PDA

View Full Version : holy left wing media batman


6172crew
05-03-2006, 6:09 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2004-09-07-assaultweapons-ourview_x.htm

I wonder what they think about now that it has been over a year and the logic they used was about worthless......what a rag.:cool:

Bill W these guy will bite on our story..like a big mouth bass.

blacklisted
05-03-2006, 6:15 PM
"...grenade launchers, bayonet mounts or other features that turn rifles into killing machines..."

shopkeep
05-03-2006, 6:15 PM
Yep, just look at how California has lead the way in Assault Weapons bans. Nearly 20 years after the ban was enacted in 1989, AR-15s and AK-47s are _STILL_ comming into the state. In fact, the ban has made them so sought after that they are comming into the state in 10 times the numbers they were in 1989 :)!

And the DOJ and Democrats _STILL_ can't make up their mind about what an Assault Weapon is. Is it the rifle's semi-automatic function, is it features such as a pistol grip, or is it the potential to even BECOME something that could be dubbed an "Assault Weapon" like the Category 4 "Assault Weapons"?

grammaton76
05-03-2006, 6:17 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2004-09-07-assaultweapons-ourview_x.htm

I wonder what they think about now that it has been over a year and the logic they used was about worthless......what a rag.:cool:

Wow, I didn't know California banned bayonet mounts. Thank you, USA Today, for filling me in on what I missed when reading California's law!

Charliegone
05-03-2006, 6:30 PM
Its pretty old, but fun to look at the ridiculous notions put forward by morons like this.:D

blacklisted
05-03-2006, 9:39 PM
Too bad the media can't be held accountable for spreading false information.

whatever
05-03-2006, 10:22 PM
Did anyone notice this?: "Posted 9/7/2004 7:59 PM"

That article was printed almost 2 years ago.

chris
05-03-2006, 11:19 PM
i can't believe that it has been almost 20 yrs. since the roberti-roos act was passed. how time has gone by. i remember it. i wanted to know why i as a gun-owner was being punished for the act of one man. a man who did not live in the state and purchased his weapon out of state. and how this state will never learn. and it has been almost 2 yrs. since the fed ban sunseted. and now what will the future hold for this state? who knows.

accordingtoome
05-03-2006, 11:42 PM
WOW.. :eek: some people huh.

subroutine
05-03-2006, 11:51 PM
Yep, just look at how California has lead the way in Assault Weapons bans. Nearly 20 years after the ban was enacted in 1989, AR-15s and AK-47s are _STILL_ comming into the state. In fact, the ban has made them so sought after that they are comming into the state in 10 times the numbers they were in 1989 :)!

And the DOJ and Democrats _STILL_ can't make up their mind about what an Assault Weapon is. Is it the rifle's semi-automatic function, is it features such as a pistol grip, or is it the potential to even BECOME something that could be dubbed an "Assault Weapon" like the Category 4 "Assault Weapons"?

it's all a symantics game. yes, ar-15 are assult-weapons, ak-47's are assult weapons. you know they are. i know they are. if you try hard enuf you can find a loop-hole in the definition of an "apple". the fact of the matter is, if someone breaks into your house at 3am, all you really need is a colt-45, not a M-16. (besides, who really has the time to grab the m-16.......the colt fits neatly under the pillow or in the bed stand and will stop any would-be robber or assailant.

yes, i'm a democrat and proud to be one. however, however i won't rain on your parade and tell you what kind of home-defense system you may or may not have or be entitled to. it's not really a democrat/republican problem. it a matter of having the freedom to decide, which extends beyond politcal parties, so stop the sniveling about democrats, and for that matter, i almost want to say "stop the sniveling about the DOJ".

when i comes right down to it, we are just collectors and enthusiast who will more than likely NEVER need to defend ourselfves with an AR or AK. we just enjoy the the sporting aspect of it AND, there is a great deal of intellectual excitment/satifaction about being able to bend and/or find loopholes in laws.....the old "hehe i can still do it even tho you don't want to be able to do it". often times the real pleasure in doing something is the fact that someone has told you you can't do it." that is just an ego trip, nothing more. do i fall into that group?? absolutely!!!!, but i can at least recognize this fact and smile about it. if i don't get my AK's dros'ed in time.......guess what....i'll live. i'll probably move to vegas and find some kind of legal card-counting that people told me "can't be done", just because. that, my friends, is the "human-condition".

soooo, don't harp too much on the DOJ, or democrats (or republicans for that matter...god-hate-em :-) the fact of the matter is they are really trying to make things better for society in general, so don't go getting too cocky/arrogant about the fact that no one can completely decide 1 "absolute" definition of what an AW is. you probably couldn't do it either. just remember how hard it is to get your family to decide on 1 restaurant for friday night dinner.

diatribe over - and out

SUB

Charliegone
05-04-2006, 12:08 AM
it's all a symantics game. yes, ar-15 are assult-weapons, ak-47's are assult weapons. you know they are. i know they are. if you try hard enuf you can find a loop-hole in the definition of an "apple". the fact of the matter is, if someone breaks into your house at 3am, all you really need is a colt-45, not a M-16. (besides, who really has the time to grab the m-16.......the colt fits neatly under the pillow or in the bed stand and will stop any would-be robber or assailant.

yes, i'm a democrat and proud to be one. however, however i won't rain on your parade and tell you what kind of home-defense system you may or may not have or be entitled to. it's not really a democrat/republican problem. it a matter of having the freedom to decide, which extends beyond politcal parties, so stop the sniveling about democrats, and for that matter, i almost want to say "stop the sniveling about the DOJ".

when i comes right down to it, we are just collectors and enthusiast who will more than likely NEVER need to defend ourselfves with an AR or AK. we just enjoy the the sporting aspect of it AND, there is a great deal of intellectual excitment/satifaction about being able to bend and/or find loopholes in laws.....the old "hehe i can still do it even tho you don't want to be able to do it". often times the real pleasure in doing something is the fact that someone has told you you can't do it." that is just an ego trip, nothing more. do i fall into that group?? absolutely!!!!, but i can at least recognize this fact and smile about it. if i don't get my AK's dros'ed in time.......guess what....i'll live. i'll probably move to vegas and find some kind of legal card-counting that people told me "can't be done", just because. that, my friends, is the "human-condition".

soooo, don't harp too much on the DOJ, or democrats (or republicans for that matter...god-hate-em :-) the fact of the matter is they are really trying to make things better for society in general, so don't go getting too cocky/arrogant about the fact that no one can completely decide 1 "absolute" definition of what an AW is. you probably couldn't do it either. just remember how hard it is to get your family to decide on 1 restaurant for friday night dinner.

diatribe over - and out

SUB

Frankly, I don't think gun control is a left wing right wing thing, I just think its about a bunch of people who don't know what the hell they are talking about.:D or just power hungry. As for the AW thing, I do not agree with you because there have been instances where AW's have been used for self-defense. As a matter fact do you remember the "Hollywood shootout?" If that gun store didn't have those ar-15's what would have happened? What about those people that were defending their property and lives during the LA riots? There is a time and place for everything.;)

EBWhite
05-04-2006, 12:32 AM
Those large ammo clips....what makes 9 rounds small and 11 rounds large?

CalNRA
05-04-2006, 3:00 AM
it's all a symantics game. yes, ar-15 are assult-weapons, ak-47's are assult weapons. you know they are. i know they are. if you try hard enuf you can find a loop-hole in the definition of an "apple". the fact of the matter is, if someone breaks into your house at 3am, all you really need is a colt-45, not a M-16. (besides, who really has the time to grab the m-16.......the colt fits neatly under the pillow or in the bed stand and will stop any would-be robber or assailant.

yes, i'm a democrat and proud to be one. however, however i won't rain on your parade and tell you what kind of home-defense system you may or may not have or be entitled to. it's not really a democrat/republican problem. it a matter of having the freedom to decide, which extends beyond politcal parties, so stop the sniveling about democrats, and for that matter, i almost want to say "stop the sniveling about the DOJ".

when i comes right down to it, we are just collectors and enthusiast who will more than likely NEVER need to defend ourselfves with an AR or AK. we just enjoy the the sporting aspect of it AND, there is a great deal of intellectual excitment/satifaction about being able to bend and/or find loopholes in laws.....the old "hehe i can still do it even tho you don't want to be able to do it". often times the real pleasure in doing something is the fact that someone has told you you can't do it." that is just an ego trip, nothing more. do i fall into that group?? absolutely!!!!, but i can at least recognize this fact and smile about it. if i don't get my AK's dros'ed in time.......guess what....i'll live. i'll probably move to vegas and find some kind of legal card-counting that people told me "can't be done", just because. that, my friends, is the "human-condition".

soooo, don't harp too much on the DOJ, or democrats (or republicans for that matter...god-hate-em :-) the fact of the matter is they are really trying to make things better for society in general, so don't go getting too cocky/arrogant about the fact that no one can completely decide 1 "absolute" definition of what an AW is. you probably couldn't do it either. just remember how hard it is to get your family to decide on 1 restaurant for friday night dinner.

diatribe over - and out

SUB

Are you trying to tell me that we shouldn't pick on the DOJ and democrats that made it illegal to introduce any handgun without magazine disconnect after 2007? DO you have ANY idea what the implication is? bye bye new Sigs, HKs, Seecamps, Glocks, 1911s, XDs, Beretta 92/3032/others, hell EVERY SEMIAUTO other than the RUger22s that I can remember. Give me a break, if we don't pick on that what do we get pissed off for?

Don't give me the "DOJ and Democrats are just out to do good" BS. If our government is telling us that we can't have any more new 1911s, we got problems!!!

MadMex
05-04-2006, 4:39 AM
when i comes right down to it, we are just collectors and enthusiast who will more than likely NEVER need to defend ourselfves with an AR or AK. we just enjoy the the sporting aspect of it AND, there is a great deal of intellectual excitment/satifaction about being able to bend and/or find loopholes in laws.....the old "hehe i can still do it even tho you don't want to be able to do it". often times the real pleasure in doing something is the fact that someone has told you you can't do it." that is just an ego trip, nothing more. do i fall into that group?? absolutely!!!!SUB
That my friend is the difference between you and me. I donít project my motives and values on others. You are not speaking for me. Frankly, I don't give a rat's why anyone wants an AR or AK. It's their business.


the fact of the matter is they are really trying to make things better for society in general, so don't go getting too cocky/arrogant about the fact that no one can completely decide 1 "absolute" definition of what an AW is.
Theyíve (Dems) done such a great job here in Kali. Maybe if we all hold hands and wish evil away the world will be a better place.

tacosauce
05-04-2006, 5:37 AM
soooo, don't harp too much on the DOJ, or democrats (or republicans for that matter...god-hate-em :-) the fact of the matter is they are really trying to make things better for society in general, so don't go getting too cocky/arrogant about the fact that no one can completely decide 1 "absolute" definition of what an AW is. you probably couldn't do it either. just remember how hard it is to get your family to decide on 1 restaurant for friday night dinner.

diatribe over - and out

SUB
Trying and doing are two very different things. Trying can often times be very ineffective as in the case of banning guns. BAN THE CRIMINALS not the tools. I have a definition of an assault weapon: ANY weapon used by a PERSON to assault another PERSON. I do not think any gun is an AW until it is used in this manner. Jeffrey Dahmer (sp?) is more dangerous with a knife and a fork than I am with a Thompson SMG (or any "evil" AW for that matter).

Benellishooter
05-04-2006, 5:38 AM
Democrats and Republicans are both evil. Democrats are socialist and Republicans are socialist lite.

I don't care what their intentions are. I care about their actions. They both steal from the producers to give to the trash of society.

Alphahookups
05-04-2006, 7:52 AM
when i comes right down to it, we are just collectors and enthusiast who will more than likely NEVER need to defend ourselfves with an AR or AK. we just


What kind of asinine assumption is that. That sentence doesnt even make sense. Its like saying, "I think I'm 100% sure". Come on...

Do you have food stored up in case of an emergency... why...your democrats will always be there for you:rolleyes:

That is exact the reason many have their black rifles...in case of emergency.

