|
Post by sbusani on Jun 26, 2008 8:49:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by wild1 on Jun 26, 2008 9:13:43 GMT -6
I know. WAY COOL!!!! I've been waiting on this one!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jun 26, 2008 10:19:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Jun 26, 2008 10:57:11 GMT -6
An armed society is a polite society. I have no problems if people are trained and openly carry firearms. In fact, I may do so myself.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 28, 2008 12:39:19 GMT -6
it would behoove you to strive to get into the light and end your stumbling around in the darkness. NO intelligent person advocates banning guns. the irrational nutjobs who do demonstrate their stupidity simply by mouthing the idiocy that criminals obey the law, which is what every gun grabber nutjob is saying. our god given right to own guns will never be gone. the u.s. remains the last bastion of civilization on earth
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 28, 2008 12:53:51 GMT -6
the truly pathetic thing is the four illiterate justices who were incapable of reading simple english as written in the second amendment. almost as pathetic is the abject stupidity of those who try to insert the totally irrelevant issue of the crime rate into a subject where it has no validity whatsoever. the ONLY issue is that the second amendment codifies our god given right to own, and use, a gun. whether or not a gun is improperly used has no relevance whatsoever
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jun 30, 2008 9:24:46 GMT -6
the truly pathetic thing is the four illiterate justices who were incapable of reading simple english as written in the second amendment. almost as pathetic is the abject stupidity of those who try to insert the totally irrelevant issue of the crime rate into a subject where it has no validity whatsoever. the ONLY issue is that the second amendment codifies our god given right to own, and use, a gun. whether or not a gun is improperly used has no relevance whatsoever amazing wasn't it not surprising however.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jun 30, 2008 10:10:54 GMT -6
the ONLY issue is that the second amendment codifies our god given right to own, and use, a gun. whether or not a gun is improperly used has no relevance whatsoever "god given right to own, and use, a gun", regardless of whether it's improperly used?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 30, 2008 17:39:11 GMT -6
the ONLY issue is that the second amendment codifies our god given right to own, and use, a gun. whether or not a gun is improperly used has no relevance whatsoever "god given right to own, and use, a gun", regardless of whether it's improperly used? i already told you that HOW a gun is used is totally irrelevant to the issue. we are talking about LEGAL guns which are seldom used in a crime
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jul 1, 2008 13:58:31 GMT -6
"god given right to own, and use, a gun", regardless of whether it's improperly used? i already told you that HOW a gun is used is totally irrelevant to the issue. we are talking about LEGAL guns which are seldom used in a crime Actually, it's the "god given right" part that I found more amusing. Believing that the right to bear arms(and only certain kinds to certain people) come from God sounds kind of kooky to me.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 6, 2008 21:18:36 GMT -6
This may shock some but here is my opinion on gun control:
I think the 2nd amendment is outdated. The amendment in question reads,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
When the Constitution was written, the U.S did not have the massive, powerful military that we have now. It is the military's responsibility to defend the state. The people can defend the state by joining the military. Thus, the people do not defend the state directly.
Having said that, should people be allowed to own a firearm? My answer is yes, they should- with some restrictions. I can think of only two reasons why owning a gun should be legal.
First, those who use guns to legally hunt game should be allowed to own firearms. A national database needs to be set up with the hunting licences to match up with gun sales.
The second group is the much larger group of those who want to defend their home as defined by the SCOTUS ruling. Given the fact the gun is to be used under the premise of self defence- there should be serious limitations on caliber and the amount of rounds per minute. If a person needs a gun to spray 90 rounds a minute to defend his or her house, there is some serious issues involved.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jul 7, 2008 13:30:54 GMT -6
Oh my god , its started, the one drop that hits the water and the what happens? it spread outwoulds gaining momentum. That is the first absolutely fantastic post ive read since ive been on this site. 17000 murders on average annually, i must admit to being surprised that there hasnt been another uni shooting, or mal shooting for at least what 2 months. Take the guns away and the nutters cant play. It wont stop it all because criminals will always get them but, it will seriously reduce the gun murder rate. Your crime rate will fall just like ours did when we made it illegal to own a weapon, have a strong and regulated gun data base and it will work, Ensure that you have strong laws to back it up if found in possession of a firearm, 5 years automatic in the UK if caught with a gun, however saying that, last month a guy who shopped his own son only got 3 years, apparently he was a nice kid. Second offence, 10 years and you do the time. Its time to get rid of this love affair you guys have with the gun. Ive read the constitiuon too, the original without the updates, and its a great peace of paper but its outdated and need like everything else every now and then modernising. Well done hangman. Great post.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 7, 2008 13:45:36 GMT -6
