PDA

View Full Version : Since all the PC folks are on this 'place'...



Uncle Bill
11-30-2008, 07:04 PM
I'll post this over here...but think it should be available to EVERY member of RTF. I believe all those that voted for Obama don't believe their guns are in jeopardy...that he will be too busy solving the many other problems of the nation to get involved in gun control. They obviously figure he will do a 180 in his beliefs on gun control.

But that's beside the point. The advocates of gun control...Shumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, et al don't give a hoot what the time table is. I'm willing to bet there will be legislation proposed, diminishing the use of guns or ammo within the 1st hundred days of this administration taking office. Make no mistake, it's part of their platform.

UB...Here's a reminder of how the socialists did it.




You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.



One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.



In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.



"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.



"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."



The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.



Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.



A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.


The judge sentences you to life in prison.



This case really happened.



On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.



How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?



It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.



Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.



Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.



The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)



Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.



For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.



During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.



Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."



All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.



When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local


authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens



How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.




Sound familiar?




WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION



"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."<B>



--Samuel Adams--
</B>

Sorry to say, Sam...they are in the majority now. Any other suggestions?

RedHeadedHurricane
11-30-2008, 07:37 PM
I was actually just fixing to post this! I was going to call the thread Fact or Fiction. This is actually how it happens.

Bob Gutermuth
11-30-2008, 07:43 PM
It will still be better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

What part of 'Shall not be infringed" do gun grabbers fail to understand.

YardleyLabs
11-30-2008, 08:00 PM
For what it's worth, Tony Martin was released from jail in 2003 after serving 36 months of a sentence that was reduced to 5 years on appeal. Several factors contributed to his conviction. The specific gun he was using violated English laws restricting shotguns to those that hold two or fewer shell without a special permit. Tony Martin himself had a long history of mental health problems, which would have made him ineligible for gun ownership in the US. Those problems were actually part of the reason for reducing his sentence because of questions about his competency. He had also been arrested a few times. EDIT: One of the factors influencing the jury's decision was that the boy killed by Martin was shot in the back while, in the opinion of the jury, trying to flee the house. For that reason, the shooting failed the "reasonable man" test since it was unlikely that Martin would have felt that his life was being threatened by a fleeing suspect.

While Martin once had a shotgun certificate, it was revoked after several incidents in which he threatened others with his guns, breaking windows and shooting at the vehicle of one man. His house was surrounded by booby traps which had to be cleared for the jury to see the premises safely. Martin was known to sleep in a chair in his living room fully dressed and holding his loaded shotgun in the hope of catching intruders whom he vowed repeatedly that he would kill. When the break in happened he fired several times, striking the wounded teenager with 196 pellets. Following the shooting of the two teenagers, he did not report the incident to the police but left his house. The wounded teenager dragged himself to a nearby farm and was found lying on their porch the following morning. The dead teenager was found later that day by the police and Martin was tracked down to a hotel. The surviving teenager was jailed for about the same amount of time as Martin.

A fundamental difference between our country and almost all others is the 2nd ammendment to the Constitution guaranteeing our rights to arms. I support that ammendment but that does not mean I think other countries are necessarily wrong in their laws. However, if I were looking for a hero for gun rights I do not think I would be choosing Mr. Martin.

gsc
12-01-2008, 10:13 AM
So, by your assertion, the use of this incident to further strip gun owners of their rights was justified?

John Kelder
12-01-2008, 01:16 PM
Truly sad Yardley fails to draw the parallel from across the pond that others plainly see . Nickels and dimes turn to quarters and 1/2 dollars .Register guns /ammo now , so they know where to look later.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ---LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF INFRINGED . THE FOUNDING FATHERS UNDERSTOOD GOVERNMENT GONE BAD .

YardleyLabs
12-01-2008, 01:37 PM
So, by your assertion, the use of this incident to further strip gun owners of their rights was justified?

If you are talking about the Martin incident, the public furor over his conviction has actually led to parliamentary debates on ways to broaden the rights of homeowners to defend themselves without fear of prosecution in cases in burglary. Under American law, Martin would be precluded from gun ownership because of his police and mental health record. How was the incident used to "strip gun owners of their rights"?

Bob Gutermuth
12-01-2008, 01:40 PM
The Brits have had terribly draconian gun laws since before WWII. They have gotten even worse. During the time that Der Fuhrer was planning Operation Sealion(the invasion of Britain) the Brits were actually bumming surplus firearms from ordinary Americans because they didn't have enough weapons for the Home Guard.

YardleyLabs
12-01-2008, 01:51 PM
Truly sad Yardley fails to draw the parallel from across the pond that others plainly see . Nickels and dimes turn to quarters and 1/2 dollars .Register guns /ammo now , so they know where to look later.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ---LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF INFRINGED . THE FOUNDING FATHERS UNDERSTOOD GOVERNMENT GONE BAD .

I'm not sure what parallel to draw. England has never had the commitment to private gun ownership that we have in this country. In fact, there appears to be almost unanimous agreement that the one thing they don't want is to adopt our 2nd amendment approach or anything even vaguely resembling it. Given that, how should anything in the English experience be considered to be a precursor for changes in our laws?