The truth of the matter is, it really doesnt matter why they have them. The founding fathers wanted an armed populace...one that would be able to hold its own against an oppressive government. Leaving people with only handguns and bolt actions ensures that we will never be able to hold our own.

anotherted
05-04-2006, 8:21 AM
the fact of the matter is they are really trying to make things better for society in general

Oh man, thanks for the good, long laugh. I needed it this morning. ;)

Glasshat
05-04-2006, 8:22 AM
it's all a symantics game.

yes, i'm a democrat and proud to be one.

when i comes right down to it, we are just collectors and enthusiast who will more than likely NEVER need to defend ourselfves with an AR or AK. we just enjoy the the sporting aspect

(or republicans for that matter...god-hate-em :-)

the fact of the matter is they are really trying to make things better for society in general

SUB

1) It's not a symantics game, it's the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

2) It's obvious you're a democrat.

3) YOU are a collector. YOU enjoy the sport. EVERYONE ELSE has their own 2nd Amendment protected reason for keeping and bearing arms, and none of them need to be approved by democrats or government.

4) God hates Republicans? From a democrat of course...

5) "Better for society in general" is right out of the nazi/commie/one-world tyrant playbook. If you want to micro-stamp your own ammo and firing pin for the sake of society in general, you go girl. Just leave the rest of us alone with that kind of crap.

bear308
05-04-2006, 8:32 AM
As a matter fact do you remember the "Hollywood shootout?" If that gun store didn't have those ar-15's what would have happened? What about those people that were defending their property and lives during the LA riots? There is a time and place for everything.;)

I don't think those rifles were ever used, everything was SWAT by the time they picked em up.

bear308
05-04-2006, 8:34 AM
Those large ammo clips....what makes 9 rounds small and 11 rounds large?
Bill Ruger?:D

6172crew
05-04-2006, 8:49 AM
Did anyone notice this?: "Posted 9/7/2004 7:59 PM"

That article was printed almost 2 years ago.

Good thing we have guys like you to show us how dumb we are.:rolleyes:

Why is it the guys with 1 post are so smart and need to let us know?


.............*****clown.

resistor
05-04-2006, 9:12 AM
it's all a symantics game. yes, ar-15 are assult-weapons, ak-47's are assult weapons. you know they are. i know they are. if you try hard enuf you can find a loop-hole in the definition of an "apple". the fact of the matter is, if someone breaks into your house at 3am, all you really need is a colt-45, not a M-16. (besides, who really has the time to grab the m-16.......the colt fits neatly under the pillow or in the bed stand and will stop any would-be robber or assailant.

yes, i'm a democrat and proud to be one. however, however i won't rain on your parade and tell you what kind of home-defense system you may or may not have or be entitled to. it's not really a democrat/republican problem. it a matter of having the freedom to decide, which extends beyond politcal parties, so stop the sniveling about democrats, and for that matter, i almost want to say "stop the sniveling about the DOJ".

when i comes right down to it, we are just collectors and enthusiast who will more than likely NEVER need to defend ourselfves with an AR or AK. we just enjoy the the sporting aspect of it AND, there is a great deal of intellectual excitment/satifaction about being able to bend and/or find loopholes in laws.....the old "hehe i can still do it even tho you don't want to be able to do it". often times the real pleasure in doing something is the fact that someone has told you you can't do it." that is just an ego trip, nothing more. do i fall into that group?? absolutely!!!!, but i can at least recognize this fact and smile about it. if i don't get my AK's dros'ed in time.......guess what....i'll live. i'll probably move to vegas and find some kind of legal card-counting that people told me "can't be done", just because. that, my friends, is the "human-condition".

soooo, don't harp too much on the DOJ, or democrats (or republicans for that matter...god-hate-em :-) the fact of the matter is they are really trying to make things better for society in general, so don't go getting too cocky/arrogant about the fact that no one can completely decide 1 "absolute" definition of what an AW is. you probably couldn't do it either. just remember how hard it is to get your family to decide on 1 restaurant for friday night dinner.

diatribe over - and out

SUB


Subroutine = BAN HIM!!!

subroutine
05-04-2006, 12:37 PM
Subroutine = BAN HIM!!!

i think you need to evaluate your position on "non-tollerence". and for those of you how are soooooo into the 2nd ammendment, you want to deny me my 1st ammendament right?? what kind of @#$% is that?

if you re-read what i said, and actually look deep within yourself, you might actually find some stuff that rings true. i never said you should not be able to have a gun, or an AK, or an AR. I have 2 AR lowers i plan to build, and will be dros'ing 2 ak receivers unless they are banned this week.

(note - actually for the record, i am a regestered democrat, but a conservative one).

what i am asking you to do is to look at your motivation for owning an AW. is it for fun? is it for sport? is it for self-defense? like i said, a colt-45 would do quite nicely. now, did i say in my original post that 100% you would never be in a situation were you would need the full-power of an AW. NO. go back and read what i said. rather than just getting all huffy-puffy b/c someone asks you to "re-evaluate" your motivation should not be not be cause for out-cry. it should be time for self-reflection.

now, do i think government can be corrupt? sure. but there has to be some kind of check-and-balance system in the works or else society falls to ****. it's called "basic-ethical-theory-101" go read some thomas hobbs if you must, but at least become familiar with the "why" some things are the way they are. am i saying that goverment is going to be 100% behind us all the time. of course not. i'm not that naive.

just take a moment to think about the last time YOU needed to pull out you AW in order to protect yourself or you family or your property. i'm not saying it will NEVER happen, i'm just asking you to think about it a bit.
and for the record, democrat, republican, independant, when the SHTF, i'll be the one to your "left" watching your back.

SUB

blacklisted
05-04-2006, 12:55 PM
what i am asking you to do is to look at your motivation for owning an AW.

It doesn't matter what someone's motivation is, nor is it really any of your business.


is it for fun? is it for sport? is it for self-defense?

ALL OF THE ABOVE, and MORE (hunting maybe)...

now, do i think government can be corrupt? sure. but there has to be some kind of check-and-balance system in the works or else society falls to ****. it's called "basic-ethical-theory-101" go read some thomas hobbs if you must, but at least become familiar with the "why" some things are the way they are. am i saying that goverment is going to be 100% behind us all the time. of course not. i'm not that naive.

just take a moment to think about the last time YOU needed to pull out you AW in order to protect yourself or you family or your property. i'm not saying it will NEVER happen, i'm just asking you to think about it a bit.

What are you trying to say? Because it's unlikely that someone needs an AW in defense, we should "consider our need for them? I think you are desperately trying to explain your party's support for gun bans. You say that you own these guns, but then you keep asking others to "question their motivations"...that sounds like you are conflicted. I wont vote for ANYONE that is anti-gun, anti freedom of speech, anti-anything. I will not compromise "for the good of society", because I have seen what kind of society radical socialists want us to have.



and for the record, democrat, republican, independant, when the SHTF, i'll be the one to your "left" watching your back.

DrjonesUSA
05-04-2006, 1:17 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2004-09-07-assaultweapons-ourview_x.htm

I wonder what they think about now that it has been over a year and the logic they used was about worthless......what a rag.:cool:

Bill W these guy will bite on our story..like a big mouth bass.


They still think that "assault weapons" should be banned because they are statist thugs bent on disarming law-abiding American citizens.

"Safety" and crime could not possibly have LESS to do with the issue.

Gun control is about disarming and making it more difficult for law-abiding American citizens to purchase, own, use, and carry firearms, PERIOD, END OF STORY.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is either:

a) Lying to your face

b) Stupid

c) Ignorant of the facts

d) Some combination of a, b & c.

PERIOD.

Glasshat
05-04-2006, 1:33 PM
I think most people here have a "colt-45" (do you mean 1911 or do you really mean the single action revolver?) to back up their AR. Then they have another AR to back up the first AR. Then a shotgun to back up the 1911. Then another shotgun to.....

You get the idea, don't you subrooteen??? Kum-by-ah don't cut it here.

subroutine
05-04-2006, 1:37 PM
what i am asking you to do is to look at your motivation for owning an AW.

It doesn't matter what someone's motivation is, nor is it really any of your business.


is it for fun? is it for sport? is it for self-defense?

ALL OF THE ABOVE, and MORE (hunting maybe)...

now, do i think government can be corrupt? sure. but there has to be some kind of check-and-balance system in the works or else society falls to ****. it's called "basic-ethical-theory-101" go read some thomas hobbs if you must, but at least become familiar with the "why" some things are the way they are. am i saying that goverment is going to be 100% behind us all the time. of course not. i'm not that naive.

just take a moment to think about the last time YOU needed to pull out you AW in order to protect yourself or you family or your property. i'm not saying it will NEVER happen, i'm just asking you to think about it a bit.

What are you trying to say? Because it's unlikely that someone needs an AW in defense, we should "consider our need for them? I think you are desperately trying to explain your party's support for gun bans. You say that you own these guns, but then you keep asking others to "question their motivations"...that sounds like you are conflicted. I wont vote for ANYONE that is anti-gun, anti freedom of speech, anti-anything. I will not compromise "for the good of society", because I have seen what kind of society radical socialists want us to have.



and for the record, democrat, republican, independant, when the SHTF, i'll be the one to your "left" watching your back.

actually, black, i'm not conflicted at all, but it is obvious to me that you are an "angry" person who is unwilling to engage in a bit of self-reflection. i never asked you to "share" your answers with me. i merely asked you to reflect on it.

furthmore, i don't vote party-line on issues. i take each individual issue as they come up and decide for myself how i feel about the issue, morally, ethically, and rationally.

and once again. never at any time did i mention the fact that you should "not be able to own an AW". if you infact read my post you would have seen this (obviously you are the conflicted individual who is not able to separate rational thought from your emotions when you engage in philosophic discourse). i said that there was not that high a likelyhood that you would ever need to use one. that is completely different than telling you what you can and cannot do.

and finally, if the SHTF, regardless of what you think of my political party, or what i think of your political party, or weather you think i'm conflicted, or just being way to darn naive. i'll still be there to you "left" holding your back.

SUB

blacklisted
05-04-2006, 1:42 PM
Wrong. I'm about the least angry person around. I know it's hard to tell from internet postings.

I just don't understand why you are asking people to "reflect" on why they need AWs. It should make no difference (as long as they don't "need" them to rob a bank or something).

I do a lot of self reflection, but none of it is on why I "need" to own certain guns, but rather which new guns I should buy (and other, more important issues)! :D

Oh and there is a likelihood that I'll need to use it. It's called going to the range.

I know you're not saying or trying to say what someone can and can not do (or own), but I just find it a bit odd that you keep asking people to justify to themselves why they own certain guns. A gun is a multi-function tool, and one should always have the best tool for any job.

Personally, I think that if someone needs to justify their gun purchase (or any other purchase for that matter) constantly (and after they got it), they probably shouldn't have made the purchase in the first place. Perhaps they should take up knitting.

actually, black, i'm not conflicted at all, but it is obvious to me that you are an "angry" person who is unwilling to engage in a bit of self-reflection. i never asked you to "share" your answers with me. i merely asked you to reflect on it.

furthmore, i don't vote party-line on issues. i take each individual issue as they come up and decide for myself how i feel about the issue, morally, ethically, and rationally.

and once again. never at any time did i mention the fact that you should "not be able to own an AW". if you infact read my post you would have seen this (obviously you are the conflicted individual who is not able to separate rational thought from your emotions when you engage in philosophic discourse). i said that there was not that high a likelyhood that you would ever need to use one. that is completely different than telling you what you can and cannot do.

Glasshat
05-04-2006, 1:51 PM
Subroutine - Why are you on my left looking at my back? Keep both hands where I can see them.

subroutine
05-04-2006, 1:59 PM
Wrong. I'm about the least angry person around. I know it's hard to tell from internet postings.

I just don't understand why you are asking people to "reflect" on why they need AWs. It should make no difference (as long as they don't "need" them to rob a bank or something).

I do a lot of self reflection, but none of it is on why I "need" to own certain guns, but rather which new guns I should buy (and other, more important issues)! :D

Oh and there is a likelihood that I'll need to use it. It's called going to the range.

I know you're not saying or trying to say what someone can and can not do (or own), but I just find it a bit odd that you keep asking people to justify to themselves why they own certain guns. A gun is a multi-function tool, and one should always have the best tool for any job.


fair enuf, black. yes, inflections in language do not often translate into ASCII text.

my original point.........if i can even remember my original point.....
#1, don't blame any particular political party. the guys who robbed the bank 1 mile from my home in SFV didn't care about political parties. they just wanted the $$$. fortunatley no-one was harmed, except for them.

