guns

[soberups]

is it really that hard for these law abiding citizens to purchase fire arms? I think I could purchase one fairly easily. And is it federal or state law that causes the problem?

Compared to places like California or Illinois, it is fairly easy for law-abiding citizens in Arizona to purchase firearms. Which is the way that it should be. Unfortunately, there are too many simple-minded people who feel that the best way to deny machine guns, hand grenades, and other illegal weaponsto a multibillion dollar international drug smuggling cartel is to force law abiding American citizens in Arizona to jump through a bunch of silly hoops whenever they buy legal guns. We arent going to win the "war on drugs" by placating liberals with a bunch of warm and fuzzy feel good laws.

 

[soberups]

You say you want the 2nd amendment to be clarified as to what it means, because YOU claim that the 2nd amendment gives an individual the right to have a gun for personal use, but when I asked you to show us where in the second amendment that it states that, you immediately bail out of the second amendment and start talking about the BIll Of RIGHTS.

You know as well as I , that the second amendment says NOTHING about Individuals having guns for "personal" protection, and its only because of interpretations of right wing justices that the second amendment isnt properly interpreted

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Amendment reads....

"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."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standard liberal argument against the individual right to gun ownership has always been to say that the intent of the Amendment was to allow Militias to keep and bear arms.

If this were the case....then why doesn't the Amendment simply say...."the right of the Militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

It doesnt say that. It says the people. The Founding Fathers distrusted standing armies and oppressive tyrannical governments, and believed that the people had the right to be armed for their own defense and the defense of the State. The people were (and still are) the militia.

The Constitution is full of checks and balances. One of the most important of those checks and balances....is an armed populace.

 

[soberups]

The second amendment was written at a time where there were no police, no state police, no border protections from land grabbing, no army, no navy, no national guard, no FBI, no ATF and no established state property....

....If the founders could see what they created with the second amendment, I believe they would take it away and leave it up to the law enforcement agencies to protect the citizens, the way it was meant to be.

Do you even listen to the stuff that you say, or do the words just sort of fall out at random?

In once sentence, you (incorrectly) assert that there was no law enforcement or military in existence at the time that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment.

A few sentences later...you claim that those same Founding Fathers would have us call 911 in an emergency to be saved by the very police that you say did not exist when the amendment was written!

 

[soberups]

The second amendment allowed the citizens to ARM themselves with weapons, but those weapons were to be kept in ARMORIES (thus where the word came from) in the center of town, and the gun powder to be separated by one floor from the weapons to prevent explosions

I understand that you live in a gated community in SoCal, so to a certain extent I can forgive your ignorance of the real world. Allow me to explain.

In the real world...not everybody lives in a gated community. This was true during the American Revolution, and it is still true today. Not everybody lives (or lived) in a big city with an "armory" in the middle of it. Some of us common folks live (or still lived) in RURAL areas where help from law enforcement might be hours away. The people of that era did not store their guns in "armories" in a distant city that might be a 3 or 4 day trip on horseback to get to. They kept their guns where they needed them, which was AT HOME.

One more thing about the real world...in the real world you dont need store gunpowder on a different floor from the weapons to "prevent explosions". Gunpowder only explodes when exposed to fire, so unless the weapons themselves are burning it would be physically impossible for them to ignite the powder. I dont know where you got that little piece of historical data (Rosie O'Donnel maybe?) but it is not true.

 

[bbsam]

C4 is very stable and difficult to ignite except per instructions, but you can't keep it at home. Why do I bring that up? Just 'cuz I saw it on Mythbusters.

 

[bbsam]

Isn't gun control inherent in the phase "a well regulated Militia"? How else would they be regulated?

 

[brett636]

Isn't gun control inherent in the phase "a well regulated Militia"? How else would they be regulated?

No.

A Well Regulated Militia?

 

[bbsam]

No.

A Well Regulated Militia?

In that case it follows that no weapon should be out of reach of the militia aka the general public. Automatic and semi automatic pose only a small nuisance to the might of the US. Not only is any gun control "tyrannical" but in fact mocks the effectiveness of said militia.

 

[brett636]

In that case it follows that no weapon should be out of reach of the militia aka the general public. Automatic and semi automatic pose only a small nuisance to the might of the US. Not only is any gun control "tyrannical" but in fact mocks the effectiveness of said militia.

I would like to see the 1986 Machine gun ban repealed. It is a gross infringement of our 2nd amendment rights.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I would like to see the 1986 Machine gun ban repealed. It is a gross infringement of our 2nd amendment rights.

