Gun enthusiastics stock up now

[Old Rocks]

Its not the idea of needing assult weapons. Its the government definition of an assault weapon and their desire to ban them. The second amendment gives me the right to bear arms. It doesn't give the government the right the to decide which arms that I get to bear. If I have not committed a crime with said weapon, then what does it matter to you that I own them.

By golly, you have a point there. Given the logical extension of your point, let's just give everyone a 2 kiloton nuclear handgrenade, and put an end to neighborhood violence. LOL!

 

[CSM]

By golly, you have a point there. Given the logical extension of your point, let's just give everyone a 2 kiloton nuclear handgrenade, and put an end to neighborhood violence. LOL!

I guess you missed the part the poster put in there about not committing any crime with said weapons. I suspect using a hand grenade of any type in an urban neighborhood would violate some minor ordinance or other (like disturbing the peace, public nuissance, etc.).

 

[Old Rocks]

I find it interesting that such discussions often evolve into the debate over specific types of firearms and whether they should be "regulated". Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a specific type of arms are excepted in the right to bear arms by the "militia" or private citizens .

Certainly there were a plethora of arms (whose use precluded "hunting" or "sport") in existence when the Founding Fathers were formulating the second amendment including cannon, rockets, and battleships. Yet, for some reason, these weapons (arms) are not excluded. I think it would be very hard to justify using a cannon for hunting purposes and the framers of the Constitution would probably laugh at such a notion. Certainly most personal longarms in that period had the ability to afix a bayonet, yet for some reason one of the distinguishing characteristics of an "assault weapon" currently is a weapon that has a bayonet stub.

Seems to me that the right to bear arms has little to do with hunting or sport simply because such weaponry (arms who sole purpose is the destruction of many human beings at once) is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Those who would argue that the Founding Fathers had no inclination as to the destructive power of modern weaponry obviously are not familiar with the effects weaponry in existence at the time the Constitution was written.

This is almost funny. The Brits carried the Tower musket, the Brown Bess. They faced a force that included many that carried Pennsyvania rifles. Designed for hunting, and far superior to the Brown Bess. But it was not the weoponery of the Revoltionery forces that brought our country into being, but the intervention of the French on our side. Their cannon and naval forces were the key ingrediant in our win at Yorktown.

 

[CSM]

This is almost funny. The Brits carried the Tower musket, the Brown Bess. They faced a force that included many that carried Pennsyvania rifles. Designed for hunting, and far superior to the Brown Bess. But it was not the weoponery of the Revoltionery forces that brought our country into being, but the intervention of the French on our side. Their cannon and naval forces were the key ingrediant in our win at Yorktown.

I am well aware what weapons were in use and who did what during the revolution. You either missed the point (I doubt that) or are ignoring it and trying to misdirect (say it aint so!).

Actually you make my point in a backhanded way. Surely the founding fathers realized the power of the cannon and naval forces, as well as the Pennsylvannia rifles you mention ... yet did not feel the need to specifically restrict (via the Constitution) ownership of cannon (or ships of the line, for that matter) because they were "too dangerous".

 

[LOki]

I get all that but do you really think that the founding fathers meant for you to have a weapon that shoots many rounds at a time.

Yes.

Some of these guns are ridiculous!

In what way, EXACTLY?

I am not really for gun control but I think some of these should only be allowed for military use.

I agree, but the right to keeep and bear these arms should not be infringed upon.

I went to a guys house once who had a gun like the ones near the bottom of the page I just posted.Modern Firearms - Browning M1917 and M1919 M1919A4 M1919A6 machine gun

What does he need that for?

It is probably not exactly the same but pretty simular and a new model!

Explain EXACTLY how your notions of what this guy needs, should determine his rights.

 

[Againsheila]

I guess you missed the part the poster put in there about not committing any crime with said weapons. I suspect using a hand grenade of any type in an urban neighborhood would violate some minor ordinance or other (like disturbing the peace, public nuissance, etc.).

Yeah, but having a hand grenade would sure help in a public uprising or riots and looting. Personally, I think the civil war/revolution that is coming can't get here too soon. Our country has really gone down hill.

I can just see it now though, an army of people coming to loot your store and you throw a grenade at them, our government would put YOU in jail. I think that's criminal. People should have a right to protect their property, especially from an army of looters.

 

[CSM]

Yeah, but having a hand grenade would sure help in a public uprising or riots and looting. Personally, I think the civil war/revolution that is coming can't get here too soon. Our country has really gone down hill.

