Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[Mr. Carpenter]

The discussion didn't have to do with bird shot, cap guns, squirt guns, or Star Trek Laser shooters.

And you said my point was stupid.

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.

 

[Micky]

Then I would suggest that you read our Second Amendment. EVERYONE has the Right to "keep and bear arms" here.

That's just the problem. EVERYONE can buy a gun and shoot your ass if they don't like what you say. I don't think that your second amendment is safe enough for those who have bad intentions. You know you're own history right? (drive-by shootings, shootings at college, washington sniper)


Which is exactly why the Nazi's were able to over-run your country so easily back in '40. Why do you think that NOBODY has made a serious attempt to invade the US since 1812? Because they KNOW that if they do, damned near everyone they see is going to have a gun in their hands, and it's going to be pointed at THEM!

Well, since you know a lot of history, you would have known that Hitler had a lot more people in his country (and other countries) who followed him. Even in Holland there were people who supported Hitler and helped him. So there weren't enough people who could face the army of Hitler.
Besides that, Hitler's mission was to conquer the world in the end.


Well, it's kind of hard to "make love" when somebody comes in, kills you, and RAPES your women, you know, like the Germans did. One would think that you people would have learned from your own history, but it would appear that you need to be reminded.

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?

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

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".

 

[dahermit]

I am from Holland and only the police, army and some criminals use them.

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.

 

[Micky]

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.

 

[dahermit]

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.

 

[bododie]

EVERYONE can buy a gun and shoot your ass if they don't like what you say. I don't think that your second amendment is safe enough for those who have bad intentions.

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?

 

[top gun]

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.

 

[Bob the Builder]

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.

 

[top gun]

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.

 

[palerider]

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?

 

[Bob the Builder]

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.

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

“the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.”

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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

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?

 

[top gun]

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?

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.

 

[top gun]

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

I'm simply saying there can be gun restrictions. Even if EVERYBODY is considered part of the militia it is lunacy to say that our founding fathers wanted murders and mental patients armed. That was never their intent. And the whole regulated thing fits right in line with both today's gun training and background checks.

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've already addressed this more than once now. Even if EVERYBODY is the malitia it is to be "well regulated".

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.

No I picked up on it right away. You were whining because private businesses were stopping you from coming onto their property or into their places of business, packing.

And I'll just single out one thing here because it is so glaringly idiotic... I have to say that anyone who would promote that guns be allowed in courtrooms is soooo mentally deficient that that statement standing alone should get their guns taken away!

Have you not even a television set. Have you not seen case, after case after case, after case where some jilted lover or the family of a injured or killed person rushes the defendants and breaks into a major fight with the entire courtroom?

And you're wanting... actually WANTING... this to become a gun fight and courtroom assassination of not only the defendant but the courts officers, court employees, the judge, the witnesses, the jury, the spectators anybody that might catch a random bullets in a courtroom mêlée.

My daughter dated a young man who's father was a Deputy Sheriff working at the courts. We became good friends. I'm sure he'll get a kick out of the stupidity when I tell him there was this guy that thought the intelligent thing to do is get rid of those metal detectors and encourage armed people into the courtroom.

You have serious issues if you believe that... please seek some counseling.

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

You know just when you think something even more mental can't be said... you go and say it. Good luck to ya.

 

[PLC1]

Remember while debating the second Amendment:

All guns are arms, but not all arms are guns.

And, the Amendment does not say "guns." It says "arms."

Now, about that tank in my front yard, why can't I load the cannon and that 50 mm? It's my right, you know.