Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

Buddy, after having read through this thread, your point IS stupid, and he tore you apart. In fact, he genearlly ripped everyone of the libs, including the Mods, apart in every thread, and left the pieces littering the floor. Which is probably why he got banned.

Well, every year we do have a day to remind the victims of the war. Not only the army of allies but also the innocent people who have died. I think that's a good reminder of trying to respect each other in their opinions and not shoot a bullet through his head.
I know that the violence in the world always was there from the beginning, but we all didn't learn from that too.
So what's the difference, we all know what's best, right?

What's best is NOT BEING A VICTIM. If you don't have a weapon, and know how to use it, you're just ASKING to be a victim.

Just remember the old axiom, "when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away".

That is impossible. Criminals are not allowed to have guns in Holland. Do you mean that criminals actually ignore the law?
It would seem that you do not understand the problem.

I didn't say the criminals were allowed to buy/use them. I only said that they use them!

We don't have to agree on guns, that's not my point. I only want to live in a better world than just smash each others heads in.
Besides that, i just answered the question at the first page.

Some of us are civilized and many are no better than animals. Some humans are outright predators. The police cannot keep them from hurting you, they just come to make out a crime report after you are raped, stabbed, murdered, and sodomized. Your "better world" does not exist. The real world is place were you must be ready to defend yourself.

Where I live a certain LARGE portion of the population seems to have a tendency to stab people at birthday parties, because they can't afford guns. Should steak knives be outlawed too, or should the pathetic mentality of "macho" be outlawed?

First let's just be glad they have steak knives and not bazookas. (humor)

But in America there is a reasonable line that can be drawn. And that line in my opinion is that legal law abiding citizen that can pass a background check and are not mentally deficient should be able to purchase handguns and sporting weapons.

That doesn't mean they have to be allowed to carry them everywhere and anywhere. And it doesn't mean every weapon produced has to be available for public sale.

That's my opinion as a gun owner myself.

That's a very slippery slope there that you're calling "a reasonable line". It's only "reasonable" because YOU think so, but for some of us it is totally UN-reasonable. If the right to "keep and bear arms" is in fact a Right, then no permits or "background checks" are allowed. Do you need a background check to exercise your freedom of speech? What about your freedom of religion? Freedom of the press?

Why shouldn't everyone be allowed to carry their weapons anywhere and everywhere, and why shouldn't any and every weapon be available for public sale? How many mass murderers have been able to commit there crimes lately because of the laws that prohibit people from being allowed to carry their weapons with them for their own personal defense? When lawmakers tell We The People that we aren't allowed to defend ourselves in certain places, those are the places that murderers go to commit their crimes. Those "No Firearms Allowed" signs that you see posted all over the place are nothing but an invitation for criminals, because they know that nobody is going to be able to stop them. In fact, since they passed those laws, holdups in our area have more than tripled in places that have those signs.

Well that a lot of BS to try and address at one time but I'll try.

A) "A well regulated militia" would mean not criminals and crazy people. So the stipulation already exists.

B) Because a machine gun or bazooka or an Abrams tank is too extreme a modern man killing machine for regular civilian use.

C) Those would be PRIVATE BUSINESSES AND THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY they of course would have total say so over who can bring weapons onto their property. Now you're against private ownership & control of one's own property?

And just as a sidebar: This is not a new American thing. In the old west it was quite common for some whole towns to have bans on anyone carrying a gun in that town. Firearms were either not brought in or left with the local Sheriff or Marshal.

This helped eliminate a lot of drunken shootings in saloons and over card games as well as duels in the public street.

What is your deal topgun. The supreme court said that the 2nd amendment means that all of us have the right to keep and bear arms. Your stance on the abortion issue is that because the court said it, it must be true and no defense of the decision is necessary. Are you now hypocritically saying that one does need to defend the decisions of the court? Of course it is being defneded rather well by everyone here. How is it that you can't even begin to mount a defense of roe considering the fact that now, the court's decision isn't enough?

