Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[GenSeneca]

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.

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.

 

[PLC1]

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.

True, but I should be able to use it to protect my property, shouldn't I?

Along with the RPGs and a couple of SAMs, of course.

 

[GenSeneca]

True, but I should be able to use it to protect my property, shouldn't I?

Along with the RPGs and a couple of SAMs, of course.

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.

 

[Bob the Builder]

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 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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?

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?

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.

 

[Bob the Builder]

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.

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?

 

[PLC1]

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?

50 caliber is what I meant. Somehow, I didn't think 50mm sounded right. It's a good thing you pointed that out before I ordered ammunition.

Are you saying that I can load the cannon? It's my Constitutional right to do so, along with my right to keep those PPGs and SAMs ready for deployment. The problem is, the police are stepping on my rights by telling me that I'll likely get thrown in jail if I insist on having such armament.

Is there an answer to that conundrum?

In other words, is the right to bear arms really unconditional and absolute, so long as I don't step on someone else's rights?

 

[GenSeneca]

In other words, is the right to bear arms really unconditional and absolute, so long as I don't step on someone else's rights?

It should be...

You know that silly little statement in the first amendment that says: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom speech?

Well, our freedom of speech has been abridged anyway. The same is true for our second amendment rights.

Somehow I don't think you support punishing everyone for the actions of a few... Well that is what has happened with our right to bear arms.

 

[PLC1]

It should be...

You know that silly little statement in the first amendment that says: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom speech?

Well, our freedom of speech has been abridged anyway. The same is true for our second amendment rights.

Somehow I don't think you support punishing everyone for the actions of a few... Well that is what has happened with our right to bear arms.

No, I don't support punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

As for the few, their rights can be taken away through due process of law. That should be the avenue for reaching a reasonable compromise between the absolute right to bear arms, and the safety of the public.

 

[GenSeneca]

No, I don't support punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

Yet this is precisely how our right to bear arms has been, and continues to be, infringed. The anti-gun crowd waits for the actions of an individual or a few individuals to begin jumping up and down screaming, "See! See! The public cannot be trusted with their liberties and therefore their liberties must be stripped or abridged!"

 

[Bob the Builder]

50 caliber is what I meant. Somehow, I didn't think 50mm sounded right. It's a good thing you pointed that out before I ordered ammunition.

Are you saying that I can load the cannon? It's my Constitutional right to do so, along with my right to keep those PPGs and SAMs ready for deployment. The problem is, the police are stepping on my rights by telling me that I'll likely get thrown in jail if I insist on having such armament.

Is there an answer to that conundrum?

In other words, is the right to bear arms really unconditional and absolute, so long as I don't step on someone else's rights?

Sure you can load the cannon! How else are you going to fire it?!?!?!?

BTW, there's nothing "illegal" about owning a tank, or a cannon, or a mortar, or a machinegun, or anything else in the world you want to buy. So long as you have the money, and obtain the permits (and that's what I have a problem with), you can own AND SHOOT them!! There's a range less than 40 miles from here that has a "full auto weekend" once a month, and I've heard about places where you can go shoot howitzers, and anything else!

Believe it or not, some guys even own...GASP!...military jet fighters! Not only do they own them, they FLY them too, and they have real guns on them, and they shoot them! Not only that but on occasion they'll strap (dummy)bombs onto them, and actually drop them......on targets!! Oh, and you ought to see it when a formation of privately owned Hueys flys overhead with their M-60's and miniguns blasting away! It's AWESOME!!!

So the answer to your question is a resounding YES. You can own, and shoot, any damned thing you want to, so long as you don't unlawfully kill anyone, or damage their property.

 

[PLC1]

Yet this is precisely how our right to bear arms has been, and continues to be, infringed. The anti-gun crowd waits for the actions of an individual or a few individuals to begin jumping up and down screaming, "See! See! The public cannot be trusted with their liberties and therefore their liberties must be stripped or abridged!"

Yes, that's correct. Other liberties seem to be going by the wayside in much the same way, too.

 

[PLC1]

Sure you can load the cannon! How else are you going to fire it?!?!?!?

BTW, there's nothing "illegal" about owning a tank, or a cannon, or a mortar, or a machinegun, or anything else in the world you want to buy. So long as you have the money, and obtain the permits (and that's what I have a problem with), you can own AND SHOOT them!! There's a range less than 40 miles from here that has a "full auto weekend" once a month, and I've heard about places where you can go shoot howitzers, and anything else!

Believe it or not, some guys even own...GASP!...military jet fighters! Not only do they own them, they FLY them too, and they have real guns on them, and they shoot them! Not only that but on occasion they'll strap (dummy)bombs onto them, and actually drop them......on targets!! Oh, and you ought to see it when a formation of privately owned Hueys flys overhead with their M-60's and miniguns blasting away! It's AWESOME!!!

So the answer to your question is a resounding YES. You can own, and shoot, any damned thing you want to, so long as you don't unlawfully kill anyone, or damage their property.

Are you sure about that? Jet fighters (way too expensive for me anyway), howitzers, morters, machine guns?

I don't think fully automatic weapons are legal, at least not in California. What state did you say you lived in again?

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't think fully automatic weapons are legal, at least not in California. What state did you say you lived in again?

They are legal with a class 3 license here in Ohio and most other states.

When I was in Texas, there was a private group that purchased military equipment, tanks, APC's, mortars, even miniguns, and they would get together once a year at a private range to fire their "toys". The member I met owned a gun shop and he had pics of the gatherings from every year.

 

[Bunz]

Are you sure about that? Jet fighters (way too expensive for me anyway), howitzers, morters, machine guns?

I don't think fully automatic weapons are legal, at least not in California. What state did you say you lived in again?

Yes as Seneca has point out there are legal means to own just about any military hardware. Its a matter of cost and permits though. Of course the average person cannot go into a shop and buy one, its a somewhat complicated process but possible. Now being in California, I am not sure what the state and local laws are there. But no doubt among the most strict in the nation. Most of the pistol boxes I own have a big sticker on it that says "illegal in California". Because they have magazines that accept more than 10 rounds.

We also have machine gun shoots and working cannon examples, the whole nine yards. Just got to know where to go. Most times during those machine shoots, you can throw down whatever it costs for ammo and have a go at it.

I got to shoot a M1919 a few years back. I occassionally shoot a 30.06 for hunting uses and love the round. Having the chance to crank off 250 rounds of 30.06 in about a minute of actual shooting definately put a smile on my face.

 

[GenSeneca]