Ban on Gun Ownership?

[Renegade1Oh]

Renegade - Do you mean "Mestizos? ....'cause I've never heard of Metizos.



Israel has a proven track record of not using their nukes, despite frequent provokation, and despite a philosophy among many of their neighbors that Isreal should be eradicated from the face of the earth. Would you trust those with that philosophy with nukes? I wouldn't.

Sorry bodie54, I meant "Mestizo's", was trying to type as fast as I could before the server went down again, and misspelled.

Phaeton, my dad had a Weimer, a one man dog. Great Watchdog. Fantastic Birddog also. I have a Malmute, cross between a Husky & Wolf, again a one man dog. Like you it tick's me off about taking our Dog rights away, "Viscous Dog Law", another "Grab & Take" that there doing over here in the states today. That feeling you & I have towards our dog's in also like my Guns, except I was "Granted That Right To Own By The 2nd. Ammendment".

Tonight on AMC @ 8:00P.M. EST is the Movie "The Man That Shot Liberty Valance", starring, John Wayne, James Stewart, Lee Marvin. Jimmy Stewart play's a Lawyer from back east, doesn't believe in Gun's, there bad, terrible things. Lee Marvin plays the trouble maker, allway's pushing people, just like today, and John Wayne & his helper Pompi comes to the rescue!!! Anti-Gunners, you should Watch & Learn!!! What you see in this Movie is not far off from what happens everyday here in the States. And if you watch it, you'll know it!!

 

[Phaeton]

Phaeton, my dad had a Weimer, a one man dog. Great Watchdog. Fantastic Birddog also. I have a Malmute, cross between a Husky & Wolf, again a one man dog. Like you it tick's me off about taking our Dog rights away, "Viscous Dog Law", another "Grab & Take" that there doing over here in the states today. That feeling you & I have towards our dog's in also like my Guns, except I was "Granted That Right To Own By The 2nd. Ammendment".

I am anti-gun and I protest arms sale. But I do so in a peaceful manner that I am granted in Amendment I of the US Constitution "The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." I am under attack by the "Viscous Dog Law" but I want to work with the system and come to peaceful agreement. I would never use my dogs to prove a point, they are the are well cared for, well trained animals.

I am not comfortable with the arms sale in this country, but I don't want an umbrella clause that would end all ownership overnight , just an amicable agreement to stop development, and to recycle stockpiles. Fuck, I sound like Ronald Reagan. :1orglaugh

 

[senob44]

Doesn't this debate surface about every 20 years or so?

On this board, about every 20 days or so. I don't really get into it, since it will never end. But here I am...

 

[Renegade1Oh]

I am anti-gun and I protest arms sale. But I do so in a peaceful manner that I am granted in Amendment I of the US Constitution "The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." I am under attack by the "Viscous Dog Law" but I want to work with the system and come to peaceful agreement. I would never use my dogs to prove a point, they are the are well cared for, well trained animals.

I am not comfortable with the arms sale in this country, but I don't want an umbrella clause that would end all ownership overnight , just an amicable agreement to stop development, and to recycle stockpiles. Fuck, I sound like Ronald Reagan. :1orglaugh

Hey Senob44, I think it's every two day's!!! Phaeton, I agree with alot your saying. Now lets pick this apart!! And I think you'll find we are not that far apart. And I don't want to change your Choice, just look at it from both sides, thats all. You say your "Anti-Gun", O.K. thats your choice, my choice is "Pro-Gun". This is a personal choice. Next, arms sale, my question Phaeton is WHO or WHAT do you mean, "Juvenile's", thats ILLEGAL, "Felons", again ILLEGAL, "Domestic Violence", again ILLEGAL, "Out Of State Trafficking", again ILLEGAL, "People Who Renouce There Citizenship", again Illegal. "Law Abiding American", Legal, except certain area's of our country have passed certain laws that certain guns are ILLEGAL in there jurisdiction. ie, "Assault Weapons". The First Ammendment of the Consitution say's we "Can Petition The Government", this goes for "GUNS" & "VISCOUS DOG LAWS", they have turned a DEAF ear to US, THE PEOPLE!! We Pay There Wages & Benefits, Better Health Care Than Our Social Security Generation gets today, and our Veterns get also!!! And they turn a blind eye & deaft ear to US!!! VOTE THE RUMMIES OUT!!! My Malmute I think is #4 or #5 on the hit list, I'm right behind "Huskies". I have to pay Extra Insurance Coverage to keep him. I Know, My Choice, but I won't give him up, NO WAY!! Or MY Guns!! And he's a real good dog. But I didn't take him the other night when the neighbor's house got broken in to, same as my other neighbor's that showed up didn't bring there Doberman's. We've allready talked this out amoungst us ourselves years ago. One family said "NO", and we all respect there opinion, and they've been robbed twice. We don't take dog's cause of noise. Now if the bad guy's get away from us, not likely, we'll turn them loose on them, and we'll find them in a hurry. Peacefull Agreement on the "Viscous Dog Laws", they ain't listening to us. Recycle Stockpiles of Firearms, look at all the buyback programs going on in the cities, take a Gun in a get a Ham or Turkey, confiscated guns are also tossed into the same pile and melted down and sold to Japan, Korea, & China and shipped back to us as Cars!! Now all said and done, and other Anti-Gunners that take the time to read this, maybe your not into "DOG'S", but I bet there's something the Government is Pinching you on, think about it for awhile. We are ALL in this together!!! If the "Second Ammendment Falls", how long do you think the "First Ammendment" will last before it's gone also, along with the rest of "OUR CONSITUTION"!!! Remember it's "OUR CONSTITUTION" not the Governments, it was put in place to "PROTECT US FROM OUR GOVERNMENT"!!!! People, People, People Please THINK!!! Read It ALL, And THINK!!! If One Falls, They'll Take It ALL Away From US, "WE THE PEOPLE"!! Take Care ALL!! :wave2:

 

[negator]

D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court
Justices' Decision May Set Precedent In Interpreting the 2nd Amendment

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 16, 2008; A01

"Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/15/AR2008031502358_pf.html

 

[georges]

moral of the story, don't vote for billary or obama

 

[hedonis]

Yeah, they got rid of alcohol for a while too. That was really, wildly successful and no one died during that era. :glugglug:

H

 

[dave_rhino]

^ Did you just compare alcohol to firearms?

 

[Facetious]

^ Did you just compare alcohol to firearms?

They're regulated under the same bureau . . . you umm know ?

"ATF"

Just as many were bootleggin' in those times
many will machine their own firearms. It's really not that difficult !

Then what are they going to ban and / or heavily regulate,
Machine Shops and the distribution of tubular steel stock ?

Go ahead and make the case how to remove the arms from the hands those who are most likely to harm you :dunno:

All I know is that legal law abiding pro 2A individuals would do nothing to jeopardize their livelihood. They're very productive mostly middle class members of society who own homes and have earned assets. The kinds of individuals who would assist you if your car broke down in the middle of nowhere.

It is the scum criminals with illegally posessed firearms that typically have nothing to lose.

We're all ten times more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than by a firearm.

 

[ballzano]

all my guns that i have, have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car

 

[scubamike]

all my guns that i have, have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car

:rofl::1orglaugh

 

[D-rock]

You seem to have flawed thinking.

So going against 49% is wrong, but going against 51% is perfectly fine or what?

There was a time where most of the people in this country and even shortly before that in the entire world didn't give a damn about slavery as long as it didn't happen to them or people they cared about like their immediate family, community, or maybe even their countrymen. For everybody else, most people didn't give a damn about it. So your saying that going against the majority in that case was wrong. Having no checks against the majority just gives you a tyranny of the majority after a while. That’s why we have entrenched rights that can’t be taken away. The only way you could logically think the way you do is if you believe in no natural rights for humanity.

Last time I checked, guns were not a universal, natural civil liberty.

Says who? The last time I checked, quite a few people out there considered the right to self-defense to be the first law of nature. It would be hard pressed for anybody outside of a totalitarian regime to actually think self-defense isn’t a human right. It would also be kind of stupid to have a right to defend yourself from other people and governments yet not have an effective means to do so. It would make the right worthless. I would like you to try and explain otherwise. Hence the right to be armed is a human right. Anybody that points to a piece of paper, an ideal, or their leaders as what guarantees their rights is nothing but a subject of somebody else in disguise waiting for the next time their rights get taken away. Somebody that can guarantee their freedoms by force if need be is a true freeman.

Then again, going back to slavery for example, I could say that before a few hundred years ago the right to be free of it wasn't considered a universal human right by the vast majority of the world. So what's your point? Are you saying being free from slavery has only been a right for the past few hundred years at best instead of being a natural liberty since the beginning of humanity?

 

[Facetious]

So going against 49% is wrong, but going against 51% is perfectly fine or what?

Isn't this a classic representation of a pure democracy ?

A bit mob rulish, IMO.

 

[georges]

You seem to have flawed thinking.

There was a time where most of the people in this country and even shortly before that in the entire world didn't give a damn about slavery as long as it didn't happen to them or people they cared about like their immediate family, community, or maybe even their countrymen. For everybody else, most people didn't give a damn about it. So your saying that going against the majority in that case was wrong. Having no checks against the majority just gives you a tyranny of the majority after a while. That’s why we have entrenched rights that can’t be taken away. The only way you could logically think the way you do is if you believe in no natural rights for humanity.

Says who? The last time I checked, quite a few people out there considered the right to self-defense to be the first law of nature. It would be hard pressed for anybody outside of a totalitarian regime to actually think self-defense isn’t a human right. It would also be kind of stupid to have a right to defend yourself from other people and governments yet not have an effective means to do so. It would make the right worthless. I would like you to try and explain otherwise. Hence the right to be armed is a human right. Anybody that points to a piece of paper, an ideal, or their leaders as what guarantees their rights is nothing but a subject of somebody else in disguise waiting for the next time their rights get taken away. Somebody that can guarantee their freedoms by force if need be is a true freeman.