#2, there were genuine reasons for putting an AW ban in place. it wasn't to piss us off, it was to try and get those weapons out the hands of criminals. was it successful? probably not, or no. but the "intention" was good. i was trying to show/illustrate the fact that the DOJ is not just some evil orgonization that is trying to @#$% us and take away our 2nd ammendment rights.... is it annoying?? yes. do i agree with them? no. do i agree with the original "intent"? yes.

it just strikes me as "odd" that people get SOOOO worked up about it that they loose sight of the intentionality of things and then get so wrapped up in the black and white of an issue that they forget the "why" of the situation. i was just proposing that people reconsider the "why".

i found out the why in 12th grade when guy on my football team's jaw was completely severed from his head by an UZI at the end of a football game by a rival gang. yes, he died seconds later. it was not a pleasant experience.

i do in fact support the 2nd ammendment. as i indicated, i have 2 ar's and am getting 2 AK'S. do i think i will ever need them? hopefully not. probably not. very unlikely. my own personal reason for getting them is the sheer sport of it........going to the range and what-not.

but when someone enters my house at 3am, i'm reaching for the colt-45 revolver, not the AK.

Harbinger
05-04-2006, 2:25 PM
#2, there were genuine reasons for putting an AW ban in place. it wasn't to piss us off, it was to try and get those weapons out the hands of criminals. was it successful? probably not, or no. but the "intention" was good. i was trying to show/illustrate the fact that the DOJ is not just some evil orgonization that is trying to @#$% us and take away our 2nd ammendment rights.... is it annoying?? yes. do i agree with them? no. do i agree with the original "intent"? yes..

See, and that's where most of us will disagree with you. We believe the actual intent of gun control is FAR worse than what's advertised (i.e. "For the chidren...", "To keep guns out of the hands of criminals").

How hard is it to look at gun statistics and realize that bans don't do anything? How hard is it to understand that criminals don't obey gun laws? How hard is it to figure out that circumventing the constitution isn't 'for the good of the people' and is far worse than 'annoying'?? It's NOT. Politicians know all of this, and yet they still push forward. Why?

I see where you're coming from... and it worries me.

Mike

subroutine
05-04-2006, 2:40 PM
mike, you certainly don't have to agree w/ me. that is fair, and i respect your opinion.

to a certain extent, yes, i'm a conspircay addict, but not on things like this. i do genuinly believe that the intentions were good. and like i stated before, do i think it worked? no.

the road to hell is paved w/ good intentions, i know. remember...

#1, i never said you should not be able to own an AW.
#2, I believe in the 2nd ammendment
#3 I don't believe the ban worked
#4 I believe that, for the most part, the AW ban was, and other things like the brady-bill, actually had some good intentions behind them. my commentary is merely on the fact that it is very very very very difficult to put legislation into place that a) protects the right of all americans, b) does not violate american's constitutional rights, c) AND actually, statistically provides a utilitarian benefit to society - i.e.- the legislation actually works and provides a solution to a problem.


SUB

chris
05-04-2006, 11:30 PM
people like sarah brady and her ilk want all our weapons. AW's are the first. don't think for one second they will stop at that.
right now this state is the forefront for the battle of our rights that men and women have been dying for and politicians taking for granted that we sacrfice our lives for a belief.

these politicians are not thinking about the children they are thinking for themselves and a photo op. we know the majority of us use these weapons for fun, and collection. there should be no compromise with the gun-grabbers. once that is figured out we will win. but this will be a battle our children and grandchildren will have too fight.

gmcem50
05-05-2006, 12:09 AM
You sound like you are trying SO hard to sound reasonable, until right here...


#4 I believe that, for the most part, the AW ban was, and other things like the brady-bill, actually had some good intentions behind them. my commentary is merely on the fact that it is very very very very difficult to put legislation into place that a) protects the right of all americans, b) does not violate american's constitutional rights, c) AND actually, statistically provides a utilitarian benefit to society - i.e.- the legislation actually works and provides a solution to a problem.
SUB

You are entitled to your opinion, but it appears the fact that you are a Democrat has you reaching desperately for justifications for why your party is so consistantly on the wrong side of this issue.

First, the primary motivations behind the AW ban were VERY SINISTER, and not with good intentions at all. That is not to say that many of the general population who suppoted it were not without good intentions, but by any reasonable measure, the architects of the Brady Bill had/have NOTHING but evil motives for their actions. I would say that stripping law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights is evil. I wonder if you would be as cavalier about a similar assault on the 1st amendment.

Second, your assertion that it is "very very very very difficult to put legislation into place that...etc." is rediculous. Just look at the FORTY or so other states that have managed to do just that; protect the rights of Americans & provide a utilitarian benefit to society (to use your words).

MadMex
05-05-2006, 7:19 AM
You are entitled to your opinion, but it appears the fact that you are a Democrat has you reaching desperately for justifications for why your party is so consistantly on the wrong side of this issue.
You nailed it, plain and simple.

DrjonesUSA
05-05-2006, 9:14 AM
james bradys wife sarah said just that

"Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."


Can you please provide a source for that?

What a zinger of a quote.....


they wont be happy until all we have to protect our families and property with a SLINGSHOT

No, they don't want us to be able to defend ourselves AT ALL.

DrjonesUSA
05-05-2006, 9:18 AM
to a certain extent, yes, i'm a conspircay addict, but not on things like this. i do genuinly believe that the intentions were good. and like i stated before, do i think it worked? no.

the road to hell is paved w/ good intentions, i know. remember...

#4 I believe that, for the most part, the AW ban was, and other things like the brady-bill, actually had some good intentions behind them. my commentary is merely on the fact that it is very very very very difficult to put legislation into place that a) protects the right of all americans, b) does not violate american's constitutional rights, c) AND actually, statistically provides a utilitarian benefit to society - i.e.- the legislation actually works and provides a solution to a problem.


The sole purpose of gun control is to disarm law-abiding American citizens and to give the government a monopoly on violence.

Anyone who supports gun control in any way, shape or form must be either:

a) Of such low intelligence that they are not capable of comprehending the facts about gun control.

b) Evil - they themselves want the public disarmed so that they cannot resist the government.

c) Unaware of the facts about gun control.

d) Some combination of a, b, and c.


Which is it, subroutine?

blacklisted
05-05-2006, 10:44 AM
Can you please provide a source for that?

What a zinger of a quote.....




No, they don't want us to be able to defend ourselves AT ALL.


Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.
- Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control (to Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, The National Educator, Jan 1994, Page 3)

Not sure about the validitity of these quotes:

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned."

- U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them [firearms], then we might as well ban none."

- U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns."

-U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns."

-U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993


"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

-U.S. Senator. Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

DrjonesUSA
05-05-2006, 11:24 AM
Actually, that Sarah Brady quote is false:

The "Socialist America" quote from "Sarah Brady"

"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us are totally disarmed."
---Falsely (hilariously?) attributed to Sarah Brady of Handgun Control, Inc. supposedly in The American Educator, published by the American Federation of Teachers (or alternatively, attributed to a speech to AARP, late 1991) [GunCite: Currently, far more commonly cited as The National Educator, January, 1994, Page 3.]

This bit of dialogue is reminiscent of a bad movie, and even if Sarah Brady really were bent on fighting for international socialism, she's not quite stupid enough to say so out loud! [GunCite comment: The Bradys used to be registered as Republicans. It is unlikely they would harbor a belief in a socialist America. (Sarah Brady is now registered as an independent.) ] Even Lyndon LaRouche couldn't believe this conspiracy...


Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html

blacklisted
05-05-2006, 11:30 AM
I thought it might have been, quotes are easy to fabricate or misattribute.

Actually, that Sarah Brady quote is false:

The "Socialist America" quote from "Sarah Brady"

"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us are totally disarmed."
---Falsely (hilariously?) attributed to Sarah Brady of Handgun Control, Inc. supposedly in The American Educator, published by the American Federation of Teachers (or alternatively, attributed to a speech to AARP, late 1991) [GunCite: Currently, far more commonly cited as The National Educator, January, 1994, Page 3.]

This bit of dialogue is reminiscent of a bad movie, and even if Sarah Brady really were bent on fighting for international socialism, she's not quite stupid enough to say so out loud! [GunCite comment: The Bradys used to be registered as Republicans. It is unlikely they would harbor a belief in a socialist America. (Sarah Brady is now registered as an independent.) ] Even Lyndon LaRouche couldn't believe this conspiracy...


Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html

subroutine
05-05-2006, 11:33 AM
The sole purpose of gun control is to disarm law-abiding American citizens and to give the government a monopoly on violence.

Anyone who supports gun control in any way, shape or form must be either:

a) Of such low intelligence that they are not capable of comprehending the facts about gun control.

b) Evil - they themselves want the public disarmed so that they cannot resist the government.

c) Unaware of the facts about gun control.

d) Some combination of a, b, and c.


Which is it, subroutine?


well, let's see. i'll try to address you all at once...........not really into "gang-bangs" but i knew what i was getting into when i opened the can....

a)IQ documented above 150 (although i am a terrible speller)
b) evil - quite possibly. i burned downy my neighbors house on christmas eve because they kidnapped my dog.
c) quite possibley not as well informed about gun-control as i could be, but smart enought to fill in the gaps with both inductive and deductive logic.

again - i am a registered democrat....but as i said, i don't vote the party line. my actual reasones for being a democrat would suprise your, but are not part of this particular thread, and really don't matter at this point.

it's the "finger-pointing" that i'm against. i don't have any control over my party, other than voting on individual issues as they come up. yes, i've voted for republican candidates in the past who my views on particular issue have been more "in-sync" with, but again, i don't see this as being a GOP/DEMO issue.

so let's take the scenario and stretch it out to the absurd and see what happens...

let's grant you the assumption that an AR is not an assult-rifle.
the 2nd ammendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms. so, my next question would be, where do you draw the line? an F-16 is an arm, a sherman tank is an arm. do you feel that you should be able to obtain either of these devices as a method of protecting yourself against outside forces, whom or whatever they be? they are "arms". what about a bazooka? should you be allowed one of those as well? or just maybe an m-16.

where does the line get drawn in the sand?

"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."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

what about nukes? they are arms. should we each have on in our cellar just in case NORAD can't launch them in time?

now, remember, i never said at any point (i repeat, i never said at any point (i repeat, i never said at any point))) that you should not be able to have your AR or AK, nor did i poop on the second ammendment. and also, as i said, i have 2 AR lowers and have 2 AK's on the way.

however, what i was suggesting, was that there should be a line drawn somewhere. now, do i know exactly where? of course not. but there inlies the problem. "some-one" needs to decide. is it going to be arbitrary? yes. is it going to piss someone off. absolutely! instead of AR and AK boards, we'll have www.rocketlauncher.com where all the pissed of people will gather to discuss the legislation of trying to legalize S-t-AM's. or if SAM's are legal, then we'll have www.f16.com where all the outraged peeps will go who feel that that they should have this as a 2nd ammendment right!!!

someone is always going to be pissed, where-ever the line is drawn.
again, i was bring this up as a thought provoking idea, not a denial of your 2nd rights. but in the end, someone is going to be pissed about something. part of living in a society, i.e. - social contract theory, is that you DO inevitably have to give up "something" in order to co-habitate/co-exist with one another, or, as thomas hobbs said, life would be "nasty, brutish, and short".

SUB

DrjonesUSA
05-05-2006, 11:40 AM
Subroutine:

The issue is not what arms the 2A protects.

The issue is that you believe that legislation like the AW ban had "good intentions" behind them.

I'm asking you to support that statement.

blacklisted
05-05-2006, 1:41 PM
Subroutine: your concern is valid, but not necessary. We don't need to worry about the second amendment applying to ICBMs.

Read the Federalist papers and various letters from the "founding fathers" and other people of the time. Basically, they meant that people should be armed with at least the same basic infantry weapons. Today, that would mean the M16, M9 pistol, and SAW or similar. That is where the line is drawn, and it amazes me that people always throw tanks and nukes in to the argument. It's not necessary. Tanks and nukes are not infantry weapons.