That's all we need---nuts who wouldn't have to stop to reload.

 

[Returntosender]

I would like to see the 1986 Machine gun ban repealed. It is a gross infringement of our 2nd amendment rights.

Google Hellfire device! Google the gatling gun trigger. Then all you need is 75, 100 rd drums.

 

[bbsam]

I would like to see the 1986 Machine gun ban repealed. It is a gross infringement of our 2nd amendment rights.

We already know that you support American Fast and Furious but Mexicans can't handle that freedom.

 

[The Other Side]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Amendment reads....

"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."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standard liberal argument against the individual right to gun ownership has always been to say that the intent of the Amendment was to allow Militias to keep and bear arms.

If this were the case....then why doesn't the Amendment simply say...."the right of the Militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

It doesnt say that. It says the people. The Founding Fathers distrusted standing armies and oppressive tyrannical governments, and believed that the people had the right to be armed for their own defense and the defense of the State. The people were (and still are) the militia.

The Constitution is full of checks and balances. One of the most important of those checks and balances....is an armed populace.

You see SOBER, thats the problem with gun owners. They dont understand basic english.

You want to EXTRAPOLATE TWO WORDS out of a sentence that has a totally different meaning that what you propose it does.

The second amendment:

""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."

The sentence has a meaning and it has four parts to it. The first part of the sentence tells you what is being addressed.

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, (COMMA- that means this plus that) being necessary to the security of a free state, (COMMA- that means the first two plus this) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, (COMMA- this means the first three plus this) shall not be infringed.

So, in 1776 what did this mean? IN NO WAY did the founders intend on people having guns at home, in cars, on racks in trucks, hidden in jackets as backups for self protection against other citizens.

In 1776, the states were new and without the benefit of a national guard, state police or national armies for protection, each state was responsible for protecting the borders of each state from other states or from the king of england coming and overtaking the goverment.

The militia, which back then was the army, was made up of the townspeople, and the guns they spoke of were to be kept in an armory, not at home. The term BEARING ARMS is a military term and it was used in a military sense in the second amendment, and not a private term.

BEARING arms and POSSESSING arms are two different terminologies.

Now, up in Oregon, you dont propose that you are part of a militia securing the freedom of citizens against california or washington invaders are you?

The second amendment in part two clearly defines what the purpose of the guns is for. THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.

There is NOTHING in there about personal safety, shooting hurt animals, or shooting intruders.

Its all about interpretations and who is doing it.

If the founders wanted its citizens to be privately armed, they would have said so in plain language, and they didnt say anything like that.

Peace

TOS

 

[brett636]

That's all we need---nuts who wouldn't have to stop to reload.

Contrary to what Hollywood has been teaching you machine guns do not fire forever. With the exception of belt fed devices( do you realize how heavy those are and how much just the ammunition weighs?) machine guns empty their chambers in a matter of 3 to 4 seconds. They have to be reloaded almost immediately after the trigger is pulled. The kind of nut you are referring too is much more dangerous with the kind of guns and magazines available today then they would be with a machine gun.

We already know that you support American Fast and Furious but Mexicans can't handle that freedom.

With any luck this November the American people will remove politicians like Eric Holder and Barack Obama who see it fit to commit murder in order to achieve their political ends. I would have never guessed Obama would green light such actions, but you can never underestimate how far a Marxist will go to achieve their goals.

 

[brett636]

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Follow the Ideology - YouTube

 

[The Other Side]

Help me follow your "logic" here TOS, because you are kind of all over the place.

In one post, you blame the cartel violence on the "lax gun laws" here in the United States, and say that "gun shows should be banned in the border states."

Then in the next post you turn right around and ADMIT that "we are not talking about LEGAL gun sales, we are talking about ILLEGAL GUN SALES BY AMERICANS TO CARTELS."

Obviously, it is a waste of time trying to educate you with any more FACTS about machine guns, grenades and grenade launchers already being ILLEGAL and impossible for Americans to obtain at gun shows or shops. You dont know ( or care to know) enough about guns to comprehend the fact that the "AK-47's" you claim to see being sold on some YouTube video are NOT even AK-47's at all, but AKM's which look the same but which are NOT machine guns.

Your problem is simple. Your knee-jerk liberal reaction to the problem of crime is that the only way to get criminals to stop breaking laws is to WRITE MORE LAWS.

Dont think; dont get any facts; and for Gods sake whatever you do, dont spend any time or effort investigating the underlying causes of the issue. No, your "solution" to the problem of Americans who break the law and smuggle guns into Mexico is to just write MORE warm and fuzzy "feel-good" laws that only the law-abiding will obey in the first place.

