, and forsaw technology bolstering to the point that we would one day have more sophisticated weaponry available to us. They wanted us armed with similar or exact weaponry as what could have been used against us, and suggesting otherwise is the same as pullng punches. It is clear to me that those people feared tyrannical gov'ts more than invading foreign powers.
quote:#6. Felons should NOT have guns! If you are not a felon you can hae a gun...
I'll agree here, but not for the same reason. Those who have made grievous acts against the populous should be jailed or executed. Our 2nd Amendment does not restrict, probably because it was written with the belief that those who do wrong will be judged.
quote:#7 See #5. Again I do not need a silencer. If you come in my house with malice in your heart, Bertha may make a lot of noise. What do I need a sliencer for?
Let me point out something obvious to those who believe silencers are bad. A person wise enough to use a silencer is also one who will catch you by surprise, and for you, it will undoubtedly be when Bertha has its trigger lock on it, and thus useless, and certainly not in your hand. It may be as you are walking to your car, or from across the street, or anywhere.... I've looked into their construction, and I know they can be easily built, and out of very inexpensive things, and with little actual effort, so, like it or not, the technology is here to stay. better get used to it.
quote:#8. See #1 and #5 Why would I want a .5 cal that can shoot 1000 yards and go through .5" of armour plate unless I was up to NO GOOD? You must be one lousy deer hunter if you need a .5!
That must be why there has not been a single misuse from anyone except a cop. What does that tell you? Time to flush your brain out and do a little research on your own, rather than be a talking head for those who don't give a damn about your rights.
quote:#9 Why should a gun show be any diffeerent from my neighbor who owns a gun shop and trying to make a living? If I was a bad guy (felon) all I have to do is go a gun show? I got nothing to hide so I can register my guns!
If you had a lick of damn sense, you would go to the black market, where the stuff available is pennies on the dollar, and from the right black market vendor, can get you full auto. This is another area that you should look into, because you'll find that this is the lowest area for obtained firearms to be misused at a later time.
And that crack about "I have nothing to hide", it simply is not their business. Only people in the business of genocide keep records like this. Crime control is merely an excuse for the dumber, less imformed gun owner.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Americans have the RIGHT and EXPECTATION of privacy..free of government snooping. See..that is one of the pillars of a 'free country'....imagine that. So...naturally..that has been and will be under full assualt by those in power.
Aided and abeted by Quislings...you know.."I have nothing to hide"...Blind,stupid trust in government indicates a TOTAL lack of knowledge about history, human nature, or the irresistable thrill of all-consuming power that saturates those empty suited little men that seek control over their fellow citizens.
The very WORST people that can possibly be elected to high office ...is those actively seeking that office. They suffer from a Napoleonic complex...they imagine themselves to be MUCH greater then they really are.
NO GUN CONTROL,people....freedom's Liberty Teeth are too precious to be regulated by those seeking total control over the populace.
"I have nothing to hide"...is the crock of fecal matter that brain-dead servants have been trained into by their masters.
Americans have the RIGHT and EXPECTATION of privacy..free of government snooping. See..that is one of the pillars of a 'free country'....imagine that. So...naturally..that has been and will be under full assualt by those in power.
Aided and abeted by Quislings...you know.."I have nothing to hide"...Blind,stupid trust in government indicates a TOTAL lack of knowledge about history, human nature, or the irresistable thrill of all-consuming power that saturates those empty suited little men that seek control over their fellow citizens.
The very WORST people that can possibly be elected to high office ...is those actively seeking that office. They suffer from a Napoleonic complex...they imagine themselves to be MUCH greater then they really are.
NO GUN CONTROL,people....freedom's Liberty Teeth are too precious to be regulated by those seeking total control over the populace.