Don't say that they only thought about muskets back then, or you will fall into the same trap that many others do. If you think that, then you can't possibily believe that the 1st amendment applies to the internet or other forms of communication / media not known of of even conceived of at the time.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/federalist/federalist-papers

well, let's see. i'll try to address you all at once...........not really into "gang-bangs" but i knew what i was getting into when i opened the can....

a)IQ documented above 150 (although i am a terrible speller)
b) evil - quite possibly. i burned downy my neighbors house on christmas eve because they kidnapped my dog.
c) quite possibley not as well informed about gun-control as i could be, but smart enought to fill in the gaps with both inductive and deductive logic.

again - i am a registered democrat....but as i said, i don't vote the party line. my actual reasones for being a democrat would suprise your, but are not part of this particular thread, and really don't matter at this point.

it's the "finger-pointing" that i'm against. i don't have any control over my party, other than voting on individual issues as they come up. yes, i've voted for republican candidates in the past who my views on particular issue have been more "in-sync" with, but again, i don't see this as being a GOP/DEMO issue.

so let's take the scenario and stretch it out to the absurd and see what happens...

let's grant you the assumption that an AR is not an assult-rifle.
the 2nd ammendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms. so, my next question would be, where do you draw the line? an F-16 is an arm, a sherman tank is an arm. do you feel that you should be able to obtain either of these devices as a method of protecting yourself against outside forces, whom or whatever they be? they are "arms". what about a bazooka? should you be allowed one of those as well? or just maybe an m-16.

where does the line get drawn in the sand?

"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."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

what about nukes? they are arms. should we each have on in our cellar just in case NORAD can't launch them in time?

now, remember, i never said at any point (i repeat, i never said at any point (i repeat, i never said at any point))) that you should not be able to have your AR or AK, nor did i poop on the second ammendment. and also, as i said, i have 2 AR lowers and have 2 AK's on the way.

however, what i was suggesting, was that there should be a line drawn somewhere. now, do i know exactly where? of course not. but there inlies the problem. "some-one" needs to decide. is it going to be arbitrary? yes. is it going to piss someone off. absolutely! instead of AR and AK boards, we'll have www.rocketlauncher.com where all the pissed of people will gather to discuss the legislation of trying to legalize S-t-AM's. or if SAM's are legal, then we'll have www.f16.com where all the outraged peeps will go who feel that that they should have this as a 2nd ammendment right!!!

someone is always going to be pissed, where-ever the line is drawn.
again, i was bring this up as a thought provoking idea, not a denial of your 2nd rights. but in the end, someone is going to be pissed about something. part of living in a society, i.e. - social contract theory, is that you DO inevitably have to give up "something" in order to co-habitate/co-exist with one another, or, as thomas hobbs said, life would be "nasty, brutish, and short".

SUB

subroutine
05-05-2006, 4:55 PM
Subroutine:

The issue is not what arms the 2A protects.

The issue is that you believe that legislation like the AW ban had "good intentions" behind them.

I'm asking you to support that statement.

D,
logically, if i believe that the AW ban had "good-intentions", then the mere fact that i believe that IS support for that. here is my sworn statement "I, SUB, do honestly believe that the AW ban had good intentions." beliefs, as you should know, can be personal, just as the belief that g-d exists.

now if you want statistics and diagrams and schematics and flow-charts then i can't help you. but a belief is a belief and i'm entitled to my belief. :)

subroutine
05-05-2006, 5:47 PM
Subroutine: your concern is valid, but not necessary. We don't need to worry about the second amendment applying to ICBMs.

Read the Federalist papers and various letters from the "founding fathers" and other people of the time. Basically, they meant that people should be armed with at least the same basic infantry weapons. Today, that would mean the M16, M9 pistol, and SAW or similar. That is where the line is drawn, and it amazes me that people always throw tanks and nukes in to the argument. It's not necessary. Tanks and nukes are not infantry weapons.

Don't say that they only thought about muskets back then, or you will fall into the same trap that many others do. If you think that, then you can't possibily believe that the 1st amendment applies to the internet or other forms of communication / media not known of of even conceived of at the time.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/federalist/federalist-papers

black, you raise and interesting point. i'll have to read the papers.
now, remember, black. and i keep saying this, and keep saying this, and keep saying this........i never said you should not be allowed to own an AW (m-16 or other fully-auto varient). if you read all of my posts, you won't find this anywhere!!!! and if i did, please copy and paste if for me.

AGAIN- what i was trying to get accross is the fact that a line needs to exist somewhere, but no matter where you draw that line, some-one is going to be pissed about it, but a line does and need to be drawn somewhere. i'm really not in dissagreement with you (or maybe i am......who knows :) i am the "Konflicted" one!)

and back to my original post - getting everyone to agree on where exactly that line is to be draw is a very difficult task indeed. now i do hear ringing in my ears "sub, but what about the other states in the union where M-16's are legal?". hmm, good point. i don't know, and i don't have an answer for that one, but i'm not opposed to them an Kali. but the fact that i'm not opposed to them does not mean that i believe the AW ban was some kind of evil, ill intended, misguided attempt to subvert our 2nd AM rights, what ever the result was (obviously not successful).

but now that i think about it more..........aside from our armed forces, the forces that are there to protect us everyday (police, sheriff, chp, troopers).....what do they carry to enfore the law?? a shot-gun, a 9mm, a 45 perhaps. (i don't know what standard issue is), but it sure ain't an M-16, and it seems perfectly reasonable that if you are going up against local forces then you are pretty much good to go w/ what is legal at this point. one problem is that there wasn't much of a difference or variety in the arms available to the peeps during the founding-fathers period. a musket vs......... a musket, not a musket vs. a howitzer. nowdays there is a huge difference between what you can buy at the local gun store and what is available to the military. it's night and day.

and back to my original post....
the over-all likely hood that you would ever need to use your AW to protect youself from an ill-fated regime is sliiiiiiiim ta none. (no i can't guarantee it won't happen and wouldnt pretend to guarantee anything in this world). but for basic protection and security, we have soooo much available to us in terms of protections, and not not poor protections either. shot-guns, rifles, handguns. they all kill and kill very well and are quite sufficient to do the job if required. that's all they give to standard cops. and most of the time they are more than adequately equipped (except for the van nuys shoot-out of 96)

i guess it comes down to your over-all paranoia factor and perhaps our difference in opinions on the matter. i honestly don't believe i would ever need anything more than an sks, m1 garand, colt-45, shotgun to protect myself from anything. you may be more cautious/paranoid and believe you need the maximum-overloaded-beefed up bass-*** mofo weapons possible just to absolutly make sure you are prepared for ANYTHING. well, i have to tell you, i sleep pretty well at night not worrying about the ANYTHING. if i did id probably go crazy!!!

so if it really is just a difference in our paranoia level, which i think it just might be, then i wish you well with your canned food, your bird-flu mask, your west-nile virus tarps, and everything else you can fit into the F-250 extended cab. but while your loading all that stuff up into the flat-bed, i'm going to be down in baha relaxing and snorkling and drinking pina-coladas and enjoying myself because life is just do darn short to be that on edge!

see you at the range! 9 am sharp. i'll bring the bagles and coffee. :)
SUB

Charliegone
05-05-2006, 6:37 PM
black, you raise and interesting point. i'll have to read the papers.
now, remember, black. and i keep saying this, and keep saying this, and keep saying this........i never said you should not be allowed to own an AW (m-16 or other fully-auto varient). if you read all of my posts, you won't find this anywhere!!!! and if i did, please copy and paste if for me.

AGAIN- what i was trying to get accross is the fact that a line needs to exist somewhere, but no matter where you draw that line, some-one is going to be pissed about it, but a line does and need to be drawn somewhere. i'm really not in dissagreement with you (or maybe i am......who knows :) i am the "Konflicted" one!)

and back to my original post - getting everyone to agree on where exactly that line is to be draw is a very difficult task indeed. now i do hear ringing in my ears "sub, but what about the other states in the union where M-16's are legal?". hmm, good point. i don't know, and i don't have an answer for that one, but i'm not opposed to them an Kali. but the fact that i'm not opposed to them does not mean that i believe the AW ban was some kind of evil, ill intended, misguided attempt to subvert our 2nd AM rights, what ever the result was (obviously not successful).

but now that i think about it more..........aside from our armed forces, the forces that are there to protect us everyday (police, sheriff, chp, troopers).....what do they carry to enfore the law?? a shot-gun, a 9mm, a 45 perhaps. (i don't know what standard issue is), but it sure ain't an M-16, and it seems perfectly reasonable that if you are going up against local forces then you are pretty much good to go w/ what is legal at this point. one problem is that there wasn't much of a difference or variety in the arms available to the peeps during the founding-fathers period. a musket vs......... a musket, not a musket vs. a howitzer. nowdays there is a huge difference between what you can buy at the local gun store and what is available to the military. it's night and day.

and back to my original post....
the over-all likely hood that you would ever need to use your AW to protect youself from an ill-fated regime is sliiiiiiiim ta none. (no i can't guarantee it won't happen and wouldnt pretend to guarantee anything in this world). but for basic protection and security, we have soooo much available to us in terms of protections, and not not poor protections either. shot-guns, rifles, handguns. they all kill and kill very well and are quite sufficient to do the job if required. that's all they give to standard cops. and most of the time they are more than adequately equipped (except for the van nuys shoot-out of 96)

i guess it comes down to your over-all paranoia factor and perhaps our difference in opinions on the matter. i honestly don't believe i would ever need anything more than an sks, m1 garand, colt-45, shotgun to protect myself from anything. you may be more cautious/paranoid and believe you need the maximum-overloaded-beefed up bass-*** mofo weapons possible just to absolutly make sure you are prepared for ANYTHING. well, i have to tell you, i sleep pretty well at night not worrying about the ANYTHING. if i did id probably go crazy!!!

so if it really is just a difference in our paranoia level, which i think it just might be, then i wish you well with your canned food, your bird-flu mask, your west-nile virus tarps, and everything else you can fit into the F-250 extended cab. but while your loading all that stuff up into the flat-bed, i'm going to be down in baha relaxing and snorkling and drinking pina-coladas and enjoying myself because life is just do darn short to be that on edge!

see you at the range! 9 am sharp. i'll bring the bagles and coffee. :)
SUB


No,no,no. You got it all wrong. The reason is I can buy one and will buy one if I want (as long as I follow the law of course.) That is why I live in the USA and not in China. The "good intentions" of some democrats (and some repubs as well) in this state are not well founded on facts, but on fear. Tell me how many times do you turn on the TV and see some story about some kid blasting another kid with a "sks assault rifle?" Does this stuff REALLY happen all the time. Probably not, but I will tell you what does. Self-defense with a firearm occurs about 2.5 million times a year! That 2.5 million times and most of the time not a single shot is fired! Why is it that the media doesn't show a "self-defense" shooting but glorify Columbine like it was the next Jesus..and you know what else...politicians love this. They don't use facts, they use fear and intimidation to get what their lobbyists want, not what the people need. If in fact, they do have "good intentions" why isn't they do not get rid of these useless laws? There are statistics, studies, etc all over the net, books, journals, etc that say gun control doesn't work! Yet they do nothing and continue on with more gun control KNOWING its not the answer to criminal activities. Good intentions? Right...

MadMex
05-05-2006, 6:46 PM
..........aside from our armed forces, the forces that are there to protect us everyday (police, sheriff, chp, troopers).....
Incorrect. Law enforcement has no obligation to protect you. Itís not their purpose


i honestly don't believe i would ever need anything more than an sks, m1 garand, colt-45, shotgun to protect myself from anything. you may be more cautious/paranoid and believe you need the maximum-overloaded-beefed up bass-*** mofo weapons possible just to absolutly make sure you are prepared for ANYTHING.
Classic gun grabber logic. You are a product of your party.

so if it really is just a difference in our paranoia level, which i think it just might be, then i wish you well with your canned food, your bird-flu mask, your west-nile virus tarps, and everything else you can fit into the F-250 extended cab.
Incorrect. To explain differences in this manner is disparaging to others that donít share your perspective, and another attempt to project your values and motives on to others. I trust your judgment in selecting whatever firearms you deem necessary to protect you and yours. I do not need the guidance of you or your party to make my decisions on this matter. Some of us live in situations very different from a home in a sub division in the middle of the city.

subroutine
05-05-2006, 7:57 PM
Incorrect. Law enforcement has no obligation to protect you. Itís not their purpose



Classic gun grabber logic. You are a product of your party.


