Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15898
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Bryn Mawr »

tude dog;1413523 wrote:

I beg to differ in that I see the 2nd Amendment was designed exactly to preserve citizens rights to bear such arms.


Saint_;1413525 wrote: Actually, we limit the second amendment all the time. You can't have a bazooka, tank, fully automatic machine-gun, silencer, or heavy weapon like a howitzer or grenade. What's the difference if we limit semi-automatics and assault rifles too?


AnneBoleyn;1413526 wrote: Are you saying that because citizens were always able to possess the latest in weaponry when it comes to handguns & rifles/shotguns so even though gun technology exploded, like in many areas, even though this makes the weapon more dangerous, that this in itself should not deny a citizen from bearing this particular arm? Please explain yourself, give me a reason.


tude dog;1413556 wrote: I know our rights already been infringed on many levels. Doesn't make it right.


So by your logic private citizens should be allowed to buy tactical nuclear weapons because the second amendment gives them the right to bear arms?
User avatar
Saint_
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: The Four Corners

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Saint_ »

Ahso!;1413558 wrote: Actually, the second amendment was created because Jefferson didn't trust standing armies and wanted the citizens to band as local militias. However, we now have those standing armies and I believe the second amendment has outlived its use and is in fact now proving to be an impediment to our freedom.


Good point. How can you pursue your "life, liberty, and happiness" if someone shoots you?



And come on, tude dog, I KNOW you don't think it's a good idea for people to own artillery or grenades. There has to be some common sense in weapons control.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1413558 wrote: Actually, the second amendment was created because Jefferson didn't trust standing armies and wanted the citizens to band as local militias. However, we now have those standing armies and I believe the second amendment has outlived its use and is in fact now proving to be an impediment to our freedom.


Saint_;1413609 wrote: Good point. How can you pursue your "life, liberty, and happiness" if someone shoots you?



And come on, tude dog, I KNOW you don't think it's a good idea for people to own artillery or grenades. There has to be some common sense in weapons control.
So get the amendment written and let's vote! Honor the Rule of Law.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Ahso! »

I haven't read the entire text of LaPiere's news conference yet but from what I have read, it appears there was no mention of mental health attention like was first suggested in it. Just painting the culture as good guys and bad guys and placing cops (good guys) at every school. Spend more taxpayer money protecting the rights of people to own the dangerous product they represent and promote.

What else is there to be expected from a lobbying group?

As lobbyists, it is smart on the NRA's part though to stay miles away from the mental health issue. Just not very humane or community minded.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Accountable »

I understand the NRA actually shut their website down and refused comment for several days. Probably smart. I'd have recommended a few more days, like maybe until after the funerals.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by gmc »

Ahso!;1413558 wrote: Actually, the second amendment was created because Jefferson didn't trust standing armies and wanted the citizens to band as local militias. However, we now have those standing armies and I believe the second amendment has outlived its use and is in fact now proving to be an impediment to our freedom.


If you want to be free from fear of your government keep your standing army small and don't arm the police.

Why not cut the size of the standing army and disarm the police then the people wouldn't need to be so afraid of their government, while you're at it ban corporate funding for political parties. The main reason our police are unarmed, right from the very beginning with the metropolitan police act, it's so they would not be seen as being intended to oppress the people and could not be used for that purpose. Our standing army is too small to be used people except in extreme circumstances - hence nothing like the national guard being used against protesters. It's a been a long time since the riot act has been read.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Ahso! »

I'm not much of a fan of Lawrence O'Donnell but I watched the following video this morning and found myself in total agreement with him today. Very well said.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4573
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by tude dog »

Ahso!;1413563 wrote: At what time?


At the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written.

In any event, our government was not the result of any one person.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4573
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by tude dog »

Bryn Mawr;1413608 wrote: So by your logic private citizens should be allowed to buy tactical nuclear weapons because the second amendment gives them the right to bear arms?


No, not at all.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Ahso! »

tude dog;1413746 wrote: At the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written.

In any event, our government was not the result of any one person.I didn't say it was. It's actually you asserting that since Madison wrote it and Jefferson was not in the country at the time that Jefferson had no say and it's ALL Madison's work. Do you ever think before you type? The BOR was certainly a document that included input from concerns of all involved in the drama at the time regardless of who penned the thing.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Ahso! »

tude dog;1413747 wrote: No, not at all.Go on. We're waiting with bated breath.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4573
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by tude dog »

Saint_;1413609 wrote: Good point. How can you pursue your "life, liberty, and happiness" if someone shoots you?