I can just see it now though, an army of people coming to loot your store and you throw a grenade at them, our government would put YOU in jail. I think that's criminal. People should have a right to protect their property, especially from an army of looters.

LOL....believe me, there are far worse things than hand grenades that one could use on a crowd of looters that ARE legal. Personally, I have a firehose hooked to a pump that is connected to my septic tank just for such occassions!


Not really, but that sure would get rid of the looters I think...at least until you ran out of sewerage.

 

[Luissa]

Yes.

In what way, EXACTLY?

I agree, but the right to keeep and bear these arms should not be infringed upon.

Explain EXACTLY how your notions of what this guy needs, should determine his rights.

I asked a question, why does he need this. Why don't you give me a good reason why he needs this in inland Washington State where we are unlikely to be attacked. Besides those reasons because they are usually based on fear give me a good reason why he needs that sort of gun besides fighting a war?

 

[GigiBowman]

ok, forget guns, grenades and cannon balls lol, I'm getting a taser to match my outfit!

 

[Bern80]

Yes, 1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

We need to kill more!

How many have been killed by cars?

Yea, we need automatic weapons to defend ourselves from marauding bans of urban youths!

Need is irrelevant where the issue of restricting firearms are concerned.

It is also noted you didn't answer my question in post 47. Have you not looked at Obama's voting record on this issue?

FROM THE LINK BELOW:

Click here for 11 full quotes on Gun Control OR other candidates on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Barack Obama on the Issues

I strogly encourage you and everyone who thinks guns will be safe under Obama to read his actual record and his thought on them. If you follow the link, you will have to scroll down a ways to the record on guns. But the links provided there along with the above show a different side.

Banning semi-autos is the biggest problem I have. These are far and away the most common gun out there. And far and away the most common type of gun used by hunters who have done absolutely nothing to deserve haveing them taken away.

 

[Bern80]

I asked a question, why does he need this. Why don't you give me a good reason why he needs this in inland Washington State where we are unlikely to be attacked. Besides those reasons because they are usually based on fear give me a good reason why he needs that sort of gun besides fighting a war?

Then it should be safe to assume from this post that you would have no issue with someone coming to your home and ridding you of the things you don't 'need'.

 

[LOki]

I asked a question, why does he need this.

Ask him. In the meanwhile, answer my question: Explain EXACTLY how your notions of what this guy needs, should determine his rights.

Why don't you give me a good reason why he needs this in inland Washington State where we are unlikely to be attacked.

The reason is that I don't care if he needs it or not. I say his "need" for a particular weapon [and most particularly, your notion of what he needs], is irrelevent when it comes to rights.

Besides those reasons because they are usually based on fear give me a good reason why he needs that sort of gun besides fighting a war?

What the fuck? Make some sense, please.

 

[Bern80]

I find it interesting that such discussions often evolve into the debate over specific types of firearms and whether they should be "regulated". Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a specific type of arms are excepted in the right to bear arms by the "militia" or private citizens.

That is exactley what I'm afraid Obama is going to key on. Yes we'll be allowed to keep and bare arms so long as it's a single shot BB gun.

Certainly there were a plethora of arms (whose use precluded "hunting" or "sport") in existence when the Founding Fathers were formulating the second amendment including cannon, rockets, and battleships. Yet, for some reason, these weapons (arms) are not excluded. I think it would be very hard to justify using a cannon for hunting purposes and the framers of the Constitution would probably laugh at such a notion. Certainly most personal longarms in that period had the ability to afix a bayonet, yet for some reason one of the distinguishing characteristics of an "assault weapon" currently is a weapon that has a bayonet stub.

Seems to me that the right to bear arms has little to do with hunting or sport simply because such weaponry (arms who sole purpose is the destruction of many human beings at once) is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Those who would argue that the Founding Fathers had no inclination as to the destructive power of modern weaponry obviously are not familiar with the effects weaponry in existence at the time the Constitution was written.

I had this discussion with Diuretic a while back. The justification I don't see is why I should not be permitted a certain type of firearm based on what someone else used it for. Right now individuals have the right to own and use firearms w/o persecution up until their behavior with them becomes detrimental to others. So if it's that's law what difference does it make if I have a .22 or a tank? I get to keep and use my .22 for pretty much whatever I want as long as I'm not handling it irresponsibly and/or hurting people. Why could the same not be true of a tank?