Incorrect. To explain differences in this manner is disparaging to others that donít share your perspective, and another attempt to project your values and motives on to others. I trust your judgment in selecting whatever firearms you deem necessary to protect you and yours. I do not need the guidance of you or your party to make my decisions on this matter. Some of us live in situations very different from a home in a sub division in the middle of the city.


i just love how you keep saying "you and your party". do you know how to read? or are you just a selective reader (obviously you are). you sound like a broken record w/ "you and your party". don't you read dude? can you read, dude? i don't vote party line. i've said that like 20 times. how would you react to a comment like "obviously you can't read because you're a product of your culture" (mexican).........but that would just be as stupid as what you just said.

how about "you are your party started an illegal war in the middle-east based on lies and deception and greed." a well documented one at that. b4 you start party bashing you need to take a serious look at your own party and their track record for corruption and deceipt........but i digress.

jeeze dude....and the last time i read the side of a poice-car it said "to protect and to serve".........oh, wait, i forgot, you don't read :)

and, for the record, i never told you what to use to protect you and yours, i said what i would use to protect me and mine. big difference.

blacklisted
05-05-2006, 8:23 PM
i guess it comes down to your over-all paranoia factor and perhaps our difference in opinions on the matter. i honestly don't believe i would ever need anything more than an sks, m1 garand, colt-45, shotgun to protect myself from anything. you may be more cautious/paranoid and believe you need the maximum-overloaded-beefed up bass-*** mofo weapons possible just to absolutly make sure you are prepared for ANYTHING. well, i have to tell you, i sleep pretty well at night not worrying about the ANYTHING. if i did id probably go crazy!!!


I'm glad you read what I said above.

It is important to note that an M1 Garand and even an SKS has more power than a M16. It is also important to note that the M1 Garand was, at one time, this Nation's standard infantry rifle. The SKS was the infantry rifle of Russia for a limited time, then Yugoslavia (and other combloc nations), and is now used by rebels elsewhere.

Even the legendary .45 colt revolver was a sidearm of our infantry near the turn of the century. Shotguns were/are also used by the military in a limited scale.

I see no difference between an M16, and an M1 garand, other than the fact that one is more powerful, and the other more modern. Both are/were infantry weapons, and just the thing to be equipped with. The same is true today, but instead of the M1 Garand, it is the M16, or the AR-15 (because of the NFA, another topic).

I know from what you said that you aren't saying that we shouldn't have these things. But because you don't understand why we feel the need for them (because you don't), you are in a dangerous position. Gun control relies on a lack of understanding of firearms and a lack of understanding of why people have them.

If someone collects clay statues of John F. Kennedy taking a dump, or something more mundane like pink rabbits with hearts all over them, I will probably question why they do so. I wont be able to understand their motivation in collecting these objects, because I am not interested myself. However, I will not then progess to saying that these should be banned, or that perhaps there is a good motivation behind a ban on them.

Another example: if a man collects bolt action rifles and revolvers, I'll say that's cool because I like them too. I wont say that he's stupid because he doesn't have any autoloading rifles or handguns. In return, he shouldn't question my reasons for having guns that appeal to me.

subroutine
05-05-2006, 8:27 PM
jeeze dude....and the last time i read the side of a poice-car it said "to protect and to serve".........oh, wait, i forgot, you don't read


Well that was a clear case of false advertising.

But then you did say "poice-car" so maybe you didn't mean what some here thought you ment.

you never did answer My question? wanna give it a go now ?


i told you i was a bad speller :) or just too inaccurate of a typist or both.

...and no, i don't care to take a stab at your question, b/c i'm not debating the validity of the the "2" as the "fathers" intended it. so it pretty much a mute point.....but you're going to try to lead my down the path of "in order to protect ourselves from a a corrupt/illegitimate/government or something to that effect.....which lead inevitable back to the slippery-slope argument "if the goverment has nukes, we should have nukes too". duh. :)


but i hazard to guess what the FF's would think about the whole arsenal we have available to us today. they may very well reconsider their position, or redifine their terms and create a bunch of adendums.

subroutine
05-05-2006, 8:31 PM
I'm glad you read what I said above.

It is important to note that an M1 Garand and even an SKS has more power than a M16. It is also important to note that the M1 Garand was, at one time, this Nation's standard infantry rifle. The SKS was the infantry rifle of Russia for a limited time, then Yugoslavia (and other combloc nations), and is now used by rebels elsewhere.

Even the legendary .45 colt revolver was a sidearm of our infantry near the turn of the century. Shotguns were/are also used by the military in a limited scale.

I see no difference between an M16, and an M1 garand, other than the fact that one is more powerful, and the other more modern. Both are/were infantry weapons, and just the thing to be equipped with. The same is true today, but instead of the M1 Garand, it is the M16, or the AR-15 (because of the NFA, another topic).

I know from what you said that you aren't saying that we shouldn't have these things. But because you don't understand why we feel the need for them (because you don't), you are in a dangerous position. Gun control relies on a lack of understanding of firearms and a lack of understanding of why people have them.

If someone collects clay statues of John F. Kennedy taking a dump, or something more mundane like pink rabbits with hearts all over them, I will probably question why they do so. I wont be able to understand their motivation in collecting these objects, because I can not understand it myself. I will not then progess to say that these should be banned, or that perhaps there is a good motivation behind a ban on them.

black, correct, but i even tho an m1 is a highpowered rifie, you still can't hose nearly the amount of people down as you can w/ an m16 w/ a 40/50/60 round clip, which is the whole reason people are scared of AW's. someone w/ a side-arm has a better chance against a garand then agains an m16 (as long as the 2 people are equally skilled w/ both.

as far as me not understanding the WHY.....i really do. i know you don't think i do, but i do. i just don't for-see the circumstances you are insinuatiing actually coming to pass.........unless your name is david koresh.

interesting note tho..............i lived briefly in israel (6 months). but even in israel, given the present circumstances, they actually have gun controll too!!! families are actually restricted to X-number of firearms and can't just stock up on m-16's because they feel like it. although you do have a free pass to carry at all times what you do have!!! :)

subroutine
05-05-2006, 8:49 PM
Im sorry Im not a purist but I know or at least I beleve you dont want to ridiculed by the gun affectionados here so a small lesson in Firearm terms
as you did use the word M1 Garand and Clip in the same post You are partly right as the M1 Garand does in deed Use a "Clip" holding 8 rounds of (in stock config) 8 rounds of 30/06 but the M16 Uses a Magazine.


Ok thats all just wanted to give ya some quick terms not raggin on ya or anything like that.

i know, sam. no offense taken. yeah my terminology is a bit off. yes, sorry, did i say 10 rounds. i think it is 8.......thus the whole, "7th round stopage issue" that they had to resolve during the war at one point. i use mag/clip interchangably, which i know really annoyes gun experts to death :) i'll make the attempt to use "correct" ammo insertion device terminology!!!

Charliegone
05-05-2006, 9:33 PM
Also "hosing" down someone because you have a 30 rd mag is completely false. Remember that guy that went into a New York state mall w/ an ak clone and unloaded on everyone? He only hit one person and that person wasn't even critically injured. Its not about capacity, its about ability on how to use the gun. That guy in the Texas tower took all those people with a BOLT action! Like I said...ability.

subroutine
05-05-2006, 10:05 PM
Also "hosing" down someone because you have a 30 rd mag is completely false. Remember that guy that went into a New York state mall w/ an ak clone and unloaded on everyone? He only hit one person and that person wasn't even critically injured. Its not about capacity, its about ability on how to use the gun. That guy in the Texas tower took all those people with a BOLT action! Like I said...ability.


ahhh.......new idea (old idea). anyone with "ability" must be regestered as an AW. (barny feif - these hands are certified lethal weapons).

we can just pass out uzi's to everyone else because it just won't matter :) they'll never hit anything anyways........hehe

problem solved!!!

MadMex
05-05-2006, 10:09 PM
i just love how you keep saying "you and your party". do you know how to read? or are you just a selective reader (obviously you are). you sound like a broken record w/ "you and your party". don't you read dude? can you read, dude? i don't vote party line. i've said that like 20 times. how would you react to a comment like "obviously you can't read because you're a product of your culture" (mexican).........but that would just be as stupid as what you just said.

how about "you are your party started an illegal war in the middle-east based on lies and deception and greed." a well documented one at that. b4 you start party bashing you need to take a serious look at your own party and their track record for corruption and deceipt........but i digress.

jeeze dude....and the last time i read the side of a poice-car it said "to protect and to serve".........oh, wait, i forgot, you don't read :)

and, for the record, i never told you what to use to protect you and yours, i said what i would use to protect me and mine. big difference.
Bottom line, you have self-imposed constraints on what you feel is reasonable to protect you and yours. You are frustrated because everyone else doesnít agree with you and want to live by your rules. The desire to be a part of such group think logic falls well within the lines of your partyís dogma.

Your statement ď#2, there were genuine reasons for putting an AW ban in place. it wasn't to piss us off, it was to try and get those weapons out the hands of criminals.Ē as well as ďthe forces that are there to protect us everyday (police, sheriff, chp, troopers).Ē are a clear indication that you naively look to the government to secure your well being as an individual. It doesnít matter how you claim to vote. Your values and motives are well grounded in your party.

subroutine
05-05-2006, 10:33 PM
Bottom line, you have self-imposed constraints on what you feel is reasonable to protect you and yours. You are frustrated because everyone else doesnít agree with you and want to live by your rules. The desire to be a part of such group think logic falls well within the lines of your partyís dogma.

Your statement ď#2, there were genuine reasons for putting an AW ban in place. it wasn't to piss us off, it was to try and get those weapons out the hands of criminals.Ē as well as ďthe forces that are there to protect us everyday (police, sheriff, chp, troopers).Ē are a clear indication that you naively look to the government to secure your well being as an individual. It doesnít matter how you claim to vote. Your values and motives are well grounded in your party.

mex, all i can say is "you have issues, dude". if all you can talk about is my "party" then you really have no foot-hold what-so-ever. as a matter of fact, each time you mention a 'party' again. i'm going to tell you to go get into your pinto and go buy some re-fried beans.

where do you get the idea i'm frustrated. i never said that, nor did i say you had to abide by any of my morals/value/or beliefs. again...... read the post, use your head man, logic superceeds emotion, which you just don't seem to be able to separate. the fact that you are unable to use logic does actually worry me and give me cause for concern about YOU owning an AW.

and since you find yourself to be such the ethical/social-theorist, why don't you just go ahead and fully explain to us the purpose of government. i dare you, in fact, i double-dare you, in fact, i tripple dare you. not only will you not get close, you'll just make a darned fool out of yourself trying to do it. the real scarry thing is that you are actually sounding more and more like david koresh to me each time you put you fingers on that key-board.

do me a favor and stay out in your boonie-community, behind your barbed-wire fence and count your cyanide caplets. if you come anywhere near my my suburban condo i'll shoot at your with my fully-automatic rubber-band gun.
:)

MadMex
05-05-2006, 11:13 PM
mex, all i can say is "you have issues, dude". if all you can talk about is my "party" then you really have no foot-hold what-so-ever. as a matter of fact, each time you mention a 'party' again. i'm going to tell you to go get into your pinto and go buy some re-fried beans.

where do you get the idea i'm frustrated. i never said that, nor did i say you had to abide by any of my morals/value/or beliefs. again...... read the post, use your head man, logic superceeds emotion, which you just don't seem to be able to separate. the fact that you are unable to use logic does actually worry me and give me cause for concern about YOU owning an AW.

and since you find yourself to be such the ethical/social-theorist, why don't you just go ahead and fully explain to us the purpose of government. i dare you, in fact, i double-dare you, in fact, i tripple dare you. not only will you not get close, you'll just make a darned fool out of yourself trying to do it. the real scarry thing is that you are actually sounding more and more like david koresh to me each time you put you fingers on that key-board.

do me a favor and stay out in your boonie-community, behind your barbed-wire fence and count your cyanide caplets. if you come anywhere near my my suburban condo i'll shoot at your with my fully-automatic rubber-band gun.
:)
Itís humorous that you take offense to being affiliated with your own party, and find it necessary to resort to derogatory statements about my ability to read, derogatory statements about my culture, dares, comparisons to a criminal, etc. in attempt to legitimize your arguments. Are such shallow diversions the best you can offer to defend your position? Is this the sort of rhetoric that you fall for when you formulate your 150 IQ based opinions?

subroutine
05-05-2006, 11:25 PM
ok, i warned you!!!

GET INTO YOUR PINTO AND GO BUY SOME REFRIED BEANS.

Charliegone
05-05-2006, 11:29 PM
Full metal jacket what are you talking about private pyle!:D

http://www.sawnoff.demon.co.uk/pyledrill2.jpg

MadMex
05-05-2006, 11:32 PM
ok, i warned you!!!