And come on, tude dog, I KNOW you don't think it's a good idea for people to own artillery or grenades. There has to be some common sense in weapons control.


Why not? In many states it is legal.

When was the last time a crime or person was hurt by a cannon or grenade?

I am being a little deceptive here.

Best of my knowledge, black powered cannons built or based on the design before 1895(?) are good to go.

As far as grenades, my brother in law was telling me about his desire to toss a couple of grenades. Long story short, he found to get pass the government regulations, etc. Wasn't worth it to him.

Hmm, pipe bombs are a lot cheaper and don't require a government permit.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4573
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by tude dog »

Ahso!;1413751 wrote: Go on. We're waiting with bated breath.


Wouldn't want you to turn blue on my account. (that was a lie, lol)

Sorry to disappoint you all, I can't see the logic which would make it a right to possess a tactical nuclear weapon.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Accountable »

tude dog;1413747 wrote: No, not at all.


tude dog;1413759 wrote: Wouldn't want you to turn blue on my account. (that was a lie, lol)

Sorry to disappoint you all, I can't see the logic which would make it a right to possess a tactical nuclear weapon.Why not? "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The statement is clear. Unequivocal (Thank you Spell Check!) Does a tactical nuclear weapon not fall under the definition of arms?

Don't tell me you're one of those who want to follow the Constitution, but only until it becomes uncomfortable, and then you want to creatively interpret it the way you'd like to see it?? That's lib talk!

Okay, actually it's not. It's Republocrat talk ... talk of those too f'ing lazy to do the work to follow the Rule of Law and change a law that is no longer good.

eta: BTW, nobody can buy a tactical nuclear weapon. If they could then all the Arab countries would have them.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4573
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by tude dog »

Accountable;1413768 wrote: Why not? "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The statement is clear. Unequivocal (Thank you Spell Check!) Does a tactical nuclear weapon not fall under the definition of arms?

Don't tell me you're one of those who want to follow the Constitution, but only until it becomes uncomfortable, and then you want to creatively interpret it the way you'd like to see it?? That's lib talk!

Okay, actually it's not. It's Republocrat talk ... talk of those too f'ing lazy to do the work to follow the Rule of Law and change a law that is no longer good.

eta: BTW, nobody can buy a tactical nuclear weapon. If they could then all the Arab countries would have them.


I dunno about Republican talk. I'll let you deal with that.

The idea to bear arms has always been understood as firearms which can be carried. Only people who don't like the 2nd Amendment mock it with red herring arguments like it covers tactical nuclear weapons.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Accountable »

tude dog;1413802 wrote: I dunno about Republican talk. I'll let you deal with that.

The idea to bear arms has always been understood as firearms which can be carried. Only people who don't like the 2nd Amendment rights mock it with red herring arguments like it covers tactical nuclear weapons.
i've hung around here a day or two longer than you, so I can imagine the old-timers laughing at any description of me not liking the 2nd Amendment. :wah:

The idea to bear arms was written, and therefore understood, to ensure The People the means to defend against a tyrannical gov't. The authors of the Constitution didn't write "personal firearms for self defense" or "firearms for hunting." That's creative interpretation by those who disagree with the Second Amendment but don't want to blaspheme against the Holy Constitution. *genuflects toward Washington*

The authors knew that times change and they couldn't foresee flaws that they may have made or anticipate changing times. That's why they wrote Article V. Unfortunately, we are collectively too lazy to even try amending anymore, and prefer to treat the Constitution as some kind of Bible, written with divine inspiration and possessing all knowledge and wisdom, if we can only interpret it right. Bullshit. The Constitution was written by men wise enough to know that they weren't wise enough to know.

So stop trying to do exactly what your enemy libs do. Stop trying to interpret a "living document" that changes with the times. It is law. It is static. If you don't agree with what it says, stop trying to deny what is written and reinterpret it. Amend it.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by gmc »

This is a load of bollocks, right from the very beginning your constitutional rights didn't apply to everybody, about the very first thing that happened was restrict the rights of people to vote, the right to bear arms didn't extend to slaves or anyone else that might object to the status quo, the purpose of the electoral colleges is to prevent the likelihood of a populist candidate getting to office, it always has been and always will be used as a tool to keep power in the hands of those who believe they are entitled to govern. Just because it is written down doesn't make it somehow better and more secure.

