The "bearing arms" debate...

[oldandslow]

Let me first provide this caveat...I am a hunter. I own 8 guns ranging from a 30-6 to a .22. Couple of shotguns for bird hunting mixed in...

Second, I grant the 2nd amendment arguments. I believe the framers of the constitution meant that YOU could own the finest musket available. Period.

Still, isn't this whole debate about where to draw the line and how you define "arms."

I mean no one is arguing for your right to own a tank, bazooka, tomahawk missle, or nuke....right?

So how about an AK 47 or M-16 that is fully automatic...do we favor that?

Or an M-60 machine gun...should you be able to own one of those?

I guess what I am saying is that not even the most avid arms enthusiast argues that a private citizen should own an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile...Yet clearly that falls under "arms."

The debate over arms, imo, is an argument over "the line" that we draw when we define arms.

Just my 2 cents.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Gawd! What a smug, self-righteous snobby Brit.

I see you're too busy in this thread to back up your nonsense allegation in the "demonized woman" thread, give your one word def for the basis for inalienable rights in the "Right to die" thread, and still...the AJ thread. Is this your MO? Write checks...who cares if they bounce...

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

To me the debate should be what is causing these mass killings, not what knee jerk reactions elected officials take to trick the public into thinking they are addressing the problem.

The problem isn't guns. Its wacko people with self esteem issues.

Exactly right. The fact is, there are going to be crazy murderers in the world, and they're going to kill people. With guns, bombs, poison, whatever. It's a miniscule percentage of people though. You have more of a chance of dying on your way to work on the highway than getting shot in a random mass shooting.

I also don't understand the argument that asshats like Piers Morgan always bring up, which is "Why would ANYONE need an assault rifle?!?! The only thing they're good for is mass murders!!!" Yeah Piers...what if 4 guys break into your home with handguns? Or pipes or knives? Would you rather have a little peashooter or an assault rifle? There's perfectly legitimate scenarios where having a gun like that would make you safer. But they act like they can't even fathom a scenario where you might need a weapon like that. They're ****ing idiots. Guns are always going to exist. Criminals will still be able to get them illegally. But now law abiding citizens like you and I won't be able to get them to defend ourselves from said criminals. I just don't get it. Taking a few events, which were horrible tragedies, and using them to push the agenda of ****ing over the 2nd amendment is just absurdity.

[A Salt Weapon]

I believe any resident of this country should be capable of owning any weaponry possessed by our government.
I believe the 2nd amendment was written to protect the citizens of this country from their government.
I believe that this country was created through citizens standing up to their government, through privately owned arms, including small arms and privately owned cannons and ships.
I believe that the federal government has no legal standing to restrict its citizens inalienable rights.
I believe that any politician submitting these proposals to attack the citizen's right to keep and bear arms, is guilty of treason against the United States of America and should be tried accordingly. I believe the punishment for even proposing these legislative atrocities should be death.
Posted via Mobile Device

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

I see you're too busy in this thread to back up your nonsense allegation in the "demonized woman" thread, give your one word def for the basis for inalienable rights in the "Right to die" thread, and still...the AJ thread. Is this your MO? Write checks...who cares if they bounce...

I see you have nothing to add for this thread. Or are you stalking with cross-thread snark. More ad hominem and off topic for this thread to discuss a poster and not an idea. Yet, you were accusing Fraz of such things, and of doing it first.

I backed up my argument already. I just know when it's done already because it's not getting anywhere with you.

You are a sore loser.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Complete cop-out.

In your opinion.

First, people use hypotheticals all the time for analysis of any number of things. Second, it is not cost-prohibitive. It wouldn't cost billions to make a crude but useful nuclear weapon.

I see you missed reading that it could still be defended as a hypothetical to another poster, which I did. Idiot illiterate heckler and troll.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Brock

I'm certain that they did anticipate that. These were not stupid men.

Absolutely agreed.
The percussion cap, primer, was invented in 1807, the pin fired brass cartage in 1834. Our founders were bright enough to figure out where arms were headed.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I see you have nothing to add for this thread. Or are you stalking with cross-thread snark. More ad hominem and off topic for this thread to discuss a poster and not an idea. Yet, you were accusing Fraz of such things.

I told you I didn't remember which thread it was in. You could have responded by telling me or getting me the link.

You are a sore loser.