GET INTO YOUR PINTO AND GO BUY SOME REFRIED BEANS.
It appears that you have tapped out.

Good luck and the best of success in your endeavors.

subroutine
05-05-2006, 11:34 PM
It appears that you have tapped out.

Good luck and the best of success in your endeavors.

mex,
i gave you fair warning!!!!

good luck to you too!

see you at the range @ 9AM. don't be late or the coffee and donuts will be gone

SUB

socal57chevy
05-05-2006, 11:51 PM
I was only gone a day or so and you guys flipped out. I thought we were supposed to be battling the doj over some stupid list. I'm takin' a few more days off. I'm going to cram a 75 round drum full of cheap ammo in and heat up the barrel of my SKS Sporter. I think I'll load up a few 30 rounders for the black rifle, too. You kids have fun while I'm in Mo. :D

ajwells
05-05-2006, 11:56 PM
how about "you are your party started an illegal war in the middle-east based on lies and deception and greed."

How about you and your party started an covertly hidden war in America against Americans, based on lies and deception and greed.

i'm just being an *** ignore me. Where I live most democrats wouldn't even call them selves Americans and it pisses me off.

stator
05-06-2006, 8:19 AM
yes, i'm a democrat and proud to be one.
....
diatribe over - and out
SUB

Well, I was going to fault you for voting demorat but... you probably cannot control your gun spending habits, while demorats cannot control their spending either... perfect match. Heck, then in that case, why not be a demorat? Misery loves company.

After all, there is noting wrong with the Demorats spending this state down the bankrupcy toilet. Is there?

MadMex
05-06-2006, 5:54 PM
Be careful SAS, stator & ajwells. Youíre pointing out inconsistencies in his self proclaimed 150 IQ logic. He might respond to you with a name calling tantrum. It appears that he has leaned well from Boxer. The beauty of this thread was that it provided an opportunity for subroutine to show his true character in his own writing.

subroutine
05-06-2006, 7:00 PM
as much as i love you.........you still just don't follow logical thought. not my fault.

here is what i said for you to "easily" reference.
i just love how you keep saying "you and your party". do you know how to read? or are you just a selective reader (obviously you are). you sound like a broken record w/ "you and your party". don't you read dude? can you read, dude? i don't vote party line. i've said that like 20 times. how would you react to a comment like "obviously you can't read because you're a product of your culture" (mexican).........but that would just be as stupid as what you just said..

i never insulted you. you however just made it your mission to demonize me b/c i'm not a republican. so it's perfectly ok for you to have your beliefs but it's not ok to have mine? you seem very selective about which constitutional right you want to protect and preserve. you want your 2nd but i can't have my 1st. i wanted to trancend the issue of polical parties but you would'nt allow it, which is absolutly unfair. i never deamonized you b/c you're a repub (i'm assuming) but you made it your mission to demonize me b/c i'm a registered democrat, regardless of knowing "why" i'm a democrat.........and there is not just 1 reason to be one, just as there's not 1 reason to be a republican. which lead to.....

mex, all i can say is "you have issues, dude". if all you can talk about is my "party" then you really have no foot-hold what-so-ever. as a matter of fact, each time you mention a 'party' again. i'm going to tell you to go get into your pinto and go buy some re-fried beans.


so you continued w/ your political party rant. and as i said, i gave you fair warning to what my reply would be to you if all you had to say was this...

now, if you'd like to ask me questions, then i would be more than happy to answer you. but beyond that.....you're right, i'm "tapped-out" w/ ya.

hugs and kisses, sweetie!!!

thedrickel
05-06-2006, 8:25 PM
yes, i'm a democrat and proud to be one. however, however i won't rain on your parade and tell you what kind of home-defense system you may or may not have or be entitled to. it's not really a democrat/republican problem. it a matter of having the freedom to decide, which extends beyond politcal parties

Wake up man! You're not a democrat, you're a LIBERTARIAN! It's ALL about the freedom to decide.

MadMex
05-07-2006, 5:54 PM
so you continued w/ your political party rant. and as i said, i gave you fair warning to what my reply would be to you if all you had to say was this...
Such a shame that you wear your heart on your sleeve (a classic DEMOCRAT trait). Your sensitivity regarding affiliation with YOUR PARTY is puzzling. Is it embarrassment, shame, frustration, anger, confusionÖ weíll never know or understand. In any case as I have demonstrated, itís a chain thatís all too easy to yank. BTW, some of the staunchest RKBA advocates I personally know are dems (I guess I donít know enough repubs or theyíre over rated regarding RKBA?). You were suckered into showing your true character in your own writing. Poor form for a board newb.

Sorry I didnít get to read your last post before you edited it. Are you starting to run away from your own words? Scary... and another DEMOCRAT trait (the ol' flippy floppy maneuver; true to form!)

Learn to take the high road and don't let your ego get the best of you. You'll go far, especially if you really do have a 150 IQ.

MadMex
05-07-2006, 5:59 PM
It's ALL about the freedom to decide.
Any decision you make is o.k. as long as it coincides with his decision. Itís undoubtedly like his views regarding free speech. That is, youíre free to say anything you want as long as itís what he wants to hear. Go figure.

MadMex
05-07-2006, 8:04 PM
i never insulted you.
Let me see if I have this correct. You compare me to David Koresh and thatís not an insult because:

a) I shouldnít worry because YOUR DEMOCRAT revisionist history will make the comparison go away,

b) If you deny repeatedly enough times that you ever made the comparison it never happened (another example of the DEMOCRAT flippy-floppy maneuver),

c) If a Clinton-esc definition is applied (ala definition of sex), there never was an insult.

When you are cornered you lapse into an existence of DEMOCRAT denial (I heard another chain yank). Unfortunately you are such a hard core democrat that you fail to recognize it (the olí forest from the trees syndrome). Maybe this is where your frustration stems from?

gmcem50
05-07-2006, 9:43 PM
Let me see if I have this correct. You compare me to David Koresh and thatís not an insult because:

a) I shouldnít worry because YOUR DEMOCRAT revisionist history will make the comparison go away,

b) If you deny repeatedly enough times that you ever made the comparison it never happened (another example of the DEMOCRAT flippy-floppy maneuver),

c) If a Clinton-esc definition is applied (ala definition of sex), there never was an insult.

When you are cornered you lapse into an existence of DEMOCRAT denial (I heard another chain yank). Unfortunately you are such a hard core democrat that you fail to recognize it (the olí forest from the trees syndrome). Maybe this is where your frustration stems from?


Slam-freakin'-dunk!:cool:

DrjonesUSA
05-08-2006, 10:11 AM
D,
logically, if i believe that the AW ban had "good-intentions", then the mere fact that i believe that IS support for that. here is my sworn statement "I, SUB, do honestly believe that the AW ban had good intentions." beliefs, as you should know, can be personal, just as the belief that g-d exists.

now if you want statistics and diagrams and schematics and flow-charts then i can't help you. but a belief is a belief and i'm entitled to my belief. :)



You are not allowed to have an opinion about the truth.

It is what it is.


Here is a quote from the author of the 1994 Federal "Assault Weapon Ban", Dianne Feinstein.


"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, "I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95



Subroutine, the author of the 1994 Federal "Assault Weapon" Ban just stated loud and clear (this is a painfully well-documented quote) that she wants nothing less than a total ban on all guns, and if she could get 51/100 votes in the Senate, she'd do it.

Do you STILL think the '94 Fed ban had "good intentions" behind it?

DrjonesUSA
05-08-2006, 10:15 AM
Subroutine:

It has already been requested of you once, but I have not seen you reply:

I also would like you to state as clearly and succinctly as possible what you think is the purpose of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I await your reply.

Thank you.

6172crew
05-08-2006, 10:27 AM
The bans are like the 10 day wait, I have a safe full of guns yet I must wait 10 days for my next purchase.

No other law like that would make it but if its to curb guns sales then it MUST be good.:rolleyes:

subroutine
05-08-2006, 12:06 PM
You are not allowed to have an opinion about the truth.

It is what it is.


Here is a quote from the author of the 1994 Federal "Assault Weapon Ban", Dianne Feinstein.





Subroutine, the author of the 1994 Federal "Assault Weapon" Ban just stated loud and clear (this is a painfully well-documented quote) that she wants nothing less than a total ban on all guns, and if she could get 51/100 votes in the Senate, she'd do it.

Do you STILL think the '94 Fed ban had "good intentions" behind it?


to answer your question.....yes, i do, but i do not agree with what she said. go back and read what i said about what my views are regarding gun-laws.

subroutine
05-08-2006, 12:07 PM
Subroutine:

It has already been requested of you once, but I have not seen you reply:

I also would like you to state as clearly and succinctly as possible what you think is the purpose of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I await your reply.

Thank you.

i absolutely did address this specifically in a post already. please go back and read.

subroutine
05-08-2006, 12:21 PM
Let me see if I have this correct. You compare me to David Koresh and thatís not an insult because:

a) I shouldnít worry because YOUR DEMOCRAT revisionist history will make the comparison go away,

b) If you deny repeatedly enough times that you ever made the comparison it never happened (another example of the DEMOCRAT flippy-floppy maneuver),

c) If a Clinton-esc definition is applied (ala definition of sex), there never was an insult.

When you are cornered you lapse into an existence of DEMOCRAT denial (I heard another chain yank). Unfortunately you are such a hard core democrat that you fail to recognize it (the olí forest from the trees syndrome). Maybe this is where your frustration stems from?

once again, mex, you just can't get over that i'm a "regestered-democrat" you've never even asked my what my positions are on things or even "why" i'm a democrat. i find that very interesting.

my only "insult" to you is that you are a "selective reader" and you don't process 80% of what i say in my post. yo only process on that 5% of my democratness.

please point out where i've tried to be a revisionist. the only person whom i'
ve quoted is sir tomoas hobbs, and that is an ethical-theorist/philospher. this will be intersting.

i don't believe that i've flip-flopped at all. i've stated my views on gun-control and the 2a and have stuck to it.

and as far as you bing like david koresh..........
if you don't believe that the law or the police are here to help us and you honestly believe in the govenment conspiracies (democratic/republican/liberatarian/communist/fascist) and you believe that you need to stock-pile weapons in oder to protect yourself from this immanent harm, then yes, this is sounding very very much to me like "koreshian" behavior. please, if you can, tell me what the difference between you and david are, b/c i sure don't see any.

and you never did answer my question as to what the role of government is, in your own words - nothing fancy. i'm just trying to fully understand where it is that your are coming from/ or not coming from.

and please point out where you get the idea that i'm some-how frustrated.

SUB

DrjonesUSA
05-08-2006, 1:11 PM
to answer your question.....yes, i do, but i do not agree with what she said. go back and read what i said about what my views are regarding gun-laws.


See, now you're just a liar.

There's no way someone with a "Documented IQ over 150" can be so dense, unless you are being difficult on purpose.

One more time, in english, as clearly as I can possibly state:

You stated that you believe that the 1994 Fed. "Assault Weapon" ban had "good intentions" behind it.

I posted a quote from the author of the 1994 Federal "Assault Weapon" ban stating that she wants all guns banned.

This FACT refutes your belief that the ban had any "good intentions" behind it, unless you consider the banning of all guns to be a good thing.

In light of the FACT that the author of the '94 ban wishes to see all guns banned, how can you continue to claim that the ban had any "good intentions" behind it, and what FACTS do you base that on?

Further refuting your "belief" is the FACT that the '94 ban targeted military-style firearms, which are the exact sorts of firearms that are explicitly protected by the Second Amendment.


Please note that when you are debating an issue like gun control that has empirically and objectively provable "right" and "wrong" sides, you are not allowed to have "beliefs" that aren't based on anything other than your own whims.

The truth is what it is.

Bling Bling 2.0
05-08-2006, 1:33 PM
I leave the country for 1 week and come back to a democrat on Calguns??(aside from the DOJ trollers/bottom feeders)

Banning guns is the worst possible type of gun control. Honestly I don't mind the background checks or many of the other hoops I have to jump through as much (granted that they not motivated by racial, economic, or political engines). I don't want crazies to have guns more than anyone else. But saying that an upstanding American citizen can't be trusted with "clip" makes me sick to my stomach.

Name calling aside, do we know if Subroutine has sought counseling for his/her Democrat problem? We should come together as a group to support those taken ill with this disease. :)

Honestly, we should be glad we have a 2 party system. Having 2 groups of crazies is better than just 1.