Right against left the people against the powerful just as it is in evry other country. Right now in america it is the big corporations and the lunatic right with the money to swing elections the way they want. Most voters in america want some kind of curb on the availability of assault rifles. Be interesting to see if your government fear the people enough to listen to them.
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by flopstock »

I have a friend at work who hunts with a semi automatic. It fires as fast as he can flex his finger, he tells me.



I have another friend at work who collects guns. She and hubby have around 40 of them. She enjoys the history of them and their time.

She also has a card for concealed carry. She had to go through training for it.



My ex has a few rifles up at his farm for shooting coyotes and other animals going after his livestock.



I think that probably a lot more folks around me have them.



I've never even considered it, myself.:thinking:
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6

User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11518
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by YZGI »

I own a number of semi automatic rifles,shotguns and handguns. Mostly for hunting and target shooting. I would have no problem with banning all assault weapons and high capacity clips. Just don't take my legimate semi auto hunting guns.
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by flopstock »

YZGI;1413837 wrote: I own a number of semi automatic rifles,shotguns and handguns. Mostly for hunting and target shooting. I would have no problem with banning all assault weapons and high capacity clips. Just don't take my legimate semi auto hunting guns.i also have a friend who hunts with the bow
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6

User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Accountable »

gmc;1413827 wrote: Just because it is written down doesn't make it somehow better and more secure. It makes it law.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Accountable »

YZGI;1413837 wrote: I would have no problem with banning all assault weapons and high capacity clips.What's the difference between what's called an assault weapon and a semi-automatic hunting rifle, besides aesthetics?

The AR223 is a .223 caliber rifle. A .22 is a kid's rifle for hunting squirrel. Any deer rifle has twice the power, doesn't it?
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4573
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by tude dog »

Accountable;1413806 wrote: i've hung around here a day or two longer than you, so I can imagine the old-timers laughing at any description of me not liking the 2nd Amendment. :wah:

The idea to bear arms was written, and therefore understood, to ensure The People the means to defend against a tyrannical gov't. The authors of the Constitution didn't write "personal firearms for self defense" or "firearms for hunting." That's creative interpretation by those who disagree with the Second Amendment but don't want to blaspheme against the Holy Constitution. *genuflects toward Washington*

The authors knew that times change and they couldn't foresee flaws that they may have made or anticipate changing times. That's why they wrote Article V. Unfortunately, we are collectively too lazy to even try amending anymore, and prefer to treat the Constitution as some kind of Bible, written with divine inspiration and possessing all knowledge and wisdom, if we can only interpret it right. Bullshit. The Constitution was written by men wise enough to know that they weren't wise enough to know.

So stop trying to do exactly what your enemy libs do. Stop trying to interpret a "living document" that changes with the times. It is law. It is static. If you don't agree with what it says, stop trying to deny what is written and reinterpret it. Amend it.


Whereas the 2nd was written to keep our own government in check, I don't see where that was ever to the exclusion of self defense whether it be against Indians or outlaws. For the most part today hunting is a sport. Back when for many it was for survival. It is incredible to me when it comes to the right to bear arms nothing less than all the above applies.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15898
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Bryn Mawr »

tude dog;1413747 wrote: No, not at all.


Why not? It is a direct extension of the logic expressed here - the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms, any restriction of that right is unconstitutional, nuclear weapons are arms therefore you have a right to bear them.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4573
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by tude dog »

Bryn Mawr;1413863 wrote: Why not? It is a direct extension of the logic expressed here - the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms, any restriction of that right is unconstitutional, nuclear weapons are arms therefore you have a right to bear them.


I don't know where nuclear weapons became arms which one could bear.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11518
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by YZGI »

Accountable;1413855 wrote: What's the difference between what's called an assault weapon and a semi-automatic hunting rifle, besides aesthetics?

The AR223 is a .223 caliber rifle. A .22 is a kid's rifle for hunting squirrel. Any deer rifle has twice the power, doesn't it?


