Welcome to Terry Love Plumbing & Remodel DIY & Professional Forum. More »
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Computers and Stuff' started by jimbo, Apr 16, 2009.
Oh I dunno Lee...
Maybe you can figure it out...
I have heard about municipalities where everyone is actually *required* to have at least one gun in the house, and that seemed to lead to fewer shots ever being fired either inside or out. Personally, I can understand why people enjoy the fantasy of gun-free bliss, but that is just not reality.
Actually, everybody is already on one list or another, and threads like this now rate little more than yet another checkmark beside the names of people reporting ownerships of great numbers of guns. It is interesting, however, to note the number of people made nervous by these kinds of threads, excluding yourself, of course -- people living in fear of their own "we the people", yet for some reason still believing we would all be better off without guns!
Education and empowerment are keys here: Give everybody a gun and show them how to be comfortable with it and we might soon have no need for daily use of guns!
They do have different classes of guns...antiquity, rifles, handguns, machine guns (class 3), incindary devices, Etc..
Remember the slogan, Make love not war? Someone should bring that back. Who said that?
With the classifications for guns then antiques ones would never be destroyed.
Unfortunately you are wrong...your statement is incorrect...A person does have the right to yell fire in a theater especially if there is a fire!!!...and if there isn't a fire you still can but you may suffer the consequences of doing something foolish if it causes a panic...Punishment is something someone gets when they break a law...law abiding people should not be punished nor should rights be taken from them if they don't break any laws...
Should the right of Freedom of Speech be taken from all people because a few abuse it with racial hatred speach or cause a panic by yelling fire in a theater...of course not...but that line of thinking is the same logic the anti gun lobby uses
Sounds like something that still involves playing with a loaded gun to me...
In Austrailia when they made guns illegal the age or historical significance of the gun had no bearing. They all were destroyed except the ones owned by criminals who disobeyed the law... Go Figure!
Never felt one day like that with my husband I had known more than 1/2 of my life. You got to trust and you got to love if not, what is the sense to life.
People got to realize answers to problems are never easy but you got to start somewhere. We have too many guns in this country, it sadly, reminds me of the O.k Corral.
Apparently you misunderstood the double meaning I intended...
We have too many people that belong in prisons and mental institutions who are out on the streets with guns....
Here in Connecticut there was an incident where a person was sniping people in the parking lot of a nearby newspaper publisher from his home... Fortunately no one was killed. The individual served a few years and then was released from prison with "home confinement" wearing an ankle bracelet...
Figure the logic in that sentence...
I'm game for a little bit of criminal control myself!
I understood your double meaning, but that didn't apply to me. So, I answered it the way it does to me. See, people have their own opinions.
I hardly think Red one of the possible answers would be to bring on even more guns. Wow. Just how many arms do you have?
Ummmm none but I could probably use a bunch of ammunition...
.45 cal. colt pistol rounds... 22 long rifle... 300 H&H Magnum, some black powder and percussion caps would be good too... I have lead and a mold....
Seems like I always come in at the end of these good threads. This has been a great discussion. I just figured if all you guys and gals are going to get on a list, I might just as well get on it with y'all.
I have probably close to a dozen assorted guns. A crossbow and a bunch of knives. I have a fair amount of ammo, but if the time ever comes, I'm going over to my Cousin Jim's. He has enough ammo to start his own war and the guns to go with it. He is ate up with collecting guns.
We have our own little gun range in the back 40 (Oh ok, back 4) and lots of people come over to use it. Even the guys don't like to go out there when my wife is shooting. She makes us all look bad.
Even though I don't think we should have to, both of us carry concealed permits and the wife packs all the time. I just try to stay close to one as it's hard to conceal one with casual dress.
Shoot, gotta go to work again,
I'm thinking I want to buy a flintlock....
I can always get flint, make my own black powder, and cast my own balls...
No matter what laws they pass...
Never underestimate the power of one person!
Definitely do not underestimate the power of patriots with a cause.
Technically speaking, the 2nd amendment doesn't specify firearms... only "arms". Obviously, there's the whole argument as to whether "we the people" means the citizens individually, or collectively as a nation. But, if we interpret the 2nd amendment as granting individuals the right to own firearms, then we must also grant the right to those same individuals to own nuclear, chemical and bio-weapons.
And why not? Nuclear bombs don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people! Ooh, and if we outlaw anthrax, then only criminals will have anthrax!