SgtBulldog
05-08-2006, 1:47 PM
I posted a quote from the author of the 1994 Federal "Assault Weapon" ban stating that she wants all guns banned.

To be fair, Feinstein's quote was in reference to "assault weapons" although even so it still meant nationwide confiscation of millions of firearms so it is still quite nefarious. But it would be amiss to say she meant all firearms in the statement you quoted (her real aims notwithstanding).

DrjonesUSA
05-08-2006, 1:49 PM
To be fair, Feinstein's quote was in reference to "assault weapons" although even so it still meant nationwide confiscation of millions of firearms so it is still quite nefarious. But it would be amiss to say she meant all firearms in the statement you quoted (her real aims notwithstanding).


Fair enough.

Still, her bill and her quote specifically target military-style weapons which are the ones that are specifically protected by the Second Amendment.

SgtBulldog
05-08-2006, 2:07 PM
Fair enough.

Still, her bill and her quote specifically target military-style weapons which are the ones that are specifically protected by the Second Amendment.

Says the SCOTUS through Miller right?

Personally, I prefer seeing RKBA as one conduit of achieving the natural right to self-defense irrespective of any state regulation (pro or against). That would inoculate against any potential Constitutional or judicial annulment of the already ignored 2nd amendment.

DrjonesUSA
05-08-2006, 2:08 PM
Says the SCOTUS through Miller right?

Personally, I prefer seeing RKBA as one conduit of achieving the natural right to self-defense irrespective of any state regulation (pro or against). That would inoculate against any potential Constitutional or judicial annulment of the already ignored 2nd amendment.


Yes, that is what Miller said, but the 2A only protects a pre-existing, natural human right, as you said.

subroutine
05-08-2006, 4:42 PM
See, now you're just a liar.

There's no way someone with a "Documented IQ over 150" can be so dense, unless you are being difficult on purpose.

One more time, in english, as clearly as I can possibly state:

You stated that you believe that the 1994 Fed. "Assault Weapon" ban had "good intentions" behind it.

I posted a quote from the author of the 1994 Federal "Assault Weapon" ban stating that she wants all guns banned.

This FACT refutes your belief that the ban had any "good intentions" behind it, unless you consider the banning of all guns to be a good thing.

In light of the FACT that the author of the '94 ban wishes to see all guns banned, how can you continue to claim that the ban had any "good intentions" behind it, and what FACTS do you base that on?

Further refuting your "belief" is the FACT that the '94 ban targeted military-style firearms, which are the exact sorts of firearms that are explicitly protected by the Second Amendment.


Please note that when you are debating an issue like gun control that has empirically and objectively provable "right" and "wrong" sides, you are not allowed to have "beliefs" that aren't based on anything other than your own whims.

The truth is what it is.

ok, you may, (or you may not) believe in GOD. you (perhaps not you) don't have emphirical proof either........so does that make everyone who believes in god a liar because of their beliefs?? dude.....you are just being rediculous.

once again, you are not reading my posts. i even sadi "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". did you not read that? (selective-reading-itus is what ya'all have).

now, i did not actually read the AW ban of 1994, i must admit (and i will admit), i'm too busy programming all f-ing day long. but as SgtBulldog said


To be fair, Feinstein's quote was in reference to "assault weapons" although even so it still meant nationwide confiscation of millions of firearms so it is still quite nefarious. But it would be amiss to say she meant all firearms in the statement you quoted (her real aims notwithstanding).

i don't really read what she said, esp if i don't agree with it. but furthermore, i don't know where you get off calling me a "liar" because i disagree with "something" "someone" said. i have said about 50 times now that i don't vote party line, but i am proud to be a democrat, insofar as i'm not "ashamed" to be a democrat. i'm not afraid to say i'm a democrat. but furthermore, i'm allowed to ALSO disagree with with what democrats say. why won't you allow me this??? this is just rediculous. you claim to be logical and then talk illogically. you pick and choose what ammendment you choose to honor out of convenience, or so it certainly seems to me.

nobody like to see innocent people murdered or killed as innocent bystander in domestic crimes. it's just plain a tragedy when it occurs. now, do i believe that guns should be outlawed b/c of this?? i've said like another 20 times. no. but could this cause people to become overly emotional about the deaths and try to do something about it? of course.

things happen in a particular order, and it's called "sequencing". there was a series of events that lead to such a bill as the brady bill. the sequence was
1) (not sure about this part) hinkly probably bought his gun 2 days b4 the shooting
2) brady got shot
3) people became outraged b/c of the shooting and felt that they needed to do something about this
4) brady bill enacted

now, notice, the brady billl was not enacted b4 brady got shot, it was after....purley cause and effect.

i think its a great idea that there should be a waiting period b4 someone is allowed to just "buy a fire arm" i had no problem with it. i think it does more good than it does harm, but that is my opinion.

(wait, wasn't brady a REPUBLICAN....and so was his WIFE???)

it perfectually natural for people to want to do something about senseless murders....you can't fault them for that. at least they are trying to do something rather than doing nothing. but there is a "process" involved and it takes time to hammer out the kinks. no law is perfect.

as blacklisted pointed out to me as well as others.......the m1-garand is a high-powered rifle and seemingly just as if not more dangerous than an AK if used by someone with ability............and they are LEGAL!!! so are a plethora of other firearms. now, just b/c i say this does not mean i'm saying that AK's and AR's SHOULD be illegal. i'm mearly pointing out that WE do have options.

a line does need to be dawn in the sand somewhere. maybe it's between semi-and fully-auto, maybe it's between fully auto of a cerain calliber to another calliber......i don't really know, but i do feel that SAMs, tanks, nukes, bazookas, f-16's, howitzers, plutonium, and 60mm guns should be illegal for civilians to own.

back when the FF's created the 2nd A, all there was was muskets.......or muskets. now there is just to great a varitey of weaponry that just don't belone in civilian hands (in my opinion). there must be regulation of some sort.

like i said, no matter where you draw the line, someone is going to be pissed.

DrjonesUSA
05-08-2006, 4:57 PM
ok, you may, (or you may not) believe in GOD. you (perhaps not you) don't have emphirical proof either........so does that make everyone who believes in god a liar because of their beliefs?? dude.....you are just being rediculous.

once again, you are not reading my posts. i even sadi "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". did you not read that? (selective-reading-itus is what ya'all have).



The existence of God is not a 100%, absolute, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, empirically and objectively verifiable thing.

The purpose of the Second Amendment IS completely verifiable.

Again, I state that the truth is not something you can have an opinion on.




i don't really read what she said, esp if i don't agree with it. but furthermore, i don't know where you get off calling me a "liar" because i disagree with "something" "someone" said.


How could you not have read that quote I posted? It is 47 words long!

The Soup Nazi
05-08-2006, 5:29 PM
ok, you may, (or you may not) believe in GOD. you (perhaps not you) don't have emphirical proof either........so does that make everyone who believes in god a liar because of their beliefs?? dude.....you are just being rediculous.

once again, you are not reading my posts. i even sadi "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". did you not read that? (selective-reading-itus is what ya'all have).

now, i did not actually read the AW ban of 1994, i must admit (and i will admit), i'm too busy programming all f-ing day long. but as SgtBulldog said




i don't really read what she said, esp if i don't agree with it. but furthermore, i don't know where you get off calling me a "liar" because i disagree with "something" "someone" said. i have said about 50 times now that i don't vote party line, but i am proud to be a democrat, insofar as i'm not "ashamed" to be a democrat. i'm not afraid to say i'm a democrat. but furthermore, i'm allowed to ALSO disagree with with what democrats say. why won't you allow me this??? this is just rediculous. you claim to be logical and then talk illogically. you pick and choose what ammendment you choose to honor out of convenience, or so it certainly seems to me.

nobody like to see innocent people murdered or killed as innocent bystander in domestic crimes. it's just plain a tragedy when it occurs. now, do i believe that guns should be outlawed b/c of this?? i've said like another 20 times. no. but could this cause people to become overly emotional about the deaths and try to do something about it? of course.

things happen in a particular order, and it's called "sequencing". there was a series of events that lead to such a bill as the brady bill. the sequence was
1) (not sure about this part) hinkly probably bought his gun 2 days b4 the shooting
2) brady got shot
3) people became outraged b/c of the shooting and felt that they needed to do something about this
4) brady bill enacted

now, notice, the brady billl was not enacted b4 brady got shot, it was after....purley cause and effect.

i think its a great idea that there should be a waiting period b4 someone is allowed to just "buy a fire arm" i had no problem with it. i think it does more good than it does harm, but that is my opinion.

(wait, wasn't brady a REPUBLICAN....and so was his WIFE???)

it perfectually natural for people to want to do something about senseless murders....you can't fault them for that. at least they are trying to do something rather than doing nothing. but there is a "process" involved and it takes time to hammer out the kinks. no law is perfect.

as blacklisted pointed out to me as well as others.......the m1-garand is a high-powered rifle and seemingly just as if not more dangerous than an AK if used by someone with ability............and they are LEGAL!!! so are a plethora of other firearms. now, just b/c i say this does not mean i'm saying that AK's and AR's SHOULD be illegal. i'm mearly pointing out that WE do have options.

a line does need to be dawn in the sand somewhere. maybe it's between semi-and fully-auto, maybe it's between fully auto of a cerain calliber to another calliber......i don't really know, but i do feel that SAMs, tanks, nukes, bazookas, f-16's, howitzers, plutonium, and 60mm guns should be illegal for civilians to own.

back when the FF's created the 2nd A, all there was was muskets.......or muskets. now there is just to great a varitey of weaponry that just don't belone in civilian hands (in my opinion). there must be regulation of some sort.

like i said, no matter where you draw the line, someone is going to be pissed.

And why is that? Why does the government have special right to these weapons? (Besides, whos going to be able to afford to maintain an F-16 or even a tank? Someone going to buy a T-34 from Russia for 500 dollars?) The point is that the government needs to fear us. The thing is, not all of us people who want to purchase these so called "Assault weapons" are anarchists. But the thing is, IF the government screws us over, they're going to pay the price. If they know that we're packing with some serious heat, they'll be more inclined to cater to our ideas and be less willing to push us around.

The same theory goes for gun ownership and criminals. If criminals know we have guns, the more unwilling they are to go after people, ESPECIALLY if its known that we may have some of the most advanced technology that our money can buy. Just pretend (except you really don't need to in some cases) that the government is a criminal. If they do a good job, there really is no reason to have a civil revolt and they'll have nothing to fear.

Unknownassailant
05-08-2006, 5:35 PM
Bottom Line. You can't stop the proliferation of guns, be it by manufacturing or by importing, they will come. We are men, and we will find a way, as proven by AR-15 jigs and 80% biulds. Banning all guns or assault rifles is just plain silly. Just because we have a few crooked cops and politicians dosen't me we ban those entirely even though we probably should.

taloft
05-08-2006, 6:18 PM
I'm sorry but, isn't Hobbsí basic political belief that the best political option is to have a "Sovereign" authority that is totally unaccountable to its subjects? That government wonít work properly if it has to answer to the people? That crap doesn't fly with most Americans. If you want to school someone on Political Philosophy try a little John Locke on for size, or better yet John Rawls. Heís more contemporary, and not as long-winded as Locke or Hobbs. The only thing that Hobbs ever came up with that was worth anything is the concept of the Social Contract. Although, I feel that John Locke's version is superior.

As far as you stating that you didn't support an AW ban, and to paste a copy of where you did. Here you go:

#2, there were genuine reasons for putting an AW ban in place. it wasn't to piss us off, it was to try and get those weapons out the hands of criminals. was it successful? probably not, or no. but the "intention" was good. i was trying to show/illustrate the fact that the DOJ is not just some evil orgonization that is trying to @#$% us and take away our 2nd ammendment rights.... is it annoying?? yes. do i agree with them? no. do i agree with the original "intent"? yes.

If you agreed with the original intent, then it follows that you agreed with the ban at the time it was put into effect. You didnít know at the time that it wouldn't work. An after the fact statement to the contrary doesnít cut it. Hindsight is golden. You may have changed your tune in that regard now but, how about then? Please, donít try to lecture me about the concept of intent. The people leading the masses down this road knew damn well what they were about, and the people following should have known better. Also, when you answer the question of was it successful, ďprobably not, or no.Ē Thatís a big f**king no. It was a dismal failure in that regard. The fact that you had any doubts just kills me. The DOJ isnít evil like guns are not evil, it is the *****holes running it that is evil.