You're right. The assault type have clips made for them that are higher capacity. My 30.06 has 5 round clips, it is a pump action. My semi auto shotguns hold up to 5 shells. But all could do as much damage pretty easily, especially if the person using them has any skill what so ever.I think the appearance of the assault style weapons make the person using feel like they have more of a killing weapon than a hunting weapon.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15898
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Bryn Mawr »

tude dog;1413864 wrote: I don't know where nuclear weapons became arms which one could bear.


That was not your take thirty posts back. When Saint suggested that the likes of tanks were restricted :-



Saint_;1413525 wrote: Actually, we limit the second amendment all the time. You can't have a bazooka, tank, fully automatic machine-gun, silencer, or heavy weapon like a howitzer or grenade. What's the difference if we limit semi-automatics and assault rifles too?


You said that it should not be so.



tude dog;1413556 wrote: I know our rights already been infringed on many levels. Doesn't make it right.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Ahso! »

tude dog;1413861 wrote: Whereas the 2nd was written to keep our own government in check, I don't see where that was ever to the exclusion of self defense whether it be against Indians or outlaws. For the most part today hunting is a sport. Back when for many it was for survival. It is incredible to me when it comes to the right to bear arms nothing less than all the above applies.What have you and the rest of your well regulated militia (which I imagine means the NRA and its membership) been keeping the government in check from? Why didn't we see you all converge at Ruby Ridge or Waco Texas?

Unless you can tell us what you've prevented the government from doing, you've merely made another moot point. Something you're proving to be proficient at.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Accountable »

tude dog;1413861 wrote: Whereas the 2nd was written to keep our own government in check, I don't see where that was ever to the exclusion of self defense whether it be against Indians or outlaws.Right. That was my point. The Constitution doesn't limit us to only hunting or only self defense. Our right ot bear arms includes both and expands to fighting a tyrannical gov't, which means waging war.

tude dog;1413861 wrote: For the most part today hunting is a sport. Back when for many it was for survival. It is incredible to me when it comes to the right to bear arms nothing less than all the above applies.That seems to be your stance sometimes, then sometimes not.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1413867 wrote: Unless you can tell us what you've prevented the government from doing, you've merely made another moot point. Something you're proving to be proficient at.Come now, Ahso. Not exercising a right doesn't make it invalid.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Ahso! »

I was thinking that perhaps TD would like to take credit for the current behavior of our government. :)
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4573
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by tude dog »

Ahso!;1413867 wrote: What have you and the rest of your well regulated militia (which I imagine means the NRA and its membership) been keeping the government in check from? Why didn't we see you all converge at Ruby Ridge or Waco Texas?

Unless you can tell us what you've prevented the government from doing, you've merely made another moot point. Something you're proving to be proficient at.


Not moot at all.

I am not part of a well regulated militia. The NRA is a lobbying group, not an armed militia.

I carry a gun everyday for self protection. Never had to use it for that purpose. Not a moot point.

I don't want to have to use a gun for self defense, nor do I want to use them against the government.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4573
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by tude dog »

Ahso!;1413882 wrote: I was thinking that perhaps TD would like to take credit for the current behavior of our government. :)


Naw, I rather give credit where credit is due.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Ahso! »

tude dog;1414172 wrote: Naw, I rather give credit where credit is due.Maybe you guy's flashing all that steel at them makes them nervous?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Bruv »

tude dog;1414171 wrote:

I carry a gun everyday for self protection. Never had to use it for that purpose.




Are you a nervous type, or are you in a high risk profession/area?

And..........the gun that you carry everyday for self protection but have never used for that purpose..............what purpose have you used it for, out of interest.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by gmc »

Accountable;1413854 wrote: It makes it law.


It requires eternal vigilance imo, How you doing with this one?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.




Americans seem to think it is some kind of talisman that will protect them from oppression yet you can't defend yourselves from powerful business interests riding roughshod over your rights and anyone questioning is just shouted down. Or so it seems on the face of it. We don't have police using pepper spray and the like on peaceful protesters. I suppose we get clobbered in other ways.

Do you think there is enough mass consensus now to get real change to your gun laws. The dunblane massacre here happened to coincide with elections where it was one of the issues that almost wiped out the tory party at the polls.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Accountable »

gmc;1414180 wrote: It requires eternal vigilance imo, How you doing with this one?I never know when you're referring to me personally or the US as a society. Which is it this time?
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4573
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by tude dog »

Bruv;1414176 wrote: Are you a nervous type, or are you in a high risk profession/area?

