Jump to content

Gun Ownership - Are we fit to be free?

Guest $iLk

Recommended Posts

There is a famous quote by Hitler that states something about what a nice nation he has created now that it is free from the holiganism that firearms cause.

Just a thought....

Ok, so if you ban guns, you create a wonderful black market overnight. Then 100% of guns used in crimes were illegally obtained. (ok, I know that's kinda bogus given the differences in numbers) I feel so much safer knowing that I have a gun in my car and will be getting a CCW soon.

Using the bank robbery in CA is bogus. Both those AKs were obtained by illegal means, not to mention fully-auto weapons are illegal period. Criminals very rarely use assault weapons in crimes. They are too hard to hide. Unless you're those two guys and have a death wish. If a criminal is going to go after you with a long-arm, there are very few places where it would be practical.

1. They are too long to manuver effectively at close ranges. How could he mug you from 20 ft away? Have you throw your wallet at him? You could just dive for cover and pull your pistol.

2. They are not easily concealable.

3. They are much more expensive than handguns.

4. The ammo is also more expensive, and ranges to practice at are few and far between in urban areas. Usually requiring memberships to clubs. Gang bangers stand out like sore thumbs.

I live in Vegas and yes, people do go way out into the desert, but that's illegal but there isn't anyone to stop you. I do drive out to Boulder City Public Range when I want to use my 2 vintage bolt-action battle rifles. I also know my 9mm IMI Jericho inside and out. I was fortunate enough to have someone well versed in firearms to instruct me properly in their safe use. I could not believe that in my state I can buy a high-power battle rifle at 18, and not buy a handgun till I'm 21. I guess they want me to be able to drink and gamble first. Never mind my country could send me off to get shot by them.

I'm not too sure on allowing citizens access to fully-auto weapons like smgs. It seems that criminals wouldn't use them for the same reason that they don't use assault rifles... too hard to get.

Well, my 2 cents.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I believe perhaps fully automatic weapons should only be harder to get, but not as hard as it is now. I don't believe in the current registration of them, perhaps simply a background check and criminal record check and it's yours.

I believe that any weapon that is used by our law enforcement should be available. Most of the small and light arms used by our military as well. The only things I don't really agree with are purchasing full scale tanks and rockets UNLESS you and the purchasers are organized into a state militia (not national guard). i.e. a militia unit bigger than 100 members.

I believe we should increase number of militias and participation in them, block their infringement upon by congress, and let congress sweat every time they try to make some stupid law.

And make criminals sweat every time they contemplate who to rob, because they just wouldn't know would they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you guys have been having a good time while I have been busy with Christams.

First off, Charles, that cartoon is hilarious, I have that in poster form packed away somewhere.

Second, Fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal, except in a few states. I own 1 fully automatic weapon. Cost me $200.00 for the tax stamp. I have NEVER used it in fully auto, ammo is not cheap. Besides the fact that I would like to hit what I am aiming at!!

SO anyway, you guys have a great time here, but you know my views, I am a member of so many pro-gun Organizations that I can't even keep track of them anymore...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


What do you think of the JFPO Jaguar?

I am a member of that organization as well, I give them the majority of the money I can afford, because, unlike the NRA, my rights are not debatable... They will NOT compromise on the 2nd amendment!! PERIOD!!

I am also a member of an organization called the liberty Bells, one of the female organizations involved in the fight for the 2nd amendment. I give them about 10% of the total.

I like my guns, NO, I love my guns, and believe that every, and I mean EVERY person should own and CARRY a firearm!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just something I was thinking of logistically in relation to gun ownership, rights, etc.

If someone breaks into your home with a M-16, and you have a pistol, unless they are going to start shooting the walls for fun, and your house isnt wide open with only one room, i'd think you'd have an advantage. It's a lot easier to manuver a pistol in close quarters than a M-16, isn't it? Now, if you were walking across a wide open field, and a number of people carrying M-16's decided they wanted to kill you, your screwed. Arms race only applies if the need for a gun warrants it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point that must always be made is that so-called assault weapons are hardly ever used in crimes, while REAL assault weapons that are legally owned (M16's, MP5's, all fully auto weaps) have never been used in a crime in the United States.

About the M16 - I don't know why we even use it, it sucks ass because you can't get even a grain of sand on it without the bastard jamming.

I'd rather our Main Battle Rifle be either an FN-FAL, HK, or Steyr Aug.

Either one of those would be tremendously better than our M16's.

If a field of people had M16's and were 500 yards away, give me a standard hunting rifle with a scope (243 or better) and I'll be happy.

It's not so much the weapon you use as how you are comfortable with it, and the fact you can find a readily available caliber. 223 is recommended since that's what you'll be taking off the dead in the event of a Civil War, but 308 it good as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.223 is good, but the nato standard of 7.62 is probably a better choice.

Any UN troops that would be in an army to subdue the US would have this ammunition, yeah, my conspiracy side is showing, oh well.

Anyway, the only way that they could get our weapons from us, would be forcibly, and I feel for the suckers that would have to do it, they wouldn't survive the day. That's my opinion purely, but I believe that that is exactly what would happen.

The Federal government has been warned in a number of ways that if they go after the 2nd amendment, that they would cause a civil war. Some states actually have resolutions that state that if the federal government were to go after the 2nd amendment, as in make guns illegal, that they would secede from the union and NOT cooperate with any gun grab by the fed's.

This is why you see the babysteps of making certain guns illegal, and the wanting of registration.

I am glad Ashcroft is in office for this VERY reason, he has refused to cooperate in any gun registration scheme, and has told the Dem's to screw off as far as turning over instacheck records is concerned.

He has made sure that all the Instachecks that were illegally kept by the Clinton administration over thier 8 year riegn of terror, was destroyed as soon as he took office, it was one of his first orders. They are now kept for 24 hours, which is what the law states, and then are destroyed, deleted, however you want to state it.

Also, the Brady Bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and is going to be fought tooth and nail in the next few years, as soon as a supreme court justice, (liberal court justice) retires and we have a conservative constructionist majority, then you will see gun laws being fought in the supreme court, and expect the original Marshall decision of 1933 to be fought as well.

It is going to get interesting VERY quickly after that happens!!

The 2nd amendment is going to be saved if it takes us the next 10 years, and noncompromising organizations, unlike the NRA, are the ones that are going to do it. JFPO, liberty bells, GOA, and others, they are growing, and quickly!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that I have more time to write an opinnion oriented post:

The right to own guns is to protect us from any sort of tyranny. It doesn't matter if we can see a problem on the horizon or not. We may think that our government would "never oppress us", or that "we would never need to own personal firearms since we aren't in danger" or even "police and the government should own guns, we don't need to." Even though that may be the situation now, if we ever give up the right to bear arms, then we aren't getting it back. If a problem EVER arises, it will be impossible to gain back the right to bear arms afterwards. There won't be any guns in stores, the government wont lose power by giving us rights BACK that they took away and no one will be manufacturing guns to begin with.

Yes, by people being allowed to own guns, other people are going to die, because criminals with guns will kill them, and then be thrown into prison for life. If people were not allowed to own guns, people would still die because criminals will break a gun law, and THEN killing someone. What do they care if they get extra time in prison for breaking a gun law, which the prosecutor probably wont WASTE their time trying to get a conviction on, since the murderer will ALREADY be in jail for life.

What about constitution legitimacy? I'm surprised the Supreme Court hasn't already ruled against gun control legislation. Maybe a case wasnt brought before them. In any case, the constitution is sort of straight forward that we have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. I quote from the Bill of Rights:

"Article the fourth...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Now, we've already heard the definition of Militia earlier in this thread, but regardless (English lesson time), the "shall not be infringed" directly modifies "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" It doesnt get much more straight forward than this. The framers of the Constitution, in their wisdom (which cannot be denied since their Constitution has held the government together for 200 years), said that we should be able to bear arms, and no government should be able to INFRINGE on that right. I'm not going to waste my time looking it up, but I think any gun control measures are infringing on our right to bear arms, and the assault weapons ban is probably one of the biggest infringements possible. Why? Because we should be able to own the same personal arms as any ground forces in our military, to protect ourselves as a FREE state.

Finally, on a closer to home level. If all of your enemies wanted to kill you and had guns, and you think it's possible they might kill you, would you rather **be able** to have a gun or not? If you would rather be able to have a gun, but for some odd reason favor gun control measures, remember that you can simply replace enemies with CRIMINALS/MUGGERS/SERIAL KILLERS, and they sure dont have any qualms with killing you if need be. Sure, don't own a gun if your afraid your kid is so stupid that he or she wont listen to you when you say "dont play with the gun" and is going to shoot themselves through the head. Dont own a gun if you think your so incompetant that you'll let a robber/burgler/etc get the gun away from you. Dont own a gun if you actually think that you'll have ANY self-esteem or self-confidence left when some bastard breaks into your home with a gun and rapes your wife, and children and steals most of what you own RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE. But don't you dare advocate restricting anyone else's right to get a gun when they want, where they want, and the type of gun they want. Don't be afraid of the weapon, be afraid of the person WITH the weapon.

I'm starting a new topic on the whole tool/person mindset. Why is it that groups of society are blaming TOOLS instead of the PEOPLE who use them. Well, starting that on a different topic, dont post answers to it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Captain Dread, download the PDF of Gun Rights 3.0 I posted a link to up top. It'll give you decisions the supreme court has knocked down, as well as a percentage of and lists of cases and what they entailed for the 2nd ammendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll also list quotes the founding father's made about Switzerland and how they wanted us to be like that.

Keep in mind Switzerland has been armed to the teeth throughout their inception and have never been invaded and have the 3rd lowest crime rate in Europe.

It also talks about one of the first countries to outlaw guns (NEW ZEALAND) and how they repealed the law in the 1980's because the cops quoted that it was extrememly "ineffective" at stopping crime and only made crime worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's another important thing to think about. If anyone ever invaded the US, they'd have to somehow kill every American, since if they didn't and sent in ground troops, they'd be getting picked off more than we were in Vietnam.

Millions of Civilians+Millions of Guns in Private ownership=Any bastard who's hostile to the country has a good chance of getting shot

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Keep in mind Switzerland has been armed to the teeth throughout their inception and have never been invaded and have the 3rd lowest crime rate in Europe.

Pardon me for nitpicking, but the gun ownership is not the reason why Switzerland has never been invaded. There are two significant reasons:

1) The country is surrounded by mountain ranges. This gives defensive forces a big advantage in such a conflict.

2) The country has little of value in the context of a war effort, so it's not worth capturing anyway, especially when the potentially high casualties are considered.

[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia and Afghanistan have many mountains, both have been invaded. What's the point? You just made my point by saying that it's heavily defendable. Would it be so heavily defendable if Switzerland's citizens didn't have guns and the mountains were the only thing to cross?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion gentleman,I've really enjoyed following it. While I've looked into these topics from time to time, I'm not even close to being abreast of current events as you guys.

I would like to stir up the pot a little though.I would like to hear how you guys think and what you know about some of things I'm going to bring up.

While I was in the Army and after I got out I heard reports of our spec-war community being polled and asked would they fire on American citizens if the Gov't tried to disarm the populace. I've also heard ,from a source I trust and is close to said community, that our retired and ex-miltary spec-war soldiers feel that such a conflict is imminant under the aegis of a U.N. Global Government drive,and they have already started aligning themselves with the differing factions.......anybody know anything about this?....It seems remarkable,but my main source for this info is someone I trust with my life

Has anyone read the book "Behold a Pale Horse"? and if so, does anyone have any thoughts to the validity of the information in that book, In particular a document titled "Silent Weapons for Secret Wars" or something like that.

As for the M-16, I feel that it has gotten a really bad rap for jamming,I especially like the M-16a2 incarnation.If it is maintained properly I found that it really didn't jam all that much.While perhaps not as hearty in extreme envirironments and situations as the AK series it is much more accurate if zeroed properly. However if given a choice, I would probably go with the Israeli Galil, an excellent weapon.

Of course my "Dream" gun is an MP-5SD

OHH and if you've never fired a M-249 SAW and you're a gun enthusiast you have missed a VERY pleasant experience.....THEY ROCK...lol

once again, gentleman , It has been a pleasure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard something to the effect of a poll having taken place, but I believe it was a political move by Clinton's regime?

Do you have any idea as to the results of this poll?

I've got a friend in the Marines right now, and he said the M16A2 was just fine at boot camp, because you have plenty of chance to maintain it, but he said once he got to SOI, he said it jammed like a ***** and he is 100% sure that if he ever goes to war, it's going to jam when he needs it most.

Are you asking if our ex-special forces have allied with various militia's? The answer is yes that there are some who have.

Glen Miller for instance, who was arrested after having formed the White Patriot Party paramilitary unit in North Carolina. He was a green beret, and had 1,000 man army trained and plotted to blow up a power dam, and several other things. He stole military supplies from a National Guard base and had enough firepower to take over his state basically. He opted for a racist milita, but it just shows what ONE motivated Green Beret can do. I believe he was a Major in the US Army at one point.

Another was a Green Beret, Lt. Col. James Gritz. He was a member of a racist milita as well, and was involved in ending the siege of Randy Weaver, negotiating his surrender.

I am pretty sure that the polls you mentioned and the idea of special forces taking sides, are near 99% accurate.

Like I said though, if they want to take my weapons, I'll give them the ammo first.

I haven't read that book but I think I've heard of it somewhere... I'll try and find a copy somewhere.

My main problem with the MP5 is the caliber, as it's not going to be effective in a field situation.

My gun for the US Army would be either the FN-FAL, or the Steyr Aug, maybe even the HK

I'm sure if I stick to my Marines decision, I'll have fun with the SAW at MCT.

Nice to see you enter our debate, and appreciate the comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some very scary people in this community and I don't think I'm endearing myself to any of them by replying to this thread. Lord

knows no one's mind is going to be changed as a result of this "debate" but our British comrade brings up a good point when he alludes to the low number of homicides in GB. More than that there are too many scary people with access to guns remember Charly Whitman? he was wee "trained" and showed it in a little tower in Texas. What about those amiable fellows in Caly robbing banks with automatic weapons and body armor? they appeared to be trained as well but nonetheless they were deranged. I'm sure someone will point out that the cops took them down by running to the local gun shop and borrowing some AR-15's but did occur to you they would not have needed them if more effective controls were in place. What about the numerous law enforcement organizations that support gun control ? they too are well trained

and obviously feel we've gone too far.

I almost didn't reply to this thread willing to chalk it up as another one of $ilk's right winged diatribes and I must respect his willingness to speak about hot button issues and not bite his tongue, but this Sunday morning I had

the good fortune to be paged by my exec director

to go down to the local morgue and identify one of our clients ; a young man who had a bad drug habit and the bad fortune to not be trained when the dealer he owed money to walked up and shot him point blank in the face and chest. Have any of you afficianados of Gun and Ammo ever seen what a bullet does to human flesh? I had not and the image will never leave my mind. So while you compare caliber and barrel length and muzzle velocity like you're talking about cars remember

what those things were designed for. Anyone who

hasn't seen what a gun can do mosey on down to Rotten.com and peruse the gunshot victims. I realize that none of this will change how $ilk feels and will probably result in a another, laborious monologue, but after what I saw Sunday

"Frankly Scarlett I don't give a d--n"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to reply, simply to point out that people are not truly free if they do not possess the ability to overpower their government should the government become tyrannical.

I've seen gunshot wounds, and I'd also like to point out that deaths by gunshot wound are the next to least cause of death in the united states every year. Drownings outnumber people dying from being shot. Automobile accidents. Would you like to ban swimming pools and cars too?

School shootings have rarely happened, and the death count from columbine and all the others combined pales in comparison to death by playing high school football. Should we ban football?

Why don't we just ban everything that could possibly hurt someone? The fact is, in Great Britain, although their crime rate is lower, their VIOLENT crime rate has skyrocketed past what it used to be. Look at Australia, failure of gun control, 73% rise in bank robberies with use of a gun. If gun control really worked, we have 20,000 laws on the books right now. Shouldn't that mean we should be crime free?

If your friend had pissed off a drug dealer, and the drug dealer wanted to use a knife, would you want to ban knives?

The silliness of your argument is, that GUNS are a tool, just like any tool they can be misused. What if he was brained by a hammer? would you ban hammers?

I'm merely pointing this out to show you that liberals who wet their pants over the mention of "evil guns", do not realize that their logic is flawed. If only the government had guns, we would be screwed.

Do you know how many more laws would be passed in order to deprive us of more constitutional freedoms in the name of security>?

For people who want to trade freedom for security, I'll tell you that the most secure place in the world, is a jail cell. Trade enough freedom and you could get the security you desire.

I don't believe that I am "scary". If you fear me, I don't understand why, because I support having guns for people to "PROTECT" themselves. If you are scared of me being able to protect my home, that either makes you a criminal who is scared to get shot breaking in, or a liberal.

I think it's funny as hell the cops had to run get some AR-15's. Just shows how damn stupid California's laws are.

Would the cops have needed to get AR-15's if someone in that bank had a conceal carry permit and took one of the bastards by surprise? More guns = less crime. I'd be willing to stand by that, and I wouldn't be afraid if everyone who wanted a gun, and who had no criminal record had one.

There are also numerous law enforcement agencies who are AGAINST gun control. In fact, in several of the states where full registration and other gun laws are in effect, sheriffs are refusing to uphold the unconstitutional law.

I am sorry about your client, but it appears he was a criminal under our drug laws anyway. Not to be mean. If he had a gun and had trained himself to use it, he might be alive and the other scum bag would be dead.

Tried not to make it a monologue, but just wanted to throw in all of that. Can you tell me what you would be advocating if your client had been murdered by any other weapon besides a gun?

Would your logic still apply?

Thought not.

Welcome to the debate, if you can't answer my last questions, I'll assume that I can carve another notch into my belt.

ph33r me!


Link to comment
Share on other sites


I've been sitting here reading through your post...I know that I've read it at least 10 times... I was unsure if I should reply or not...

let me start off by saying that I'm really sorry you had to have this experience. The first time you experience the result of a violent death really shakes you up and causes you to question alot of things in life....I know it did me....that experience is much worse if that person is a friend or a loved one... I sincerely wish you could've been spared that experience.. I don't think that anyone should have to go through that.

However, even though I disagree with the somewhat callous tone of $ilk's reply, I do agree with most of the content... Not because I'm a right winger or any B.S. like that... but because I know it's right.

How do I know it's right? Well, I know it's right because I believe in this Country, I believe in our founding father's, and I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I know it's right because I've travelled to other countries around the world and saw what it was like elsewhere. I know it's right because simple causal logic tells me it's right.

What I don't understand,and believe me I've tried, is that out of the story you related to us above you came up with "guns are to blame".

your client getting shot was just an effect... and the gun was just a tool. As unfeeling as that may sound. It is the truth. What was the cause behind the situation? It seems that now days we concentate on "effects" and "tools" instead of getting to the causes of all these things that are happening around us. Why, I don't know...

personally I feel that we're steared in that direction by the media and the government. Some of it may be because it is hard for people to admit that their really is evil out there. or that it makes us look at ourselves and ask "is there something more I could be doing or am I a part of the problem" many people are uncomfortable with the answers they come up with.

This attitude assures that we as a society will run around trying to put out out the "brushfires of effect", while the "cancer of cause " lingers and grows.

As I have already alluded to earlier,I believe that the "War on Drugs" is a sham.We spend

billions every year on a "war" that cannot be won.Our jails and prisons are overflowing and yet you can go to almost any major city in the U.S. and still find drugs relativly easy.I used to be a Cab driver...I KNOW this to be true. So, It's fairly obvious that a new approach is needed.

Instead on concentrating on "Why" people turn to drugs to escape their reality and work on fixing that, we criminilize the whole deal and assure that their will be a Black Market.WE assure that their will be pushers all over every city in the U.S.,We assure that their will be theft,assault, and murder and all of the other crimes that feed that monster..

I personally believe that the use of drugs leads to an addiction that enslaves the mind, body and soul. IMO though, If we took the money out of drugs by decriminalizing or legalizing them, applied taxes and tarrifs to any drugs coming into the U.S.,We could get rid of those guys selling drugs on the corner...because there wouldn't be any money in it..we could use that money from the "War on drugs" for treatment and therapy for those that want it, Social Programs to keep people from walking down that road to begin with, and more education for our children to show them the way. For those that still cling to that path and are ADULTS that prefer to spend their life in oblivion.........let them....however,no drivers license, No hospital treatment,etc....one proviso....if you get caught giving , selling, or slipping drugs to our children.....the death penalty. make people responsible for their own actions and decisions...as it should be.

As for scary,What I find scary is the fact that out of the situation you described above you got "guns are bad".

As for myself and probably others you might find "scary" in this community.I love my family and friends with a passion,I work hard, play hard, and try to be a good person. If I could go the rest of my life without hurting another person,that would be my wish. I also respect your right to disagree with anything and everything that I've said.I respect your right to a differing opinion and the right to voice that opinion. However,should you or anyone else try to abridge the rights of me or mine as guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights and as intended by our forefathers.....then

yes...I can be "scary"

Sorry I might have gotten a little off topic there guys

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Stormshadow ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your post Stormshadow, and I didn't mean to be "too" callous in my last post, just pointing out the obvious. In fact, in the post where I put most of the educational links, all of the FACTS based on studies by the BATF, other Federal agencies, and other scientific claims rather than emotional ones.

You've gone deeper into the meaning of what I imply through my beliefs. I simply point out the obvious truths, sarcastically sometimes because of the outright blatant falsehoods pushed forth by the opposing stance.

I want to make one thing clear to anyone interested of why I sometimes sound angry in my arguments - it's not that I am, or that I am targeting anyone. It's because I use logic in my arguments, while many who oppose are quick to jump the gun to emotion because they realize there is no way common sense would allow them to disagree with me logically.

Emotion is the only outlet I've left for attacking my arguments, because bringing up the opposite of what points I make, simply shows the falsehoods clearly. I understand that, and perhaps it's my fault that those who disagree seek the less logical route, but if anything, understand that no one can logically deny or trump any points I have made without an emotional reaction to the points I make.

Not trying to get off subject, and I know it's easy to dismiss the truth as "right wing rhetoric", but just making a few things clear.

I'm not simply on the right. I'm also "right".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate both of your posts and your willingness to stand up for your beliefs.However,nowhere in my reply did I state I was in favor of banning the ownership of all firearms. I am in favor of tighter gun control. I favor a waiting period and thorough background checks to prevent any future Charles Whitmans. I feel assault type weapons should be limited to police forces and the military.I feel mandatory thorough wet and dry fire training for anyone who

purchases a hand gun. I believe that certain types of ammunition and body armor should be restricted for police and military use only. I feel that shotguns and hunting rifles are acceptable and that any law abiding citizen who wishes to own one should be able to do so , after a cooling off period and background check. Please

do not label me as a dove because I'm LIBERAL(and

d--n proud) I served my country proudly and would do so again. As a security policeman I wore a weapon everyday I was on duty.I respected that weapon and by the grace of God never had to draw it. What bristles me is the thought that anyone in favor of gun control is painted with the same broad brush. What I am opposed to are the people

who feel that any "control " spells the end of the world as we know it. What is so hard to accept about a reasonable waiting period? What is unreasonable about the general public not being permitted to use weapons capable of killing dozens of people in the wrong hands? You're argument that such weapons are needed to thwart a

tyrannical US gov't are well, silly. They may have applied when state militias were the first line of defense and muzzle loaders were the weapon of choice , but having seen first hand the weapons we use against our enemies , any small arms as a defense against them would prove futile.

As far as your argument that "hammers" kill people and people drowning that is simply beneath

the intelligence of the $ilk i have come to respect. Hammers were designed primarily to pound nails. A handgun can pound nails too but was designed to kill people period! Is there no room for moderate under that great big tent of yours?

It reminds me of my Pro life friends who tout the same line of thought. As a Catholic , I'm against abortion and view it as sin. But I consider myself pro choice because as a man I don't feel I have the right to dictate what a woman should do with her body if the victim of rape or incest. In the same way I belive there must be some middle ground. As a former hunter

I would have liked to have joined the NRA but can't stand the idea of all or nothing thinking

that pervades the leadership.

As for the scary part rest assured I fear no man. I also crossed the line for that remark and apologize. However I feel your remark grouping liberals and criminals was equally insensitive.

I hope this clarifies my position. Lastly regarding my trip to the morgue , I work everyday

with the "scumbags you so casually speak of in your reply. Some of these scumbags actually recover from thier addiction and become very productive people and I am saddened this young man will never be one of them.

" What so ever you do to the least of my brothers , that you do unto me "


Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, the 2nd amendment of the constitution was for the people to have the SAME weaponry as the government, PERIOD. That is what it is there for. If the government has better and more powerful weaponry then the citizenry, then therefore the government can overpower the people and Tyranny results.

Therefore, a citizen of the United States is allowed ANY weapon that the US military has. This includes Tanks, Jet Aircraft, ships, etc, ad nauseum. BUT, because of the cost prohibitiveness of such weaponry, the least expensive weaponry, RPG's, "Assault Rifles" which is a misnomer and scare tactic by the left by the way, they are actually just fully automatic or semiautomatic weapons that happen to have a use militarily, grenades, shotguns, handguns, tasers, LAWS, full combat gear, body armour, etc ad nauseum are more likely to be owned by private citizens and therefore should be open to ALL US citizens, PERIOD!!! If a nut gets hold of a gun, and everyone else has guns, the nut is NOT going to last long, this is called Darwinism.

THe stupid survive because they are protected and are allowed to procreate and create more stupid people. If laws were banned, that allowed these morons to survive, we would be MUCH better off.

NOT every person deserves to live, if a person makes a stupid decision and it costs them thier life, hey hey, the gene pool just got a little deeper. Sorry to sound so uncaring, but I don't!! I don't care if someone is stupid enough to pick up a gun and go sniping at people, he should die, right there, on the spot. If a person spills hot coffee on thier lap, well, I hope they learned a lesson, and have great medical coverage, otherwise, hey, lifes a beach!!

Anyway, out of time, but wanted to throw a little something into the mix. BYE!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I remember, Charles Whitman was a marine.

So you are saying only ON-DUTY military and police should have weapons?

If you think that Big Brother is an all-caring teddy bear, a rude awakening is coming when the Federal government believes it is time to move against the citizen militia, and the 2nd ammendment.

Any gun available to the military should be available to citizens. Your so-called "assault weapons" is actually an invented term. There is a difference between assault weapon and assault rifle. Assault weapon is used to describe guns that look "cool" as being military style rifles. I could kill someone just as easily with a hunting rifle as I could with a post OR preban AK47.

Avail yourself of the literature I have provided above to learn the difference.

The Government has NO right to dictate to someone how they should carry out their personal life. Laws are supposed to keep these murders from happening, there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books. Is one more going to help? You say that my intelligence has dropped sharply, look at your argument. You are saying we need MORE gun control when there are already 20,000 different gun control laws. HOW ABOUT, actually enforcing those laws that DO EXIST?

As Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying, moderates DO NOT make history. This country was founded by extremist, religous, pro-gun zealots.

Did they say "give me liberty or give me death." or did they say "give me liberty, or whatever would be mutually agreeable under a bipartisan plan."?

No I don't think it was moderate at all. There will be no compromise with the forces of those who seek to "re-define" or "take away" the 2nd ammendment.

The 2nd ammendment was written to give citizens the power OVER their government.

Have I said give criminals and lunatics guns? No I agree that we should enforce EXISTING laws and prevent criminals and felons from recieving firearms. Everyone else can have whatever they want.

And you believe that war against a tyrannical government is futile? I believe that the "WE" you are referring to means Americans. Why do you suppose that there are those in the military who wouldn't fight as well? According to Federal Law, and the Constitution, the US Military cannot be used against the populace. I don't believe we'd be facing much more than pro-big brother militias, police, and federal agents, in the event of a conflict.

But that's another debate.

ALL OR NOTHING is the argument. Your "waiting periods" are ineffective, considering criminals don't register guns. Waiting periods, and other laws only effect those who DO follow the law, keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Take Columbine for instance. Those two kids were violating about 20 state, federal, and local anti gun laws. However, if some of those laws had not been in effect, one of the teachers could have been able to defend the students.

Same thing happened where one of my friends went to school. A teacher had a gun, but it was in his car parked a half mile from the school. He ran back and was able to subdue the kid, but if the law not allowing guns on school property hadn't been passed just a couple months previously, he would have had his gun on him, and saved lives.

Once again, sorry about your client, but if he had had a gun, and was trained to use it, he may be alive today.

The argument that citizens only need hunting guns goes against the purpose of the 2nd ammendment. Without the power to be a threat to the government, we are not free. If the government could pass any laws with no fear of accountability, where would we be today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...