As far as explaining the purpose of Government, which type of Government did you have in mind? Monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, communism, democracy, republic, socialist, fascist. Be specific. Who are you asking? A Marxist is going to give you a very different answer than a staunch Monarchist. It also depends on what time period you are talking about. Iím sure serfs had a much different view of the purpose of the Monarchy than the King of England.

I realize that you are probably referring to our State Government. Do you want the ďcontrol and administration of public policy in a political unitĒ type of answer, or were you looking for the ďSocial ContractĒ type of answer? Perhaps the protection of property and administration of justice b.s.? Ideological preferences can dictate the answers to this question. There is no correct single answer. If you are asking me, I would say that their purpose is to do what they are told i.e. uphold the Constitution . I know that is a trite answer but, I donít have all night to debate the purpose of the Government. I doubt you would agree with me anyway.:p I would be happy if they just kept their hands out of my pockets and left me alone.

As far as the Military-Style weapon b.s. All basic firearm designs had their roots in military usage. Show me a firearm, and I can find an army that used it or its basic design. Yes, some designs have been adapted to other purposes but, they all started life as a military design, the rest are just variants on a theme.

it perfectually natural for people to want to do something about senseless murders....you can't fault them for that. at least they are trying to do something rather than doing nothing. but there is a "process" involved and it takes time to hammer out the kinks. no law is perfect.

If you are not sure what to do, the wisest course is to do nothing at all. Knee jerk laws are a bane on the people. We already have laws against murder, So who should I fault for b.s. laws? I know, the jack offs passing them. Same goes for clowns who vote on issues that they haven't researched at all. I don't care if people take an opposing view on an issue but, I hate it when uninformed people vote in ignorance.

back when the FF's created the 2nd A, all there was was muskets.......or muskets. now there is just to great a varitey of weaponry that just don't belone in civilian hands (in my opinion). there must be regulation of some sort.

Then why are you defensive that people question your statements? After all you made your statements on a computer, that wasn't around back in the day either. I guess the 1st amendment doesnít apply to you if you use technology that wasn't around then. That logic is b.s. A musket will not make you any less dead than an AK. Cannons are legal now and then. As far a nukes go, I've never seen a rifle level a city. I've seen pleny of tyranical Governments fall to people with rifles.

I donít subscribe to any parties dogma. I think for myself. I don't have to be told what to think. I vote as I see fit. I think both of the big parties are out to f**k you. Unless you are one of the top percentile that own most of this country, in which case you are likely one of the people doing the deed.

I personally don't care what your political beliefs are. It is a free country. Think and say what you want, just donít be surprised when people call b.s. on some of your statements. By the way, this isnít a personal attack on you. I don't know you well enough for that.:D Iím just jumping on some of your statements that I donít agree with. It is all just opinion.

6172crew
05-08-2006, 6:32 PM
*****mental note to self****

Dont spar w/ Taloft.

Glasshat
05-08-2006, 10:15 PM
IF YOUR NAME IS SUBROUTINE DO NOT READ THIS!!

Okay guys, listen here. I'm getting tired of you f***ing with Mr.150-IQ's head and making him think anyone cares what he thinks. You know he can't spell and you know he's a DU troll. I was interested in this thread when it began but you guys keep egging Mr.150-IQ on asking him questions that you know he will answer in that "I am the smartest homo in the world" tone of voice, and then you laugh your *** off when he does exactly what you predicted he would do. KNOCK IT OFF RIGHT NOW.

OKAY SUBROUTINE, YOU CAN READ EVERYTHING AFTER THIS.

blacklisted
05-08-2006, 10:27 PM
back when the FF's created the 2nd A, all there was was muskets.......or muskets. now there is just to great a varitey of weaponry that just don't belone in civilian hands (in my opinion). there must be regulation of some sort.

like i said, no matter where you draw the line, someone is going to be pissed.

Alright, you really screwed up. Did you read my previous posts, and if so, did you 'absorb' them?
Especially this part:



Don't say that they only thought about muskets back then, or you will fall into the same trap that many others do. If you think that, then you can't possibily believe that the 1st amendment applies to the internet or other forms of communication / media not known of of even conceived of at the time.

I don't think you are actually understand what people are posting here. This thread is full of logical arguments and facts, and all you can provide are your "beliefs". With this attitude, you are not on our side.

Do some research, a lot of topics have been outlined here for you. Like I said before, read the founding father's REAL intentions. Look at the history of oppressive governments and uprisings. Look at the failure that gun control has been.

taloft
05-08-2006, 11:28 PM
I caught it, just thought it might help to run it past him again.:D

lmao: Heyyy, Glasshat. do you have any idea how long it takes to edit a post while still keeping all the spelling mistakes intact in the quotes?:D Took me longer to spell check it than it did to type it.:D Besides, laughter is the best medicine.

p.s. sub, the spell checker is in the upper right hand corner in your reply window. Please use it. I'm not the best seller either but, I use it.:)

(yes, seller was an intentional joke.)

blacklisted
05-08-2006, 11:54 PM
I suspect that we could run it past him a million times with no effect.

He is trying to justify the typical liberal perspective on gun control with his own personal beliefs. It's sort of like a neo-nazi Jew, or a black klansman (like the one on the Chapelle show).

I caught it, just thought it might help to run it past him again.:D

lmao: Heyyy, Glasshat. do you have any idea how long it takes to edit a post while still keeping all the spelling mistakes intact in the quotes?:D Took me longer to spell check it than it did to type it.:D Besides, laughter is the best medicine.

p.s. sub, the spell checker is in the upper right hand corner in your reply window. Please use it. I'm not the best seller either but, I use it.:)

(yes, seller was an intentional joke.)

MadMex
05-09-2006, 3:36 AM
Okay guys, listen here. I'm getting tired of you f***ing with Mr.150-IQ's head and making him think anyone cares what he thinks.Youíd think heíd figure it out by now.

He is trying to justify the typical liberal perspective on gun control with his own personal beliefs. It's sort of like a neo-nazi Jew, or a black klansman (like the one on the Chapelle show).Damn, thatís the most eloquent description yet.

It must be a ***** when the whole world is wrong and youíre the only one thatís right. A 150 IQ is a terrible thing to waste.

colossians323
05-09-2006, 4:54 AM
Waste of bandwith, IBTL:eek:

subroutine
05-09-2006, 10:45 AM
And why is that? Why does the government have special right to these weapons? (Besides, whos going to be able to afford to maintain an F-16 or even a tank? Someone going to buy a T-34 from Russia for 500 dollars?) The point is that the government needs to fear us. The thing is, not all of us people who want to purchase these so called "Assault weapons" are anarchists. But the thing is, IF the government screws us over, they're going to pay the price. If they know that we're packing with some serious heat, they'll be more inclined to cater to our ideas and be less willing to push us around.

The same theory goes for gun ownership and criminals. If criminals know we have guns, the more unwilling they are to go after people, ESPECIALLY if its known that we may have some of the most advanced technology that our money can buy. Just pretend (except you really don't need to in some cases) that the government is a criminal. If they do a good job, there really is no reason to have a civil revolt and they'll have nothing to fear.

you raise an interesting point. i'm just not as worried about a civil revolt as you might be. i believe (or try to believe) in the political process. if we don't like a government, we vote them out, we impeach them. i personally would not raise up arms agains them, but that i guess is up to your discression.

subroutine
05-09-2006, 10:46 AM
Youíd think heíd figure it out by now.

Damn, thatís the most eloquent description yet.

It must be a ***** when the whole world is wrong and youíre the only one thatís right. A 150 IQ is a terrible thing to waste.

well, the fact that you keep responding is reason enuf to believer you do care......or you wouldn't keep posting.......duh

subroutine
05-09-2006, 10:50 AM
I suspect that we could run it past him a million times with no effect.

He is trying to justify the typical liberal perspective on gun control with his own personal beliefs. It's sort of like a neo-nazi Jew, or a black klansman (like the one on the Chapelle show).

so explain it to me black........where do "you" draw the line?? should there be a line or no line at all?? plutonium and c4 for everyone?

if we dont' have personal beliefs.........then what are we left with? what is supposed to guide us?

Charliegone
05-09-2006, 11:14 AM
so explain it to me black........where do "you" draw the line?? should there be a line or no line at all?? plutonium and c4 for everyone?

if we dont' have personal beliefs.........then what are we left with? what is supposed to guide us?

Well, we already have that, civilians can own tanks and even mortars. The thing you have to remember is this stuff is already heavily regulated by the NFA and state governments (and by the way, no crime that I know of has been committed by legally held NFA regulated items like mortars, even machine guns.) Do I believe anyone should have mortars and tanks? Not without the proper procedure, no. The line (to me) is drawn at the so called "assault rifles" (what I mean is allowing them) and that should be it. If it were a perfect world hell I would let anyone have a tank or mortars, but it isn't so there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Sure we can have personal beliefs, but when your personal beliefs start to put people in danger (Hitler, Stalin etc), than it shouldn't be allowed.

I believe we should have limited government, because as history has shown, being dependant on the government to do the "right thing" has led to some of the most horrible things humankind could do.

subroutine
05-09-2006, 11:16 AM
I'VE SEEN THE LIGHT. PLEASE SEND ME THE APPROPRIATE PAPERS TO CHANGE POLITICAL PARTIES. ANY ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONs FOR LOCAL MILITIAS WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!

:) :) :)

sub

Glasshat
05-09-2006, 11:36 AM
This is just great. You guys HAD to convince him to convert to your side of the aisle and now you'll have to live with the results: he will go to your meetings, wax on and on about matters he knows nothing about, dominate conversations, drink all the milk and cookies, and generally piss everyone off with his holier-than-thou lisping voice. I warned you!!!

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 12:14 PM
so explain it to me black........where do "you" draw the line?? should there be a line or no line at all?? plutonium and c4 for everyone?

if we dont' have personal beliefs.........then what are we left with? what is supposed to guide us?

Please READ my posts. You responded to this one, but apparently you didn't read it.

Subroutine: your concern is valid, but not necessary. We don't need to worry about the second amendment applying to ICBMs.

Read the Federalist papers and various letters from the "founding fathers" and other people of the time. Basically, they meant that people should be armed with at least the same basic infantry weapons as the military. Today, that would mean the M16, M9 pistol, and SAW or similar. That is where the line is drawn, and it amazes me that people always throw tanks and nukes in to the argument. It's not necessary. Tanks and nukes are not infantry weapons.

Don't say that they only thought about muskets back then, or you will fall into the same trap that many others do. If you think that, then you can't possibily believe that the 1st amendment applies to the internet or other forms of communication / media not known of of even conceived of at the time.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/fede...eralist-papers

DrjonesUSA
05-09-2006, 1:02 PM
I'VE SEEN THE LIGHT. PLEASE SEND ME THE APPROPRIATE PAPERS TO CHANGE POLITICAL PARTIES. ANY ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONs FOR LOCAL MILITIAS WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!

:) :) :)

sub



If you think there's any substantive difference between the two parties, we need to educate you further. ;)

But let's start another thread for that.

DrjonesUSA
05-09-2006, 1:29 PM
so explain it to me black........where do "you" draw the line?? should there be a line or no line at all?? plutonium and c4 for everyone?

if we dont' have personal beliefs.........then what are we left with? what is supposed to guide us?



I'm not blacklisted, but here are the facts:


Man created government and our government, it is specifically noted, derives its powers from the consent of the governed.

Since man is the creator of the government, it follows that he should be the master.

There are certain responsibilities and powers that The People have delegated to the government.

You cannot delegate a power that you yourself do not have.

Therefore, if The People ("average" citizens") do not have the right to own ANY weapon; aircraft carriers, explosive ordnance, nuclear weapons, then the government could not possibly have that right.


"It does not say "shall not be infringed, unless the weapon in question is really scary." They're SUPPOSED to be scary. The occupants of Washington City are supposed to go to bed every night, wondering if anything they've done today will get them what it got Charles the First in 1649, or Louis XVI in 1793."

DrjonesUSA
05-09-2006, 1:56 PM
Two essays that everyone here simply MUST read, particularly those of you who aren't clear as to the proper role of government and the true meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment.

For those of you who already are clear on the above, it will prove good reading nonetheless.

I'd copy and paste them here, but they are slightly long.


http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2314


http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html