 

[Luissa]

Then it should be safe to assume from this post that you would have no issue with someone coming to your home and ridding you of the things you don't 'need'.

If it was a machine gun that it's only use is in war then sure I wouldn't mind. I don't have anything that could kill twenty people at a time.

 

[Luissa]

Ask him. In the meanwhile, answer my question: Explain EXACTLY how your notions of what this guy needs, should determine his rights.

The reason is that I don't care if he needs it or not. I say his "need" for a particular weapon [and most particularly, your notion of what he needs], is irrelevent when it comes to rights.

What the fuck? Make some sense, please.

I asked if you could give me a reason besides being attacked by some unknown force why this guy would need a gun like that! I just don't see the point in allowing people to have a machine gun but if you can give me a good reason besides the 2nd Amendment and being attacked by terrorists I might change my mind.

 

[Luissa]

Ask him. In the meanwhile, answer my question: Explain EXACTLY how your notions of what this guy needs, should determine his rights.

The reason is that I don't care if he needs it or not. I say his "need" for a particular weapon [and most particularly, your notion of what he needs], is irrelevent when it comes to rights.

What the fuck? Make some sense, please.

And then answer my question, if I can't ask why he needs this sort of gun then why do most repubs think they can tell me I don't need an abortion?
It kind of sucks to be told what you need and don't need doesn't it!

 

[LOki]

I asked if you could give me a reason besides being attacked by some unknown force why this guy would need a gun like that!

And I stil say, SO WHAT?

First off, I don't presume to dictate [as you apparently do] the "needs" of this fellow you know. Secondly, I don't accept the premise that "need" is relevent to the issue, and you aren't going to get an answer from me on the basis that it is.

Get this message: The notion of "NEED" is irrelevent to the excersise of rights.

I just don't see the point in allowing people to have a machine gun . . .

In what way EXACTLY, should your failure to see the point in allowing people to have a machine gun, be a determining factor in the excercise of their rights?

. . . but if you can give me a good reason besides the 2nd Amendment and being attacked by terrorists I might change my mind.

Despite the purpose for such weapons being self-defense, and self-defense being insufficient reason for you; here's a good reason besides self-defense: He wants one.

 

[Bern80]

If it was a machine gun that it's only use is in war then sure I wouldn't mind. I don't have anything that could kill twenty people at a time.

You missed the point obviously. Need is irrelevant. But since you claim it is then you should have no problem with someone coming to your home and taking anything that is arbitraily deemed unneccessary for you. Not just guns, ANYTHING.

 

[Bern80]

And then answer my question, if I can't ask why he needs this sort of gun then why do most repubs think they can tell me I don't need an abortion?
It kind of sucks to be told what you need and don't need doesn't it!

Did you ever see My Cousin Vinny? One of the greatest shows of all time. Anyway the prosecution asks a question of Marrisa Tomei that is a 'bullshit question'. Not because she doesn't know or can't come up with a good answer, but because the premise of the quesiton faulty. And that is the problem with your question. It rests on the premise that need is relevant. You have been told by a couple now that need is not relevant in this discussion. So before you are justified in expecting a response to that question you are going to have to establish that need is indeed relevant.

 

[LOki]

And then answer my question, if I can't ask why he needs this sort of gun then why do most repubs think they can tell me I don't need an abortion?

Ask them, why don't you?

I suspect their answer will be contingent upon you answering the question; "Why does your unborn child "need" to be aborted?" The child is, after all, ultimately shouldering the entire burden of you excersizing your "right"--it should enjoy just a little "due process", don't you think?

Despite the tenuous logic leading to the legal interpretation that abortion is a right, it certainly cannot actually be one, since it means the irreversable abrogation of another's rights. The argument that abortion is a right, is premised upon the assertion that killing a human being is a human right--it's patently self-contradictory.

You see, "need" is irrelvent to the excercise of rights; you may "need" a gun, but that doesn't give you the right to one, any more than "needing" heroin gives you a right to heroin, or "needing" food gives you a right to food, or "needing" an abortion gives you a right to one.

ANd just to be clear, the 2nd Amendment doesn't demand that you get anything--it demands that the government not prevent you from exercising your right to keep and bear arms.

It kind of sucks to be told what you need and don't need doesn't it!

Just who the fuck do you think you're talking to, and why do you insist that "need" it at issue?