Since all the PC folks are on this 'place'...

[Joe S.]

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]

Obviously you've never seen this prophetic tale.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.