A more interesting question would be what is the appropriate way to handle gun safety questions that inevitably arise in densely populated areas? From the earliest days of our country, cities such as New York and Chicago limited possession of gunpowder because of the danger of fires. Such limitations were considered a matter of public safety and were never challenged or seen as violations of 2nd amendment protections. Most cities today want increased abilities to control weapons because there is no safe way for firearms to be used safely within dense city housing. Is that a problem that should be ignored, seen as an appropriate form of population control in areas that are too crowded, or addressed in reasonable ways that recognize that there are complex interests to be balanced and that your (or my) desire to own a machine gun for personal protection is only one of those interests?

EdA
12-01-2008, 02:38 PM
. THE FOUNDING FATHERS UNDERSTOOD GOVERNMENT GONE BAD .

And they understood muskets and cannons, spears and arrows, but they had no concept of machine guns, assault rifles, land mines, hand grenades, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

Does the 2nd Amendment grant an absolute right????....or a right with certain governmental and/or societal restrictions?

Does "the right to bear arms" have no restriction, of any kind?

When does one's right to self protection become a detriment to society?

Bob Gutermuth
12-01-2008, 03:03 PM
There were assualt rifles at the time the country was founded, they were called muskets, Penna. Rifles, Kentucky Rifles or Brown Bess. The same rifle that put game on the table was used to keep marauding indians, Lobster Backs(RedCoats and hungry bears at bay.

There never has been a Constitutional right to own landmines live hand grenades etc. Machine guns have been severly restricted since the National Firearms act of 36 was passed. It IS legal to own one but there is the little matter of an ATF permit. For the record, no lawfully owned machine gun has ever been used in a crime by the lawful owner. The price of such weapons is far beyond the means of most gun owners, including me!

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 03:44 PM
There were assualt rifles at the time the country was founded, they were called muskets, Penna. Rifles, Kentucky Rifles or Brown Bess. The same rifle that put game on the table was used to keep marauding indians, Lobster Backs(RedCoats and hungry bears at bay.

There never has been a Constitutional right to own landmines live hand grenades etc. Machine guns have been severly restricted since the National Firearms act of 36 was passed. It IS legal to own one but there is the little matter of an ATF permit. For the record, no lawfully owned machine gun has ever been used in a crime by the lawful owner. The price of such weapons is far beyond the means of most gun owners, including me!

The person using the assault rifle of the time had a rate of fire, under optimal conditions, of 3 or 4 rounds per minute. The range of weapon was about 200 yards and the effective range being closer to 60 yards.

A person using, for example, a modern day assault rifle such as an M-16A2 has a rate of fire of 45 rounds per minute in the semi-automatic mode. The maximum range of the weapon is about 1100 yards and the effective range being closer to 600 yards.

The assault rifles of today are not routinely used for any of the purposes you have outlined.

Bit of a difference, wouldn't you agree Bob?

Non-Machine Gun Owning Regards,

Joe S.

John Kelder
12-01-2008, 03:46 PM
And they understood muskets and cannons, spears and arrows, but they had no concept of machine guns, assault rifles, land mines, hand grenades, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

Does the 2nd Amendment grant an absolute right????....or a right with certain governmental and/or societal restrictions?

Does "the right to bear arms" have no restriction, of any kind?

When does one's right to self protection become a detriment to society?

Shall not be infringed means no government or societal restrictions .Or is there another meaning to "infringed" ?
Self protection becomes a detriment to society when it is your part of society(ie.- your family) that needs protection and you or they can't protect themselves because your second amendment rights at some point were infringed .

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 03:50 PM
Shall not be infringed means no government or societal restrictions.Or is there another meaning to "infringed" ?
Self protection becomes a detriment to society when it is your part of society(ie.- your family) that needs protection and you or they can't protect themselves because your second amendment rights at some point were infringed .

So, by your definition, we should all be free to own fully automatic weapons or any other type of weapon we want without restriction. Is that correct?

Regards,

Joe S.

Juli H
12-01-2008, 04:07 PM
are you talking weapons or firearms Joe?

Juli

Juli H
12-01-2008, 04:14 PM
and to add to my little blurb.....


.....please explain/defend this quote as it pertains to your above statement.... :twisted::)


That said, it seems the continuing to seek to deny rights afforded by the CONSTITUTION would be in violation of the CONSTITUTION and is an attempt to destroy that which is the cornerstone of our great nation.


Joe S.

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 04:20 PM
are you talking weapons or firearms Joe?

Juli

Same Same Regards,

Joe S.

John Kelder
12-01-2008, 04:20 PM
So, by your definition, we should all be free to own fully automatic weapons or any other type of weapon we want without restriction. Is that correct?

Regards,

Joe S.

No Joe ,
Not all , but surely , most of us should be allowed to keep and bear arms , including full auto .For the most part , we , as a society are law abiding citizens .What have you or I done to prevent us from owning a full auto M-16 ? Nothing here I know of .
Patriot missles ,LAAW rockets , Bazookas and such Artillery do not fall under the 2nd . Amendment. IMHO .Violent felons , mentally impaired ,domestic violence , minors ,etc.would also be disallowed . IMHO .
is this an infringement ? No ,common sense . Due to the situation of the individual , some rights are forfeited , as upheld by the scotus .