Highball is right. I remember a few years back Komrade Klinton was trying to outlaw the use of strong encryption because "criminials could use it to get away with crimes." "If you don't have anything to hide, why do you need it?" Sayings like that. Here's somebody saying that we shouldn't be able to encrypt our email. He's saying that it should be archived for as long as the ISP cares to keep it, and that we have to accept a loss of privacy for the convenience of technology. Apparently the Demonazis have as little respect for the 4th Amendment as the 2nd and 1st.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Forget the Jones's.....I keep up with the Simpsons!
In 1776 Conservatives were called "TORRIES"! (Still call them that in England today!)
Fitz
I quote: have nothing against semi auto rifles and shotguns but do not think you need a Full Auto!
That is the beauty of freedom..and the Second Amendment. What YOU THINK means nothing at all..the entire concept is that those responsible enough may own them...and those NOT responsible enough to own them...get shot very dead by the aforementioned RERSPONSIBLE citizen.
See..free speech means that you get to postulate YOUR theories...just as long as you don't go to congress and pass unConstitutional laws.
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
Also, while any particular individual may not need a full auto, there is still no doubt in my mind that he has the right to have it.
Think how much power it would give some already power person/group who wanted be control America.
You don't "need" that much freedom.
that much money.
that big a house or car.
that big a family.
that much freedom of speech.
that much freedom to come and go as you please.
that gun that holds more than one round.
that gun that will shoot that big a bullet.
that gun that will shoot that powerful a bullet.
that gun that will shoot a bullet that far.
that gun that will hold that many bullets.
In fact you citizens don't "need" a gun at all.
In America the citizens are the "parents" and all governments are the "children". We citizens are supposed to tell government what it "needs". Government is not suppose to tell us citizens what we "need".
However, in the back of my mind I continually wrangle with the idea of a "perceived threat". At what point do you allow your common sense to kick in and call-in the FBI on the Middle-Eastern neighbor who is stockpiling fertilizer in his garage and has just rented a Ryder truck? Maybe the guy is totally legal, but does that mean our hands our tied until we find out he has blown up a building and killed several hundred people?
I think the same parallel can be made to a guy that buys 10-cases of dynamite and 50,000 rounds of .50 cal. Maybe the guy is hosting a totally legit machine gun shoot, or maybe he is going to invade Fort Knox. Do we always have to assume innocent until proven guilty, even if our common sense tells us otherwise? That means we can never prevent a crime, only prosecute after the fact (if there is anyone left to prosecute).
I am curious to hear your responses.
WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
This is totally bogus. Neither explosives nor .50 machine guns are readily available on the common market, and if they were, that's between $50,000-$100,000 in ammunition alone, much less the fact that the rest of that stuff would be quite expensive, also, and extremely heavy. Such a raid would be expensive, and could not be carried out by a single person.
But if it makes you feel any better, explosives can be manufactured out of readily available chemicals, and there of course will always be the black market for everything else. I suspect someone that well financed will carry out with the operation, regardless of where they bought the materials. The aim isn't to control criminals, and never will be. It is to control law abiders. Don't fool yourself.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Obviously you have never been to my state, Nevada, nor Arizona. See following links:
http://practicaltrading.com/v-web/gallery/Mustang-Range-Machine-Gun-Shoot-June-2004
http://www.gofullauto.com/pix-videos.htm
50,000 rounds a day, no problem. At night they place balloons on the range with "reactive targets", typically a quarter stick of dynamite.
quote:But if it makes you feel any better, explosives can be manufactured out of readily available chemicals, and there of course will always be the black market for everything else. I suspect someone that well financed will carry out with the operation, regardless of where they bought the materials. The aim isn't to control criminals, and never will be. It is to control law abiders. Don't fool yourself.
So your basic stance is that there should never be any prevention of crime by any law enforcement because there would be too much potential infrigement on the rights of law abiding citizens. I think we have again come full-circle to the "baby with the bath water" argument. If you can't prevent every crime with 100% accuracy then we should make no effort to prevent any crime. How Libertarian of you.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.