When the Constitution was written, the U.S did not have the massive, powerful military that we have now. It is the military's responsibility to defend the state. The people can defend the state by joining the military. Thus, the people do not defend the state directly. You have it backwards. It's precisely because the military and the central government are so powerful that the citizens need to arm themselves. This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written. If a person needs a gun to spray 90 rounds a minute to defend his or her house, there is some serious issues involved. No there isn't. If there's a military coup, or a complete breakdown of law enforcement, I'm going to be first in line for one of those babies.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 7, 2008 18:29:56 GMT -6
If a person needs a gun to spray 90 rounds a minute to defend his or her house, there is some serious issues involved. No there isn't. If there's a military coup, or a complete breakdown of law enforcement, I'm going to be first in line for one of those babies. Assault rifles are for wussies. Aimed fire is always more effective and accurate than the assault rifle crowd would like to admit.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 7, 2008 18:31:30 GMT -6
This may shock some but here is my opinion on gun control: I think the 2nd amendment is outdated. The amendment in question reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." When the Constitution was written, the U.S did not have the massive, powerful military that we have now. It is the military's responsibility to defend the state. The people can defend the state by joining the military. Thus, the people do not defend the state directly. Having said that, should people be allowed to own a firearm? My answer is yes, they should- with some restrictions. I can think of only two reasons why owning a gun should be legal. First, those who use guns to legally hunt game should be allowed to own firearms. A national database needs to be set up with the hunting licences to match up with gun sales. The second group is the much larger group of those who want to defend their home as defined by the SCOTUS ruling. Given the fact the gun is to be used under the premise of self defence- there should be serious limitations on caliber and the amount of rounds per minute. If a person needs a gun to spray 90 rounds a minute to defend his or her house, there is some serious issues involved. Fortunately, all your ideas have been rendered unconstitutional by Mr. Heller. I couldn't be gladder about it.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 7, 2008 19:11:05 GMT -6
Assault rifles are for wussies. Aimed fire is always more effective and accurate than the assault rifle crowd would like to admit. I'll keep that in mind. Where can an average joe get one?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 7, 2008 22:31:37 GMT -6
Assault rifles are for wussies. Aimed fire is always more effective and accurate than the assault rifle crowd would like to admit. I'll keep that in mind. Where can an average joe get one? See the local gun store and ask for a nice deer rifle with a scope. If you get one in 30-06, ammunition is available anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 8, 2008 10:24:42 GMT -6
I'll keep that in mind. Where can an average joe get one? See the local gun store and ask for a nice deer rifle with a scope. If you get one in 30-06, ammunition is available anywhere. Cool. I think Wal-Mart sells those too.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 9, 2008 11:31:27 GMT -6
Oh my god , its started, the one drop that hits the water and the what happens? it spread outwoulds gaining momentum. That is the first absolutely fantastic post ive read since ive been on this site. 17000 murders on average annually, i must admit to being surprised that there hasnt been another uni shooting, or mal shooting for at least what 2 months. Take the guns away and the nutters cant play. It wont stop it all because criminals will always get them but, it will seriously reduce the gun murder rate. Your crime rate will fall just like ours did when we made it illegal to own a weapon, have a strong and regulated gun data base and it will work, Ensure that you have strong laws to back it up if found in possession of a firearm, 5 years automatic in the UK if caught with a gun, however saying that, last month a guy who shopped his own son only got 3 years, apparently he was a nice kid. Second offence, 10 years and you do the time. Its time to get rid of this love affair you guys have with the gun. Ive read the constitiuon too, the original without the updates, and its a great peace of paper but its outdated and need like everything else every now and then modernising. Well done hangman. Great post. 17,000 murders are not all gun murders, about half are. what we hear over here is that your crime rate hasn't been all that wonderful since you done away with guns. perhaps gun deaths are down but are deaths down? I've heard your burglary and assault rates are through the roof but you can double check that and make your own mind up outdated piece of paper that needs updating? maybe you're right. we should update the cruel and unusual part to include torture before execution perhaps. right to silence and attorney?? bullsh!t, if you did it own up to it and take you're spanking right to religion? except for those crazy polygimous and snake charmers, and he!! they 're all nuts. freedom of press? they are out of control, they need to be reeled in because they lie and have an agenda and of course god forbid those nra psycho gun nuts should be able to defend themselves from the uni or mall shooters. after all the police have prevented and protected people from everyone of them nowadays. and you're probably right, outlaw guns and they go away. just like cocaine, heroin and meth have yeah maybe you're right, we should update it thanks for clarifying that
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 9, 2008 11:37:10 GMT -6
seems pretty straightforward. since your ideas of personal ownership and militia are now moot, what is your opinion here?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 9, 2008 21:51:02 GMT -6
seems pretty straightforward. since your ideas of personal ownership and militia are now moot, what is your opinion here? I said the people should be able to own firearms. However, why does a law abiding person need a weapon that shoots 90+ rounds a minute? Like I said, the Constitution is outdated. If you do not accept that a document written 232 years ago needs to be changed to reflect society, then you probably are going to tell me slavery is ok too.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 9, 2008 21:59:09 GMT -6
When the Constitution was written, the U.S did not have the massive, powerful military that we have now. It is the military's responsibility to defend the state. The people can defend the state by joining the military. Thus, the people do not defend the state directly. You have it backwards. It's precisely because the military and the central government are so powerful that the citizens need to arm themselves. This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written. If a person needs a gun to spray 90 rounds a minute to defend his or her house, there is some serious issues involved. No there isn't. If there's a military coup, or a complete breakdown of law enforcement, I'm going to be first in line for one of those babies. This is not Russia. The military does not get involved with police. Secondly, why do you feel you need to arm yourself against the government? Why would any law abiding citizen have to fear the government to the point where they considered guns as the only realistic alternative. If there is a military coup, what do you think you will do against an entire army? I think your point divorces reality.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 9, 2008 22:01:20 GMT -6
I'll keep that in mind. Where can an average joe get one? See the local gun store and ask for a nice deer rifle with a scope. If you get one in 30-06, ammunition is available anywhere. Just like the one used in the DC sniper attacks
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 9, 2008 22:06:11 GMT -6
This may shock some but here is my opinion on gun control: I think the 2nd amendment is outdated. The amendment in question reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." When the Constitution was written, the U.S did not have the massive, powerful military that we have now. It is the military's responsibility to defend the state. The people can defend the state by joining the military. Thus, the people do not defend the state directly. Having said that, should people be allowed to own a firearm? My answer is yes, they should- with some restrictions. I can think of only two reasons why owning a gun should be legal. First, those who use guns to legally hunt game should be allowed to own firearms. A national database needs to be set up with the hunting licences to match up with gun sales. The second group is the much larger group of those who want to defend their home as defined by the SCOTUS ruling. Given the fact the gun is to be used under the premise of self defence- there should be serious limitations on caliber and the amount of rounds per minute. If a person needs a gun to spray 90 rounds a minute to defend his or her house, there is some serious issues involved. Fortunately, all your ideas have been rendered unconstitutional by Mr. Heller. I couldn't be gladder about it. And the next time we have a school shooting, I am going to remind you of your post. Pehaps you forgot about Virginia Tech and Columbine.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 9, 2008 22:25:09 GMT -6
Just like the one used in the DC sniper attacks It wasn't the rifle that killed people, Kings.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 9, 2008 22:34:12 GMT -6
Nope, and never will be, as long as people own guns. The military does not get involved with police. Correct. But we had martial law in Los Angeles back in the 1990s, because the police aren't always up to the job. why do you feel you need to arm yourself against the government? You've got to be kidding me. Do you actually trust the U.S. government? OMG. A truly free people can never trust its freedom to those who would take it away in a New York minute. Why would any law abiding citizen have to fear the government to the point where they considered guns as the only realistic alternative. Because those with the guns make the rules, Kings. Because when the military and police have all the firearms, the rule of law no longer exists. If there is a military coup, what do you think you will do against an entire army? There won't be one, simply because the majority of Americans own firearms. Not even the U.S. military can hold up against 150 million determined, armed citizens, and the military knows it.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 9, 2008 22:37:44 GMT -6
why does a law abiding person need a weapon that shoots 90+ rounds a minute? It's not about needs. It's about rights. If someone is law-abiding, there's no problem with that person having an automatic weapon. Like I said, the Constitution is outdated. If you do not accept that a document written 232 years ago needs to be changed to reflect society, then you probably are going to tell me slavery is ok too. But society hasn't changed regarding firearms, and neither has the need to keep the government in check. I'd rather live in a town where everyone has guns, than in a place where only the criminals do.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 9, 2008 23:32:35 GMT -6
I said the people should be able to own firearms. However, why does a law abiding person need a weapon that shoots 90+ rounds a minute? It's not about need. It's about what people like. One model of the new Corvette has 605 horsepower. Does anybody need that? The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery. 1865.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 9, 2008 23:33:22 GMT -6
See the local gun store and ask for a nice deer rifle with a scope. If you get one in 30-06, ammunition is available anywhere. Cool. I think Wal-Mart sells those too. Yeah, and they're cheap. The Remington 700 is a nice one. Maybe $450.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 10, 2008 7:30:53 GMT -6
See the local gun store and ask for a nice deer rifle with a scope. If you get one in 30-06, ammunition is available anywhere. Just like the one used in the DC sniper attacks No, 'fraid not. The DC sniper used, as I recall, a Ruger mini-14. A Remington 700 is a five-shot bolt action weapon.
|
|