During the time where everyone is stacking or hoarding waiting for the collapse......who are you going to sell your hoard or stack to if everyone else has no money.........and when you sell would you take worthless dollars in trade?....or would you be using your hoard or stack to purchase items you need? >>
If a collapse is inevitable, shouldn't someone be making fractional ASEs so that even some sort of semblance of commerce can continue? I mean how are we going to buy a dozen eggs at WalMart, pay with a 5 ounce hockey puck and expect to get any kind of useable change in return? Assuming of course that it doesn't take the whole 5 ounce puck to buy the eggs. I guess we'll all go shopping with silver eagles/bars/rounds, a scale and a pair of tin snips to cut the silver up with. Plus we'll need a letter/number punch set to mark the weight of the pieces.
Ok so I stack........500K in gold eagles that I have paid between 14-17 per ounce........now gold goes to 21..........but who would buy my gold now if the system (financial) has collapsed ?.........would there be buyers?...and how would they pay?........If at this time the dollar is worth 25 cents now selling my stack would have no gains (if I traded for dollars).........and I doubt you could walk into the bank and pay off your home with these gold eagles...
<< <i>Ok so I stack........500K in gold eagles that I have paid between 14-17 per ounce........now gold goes to 21..........but who would buy my gold now if the system (financial) has collapsed ?.........would there be buyers?...and how would they pay?........If at this time the dollar is worth 25 cents now selling my stack would have no gains (if I traded for dollars).........and I doubt you could walk into the bank and pay off your home with these gold eagles... >>
Well your mortgage is in dollars so it would take 4 times as many to pay it off. I expect a banker would rather take your gold than get stiffed for what you owe. I expect if you walked in to a B & M that he'd only take your gold if he had a place to dump it off. The banker would probably do the same.
<< <i>The Bill of Rights, more specifically, the 2nd Ammendment, is not a "Constitutional principle." It is a right. Rights do not need to be implemented. They need to be recognized and respected.
I totally disagree. The second amendment is the same as every other statement in the constitution; it is simply a foundational statement that is used to build our system of laws. And, that's why this debate is so difficult. Some people view their right to bear arms as if it is some type of religious right. It isn't.
I live in Massachusetts. I had lunch today with a friend who lives in Watertown, where there was a shoot-out with the police and 200 rounds were fired. Watertown is a nice, working-class suburb, but people could actually hear the gun-shots. My friend's daughters are afraid to go to school. It's a horrible situation and the people around here do not have a lot of patience for statements indicating that a 19 year old kid has a God-given right to own an arsenal of weapons so that he can use his weapons to manifest his personal political beliefs. >>
Well, I think you're totally wrong about the Bill of Rights. These are rights that have been endowed by our Creator. They are not granted to us from the government. >>
Exactly. The individual rights enumerated in the Constitution were well known long before the document we call the Constitution was a gleam in its writers' eyes. Where do people think they came from? Did a bunch of guys just one day sit down and write this stuff up out of the blue?
If the system is collapsed, are you going to want paper dollars? What backs them if there is a collapse? Gold is something. Silver is something. That's only the starting point. You might meet up with someone who is trying to dump his stash of dollars because nothing backs them, and you might get $21,000,000 of them for an ounce of gold.
The problem might come when nobody wants your dollars for any purpose. That happened to the Continental Currency. It happened to the Greenback during the Civil War.
Maybe you'll be able to buy a couple 12-packs of toilet paper for a Silver Eagle, and then you trade one of them to someone else for some eggs.
Maybe someone is selling 4 acres and is willing to take an ounce of gold.
Maybe someone wants your $21,000,000 and is willing to trade you a carton of cigarettes for it.
If it's a total collapse, that's something like what I'd expect. And that firearm would probably become your best friend, as you become known as an honest trader.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
"The solution to criminal action and terrorist action is for people to stand up and defend themselves, and to do it very well."
When I was 12, I would walk to the range with my Marlin 22 single shot and participate in the NRA sharpshooter program. Ended up with the 9 bar sharpshooter award, the final medal in the training program. I walked through the neighborhood with my rifle going to and from the range. Funny but nobody even gave it a second thought. If I did that now, there would be blackhawks overhead, mraps on every corner, drones circling, a 200 member multi agency task force under Homela nd secur direction and media stretched out for 40 miles in all directions. That just happened for a 19 year old punk that had been shot nine times...talk about overkill. What ever happened to "One riot, one Ranger"? This response was wayyyy off the charts in terms of what may have been appropriate.