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 04:22 PM
and to add to my little blurb.....


.....please explain/defend this quote as it pertains to your above statement.... :twisted::)

I'm not sure what you want.

Please restate it for me.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

YardleyLabs
12-01-2008, 04:28 PM
Shall not be infringed means no government or societal restrictions .Or is there another meaning to "infringed" ?
Self protection becomes a detriment to society when it is your part of society(ie.- your family) that needs protection and you or they can't protect themselves because your second amendment rights at some point were infringed .

Actually, as favorable as it was from the perspective of gun owners and wannabe owners, the most recent Supreme Court ruling said that it was entirely appropriate for government to impose "reasonable restrictions on firearms as long as those restrictions do not constitute an out right ban on rifles, shotguns or pistols. There will be lots of future litigation to define the meaning of "reasonable," but it is likely that a restriction, for example, on magazine size would be considered to be completely reasonable.

With respect to your rhetorical question concerning the clarity of "the right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed", the lack of clarity concerns two parts of the amendment. First, what is the relationship of the need for a "well regulated militia" and the "right to bear arms" since both of these phrases are part of a single statement. Second, what in the minds of the authors was meant by the word "arms" and how might that term have evolved over time. The Supreme Court spent a lot of time trying to answer both of these questions and achieved very little consensus beyond having five justices agreeing that the DC statute went too far.

Interestingly, a government that restricted all weapons to a single shot might well garner the support of those justices that like to stick to the original meaning since there were no multi-shot weapons available at that time. Or are you one of those radicals that believe that the meaning of the Constitution might be subject to reinterpretation to reflect more modern technologies and developments.;-)

Multi-shot gun owner regards,

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 04:41 PM
No Joe ,
Not all , but surely , most of us should be allowed to keep and bear arms , including full auto .For the most part , we , as a society are law abiding citizens .What have you or I done to prevent us from owning a full auto M-16 ? Nothing here I know of .
Patriot missles ,LAAW rockets , Bazookas and such Artillery do not fall under the 2nd . Amendment. IMHO .Violent felons , mentally impaired ,domestic violence , minors ,etc.would also be disallowed . IMHO .
is this an infringement ? No ,common sense . Due to the situation of the individual , some rights are forfeited , as upheld by the scotus .

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

So then, weu agree that some infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is to the greater benefit of society as a whole and the word "infringed" can and does allow for rules and regulations.

I guess all that needs to be determined is the line of reasoning one is willing to accept on what should and/or should not be limited.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

Juli H
12-01-2008, 04:44 PM
okay......

and to add to my little blurb.....


.....please explain/defend this quote as it pertains to your above statement.... :twisted::)

Juli

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 04:53 PM
okay......


Juli

OK. Thanks for clearing that up in the worst possible way. :-)

Clear As Mud Regards,

Joe S.

Juli H
12-01-2008, 05:05 PM
no - I think you knew what I meant....

you were talking of defending the constitution on the one hand....and on the other hand implying that the right to bear arms is not really a right...

but, I see you have already answered the question in your response to Mr. Kelder

Juli

Steve Amrein
12-01-2008, 05:17 PM
The person using the assault rifle of the time had a rate of fire, under optimal conditions, of 3 or 4 rounds per minute. The range of weapon was about 200 yards and the effective range being closer to 60 yards.

A person using, for example, a modern day assault rifle such as an M-16A2 has a rate of fire of 45 rounds per minute in the semi-automatic mode. The maximum range of the weapon is about 1100 yards and the effective range being closer to 600 yards.

The assault rifles of today are not routinely used for any of the purposes you have outlined.

Bit of a difference, wouldn't you agree Bob?

Non-Machine Gun Owning Regards,

Joe S.

Using your formula above ALL modern day guns can be fired at more that 3 rounds per minute and are much more accurate so does that mean you OK with a complete gun ban?

Not that I am a historical or constitutional buff but didnt the authors of the constitution just wage war against a oppressive government ? Maybe they intended to give the folks protection from government. Even the biggest dung hole of a third world country can put down a uprising of villagers armed with pitch forks

Bob Gutermuth
12-01-2008, 05:21 PM
Joe it really depends on who is doing the defining. The Brown Bess was designed as a military rifle, which seems to be the definition of an assault weapon by many. I own a Mini 14, it is defined as an AR by many of the anti gun crowd. They would like to divide and conquer, by taking away all the ARs and later broadning the definition to include 1100 Remingtons Ruger 10-22 etc until they eventually want my over&under fowling pieces. For my money, so long as the person who owns a firearm uses it for LAWFUL purposes, whether thats hunting, target shooting, competetive shooting, home/self defense and uses it safely, I have no issue with the type of firearm. That also includes lawfully owned full auto weapons.

Hoosier
12-01-2008, 05:22 PM
Yes we should be able to own fully automatic weapons. The tyrant government that we may need to defend ourselves from certainly will have them. I believe the weapons we need to defend ourselves with need to be proportional to the weapons your advisory would have. Be it a gang banger trying to rob you or break into your house, or a representative of a tyrant government. To me that's what the 2nd amendment is for.

EdA
12-01-2008, 05:35 PM
your advisory .
I am assuming that you meant your adversary (opponent)....;-)

If The Army of Northern Virginia could not defeat the might of The United States Government what chance would a few guys with AK 47s have...:confused:

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 05:42 PM
Using your formula above ALL modern day guns can be fired at more that 3 rounds per minute and are much more accurate so does that mean you OK with a complete gun ban?

Clearly I am not OK with a complete gun ban and you would be hard pressed to find me suggest such an outrageous thing anywhere on any post I've ever made. (Although...after missing that deer on Saturday only to have son take it and me then take endless amounts of crap from him over the missed shot, the thought...well...never entered my mind. ;-))


Not that I am a historical or constitutional buff but didnt the authors of the constitution just wage war against a oppressive government?

Yes.


Maybe they intended to give the folks protection from government.

Personally, I think was their exact intent but I'm not a constitutional scholar either...but I do like to read and spent a night or two at a Holiday Inn Express.


Even the biggest dung hole of a third world country can put down a uprising of villagers armed with pitch forks

I agree with you.

I do not believe the Founding Fathers envisioned the advancement of weapons in conjunction with the basic decay of civility. When kids are shot for their jackets or shoes, there is a problem much larger than the availability of firearms in play but we are short-sighted if we do believe that availability of firearms does not, in some way, contribute to the problem.

Regards,

Joe S.

backpasture
12-01-2008, 05:44 PM
I am assuming that you meant your adversary (opponent)....;-)

If The Army of Northern Virginia could not defeat the might of The United States Government what chance would a few guys with AK 47s have...:confused:

Obviously you've never seen this prophetic tale.
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/51Z6A8CED9L.jpg

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 05:49 PM
Yes we should be able to own fully automatic weapons. The tyrant government that we may need to defend ourselves from certainly will have them. I believe the weapons we need to defend ourselves with need to be proportional to the weapons your advisory would have. Be it a gang banger trying to rob you or break into your house, or a representative of a tyrant government. To me that's what the 2nd amendment is for.

Genius. Think that through to a logical conclusion.

It is against the law to have in your personal possession a thermo-nuclear weapon, improvised nuclear device, or radiological dispersal device.

I do not see this as an infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights.

Non-Radioactive Regards,

Joe S.

YardleyLabs
12-01-2008, 06:20 PM
Obviously you've never seen this prophetic tale.
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/51Z6A8CED9L.jpg

I enjoy the movie and think of it every time I contemplate the prospects of a government that routinely runs roughshod over the first ten amendments to our constitution. I fear that when our way of life is mortally threatened that threat will not come from outside but from our own citizens who have given up on the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution 220+ years ago. I support the second amendment but am concerned that those who profess to support it the most also seem more than willing to compromise the other nine amendments that make up our Bill of Rights.

Patrick Johndrow
12-01-2008, 06:27 PM
When does one's right to self protection become a detriment to society?


When society decides the individual has no right...only the State has rights.

Patrick Johndrow
12-01-2008, 06:29 PM
It is against the law to have in your personal possession a thermo-nuclear weapon, improvised nuclear device, or radiological dispersal device.

I do not see this as an infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights.

Non-Radioactive Regards,

Joe S.

Talking guns Joe...that is a ridiculous stretch to make a point

mjh345
12-01-2008, 06:29 PM
I enjoy the movie and think of it every time I contemplate the prospects of a government that routinely runs roughshod over the first ten amendments to our constitution. I fear that when our way of life is mortally threatened that threat will not come from outside but from our own citizens who have given up on the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution 220+ years ago. I support the second amendment but am concerned that those who profess to support it the most also seem more than willing to compromise the other nine amendments that make up our Bill of Rights.

Bingo!!!

Jeff, I've never met you, but I like the way you think;.........better yet I like the fact that you still do THINK; as that seems to be a commodity in short supply lately

Steve Amrein
12-01-2008, 06:42 PM
Clearly I am not OK with a complete gun ban and you would be hard pressed to find me suggest such an outrageous thing anywhere on any post I've ever made. (Although...after missing that deer on Saturday only to have son take it and me then take endless amounts of crap from him over the missed shot, the thought...well...never entered my mind. ;-))



Yes.



Personally, I think was their exact intent but I'm not a constitutional scholar either...but I do like to read and spent a night or two at a Holiday Inn Express.



I agree with you.

I do not believe the Founding Fathers envisioned the advancement of weapons in conjunction with the basic decay of civility. When kids are shot for their jackets or shoes, there is a problem much larger than the availability of firearms in play but we are short-sighted if we do believe that availability of firearms does not, in some way, contribute to the problem.

Regards,

Joe S.

Sorry about not taking the deer

I agree that I do not need a nuke.

I do know 2 close friends that own legal fully automatic weapons and they have managed to keep themselves from going on a spree at the mall.