People who don't understand that self defense is a necessity missed the point.
Some people if not many people here consider the 2nd amendment as obsolete or worthless, yet the 2nd amendment is a warrant for your freedom and indirectly to have your other rights respected. It is more than flawed thinking, it is leftism thinking. It is taking out the guns of the honest law abiding citizens, using the police and the military which is far to be the best scenario when criminals can get cheap akms, dragunovs and anti materiel sniping rifles for cheap and commit their crimes. This situation happened in France in 1995 where Chirac banned the right of self defense which allowed citizens to buy pump guns and revolvers. Imagine a thief is armed what can I do against a gun, nothing? Chop his arm or his head with my machete or perhaps buy a firearm outside of France. Remember the riots in Paris, how many honest people have seen their cars burned? Far too many. We also got two cases of murder recently where two girls in their twenties were murdered cowardly while taking the tube/subway. Do I feel safe when I go late even in my own town which had no crimes ever committed? No, not really that is why when I go very late out I often take a very good sized and very sharp blade with me. But if I could take a gun with me I wouldn't hesitate to do it. Also for your information, a hunter in France living not far from Calais shot a thief in the chest, he had to pay the hospital and surgery costs for that thief but thankfully wasn't jailed.
A day or another I can assure you that the situation will be far worse than you can imagine in France. 30 years of mismanagement and laxism in ruined everything great France have had.

 

[Phaeton]

Is tha bannation of Gun ownership a bad thing?

Yes: because there is no compensation for those who leagally purchsed there weapons. And beacuse the Fed Fucks will just sell them to others

I'm Anti-gun but the US gov is the last orginazation I trust to deal with the situation

 

[bombardier52]

If you ever lived in a place where it seems like just about everyone had a gun I think you might be surprised. I lived in Rapid City, SD for 6 months in 1995. It is a pretty big city for that area of the country and there were lots of people carrying weapons. In the bars you checked your weapons at the door. Hard to say for sure what caused the lack of crime but it could have been the guns. You might not want to stick someone up if he could pull out his own weapon to defend himself.

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein

Constitutionally the Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal government, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.

The confusing language of the 2d Amendment might lead some to believe that it only applies to the National Guard. But the argument that the Bill of Rights was meant to apply to individuals is well founded and easily defendable too. I tend to lean towards the first 10 being for me and my fellow citizens. In other words protection for the individual and private concerns.

 

[jk34]

People who don't understand that self defense is a necessity missed the point.
Some people if not many people here consider the 2nd amendment as obsolete or worthless, yet the 2nd amendment is a warrant for your freedom and indirectly to have your other rights respected. It is more than flawed thinking, it is leftism thinking. It is taking out the guns of the honest law abiding citizens, using the police and the military which is far to be the best scenario when criminals can get cheap akms, dragunovs and anti materiel sniping rifles for cheap and commit their crimes. This situation happened in France in 1995 where Chirac banned the right of self defense which allowed citizens to buy pump guns and revolvers. Imagine a thief is armed what can I do against a gun, nothing? Chop his arm or his head with my machete or perhaps buy a firearm outside of France. Remember the riots in Paris, how many honest people have seen their cars burned? Far too many. We also got two cases of murder recently where two girls in their twenties were murdered cowardly while taking the tube/subway. Do I feel safe when I go late even in my own town which had no crimes ever committed? No, not really that is why when I go very late out I often take a very good sized and very sharp blade with me. But if I could take a gun with me I wouldn't hesitate to do it. Also for your information, a hunter in France living not far from Calais shot a thief in the chest, he had to pay the hospital and surgery costs for that thief but thankfully wasn't jailed.
A day or another I can assure you that the situation will be far worse than you can imagine in France. 30 years of mismanagement and laxism in ruined everything great France have had.

funny!!!!!

 

[gunslingingbird]

If they ban the 2nd amendment, the banning of the first and the rest of them aren't far behind.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

If they ban the 2nd amendment, the banning of the first and the rest of them aren't far behind.

Far behind?!?! Ever heard of the patriot act?

The confusing language of the 2d Amendment might lead some to believe that it only applies to the National Guard. But the argument that the Bill of Rights was meant to apply to individuals is well founded and easily defendable too. I tend to lean towards the first 10 being for me and my fellow citizens. In other words protection for the individual and private concerns.

I like the way you put this, and agree. The first 10 Amendments are for the people.

 

[ninetysixcavy]

Yes: because there is no compensation for those who leagally purchsed there weapons. And beacuse the Fed Fucks will just sell them to others

I'm Anti-gun but the US gov is the last orginazation I trust to deal with the situation

Rep.

If you ever lived in a place where it seems like just about everyone had a gun I think you might be surprised. I lived in Rapid City, SD for 6 months in 1995. It is a pretty big city for that area of the country and there were lots of people carrying weapons. In the bars you checked your weapons at the door. Hard to say for sure what caused the lack of crime but it could have been the guns. You might not want to stick someone up if he could pull out his own weapon to defend himself.

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein

Constitutionally the Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal government, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.

The confusing language of the 2d Amendment might lead some to believe that it only applies to the National Guard. But the argument that the Bill of Rights was meant to apply to individuals is well founded and easily defendable too. I tend to lean towards the first 10 being for me and my fellow citizens. In other words protection for the individual and private concerns.

Rep.






:wave2: