Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Didn't the guy who founded Oracle buy a Russian fighter jet? There is going to be an on-going arguement over this issue because, frankly, the right to bear arms is more a question of keeping power in the hands of the people instead of the government. Only a couple of hours away from you there are places where only the government and it's military have guns. I suggest you visit one of those places and look at their history of junta's and ever changing governments and ask why it is that the common person gets screwed continually there.
After we kicked out Noriega I spent a year in Panama assessing their transportation infrastructure. It was easy to see how that little pissant colonel could take over and rob that country blind when you realize that it was only his illiterate jungle boys who carried around the guns. He'd place them in villages where they had no ties, no relatives, with an automatic weapon and everyone had to do what they said. They had to give him food, shelter, and any woman he wanted and they couldn't do a thing about it. One person with a small handgun could have tipped the balance of power, but they did not exist. That is the majority of the world we live in. Not the Disney land we live in here in the U.S.
You you're saying we have the right to carry around our own Arms? SO, a firearm is not considered an "arm"? What dictionary are you reading?
"Arm" is a variable and vague term. Considering a fire-ARM is considered a ARM, it is covered under this amenment.
I never said that you only have the rights listed in the Bill of rights. Well, IMO the Constitution may give us the right to bear arms, but it does not forbid the government from regulating them.
When I compared regulating gun's with regulating cars, you said "The difference between driving and firearms is that the Constitution doesn't garauntee you're right to drive. The Constitution does garauntee the right to own a firearm." That does imply an enumerated rights limitation, but sorry if I misunderstood.
But the more important question is whether the 2nd Amendment is absolute, and which regulations (if any) are valid. Thus I wrote, "Do you agree that there are valid exceptions, such as bans on automatic weapons, cannons, grenades, missles, sawed-off shotguns and bazookas [and an] Apache helicopter? And if the 2d Amendment does not invalidate those restrictions, why should it invalidate rules that ensure people who own guns are properly trained in their use?
That's the difficult question that was ignored for days, until I bumped the thread.
_______
BTW - I don't advocate a total ban. Anone wanting to make that accusation should re-read the thread.
When I compared regulating gun's with regulating cars, you said "The difference between driving and firearms is that the Constitution doesn't garauntee you're right to drive. The Constitution does garauntee the right to own a firearm." That does imply an enumerated rights limitation, but sorry if I misunderstood.
But the more important question is whether the 2nd Amendment is absolute, and which regulations (if any) are valid. Thus I wrote, "Do you agree that there are valid exceptions, such as bans on automatic weapons, cannons, grenades, missles, sawed-off shotguns and bazookas [and an] Apache helicopter? And if the 2d Amendment does not invalidate those restrictions, why should it invalidate rules that ensure people who own guns are properly trained in their use?
That's the difficult question that was ignored for days, until I bumped the thread.
_______
BTW - I don't advocate a total ban. Anone wanting to make that accusation should re-read the thread.
When I compared regulating gun's with regulating cars, you said "The difference between driving and firearms is that the Constitution doesn't garauntee you're right to drive. The Constitution does garauntee the right to own a firearm." That does imply an enumerated rights limitation, but sorry if I misunderstood.
But the more important question is whether the 2nd Amendment is absolute, and which regulations (if any) are valid. Thus I wrote, "Do you agree that there are valid exceptions, such as bans on automatic weapons, cannons, grenades, missles, sawed-off shotguns and bazookas [and an] Apache helicopter? And if the 2d Amendment does not invalidate those restrictions, why should it invalidate rules that ensure people who own guns are properly trained in their use?
That's the difficult question that was ignored for days, until I bumped the thread.
_______
BTW - I don't advocate a total ban. Anone wanting to make that accusation should re-read the thread.
Excellent question. There might be hope for you yet.
IS the Constitution absolute? Obviously it is not. Just as obviously, it depends on who is making what argument.
As far as the Second Amendment goes, common sense needs to prevail. Unfortunately, too people refuse to accept common sense as an arbiter because it can't be written in stone.
While the 2nd DOES state the right to ownership shall not be infringed, it does not state that the right cannot be regulated. Every one of our fundamnetal rights are regulated. It's common sense that firearms should be regulated for the basic reason that it is unlawful for certain persons to possess them. It doesn't amke sense to deny certain individuals, based on the consequences of their actions, the right to bear arms if someone isn't checking out who is buying and owning the guns.
It is an inconvenience to an individual's time to have to undergo background checks but IMO does not infringe one's right to own a firearm.
I don't go as far as you with the madatory training junk, but I do think an effort has to be made to ensure only law-abiding citizens legally purchase and possess firearms.
I also think that if you cannot justify using the rule of common sense possessing an AT-TOW launcher, you shouldn't have one. At some point the safety of the community has to supercede the rights of the individual. A weapon like that could unintentionally take out a house. Maybe the guy is sorry but the fact remains the house and it's contents to include people are gone.
However, this weapons seriously endangers communities, cities, states, nation, etc... If a firearm accidently discharges, you might have a casualty. If a nuclear weapon is discharged accidentally or purposefully, thousand/millions will die instantly. The ability of a firearm/weapon to cause mass casualties is why you don't see weapons "apache gunships" being owned by civilians. Good Post GunnyWhy do all of the conservatives disappear when I ask a difficult question?
We all have lives, Dogger ... even, I suspect, you. You need to lighten up some. Try boxers .... they don't keep a squeeze going.
Liberals never think other people's lives are worth living, if they don't have access to every priviliege known to man.
In fairness to me, I did let the thread sit for 3.5 days before I bumped it. And bumping usually needs a little provocation to be effective, as the renewed debate might suggest.
But I don't have a webcam, so your comment about my underwear is a little disconcerting.