And people who are precluded from serving in "a well regulated militia" has exactly what to do with the discussion? In case you missed it, in the recent Heller case, the Supreme Court ruled that "the Right to keep and bear arms" is an individual right, completely separate from the militia. This decision simply reiterated the earlier decision in the 1886 case of Presser v Illinois in which the court ruled

And exactly who do you think the "well regulated militia" is? It is every able bodied American citizen, therefore it is perfectly within the "normal military issue" (see US v Miller 1939) of the militia to have those weapons, provided they themselves can afford to purchase and maintain them.

I have no problem with a business CHOOSING to decide for themselves if they want weapons in their establishment, but what I DO take issue with is the government blatantly violating the Constitution by denying citizens the right to carry their legally owned firearms into Banks, Schools, Courthouses, and other PUBLIC buildings. I suppose the whole concept was a bit much for me to expect you to pick up on right away.

Actually, you're talking about what happened in the Territories, and it was unconstitutional then too, which is why those laws were overturned as soon as those areas stopped being Territories and became States!

No it didn't, it only created more victims because of those who refused to follow the law.

Oh, and BTW, what's wrong with duels?

Question: What kind of a looney tune comes on a gun thread to argue his anti-woman, anti-choice stance? OK I guess we know that already?

buuuut if you seriously want to talk guns I'd say this. I agree with the High Court that there is a constitutional right to bear arms.

However the actual interpretation of that right to own vs carrying anywhere vs restrictions on criminal & mentally deficient people vs things like the reasonably enacted and upheld by the High Court restrictions on things like fully automatic weapons and silencers etc. is interpretive due to inclusion of wording such as "a well regulated militia". Even if one believes that at the time the founders thought of EVERYBODY as "the militia" which in itself is debateable... there's still that well regulated part.

So I don't see myself in disagreement with the High Court on this issue or it's precedents.

You do have that right, its just not being recognized by the courts. The moment you use that tank or 50mm to violate the rights of others, then you have a problem.

So long as its within your rights (self defense) to do so and it doesn't violate the rights (including destruction of property) of those who are not violating your rights.

And the ONLY restriction is one based on the judgement of a court of law, on a case by case basis, against a specific individual for violating the law of the land and being imprisoned, or against a specific individual being adjudicated to be mentally unfit to possess a weapon. Any other restrictions, including "background checks" are totally unconstitutional on it's face.

It is quite well regulated, in Title 10 and Title 32 of the US Code.

There's no "whining" to it tg, that's YOUR game. As a Deputy Sheriff, I'm authorized to carry my weapon into ANY business or public building, whether in the open or concealed, provided that I am not, and have not been consuming alcohol.

I was simply pointing out that certain private business's are prohibited by law from allowing their patrons to carry their legally owned firearms into them, regardless of the owners desires. In most States, it is illegal to carry a firearm into any business that serves alcohol, even if the primary business is serving food, and even if the patron is not going to be consuming alcohol.

For instance, a local Italian restaurant was fined heavily and had their alcohol license suspended because they "failed to take sufficient steps to prevent customers from carrying firearms in the restuarant". The incident in question happened during their luncheon time when some Brinks security guards stopped in for lunch between runs, and even though the restaurant doesn't serve alcohol during lunch, because they serve alcohol in the evening (after 6pm) they were still fined. It is currently on appeal.

Oh really??? Don't you remember the recent case in Atlanta where a prisoner overpowered the Baliff and got away? Why shouldn't ordinary citizens (obviously not prisoners) be permitted to carry their legally owned firearms in a courtroom? What are you afraid of? Every courtroom I've ever been in has AT LEAST 3 armed Baliffs, so what's your point?

In 20 years as a Deputy I've NEVER seen such an incident. I have heard of it happening, and that's what the Baliffs are there for.

As for the rest of your drivel, unless or until YOU put on a uniform and do the job that I've been doing for 20 years, you're an idiot who doesn't have the first clue what he's blathering on about.

I don't know PLC1, why can't you load the cannon? Other than the fact that it's really not a good idea to do so until you're actually ready to fire it, there's no reason you can't.

BTW, what is a "50mm"? I know what a .50 cal is, and I know what a 40mm, a 60mm, and I even know what a four-deuce is, but I've never heard of a 50mm. Is it one of the newer weapons systems?