So, how did everybody get so scared? Is it because innocent people were harmed? If you want to get scared them maybe you could think about the armed drug cartels operating in the borders, moving freely around the country moving drugs, kidnapping, murdering citizens, poisioning our kids...but no mraps, no blackhawks or multiagency task forces? It is going on right now, every day, everywhere, but no problem I guess, hell, we even give them the guns...somehow this all makes little sense. The peculiar thing is that the cartels are barely even in the news, maybe there is some kind of media instruction to not talk about it for fear of bringing up fast and fur ious.
Yet somehow the talking heads want to disparage the guy that has a weapon, has been trained and has a permit to carry a concealed handgun...still don't get it.
<< <i>"The solution to criminal action and terrorist action is for people to stand up and defend themselves, and to do it very well."
When I was 12, I would walk to the range with my Marlin 22 single shot and participate in the NRA sharpshooter program. Ended up with the 9 bar sharpshooter award, the final medal in the training program. I walked through the neighborhood with my rifle going to and from the range. Funny but nobody even gave it a second thought. If I did that now, there would be blackhawks overhead, mraps on every corner, drones circling, a 200 member multi agency task force under Homela nd secur direction and media stretched out for 40 miles in all directions. That just happened for a 19 year old punk that had been shot nine times...talk about overkill. What ever happened to "One riot, one Ranger"? This response was wayyyy off the charts in terms of what may have been appropriate.
So, how did everybody get so scared? Is it because innocent people were harmed? If you want to get scared them maybe you could think about the armed drug cartels operating in the borders, moving freely around the country moving drugs, kidnapping, murdering citizens, poisioning our kids...but no mraps, no blackhawks or multiagency task forces? It is going on right now, every day, everywhere, but no problem I guess, hell, we even give them the guns...somehow this all makes little sense. The peculiar thing is that the cartels are barely even in the news, maybe there is some kind of media instruction to not talk about it for fear of bringing up fast and fur ious.
Yet somehow the talking heads want to disparage the guy that has a weapon, has been trained and has a permit to carry a concealed handgun...still don't get it. >>
<< <i>1 word=control.........The US government is trying to systematically remove your rights in an effort to control the masses.........They believe they are better at running your lives than you are!..........they have learned thru the years that it is easier to control those who follow laws than those that do not.............IF they concentrated their efforts in going against law breakers instead of taking rights from those that follow laws this world would be a better place........Criminals do not apply for background checks.............Criminals do not check the yes box when asked if they have weapons..........People with mental difficulties do not automatically stand up and shout about their insanity.........IF you believe that a government agent or police officer can be your watchdog then you favor gun bans............IF you know that they cannot then you favor freedom to choose............Your rights...........NOW keeping this PM related Question?
During the time where everyone is stacking or hoarding waiting for the collapse......who are you going to sell your hoard or stack to if everyone else has no money.........and when you sell would you take worthless dollars in trade?....or would you be using your hoard or stack to purchase items you need? >>
If you don't have any issue with submitting to a background check [when required] when buying a firearm from a local dealer at his place of business, why would you be upset about a background check when buying the same firearm from the same dealer at a local show? Would everyone be happier if ALL sales were required to go thru a licensed dealer? I believe it's still true here in Iowa that in order to buy a handgun, you need a permit which includes a background check. Several years ago, I consigned a custom rifle to Cabela's in Mitchell, SD. If it didn't sell, and I wanted it back, they said if I didn't pass a background check, that they wouldn't return it to me. As long as the legislation involved just background checks, I'd have no issue with it. I'd think as a licensed dealer, it'd be smart business to do the check whether it was required to do so or not.
Dealers at gun shows already require background checks, and paperwork. And so does CCW permitting. Plenty of paperwork already.
Again, the criminals and terrorists aren't about to begin submitting to background checks, no matter how many requirements are put on legal gun owners.
Is this that hard?
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Dealers at gun shows already require background checks, and paperwork. And so does CCW permitting. Plenty of paperwork already.
Again, the criminals and terrorists aren't about to begin submitting to background checks, no matter how many requirements are put on legal gun owners.
<< <i>Dealers at gun shows already require background checks, and paperwork. And so does CCW permitting. Plenty of paperwork already.
Again, the criminals and terrorists aren't about to begin submitting to background checks, no matter how many requirements are put on legal gun owners.
Is this that hard? >>
But private sales [such as might occur between you and me] at gun shows and other places don't require a background check and this is said to be the source of weapons for those who can't pass a legitimate BC. Of course criminals, terrorists and other unqualified individuals aren't going to submit to a BC when they have other means to get what they want. What's so hard to understand about that? It's not like BCs are some new kind of thing.
<< <i>Dealers at gun shows already require background checks, and paperwork. And so does CCW permitting. Plenty of paperwork already.
Again, the criminals and terrorists aren't about to begin submitting to background checks, no matter how many requirements are put on legal gun owners.
Is this that hard? >>
But private sales [such as might occur between you and me] at gun shows and other places don't require a background check and this is said to be the source of weapons for those who can't pass a legitimate BC. Of course criminals, terrorists and other unqualified individuals aren't going to submit to a BC when they have other means to get what they want. What's so hard to understand about that? It's not like BCs are some new kind of thing. >>
Umm...no, the source of weapons for those who can't pass a legitimate BC is usually via purchasing stolen or illegally imported weapons on the black market.
Here in IL if you're buying at a show from an FFL-holding dealer you get to wait for a BC and holding period- then the weapon can be picked up from them or shipped to a dealer near you for pickup. Even a private sale requires both parties to have FOID cards (which require a background check to obtain), and anyone selling a weapon has to record the transaction including name and info of the buyer as well as all identifying info about the weapon. If you're caught selling to someone who doesn't have a FOID (and they occasionally do stings to check), it's fines, suspension/possible revocation of your FOID, confiscation of the weapon, and depending on other variables, perhaps even jail time.
On April 14, 1775 British Secretary of State William Legge ordered General Thomas Gage to disarm the Patriot Colonists.
Five days later on April 19, 1775, the Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought, the first battles of the America Revolution that were initiated by the British efforts to take guns away from the people.
On June 12, 1776, Virginia passed their Declaration of Rights and delared independence from Britain, which included "a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people." The subsequent Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights had much influence from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, composed and influenced by Patriot Virginians including Geoge Mason, Patrick Henry, George Wythe, and Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence largely described the "absolute tyranny" of King Geoge III. The colonists knew that tyranny could manifest itself very quickly (as it still can today), and knew that a tyrant's disarming of the people is the first step in eliminating freedom with total control.
The liberals don't realize that overturning the 2nd will result in civil war. That being said, the early Americans did not have nukes, biological and chemical weapons (that some wacko's think should be legal to own). Extremists at both ends poloraze any logical drawing of the line between a military weapon, and the arms that people should own. Teachers who want to conceal carry should be allowed, if they choose, which could have stopped many of the tragedies. The cartridges used in assault weapons are not any more effective than hunting rifles, I would rather have my Marlin 45-70 if the SHTF than any assualt weapon. However, large capacity can be used to kill indiscriminately of many innocent people. For myself, as a person who owns many guns, the capacity (8) of my .45 ACP 1911's is more than adequate to protect my family.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
<< <i>Dealers at gun shows already require background checks, and paperwork. And so does CCW permitting. Plenty of paperwork already.
Again, the criminals and terrorists aren't about to begin submitting to background checks, no matter how many requirements are put on legal gun owners.
Is this that hard? >>
But private sales [such as might occur between you and me] at gun shows and other places don't require a background check and this is said to be the source of weapons for those who can't pass a legitimate BC. Of course criminals, terrorists and other unqualified individuals aren't going to submit to a BC when they have other means to get what they want. What's so hard to understand about that? It's not like BCs are some new kind of thing. >>
Umm...no, the source of weapons for those who can't pass a legitimate BC is usually via purchasing stolen or illegally imported weapons on the black market.
Here in IL if you're buying at a show from an FFL-holding dealer you get to wait for a BC and holding period- then the weapon can be picked up from them or shipped to a dealer near you for pickup. Even a private sale requires both parties to have FOID cards (which require a background check to obtain), and anyone selling a weapon has to record the transaction including name and info of the buyer as well as all identifying info about the weapon. If you're caught selling to someone who doesn't have a FOID (and they occasionally do stings to check), it's fines, suspension/possible revocation of your FOID, confiscation of the weapon, and depending on other variables, perhaps even jail time. >>
How about other states then? Where are all the guns coming from that supposedly get brought into Chicago?
<< <i>The cartridges used in assault weapons are not any more effective than hunting rifles >>
Actually, the hunting rounds (big game) are far more effective. The M1 Garand (30:06) as well as the M-14 (.308) are by far more effective than today's 5.56. Had they not messed with the 5.56 when it first came out as well as the rifle, it would be a very effective round but it was considered inhumane because it was very effective.
<< <i>I would rather have my Marlin 45-70 if the SHTF than any assualt weapon. However, large capacity can be used to kill indiscriminately of many innocent people. For myself, as a person who owns many guns, the capacity (8) of my 1911's is more than adequate to protect my family. >>
And you should have the right to choose what you feel is comfortable with. Biden thinks you should only have a double barrel shotgun!
<< <i>Isn't it against the law to bring guns into Chicago?? You mean the criminal is committing a crime???
By the way, you get 10 years in prison if you take a gun across state line to commit a crime. Well, if they would punish the criminal, that is!!!
But, i guess it is just easier to punish the lawbiding citizens that it is to go after the criminals. >>
And of course Illinois ranks near the bottom of the list of the number of gun-crime prosecutions.
Here's an idea...why not enforce the existing laws, and prosecute the existing criminals and gun-crimes before trying to pass more intrusive and useless gun legislation?
<< The Bill of Rights, more specifically, the 2nd Ammendment, is not a "Constitutional principle." It is a right. Rights do not need to be implemented. They need to be recognized and respected.
<<<I totally disagree. The second amendment is the same as every other statement in the constitution; it is simply a foundational statement that is used to build our system of laws. And, that's why this debate is so difficult. Some people view their right to bear arms as if it is some type of religious right. It isn't.
...
<<< Well, I think you're totally wrong about the Bill of Rights. These are rights that have been endowed by our Creator. They are not granted to us from the government.
Amazing! So, let's looks at the Third Amendment, which talks about quartering troops. So you really think that the Creator is concerned about the rules for quartering troops! And, what about the fifth amendment and eminent domain? I just don't think that the Creator gave the government that right.
I strongly disagree that the first ten amendments are somehow endowed by the Creator.
With regard to the second amendment, I still view those statements as constitutional statements.
<< <i>Amazing! So, let's looks at the Third Amendment, which talks about quartering troops. So you really think that the Creator is concerned about the rules for quartering troops! And, what about the fifth amendment and eminent domain? I just don't think that the Creator gave the government that right.
I strongly disagree that the first ten amendments are somehow endowed by the Creator.
With regard to the second amendment, I still view those statements as constitutional statements. >>
I'm amazed that you think the way you do. Tell ya what...read and study John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Then study how these philosophers influenced Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
I think what you fail at understanding is that the Creator has given us Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Extending those beliefs - we should be able to speak our mind regarding governance, we should be free to be able to defend ourselves and our property, we should be able to defend against tyranny, and we have rights concerning how we are to be judged when accused of a crime.
Yes, these are natural rights. They are not granted by the government. They are protections from tyranny.
Do they not teach philosophy any more? Were you not required to pass a Constitution test in high school?
But private sales [such as might occur between you and me] at gun shows and other places don't require a background check and this is said to be the source of weapons for those who can't pass a legitimate BC. Of course criminals, terrorists and other unqualified individuals aren't going to submit to a BC when they have other means to get what they want. What's so hard to understand about that? It's not like BCs are some new kind of thing
So, why would a criminal submit to a background check in a private party transaction any more so than at a gun show? They wouldn't. It's pretty clear that a criminal isn't going to ask me to sell him a gun if I insist that I run a background check on him. Wouldn't you agree? Point, Set, Match.
How about other states then? Where are all the guns coming from that supposedly get brought into Chicago?
Maybe Eric Holder could answer your question. The overwhelming majority of those guns aren't being obtained legally in Illiniois or from any other legal outside sources, I assure you. Criminals don't care about the laws. Please tell me that you understand that much.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
I think what you fail at understanding is that the Creator has given us Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Extending those beliefs - we should be able to speak our mind regarding governance, we should be free to be able to defend ourselves and our property, we should be able to defend against tyranny, and we have rights concerning how we are to be judged when accused of a crime.
The broad statement of inalienable rights is not the same thing as saying that the entire Bill of Rights represents rights endowed by the Creator.
For example, you say that we should be able to defend ourselves and our property. I am okay with that concept, but I think that the concept of personal defense should limit the second amendment. I don't care if people possess weapons to protect themselves. I just don't think that the second amendment means that any individual can possess an arsenal of weapons and ammunition, as occurred with the recent incident in Massachusetts. I certainly don't think that individuals should possess weapons of mass destruction.
Guns get into the hands of criminals by way of straw purchases.........and theft from legit gun owners. There isn't much to be done about the theft other than keeping your weapons secure from thieves (but if they want them bad enough nothing is going to deter that)........Straw purchase on the other hand can be dealt with if John Law cared enough to do so........It is a know fact in Chicago gangs have infiltrated the police department.......These seemingly legit people purchase guns and ammo for their gang counterparts...........There is a lot of money to be made this way and people just don't seem to care (higher ups)......IF they simply started enforcing the current laws then that would be half the battle....it is not uncommon for a repeat offender to receive probation or simply walk on the charges because of an overburdened court system......It's much more lucrative to collect fines from parking meters and speed cameras........
If the federal government were to only enforce drug laws and current laws on the books gun deaths and the use of guns would drop considerably.........BUT that would go against the liberal agenda of complete confiscation......in addition they have changed the perimeters of the statistics to show lower crimes rate in certain categories..........choosing to lump all murders together (guns knifes bats screwdrivers ect ect)...............when using actual FBI stats the rate of gun violence is actually lower..........The talking heads will not use those preferring instead to use numbers supplied by Liberal outlets which do not paint the full picture.........
If they really wanted to settle this argument then put forth an amendment to curtail gun ownership........very few politicians would back this as it would be political suicide and it has no chance to pass that is why they haven't tried.....instead preferring to back door laws before the public wakes up..........IF you have to sneak at something then you are just as bad as the criminals and just as corrupt...........and few can stand up and say that washington is not corrupt...............
<< <i>The broad statement of inalienable rights is not the same thing as saying that the entire Bill of Rights represents rights endowed by the Creator.
For example, you say that we should be able to defend ourselves and our property. I am okay with that concept, but I think that the concept of personal defense should limit the second amendment. I don't care if people possess weapons to protect themselves. I just don't think that the second amendment means that any individual can possess an arsenal of weapons and ammunition, as occurred with the recent incident in Massachusetts. I certainly don't think that individuals should possess weapons of mass destruction. >>
Ok. Substitute "Creator" with "the natural rights of man" since you seem to have difficulty with the "Creator" word.
What you think people need or deserve regarding their personal protection and defense from tyranny does not matter to me one iota.
What you think people need or deserve regarding their personal protection and defense from tyranny does not matter to me one iota.
I am not surprised that you don't care what I think.
And, you are not alone in thinking that you have natural rights to protect against tyranny. And, you are not alone in your view that your natural rights, granted by the Creator, allow you to take actions with those weapons when you decide. After all, that's what those two kids in Boston probably thought. They had a religious view, like yours, that said that they had an obligation to defend against tyranny. And, they thought that they had a natural right to the weapons that they possessed.
<< <i>What you think people need or deserve regarding their personal protection and defense from tyranny does not matter to me one iota.
I am not surprised that you don't care what I think.
And, you are not alone in thinking that you have natural rights to protect against tyranny. And, you are not alone in your view that your natural rights, granted by the Creator, allow you to take actions with those weapons when you decide. After all, that's what those two kids in Boston probably thought. They had a religious view, like yours, that said that they had an obligation to defend against tyranny. And, they thought that they had a natural right to the weapons that they possessed. >>
Right. So, if I can summarize your thoughts in the paragraph you wrote above: agree with me, and you're all good. disagree with me, and you must be a jihadist terrorist.
<< <i> I just don't think that the second amendment means that any individual can possess an arsenal of weapons and ammunition, as occurred with the recent incident in Massachusetts. >>
So, now we get down to the definition of an "arsenal of weapons and ammunition." Who is to say how much is too much??? Can we or the government also decide what size car you drive or how big of house you live in? A person may have 10, 20 or 1,000 guns and 5,000 rounds of ammo for each. BUT, when it comes down to using them, I bet you he will be only using one gun at a time, be it as a criminal or as a hunter.
When I go to the range, I usually take 3, 4 or 5 handguns (difference calibers and styles), a couple of rifles and maybe a couple of shotguns, depending on who is going with me and how long we are going to be there.