Alrighty.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...&postcount=153

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...4&postcount=26

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...2&postcount=28

Please make responses in their respective threads.

[BucEyedPea]

I edited when I realized you were talking about the assisted suicide thread. I thought you were referring to another earlier thread with a question you claimed I didn't answer.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

I believe any resident of this country should be capable of owning any weaponry possessed by our government.
I believe the 2nd amendment was written to protect the citizens of this country from their government.
I believe that this country was created through citizens standing up to their government, through privately owned arms, including small arms and privately owned cannons and ships.
I believe that the federal government has no legal standing to restrict its citizens inalienable rights.
I believe that any politician submitting these proposals to attack the citizen's right to keep and bear arms, is guilty of treason against the United States of America and should be tried accordingly. I believe the punishment for even proposing these legislative atrocities should be death.Posted via Mobile Device

So, not a fan of the 1st Am. Or the Constitution itself really, which allows for legislation to be proposed and even to amend the Constitution itself.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by lcarus

Exactly right. The fact is, there are going to be crazy murderers in the world, and they're going to kill people. With guns, bombs, poison, whatever. It's a miniscule percentage of people though. You have more of a chance of dying on your way to work on the highway than getting shot in a random mass shooting.

I also don't understand the argument that asshats like Piers Morgan always bring up, which is "Why would ANYONE need an assault rifle?!?! The only thing they're good for is mass murders!!!" Yeah Piers...what if 4 guys break into your home with handguns? Or pipes or knives? Would you rather have a little peashooter or an assault rifle? There's perfectly legitimate scenarios where having a gun like that would make you safer. But they act like they can't even fathom a scenario where you might need a weapon like that. They're ****ing idiots. Guns are always going to exist. Criminals will still be able to get them illegally. But now law abiding citizens like you and I won't be able to get them to defend ourselves from said criminals. I just don't get it. Taking a few events, which were horrible tragedies, and using them to push the agenda of ****ing over the 2nd amendment is just absurdity.

A) How often do you read stories about that happening?

B) How often do you read stories where someone shot an intruder with an AR-15?

C) Since when is a .45 a peashooter?

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

So, not a fan of the 1st Am. Or the Constitution itself really, which allows for legislation to be proposed and even to amend the Constitution itself.

There is a big difference between submitting legislation that will actually benefit the country and legislation that pursues a worthless political agenda.
Posted via Mobile Device

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

There is a big difference between submitting legislation that will actually benefit the country and legislation that pursues a worthless political agenda.
Posted via Mobile Device

I agree with your statement, but determining which is which is going to vary wildly by opinion. We probably shouldn't start executing people for proposing legislation.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by lcarus

Exactly right. The fact is, there are going to be crazy murderers in the world, and they're going to kill people. With guns, bombs, poison, whatever. It's a miniscule percentage of people though. You have more of a chance of dying on your way to work on the highway than getting shot in a random mass shooting.

I also don't understand the argument that asshats like Piers Morgan always bring up, which is "Why would ANYONE need an assault rifle?!?! The only thing they're good for is mass murders!!!" Yeah Piers...what if 4 guys break into your home with handguns? Or pipes or knives? Would you rather have a little peashooter or an assault rifle? There's perfectly legitimate scenarios where having a gun like that would make you safer. But they act like they can't even fathom a scenario where you might need a weapon like that. They're ****ing idiots. Guns are always going to exist. Criminals will still be able to get them illegally. But now law abiding citizens like you and I won't be able to get them to defend ourselves from said criminals. I just don't get it. Taking a few events, which were horrible tragedies, and using them to push the agenda of ****ing over the 2nd amendment is just absurdity.

IMO the biggest problem with using a rifle for home defense is over penetration. You shoot an intruder with a high powered rifle and you can blast a hole right through him, the wall behind him, the window across the street and grandma blue hair doing her dishes in the kitchen.
Better choices for home defense are a shotgun or handgun.

[BucEyedPea]

I have my dog to sick on them. Or kick 'em in the balls.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I agree with your statement, but determining which is which is going to vary wildly by opinion. We probably shouldn't start executing people for proposing legislation.

And I agree with yours. However when you have career politicians such as feinstein that have made it their goals to trample the bill of rights at every chance possible, there needs to be some consequences. Yes I do understand she gets elected in her district, however just because the residents of California choose that path, does not mean that the individuals in Florida should have their rights destroyed.
This is why I believe in states rights and a very limited federal government.