Obviously, I don't seriously support this idea. My point, however, is that (hopefully) most of us can agree that not ALL restrictions and/or laws are a bad thing. Guns are not inherently bad. Gun laws are not inherently bad; banning certain types of weapons, requiring background checks, maybe even *gasp* registration & education is NOT going to lead to people taking away our guns.
And it pains me to see the conversation take that "slippery slope/end of freedom" turn everytime we, as a nation, examine & discuss our gun laws.
I know there are extremists on one side who would like to see all guns go away; there are also extremists on the other side who would LOVE to keep nuclear (and nook-ya-ler) weapons stashed in their van down by the river.
I just think that the majority of us are more rational, and we can meet somewhere in the middle.
Let's have that discussion.
I'll start by saying the constitution is not a dynamic living document. It is not open to interpretation unless the discussion is based in the late 1700s.
It says what was intended in very specific language for the most part, and if not, there is a provision for amendments to it with an exact and specific means for them to be made to it.
I fully support the 2nd amendment saying we the people have the right to keep and bear arms. I suggest the federal government should not have any more powerful arms than the residents of the country have unless it is voted on and passed by majority to be able to amend the constitution.
I also fully believe that was meant to provide a means of rebellion by the people against an overpowering federal government; as we have today.
I believe most if not all the gun control laws of today are unconstitutional and that the current federal government is doing their damnedest to do something to curtail that right.
I see ammo registration with serial numbers required on the box and all rounds and casings, in duplicate, being legislated now and tougher gun registration and more types of guns being banned and very wide sweeping all encompassing definition language being used to define the allowable arms. And if you read it, there will be none allowed.
I am seriously thinking of buying some guns and ammo because of that. Proving that for every action there is usually an opposite reaction. I ahd owned guns from the time I was 14 years old until 2.5 years ago (at age 64) when I sold them because we sold everything and moved into a motor home full time to be able to travel the country and there is no way to get gun legal everywhere.
I offer these quotes from the time the constitution was written.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep & bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.
So generally speaking, what other than our current political correctness and touchy feely fearful of everything, no self discipline or common sense society do you have to support more gun control, or that that is already on the books?
For more currently timely and appropriate Jefferson quotes;
I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from. Regarding my earlier comments about private citizens having the Constitutional right to own and bear chemical, nuclear and bio-weapons... do you agree with this or not?
And, are you saying that our current federal government is "overpowering" and should be rebelled against? I'm not sure I'm clear on that point.
I'm sorry, I don't think I'm following you... what is the bill you're talking about?
Oops - good point - I left out the most important word of that paraphrase - you're not allowed to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
I agree that this does NOT mean the government can pre-emptively muzzle every theater-goer.
My point was simply, that your right to freedom of speech has practical limits. Never mind the crowded theater example - think about libel, defamation, false advertising, copyright infrigement...
Rights don't exist in a vaccuum - they're always balanced against someone else's rights.
Beyond that, like I said: it gets pretty partisan, pretty fast.
Me, personally? I've lived under ridiculously restrictive gun laws (Canada, NYC). I've also lived under some of the most lax gun laws in the country (Vermont). I think gun-control advocates are completely missing the boat.
Is this a discussion or an interrogation"
I said: "I suggest the federal government should not have any more powerful arms than the residents of the country have unless it is voted on and passed by majority to be able to amend the constitution.". I think that is quite clear.
I don't keep a lot of the things that I receive in email, and I've looked and can't find what I was referring to but. It was a copy of the language in a bill that was being introduced or being sent to committee. A paraphrase is that a gun would banned if the US military has used it or IIRC, would use it and there were all types of other hurdles to clear to keep a specific gun from being banned, which was simply impossible due to the wording.
Other legislation, that has been introduced or in committee requires a $.05 tax per bullet and every bullet to be serialized along with the box and each casing, in two spots and all purchases were to be prior approved and recorded in a national database. It also calls for surrendering all present ammo by such'n such date under penalty of law and IIRC a $1000 fine if not complied with. That included reloading supplies and IIRC, the equipment. I just received that this morning and deleted, again.
The only argument about this is with people who don't understand that "Rights" are only given to "The People" While powers are given to Government...
I'm not sure of your position on this...
Well, not to muddy this up any further, but what I was referring to in the statement you quoted was the idea that the 2nd amendment grants the right to nuclear weapons and such to the Military, but only grants the right to firearms to individual Citizens. If we approach the question with a "strict Constitutionalist" mindset, then this notion would be false.