You know what, TOS? I'm going to go ahead and back you up on this one. Since its already ILLEGAL for Americans to smuggle guns into Mexico...lets make it DOUBLE ILLEGAL. What the hell...lets make it TRIPLE ILLEGAL. Lets make a law that says its ILLEGAL to buy an ILLEGAL gun. Lets make another law that says its ILLEGAL to ILLEGALLY sell an ILLEGAL gun for the purposes of ILLEGALLY smuggling it across a border. By golly, THAT will show those cartels that WE MEAN BUSINESS. We can also declare the entire border an ILLEGAL GUN FREE ZONE and put up signs every 50 feet with a picture of one of those icky "machine guns" (that arent really machine guns but look evil and scary to you) inside a circle with a slash thru it. No guns within 1000 feet of the border. 1000 feet? Hell, lets make it 2000 feet! Those cartels are screwed now!!

You can attempt to confuse the issue SOBER, but lets keep the converstion on the same page. The problem with guns and those who sell them is that the NRA will do everything in its power to prevent stronger laws on the books.

The laws that you speak of are WEAK and MEANINGLESS. NEW laws would curb the number of guns being sold to cartels in our border states. In the video clip i posted, YOU SAW that an UNLICENSED gun seller sold assault weapons to a guy for cash WITHOUT any documentation or background checks. This included an AK47 assault rifle.

Its laws like those in TEXAS that allow a person to sell a gun for cash without background checks that the NRA HELPS to write and pass in those states.

You call a person who would sell an assault weapon for cash without even checking the time of day - LAW ABIDING, and I find that ridiculous.

THose weapons end up going outside the gun shows and being sold again ( untraceable ) for three to five times the amount paid inside the gun show and end up with the cartels and you call that LAW ABIDING.

Somehow, at the end of the day, I am curious how you got to a point where you defend a gun so vigorously and cannot find a way to live free from fear.

The world is a dangerous place, and gun makers have made it worse and gun peddlers relish in stacks of cash at the cost of human life.

I travel all over the country on a motorcycle, and have covered thousands of miles, and yet, there isnt one instance where I thought for a split second that I needed a gun. NOT ONE. NOT a single circumstance where I thought that by having a gun I could change an outcome.

You on the other hand, seem to believe you need a gun to change every circumstance.

Its wierd.

Peace

TOS

 

[beentheredonethat]

The world is a dangerous place, and gun makers have made it worse and gun peddlers relish in stacks of cash at the cost of human life.

TOS

Are you talking about AG Holder, or Obama?

 

[soberups]

The second amendment in part two clearly defines what the purpose of the guns is for. THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.

There is NOTHING in there about personal safety, shooting hurt animals, or shooting intruders.

Its all about interpretations and who is doing it.

If the founders wanted its citizens to be privately armed, they would have said so in plain language, and they didnt say anything like that.

Peace

TOS

Hate to tell ya this, hoss...but the Supreme Court disagrees with your "interpretation". So does an overwhelming majority of the American public. So do an overwhelming majority of STATE constitutions which also gurantee the people the right to keep and bear arms. And so do the legislatures and governors of the 36 states who either have "shall issue" concealed carry laws or who specifially allow their citizens the right to carry concealed without a permit at all.

You go right ahead and keep on twisting words and parsing sentences and interpreting the meaning of commas any damn way you want to in order to try and justify your simpering, anti-gun, nanny-state mentality. I...along with 150 million other law-abiding gun owners.... will just keep on excercising my 2nd Amendment rights as one of the people.

 

[over9five]

Sober 1
TOS 0

 

[The Other Side]

Hate to tell ya this, hoss...but the Supreme Court disagrees with your "interpretation". So does an overwhelming majority of the American public. So do an overwhelming majority of STATE constitutions which also gurantee the people the right to keep and bear arms. And so do the legislatures and governors of the 36 states who either have "shall issue" concealed carry laws or who specifially allow their citizens the right to carry concealed without a permit at all.

You go right ahead and keep on twisting words and parsing sentences and interpreting the meaning of commas any damn way you want to in order to try and justify your simpering, anti-gun, nanny-state mentality. I...along with 150 million other law-abiding gun owners.... will just keep on excercising my 2nd Amendment rights as one of the people.

You live with your fears and guns, and Ill excersize my ultimate freedoms of living FREE of FEAR.

The real man walks this country free of fear and unarmed. The scared bring a gun to make them feel like a man.

Peace

TOS