My wife likes to shoot a .38 or 9mm. I like to shoot a .357, 40 S&W and .45APC. We may be shooting .22 rifle, 5.56 rifle, .243 rifle, a 30:06 rifle, a 300Win Mag, etc.! We may also shoot some trap, 20 gauge (wife) and 12 gauge (my son brings the one he hunter with and I bring the one I hunt with). Sometimes we make a day of it and at times we have to be flexible where we get to shoot at the range because it is so darn crowded now!!!
Fascinating as the discussion is, philosophically speaking, public policy is not decided (thankfully!) by message board chat and who manages to stretch credibility further with reducto ad absurdum arguments.
Lawmakers and courts will decide where it makes sense for the intersection between indivudual rights and public safety should be, and in those decisions, statistics and probability will play a part, as well as the "reasonableness" of what an individual or group wants to do. I feel safe saying that small arms will never be taken from citizens ("cutting out everyone's tongues to prevent shouting Fire in crowded theaters") and equally safe saying it will never be legal to have a hobby or personal protection claim of nuclear, biological, or large scale explosives.
I find the oft-repeated argument about criminals not obeying laws specious, for this reason: that's not the point of background checks and competency tests for ownership of what are, essentially, machine guns (semi-autos that fire 30 rounds in less than 30 sec., even if not "fully automatic" technically"). ... The point of background checks and competency tests are to.. STATISTICALLY ... reduce the liklihood and severity of the inevitable (it seems)mass shootings.. not to prevent citizens from defending themselves from thug (individual crooks and small groups like gangs and militia groups of opposing loyalty) or , more generally, from invasion or tyranny from foreign entities.
Finally, of course, everyone can do what they dare, and will deal with the consequences society imposes. But if someone feels they need "an arsenal" do defend their family and stuff, perhaps they should consider moving somewhere nicer.
I find the oft-repeated argument about criminals not obeying laws specious, for this reason: that's not the point of background checks and competency tests for ownership of what are, essentially, machine guns (semi-autos that fire 30 rounds in less than 30 sec., even if not "fully automatic" technically"). ... The point of background checks and competency tests are to.. STATISTICALLY ... reduce the liklihood and severity of the inevitable (it seems)mass shootings.. not to prevent citizens from defending themselves from thug (individual crooks and small groups like gangs and militia groups of opposing loyalty) or , more generally, from invasion or tyranny from foreign entities.
Apparently, you really do take alot of things for granted because you live in a nice neighborhood and have a really good job with a great company and a great family in a great community. I'm glad for you. I wouldn't ever want anything to intrude into that world either, and you're entitled to your belief that nothing bad will happen if you urge the government to institute more gun controls.
Statistically speaking however, the states and localities that have tighter gun controls are the very same states that suffer from higher violent crime rates and more mass shootings than the states that don't control gun ownership and the type of guns you are afraid of. It's well-documented. Your point regarding background checks is simply pushing bad information in order to push bad legislation.
Frankly, I find your statement that disregards criminality as being a primary concern for public safety - to be its own very specious argument and just another attempt at misdirection. The whole point of any more gun regulation is gun registration and ultimately - gun confiscation. Ask your Senator Feinstein, she's on record stating exactly that.
The issue isn't about legally-owned guns or legal gun owners. The issue is criminality and terrorism. I don't believe that criminals and terrorist should be allowed to own guns, board airplanes or to possess explosives or boxcutters, or tubes of toothpaste gel that might look like something else. I'm all for making that a reality, but leave my Constitutional Rights out of it. I'm fine without your rules for the types of guns I want to own, how many of them, and whether or not I want them for self-protection or anything else that is legal and Constitutional.
If you want to use your energy a bit more constructively - I don't think that our government should be supplying weapons to Mexican drug cartels or to Al-Qaeda in Syria via our embassy in Bengahzi either. Can you get started doing something about that? If you are truly worried about someone like me owning an AR-15, then you have your priorities for fear slightly misplaced. Heck, I'd even try to protect you with my Smith & Wesson M&P-15, but I hope that situation never arises.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
I'm amused at the "we need our guns to protect us from the government" argument, as if a bunch of undisciplined citizens would amount to anything against the force the government could bring to bear against them. As for citizen militias they wouldn't be anything more than speed bumps for "big government." Had the Founding Fathers an inkling as to how technology would change their idea of a firearm, the second amendment would have taken a different form. Most people don't want guns outlawed, they would though like to see some control over semi and automatic weapons in the hands of the citizenry. The intransigence of the gun lobby to any effort at all to do this is what will eventually cause the second amendment to be challenged, not this year, not after the next bloodbath made possible by high firepower, but one day.