I do not wish to own a fully auto weapon and at least as of this writing I am not paranoid enough to think I need one yet although I am concerned about trampling someone to death while trying to buy a friggen TV. I also dont see the enjoyment Vs. cost of ownership as to why someone would want one

Over the weekend I was at my Foreman's house and he showed us some video of his vacation to Bosnia. He has not been home in 6 years. He showed that he went on a march that was 70 miles long and took 3 days to pay homage to lost family and friends and the loss of 10 thousand and still finding more bodies from the genocide by serbia.

He also told me of trying to get to the store to buy flour so the could have bread while dodging sniper fire.

I hope this type of horror never reaches my home town but I wont mind having more than pepper spray and a baseball bat if it should. I also dont believe that if it would happen that the defense of this country should be solely the responsibility of the armed forces.

Why cant the criminals that are doing crime with guns get stiffer or at least a portion of the jail time.

BTW this question is not just for you.

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 06:43 PM
Talking guns Joe...that is a ridiculous stretch to make a point

Not so fast there, Patrick.

Here is what was said:


I believe the weapons we need to defend ourselves with need to be proportional to the weapons your advisory would have. Be it a gang banger trying to rob you or break into your house, or a representative of a tyrant government. To me that's what the 2nd amendment is for.

As I said, carry it through to the logical conclusion...

hey...can you drive a tank? My younger brother is qualified in a Cobra but he thinks a lot like you and sometimes I'm not sure which end of the gun guys like ya'll want to use on guys like me.;-)

Be Well Regards,

Joe S.

Patrick Johndrow
12-01-2008, 06:48 PM
My younger brother is qualified in a Cobra but he thinks a lot like you and sometimes I'm not sure which end of the gun guys like ya'll want to use on guys like me.;-)

Be Well Regards,

Joe S.



Your brother must be brilliant…my younger brother is more conservative than I am...he scares me sometimes


As far as then end of the gun…suffice it to say I wouldn’t waste the bullet. ;)

Hoosier
12-01-2008, 07:03 PM
Genius. Think that through to a logical conclusion.

It is against the law to have in your personal possession a thermo-nuclear weapon, improvised nuclear device, or radiological dispersal device.

I do not see this as an infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights.

Non-Radioactive Regards,

Joe S.

Do you honestly believe I think the 2nd amendment gives us the right to have our own personal nukes. Automatic weapons dumb ass, that was the point.

backpasture
12-01-2008, 07:39 PM
Do you honestly believe I think the 2nd amendment gives us the right to have our own personal nukes. Automatic weapons dumb ass, that was the point.


You miss the point, 'dumb ass'. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about Automatic Weapons, OR Nuclear Weapons. It mentions only Arms. What are Arms? Weapons. So, an absolutist reading of the Constitution would be that all arms are permitted. But, you obviously agree that allowing anyone to have any type of 'Arms' is absurd.

So, where do you draw the line? Semi-automatic weapons? Automatic weapons? Bazookas? Military type weapons with folding stocks? The entire debate around the 2nd Amendment revolves around where you draw that line.

So, you may think that it is absurd to think that a person should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, but by the same token, another person may think it is absurd to think that someone should have a fully automatic assault rifle.

The ridiculous part of your argument isn't where you draw the line as to what is 'permissable' under the Constitution and what isn't -- it is your certainty that your idea of where the line should be drawn is the 'correct' one.

Hoosier
12-01-2008, 09:08 PM
Oh no, the ol restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, while expanding the rights of foreign terrorist crowd don't seem to like me. how am I ever gonna sleep tonight? Night night ladies

Pete
12-01-2008, 10:13 PM
If my memory serves me right,,,,, I think the right to bear arms,,, was to enable common citizens to protect them selves from a tyrrenious( I made that word up) government,,,which if you were to follow that through logically you would come to the conclusion that we should be as well armed as our government.

Pete

Uncle Bill
12-02-2008, 03:25 PM
Actually, as favorable as it was from the perspective of gun owners and wannabe owners, the most recent Supreme Court ruling said that it was entirely appropriate for government to impose "reasonable restrictions on firearms as long as those restrictions do not constitute an out right ban on rifles, shotguns or pistols. There will be lots of future litigation to define the meaning of "reasonable," but it is likely that a restriction, for example, on magazine size would be considered to be completely reasonable.

With respect to your rhetorical question concerning the clarity of "the right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed", the lack of clarity concerns two parts of the amendment. First, what is the relationship of the need for a "well regulated militia" and the "right to bear arms" since both of these phrases are part of a single statement. Second, what in the minds of the authors was meant by the word "arms" and how might that term have evolved over time. The Supreme Court spent a lot of time trying to answer both of these questions and achieved very little consensus beyond having five justices agreeing that the DC statute went too far.

Interestingly, a government that restricted all weapons to a single shot might well garner the support of those justices that like to stick to the original meaning since there were no multi-shot weapons available at that time. Or are you one of those radicals that believe that the meaning of the Constitution might be subject to reinterpretation to reflect more modern technologies and developments.;-)

Multi-shot gun owner regards,

Excuse me, but your attempt at baffling us with all your bullcrap is just amazing.

By your analysis, we can then expect this group that most consider to be somewhat erudite, will also ignore the developement of radio and TV, and revert back to print media only when considering anything to do with the first amendment. Heaven forbid bringing in the internet discovery.

While the founding fathers didn't have Nastradamus advising them, so they had total view into the 21st century, they did understand how to write a constitution proclaiming where the rights belonged in this new democracy.

Despite your attempts to divert the primary point of the England story, the concern I have is that the sheeple of this nation will follow along with the gun control crowd, and by the time they have realized their 2nd amendment rights HAVE been infringed upon, it will be too late. Far too many people in this nation are willing to have their freedoms legislated away, and like elections, they don't have to know a damned thing to drag everyone along with them into the gutter of socialism.

So you can play up how mentally insecure the dude in England was, but it doesn't dismiss the part about a couple of thugs wielding a crowbar broke into a home they had ZERO rights to be in. Trust me, should that happen in my home, neither of those two would have gotten away to become a witness against me.

You and others of the Gored Ox Syndrome, can believe you can continue to vote in socialists that want to take your guns away, but because you own guns, and of course you're one of the good guys, they won't come to your door. It's like the myth you believe that they won't raise taxes to a point it will even start getting into your pocket. Dream on. I envy your ability to buy into nirvana as you see it.

UB

Legacy 6
12-03-2008, 10:35 AM
EdA, Next time I run into a guy with a Chemical or Nuclear weapon on the streets, I'll let you know. Don't pretend like you understand those things either.

The POINT of the Second is to grant the rights of citizens to protect and rebel against the government should the Government become to powerful and no longer represents the people (like England). Put yourself into the shoes of our Founding Fathers and try to understand WHY they did it, and you'll begin to understand HOW to apply it to your life.

It's illegal to kill another person. Sometimes there are mitigating circumstances; we are allowed to choose our own life over another. Those of us who have a Carry Permit, are law abiding citizens. 99.9969% of gun owners are responsible gun owners. So we should not allow people to bring their weapons out in public because an IRRESPONSIBLE, and NON-LAW ABIDING civilian chooses to ignore gun acquisition and safety laws?

So let me draw out a paralell. It's not perfect but the applicable concept is there:

Becuase SOME other guys are NOT responsible, and hit and abuse and rape women, we should make laws so not only can I not bring my girlfriend out into the public, but I have to keep her locked up and safe at home, or I'm not allowed to have one, even though I am a responsible Citizen?

How about an easier one: Baseball bats. I own a few, and I would probably only use it for it's intended purpose, to play baseball... but there are those who would carry it around and beat peopel up with it, and maybe even kill them...

So the solution to this is to make laws so I can't own a baseball bat because some civilian a$$hole abuses his baseball bat??

If I'm carrying a pistol, and over a 30 year period, I never have had to pull it out, am I a detriment to society? Who is more a detriment to Society, the guy who breaks the law, kills and rapes and murders, steals and does damage to others' property... or the guy who goes down to a gun shop, takes a gun safety class, takes a Carry Permit course, buys a gun, has to get a background check to get the gun, takes it home, and goes hunting with it, or if it's the right kind of gun, carries it around with him...???

See what I'm saying?

Hoosier
12-03-2008, 10:42 AM
EdA, Next time I run into a guy with a Chemical or Nuclear weapon on the streets, I'll let you know. Don't pretend like you understand those things either.

The POINT of the Second is to grant the rights of citizens to protect and rebel against the government should the Government become to powerful and no longer represents the people (like England). Put yourself into the shoes of our Founding Fathers and try to understand WHY they did it, and you'll begin to understand HOW to apply it to your life.

It's illegal to kill another person. Sometimes there are mitigating circumstances; we are allowed to choose our own life over another. Those of us who have a Carry Permit, are law abiding citizens. 99.9969% of gun owners are responsible gun owners. So we should not allow people to bring their weapons out in public because an IRRESPONSIBLE, and NON-LAW ABIDING civilian chooses to ignore gun acquisition and safety laws?

So let me draw out a paralell. It's not perfect but the applicable concept is there:

Becuase SOME other guys are NOT responsible, and hit and abuse and rape women, we should make laws so not only can I not bring my girlfriend out into the public, but I have to keep her locked up and safe at home, or I'm not allowed to have one, even though I am a responsible Citizen?

How about an easier one: Baseball bats. I own a few, and I would probably only use it for it's intended purpose, to play baseball... but there are those who would carry it around and beat peopel up with it, and maybe even kill them...

So the solution to this is to make laws so I can't own a baseball bat because some civilian a$$hole abuses his baseball bat??

If I'm carrying a pistol, and over a 30 year period, I never have had to pull it out, am I a detriment to society? Who is more a detriment to Society, the guy who breaks the law, kills and rapes and murders, steals and does damage to others' property... or the guy who goes down to a gun shop, takes a gun safety class, takes a Carry Permit course, buys a gun, has to get a background check to get the gun, takes it home, and goes hunting with it, or if it's the right kind of gun, carries it around with him...???

See what I'm saying?

To a few people on this board. Every thing you said will be lost on the fact that you forgot to run spell check. (backpasture, Joe )

EdA
12-03-2008, 11:10 AM
.The POINT of the Second is to grant the rights of citizens to protect and rebel against the government should the Government become to powerful and no longer represents the people (like England). Put yourself into the shoes of our Founding Fathers and try to understand WHY they did it, and you'll begin to understand HOW to apply it to your life.


See what I'm saying?

How insightful of you to help me understand exactly what the framers of the Constitution were thinking when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

I enjoy posting thought provoking questions which will stimulate some interesting discussion about various topics without ever revealing my own stance. It interests me that some who visit here become so emotional about certain topics that they are unable to address the issue but rather launch into a diatribe which is not really on topic nor does it contribute to the discussion.

No one has suggested that it is not everyone's right to own weapons for personal protection and sporting use, I own both. While I do not possess a conceal to carry permit, in my state of residence, it is legal to carry a handgun from your premises to your vehicle and keep it there if it is out of sight without having a conceal to carry permit. When the time comes that I feel that my personal safety is at risk I will be in line for a conceal to carry permit.

The discussion is not about rape, baseball, or responsible gun ownership but about what type of weapons private citizens can and should be allowed to own.

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

Hew
12-03-2008, 12:49 PM
It amuses me that the folks who get their panties knotted about the absolute nature of the 2nd Ammnendment (the "if we can't own nukes we shouldn't have automatic weapons either" crowd) are often the same folks who seem more-than-willing to let arsehats like Iran, North Korea and Libya aquire nukes lest we offend anyone or act like an "international bully" to prevent it. I'd much rather have Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Jimmy Buffet have some nukes parked in their backyard than India, Pakistan and North Korea.

backpasture
12-03-2008, 01:05 PM
It amuses me that the folks who get their panties knotted about the absolute nature of the 2nd Ammnendment (the "if we can't own nukes we shouldn't have automatic weapons either" crowd) are often the same folks who seem more-than-willing to let arsehats like Iran, North Korea and Libya aquire nukes lest we offend anyone or act like an "international bully" to prevent it.

You're referring to this guy, correct?
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/strawman.jpg

Joe S.
12-03-2008, 03:34 PM
It amuses me that the folks who get their panties knotted about the absolute nature of the 2nd Ammnendment (the "if we can't own nukes we shouldn't have automatic weapons either" crowd) are often the same folks who seem more-than-willing to let arsehats like Iran, North Korea and Libya aquire nukes lest we offend anyone or act like an "international bully" to prevent it. I'd much rather have Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Jimmy Buffet have some nukes parked in their backyard than India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Hew,

How you doing?

I'll ask you the same question I've asked before to others:

How do you legally stop a nation-state from aquiring nuclear weapons?

Too late about India, Pakistan and North Korea but I'd be interested in hearing your plans for Iran and Venezuela.

Just Askin' Regards,

Joe S.

Hew
12-03-2008, 04:33 PM
You're referring to this guy, correct?
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/strawman.jpg
Hint: less pictures, more dictionary. Start with the meaning of "strawman argument." ;-)

Hew
12-03-2008, 04:41 PM
How do you legally stop a nation-state from aquiring nuclear weapons?
Thanks for helping to prove the original point. You and others appear to be more concerned that we don't trample the "rights" of Iran to own a nuke than trampling the rights of a US citizen to own a full auto AR15.

backpasture
12-03-2008, 04:42 PM
Hint: less pictures, more dictionary. Start with the meaning of "strawman argument." ;-)

I knew I didn't need to spell it out for you, Hew. ;)

/A picture is worth a thousand words, regards.

Joe S.
12-03-2008, 07:43 PM
Thanks for helping to prove the original point. You and others appear to be more concerned that we don't trample the "rights" of Iran to own a nuke than trampling the rights of a US citizen to own a full auto AR15.

Easy there, Hondo...the two are pretty much different animals.

And we have agreed that full-auto weapons have been rightly and well regulated for the common good of the citizens of the United States since 1936 or so...

How do you legally prevent another nation-state from getting nuclear weapons?

It's OK if you say "If honest diplomatic efforts fail, short of war, I don't know how." Saying something like that would place you in the majority. Just understand that in the coming years MANY are going to be gaining access to dual use technology and it will become more and more difficult to take on the entire world.

A Memeber Of The Majority Regards,

Joe S.

Patrick Johndrow
12-03-2008, 07:53 PM
How do you legally prevent another nation-state from getting nuclear weapons?

A Memeber Of The Majority Regards,

Joe S.

Trade embargos, naval blockades, Special Forces, overthrow gooberments…there are a multitude of ways to legally keep nations from obtaining nukes. It is done everyday mostly out of the new.Oh…and add a third way…let oil go from $150 a barrel to $49 a barrel apparently Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is whining about Iran’s economy waning…old crazy eyes is up for reelection next June…it will be a race to see if he gets murdered by his people before he loses an election.

Joe,
you said LEGALLY…you said nothing about MORALLY...don't confuse one has NOTHING to do with the other.

Joe S.
12-03-2008, 08:06 PM
Trade embargos, naval blockades, Special Forces, overthrow gooberments…there are a multitude of ways to legally keep nations from obtaining nukes. It is done everyday mostly out of the new.Oh…and add a third way…let oil go from $150 a barrel to $49 a barrel apparently Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is whining about Iran’s economy waning…old crazy eyes is up for reelection next June…it will be a race to see if he gets murdered by his people before he loses an election.

Joe,
you said LEGALLY…you said nothing about MORALLY...don't confuse one has NOTHING to do with the other.

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick...(kinda' like Judy-Judy-Judy only different...)

According to the laws of the United States, it is illegal to foster the overthrow of a foreign government...;-)

Just Sayin' Regards,

Joe S.

Patrick Johndrow
12-03-2008, 08:29 PM
Patrick, Patrick, Patrick...(kinda' like Judy-Judy-Judy only different...)

According to the laws of the United States, it is illegal to foster the overthrow of a foreign government...;-)

Just Sayin' Regards,

Joe S.


But the United States laws do not apply to citizens of other countries

Hew
12-03-2008, 10:19 PM
Easy there, Hondo...
:D


And we have agreed that full-auto weapons have been rightly and well regulated for the common good of the citizens of the United States since 1936 or so...
We did? I don't recall that meeting of the minds.


According to the laws of the United States, it is illegal to foster the overthrow of a foreign government...
Got Link? Good luck with that. ;-)

If you recall, the term "regime change" was coined by Bill Clinton and was reflected in the Iraq Liberation Act he signed into law in '98. The purpose of the Iraq Liberation Act, you might ask? To foster the overthrow of a foreign government.

Juli H
12-03-2008, 10:22 PM
:D

Got Link? Good luck with that. ;-)

If you recall, the term "regime change" was coined by Bill Clinton and was reflected in the Iraq Liberation Act he signed into law in '98. The purpose of the Iraq Liberation Act, you might ask? To foster the overthrow of a foreign government.

I was hoping someone would answer that question for me....
because it sure seems like we are in Iraq to help overthrow a foreign gov't...even tho we have been told our being there is for other reasons...

Juli

M Remington
12-03-2008, 10:25 PM
Juli, you hit the nail on the head. We are "nation building" in Iraq.

Terry Britton
12-04-2008, 12:07 PM
If you are talking about the Martin incident, the public furor over his conviction has actually led to parliamentary debates on ways to broaden the rights of homeowners to defend themselves without fear of prosecution in cases in burglary. Under American law, Martin would be precluded from gun ownership because of his police and mental health record. How was the incident used to "strip gun owners of their rights"?

He wouldn't have been precluded from gun ownership, just purchasing from a dealer. Anyone else could have purchased it, and gave it to him, legally.

Terry Britton
12-04-2008, 12:09 PM
If you are talking about the Martin incident, the public furor over his conviction has actually led to parliamentary debates on ways to broaden the rights of homeowners to defend themselves without fear of prosecution in cases in burglary. Under American law, Martin would be precluded from gun ownership because of his police and mental health record. How was the incident used to "strip gun owners of their rights"?

He wouldn't have been precluded from gun ownership, just purchasing from a dealer. Anyone else could have purchased it, and gave it to him, legally.

YardleyLabs
12-04-2008, 12:50 PM
He wouldn't have been precluded from gun ownership, just purchasing from a dealer. Anyone else could have purchased it, and gave it to him, legally.

Suggesting a loophole in our laws. I'm not positive, but I believe that the PA law prohibits persons excluded from purchasing guns from acquiring new guns from whatever source. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we have allowed loopholes that allow some transfers to happen without verifying whether or not the purchaser is legally qualified to acquire guns. I see no reason for such a loophole; it makes a mockery of our other restrictions.

Joe S.
12-04-2008, 08:39 PM
:D

;-)


We did? I don't recall that meeting of the minds.

It was easy to miss: small minds, short meeting. ;-)


Got Link? Good luck with that. ;-)

While I continue to search for the link...:(...riddle me this, Batman: If it isn't illegal, why do we need a Presidential Finding or an Authorization to do it?


If you recall, the term "regime change" was coined by Bill Clinton and was reflected in the Iraq Liberation Act he signed into law in '98. The purpose of the Iraq Liberation Act, you might ask? To foster the overthrow of a foreign government.

Now, I don't recall the term "regime change" being coined by President Clinton but Bill or Marv might remember when the term was first actually used. This for your edification and enlightenment:

"Regime change" is literally the replacement of one regime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime) with another. While it is widely believed that the term was first coined by former US President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_change#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_change#cite_note-1) use of the term dates to at least 1925.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_change#cite_note-2)

Just trying to be helpful...it's my nature, you know.;-)

Helpful Regards,

Helpy Helperson

Hew
12-05-2008, 06:37 AM
While I continue to search for the link...:(...riddle me this, Batman: If it isn't illegal, why do we need a Presidential Finding or an Authorization to do it?
I don't know for a fact that a Presidential Finding/Authorization is required, but it makes sense. Would you like unelected flunkies in the CIA, NSA, State Dept., etc. making the decision on their own to destabilize or overthrow a foreign govt.? Moreover, the premise of your above question is that a Presidential Finding/Authorization gives the president carte blanche to break the law. It doesn't.