And..........the gun that you carry everyday for self protection but have never used for that purpose..............what purpose have you used it for, out of interest.


I have never been in an auto accident where wearing a seat belt prevented an injury, but I always wear just in case.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Ahso! »

tude dog;1414198 wrote: I have never been in an auto accident where wearing a seat belt prevented an injury, but I always wear just in case.It's also: 1) the law, and I'm sure you're a law abiding citizen; 2) If you do happen to be in an accident and you're not wearing a seat belt, have fun getting the insurance company to pay; 3) actions can become habitual after a certain time of doing them; and 4) we develop relationships with even inanimate objects for the purpose of dependency.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Bruv »

tude dog;1414198 wrote: I have never been in an auto accident where wearing a seat belt prevented an injury, but I always wear just in case.
But you failed to answer both questions.

Why ?

Seat belts have been proven to save lives, I personally have never heard of any firearm saving lives, in fact the opposite.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Oscar Namechange »

tude dog;1414198 wrote: I have never been in an auto accident where wearing a seat belt prevented an injury, but I always wear just in case. Excellent point.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Bruv;1414205 wrote: But you failed to answer both questions.

Why ?

Seat belts have been proven to save lives, I personally have never heard of any firearm saving lives, in fact the opposite. That's because while the web Is full of all the stats you need to see how many lives have been cost due to firearm's, It's difficult to find the same for lives they have saved. And they have saved lives and continue to do so.

Who will ever know the true outcome had a homeowner not have fired his weapon when a drug crazed Intruder broke into his home?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1413867 wrote: What have you and the rest of your well regulated militia (which I imagine means the NRA and its membership) been keeping the government in check from? Why didn't we see you all converge at Ruby Ridge or Waco Texas?

Unless you can tell us what you've prevented the government from doing, you've merely made another moot point. Something you're proving to be proficient at.


Ahso!;1414174 wrote: Maybe you guy's flashing all that steel at them makes them nervous?


Bruv;1414176 wrote: Are you a nervous type, or are you in a high risk profession/area?

And..........the gun that you carry everyday for self protection but have never used for that purpose..............what purpose have you used it for, out of interest.


Just to be clear, no justification is required for exercising or supporting a constitutionally protected right. It's a right. That is enough.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15898
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1414212 wrote: Just to be clear, no justification is required for exercising or supporting a constitutionally protected right. It's a right. That is enough.


So are you saying that there can and should never be a discussion on gun control because it is a constitutional right?

Following on from that, are you saying that there can and should never be any changes to the constitution other than adding new "rights"?
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1414212 wrote: Just to be clear, no justification is required for exercising or supporting a constitutionally protected right. It's a right. That is enough.I agree with this. However, I personally think it's important to discuss the relevance of that right in connection to the here and now. That's how I see this discussion, and it appears to be mutual.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Bruv »

I asked two specific questions, Is the tude dude in a high risk profession or is he nervous, and what he actually uses his firearm for, because he says he has never used it for defence.

The additional comment was my aside, but I will stick by it. Firearms that could be concealed are purely for causing death no other purpose. Body armour is for defence.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Bruv »

I crossed the "Constitutional protected rights" post.

But to me such an argument is like a teen stamping and saying "Whatever"
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Accountable »

Bryn Mawr;1414215 wrote: So are you saying that there can and should never be a discussion on gun control because it is a constitutional right?No, I am saying that no justification or lack of justification for an individual to exercise a constitutional right has any bearing whatsoever on whether that person should be allowed to exercise it.

Bryn Mawr;1414215 wrote: Following on from that, are you saying that there can and should never be any changes to the constitution other than adding new "rights"?You have the wrong view of the purpose of our Constitution. It's painfully obvious by your use of quotation marks, and understandable considering your cultural history. The US Constitution does not grant rights. It only limits the federal government.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Bruv »

No, I am saying that no justification or lack of justification for an individual to exercise a constitutional right has any bearing whatsoever on whether that person should be allowed to exercise it.


Break that down for the jackasses amongst us.....me.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1414216 wrote: I agree with this. However, I personally think it's important to discuss the relevance of that right in connection to the here and now. That's how I see this discussion, and it appears to be mutual.
It's my attempt at keep the discussion generic and steering it away from becoming personal. I don't think Tude's ability or inability to justify his personal preferences are really that important to the bigger picture.

Return to “Gun Control”