I agree with much you have to say Baley except I don't believe "the point of background checks and competency tests are to.. STATISTICALLY ... reduce the liklihood and severity of the inevitable (it seems) mass shootings" (Case in Point - Sandy Hook - would not have stopped it with a background check and he was trained on how to use the firearms). If anything, a "competency test" means training and could actually increase the "severity" of a mass shooting. Competency tests may prevent accidents though.
I do not feel I need "an arsenal" do defend my family and stuff. However, shooting is a hobby I grew up with and have passed to my kids. As such, it is nice to experiment with different guns just like I assume you have more than on type of coin in your collection. Further, as anyone who truly shoots knows, different guns fit different people. As for ammo, I am glad I bought what I did, when I did!!!!!
<< <i>I'm amused at the "we need our guns to protect us from the government" argument, as if a bunch of undisciplined citizens would amount to anything against the force the government could bring to bear against them. As for citizen militias they wouldn't be anything more than speed bumps for "big government." >>
Yup, that is why we did so well in:
Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan
To name a few!!!
Big mighty techno government sure destroyed all the peasant freedom fighters, now didn't they!! Oh wait, we gave up and pulled out (THANK GOD!!!)
You also assume our friends and family in the military would kill their friends and family.
<< <i>I'm amused at the "we need our guns to protect us from the government" argument, as if a bunch of undisciplined citizens would amount to anything against the force the government could bring to bear against them. As for citizen militias they wouldn't be anything more than speed bumps for "big government." Had the Founding Fathers an inkling as to how technology would change their idea of a firearm, the second amendment would have taken a different form. Most people don't want guns outlawed, they would though like to see some control over semi and automatic weapons in the hands of the citizenry. The intransigence of the gun lobby to any effort at all to do this is what will eventually cause the second amendment to be challenged, not this year, not after the next bloodbath made possible by high firepower, but one day.
Liberal? Yes I am, I worked for it. USMC '66-'70 >>
"intransigence of the gun lobby" You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
"intransigence of the gun lobby" You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
It's "intransigence," and yes. Americans are entitled , by virtue of the Declaration of Independence, to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts. You can stand in your own space and swing your arms all you want, this is America, but when you start swinging them in my space I have a right to object.
<< <i>At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. >>
Flashback - 1960 - my dad bought a M1 Garand and an M1-carbine w/ 15 round magazine from the NRA. Both of these firearms still used by the military during that time (maybe you saw them while in the USMC). But you know what. People paid attention to their kids back then and also respected other people and their property. Well, where I am from anyways!
<< <i>"intransigence of the gun lobby" You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
It's "intransigence," and yes. Americans are entitled , by virtue of the Declaration of Independence, to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts. You can stand in your own space and swing your arms all you want, this is America, but when you start swinging them in my space I have a right to object. >>
<< <i>I'm amused at the "we need our guns to protect us from the government" argument, as if a bunch of undisciplined citizens would amount to anything against the force the government could bring to bear against them. As for citizen militias they wouldn't be anything more than speed bumps for "big government." >>
Yup, that is why we did so well in:
Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan
To name a few!!!
Big mighty techno government sure destroyed all the peasant freedom fighters, now didn't they!! Oh wait, we gave up and pulled out (THANK GOD!!!)
You also assume our friends and family in the military would kill their friends and family. >>
It is amazing what undisciplined citizens will do when they are backed into a corner and are fighting for their freedom and rights. Without an armed citizen base, the government can and often does run amok. An argument that the will of the armed citizen cannot overturn a despot is the exact reason why we have a United States. The founding of our nation was a direct result of the will of an armed citizen to no longer be under the thumb of despotism. An unarmed citizen base is much easier to CONTROL. Isn't that what gun CONTROL is all about?
When the government loses the will of the people, no army will be able to stand against the majority indefinetely. It has been proven throughout history. That lesson applies in todays world just as it did 200+ years ago. Our form of government was set up to peacefully change every 2 years through a representative election. It also separated the government into 3 branches so that no one branch had ultimate power. That process only works if the constitution is the over ruling form of governance. Once the government fails to follow the constitution and/or the representative election process you have civil unrest. The core issue at debate in my mind is whether the government is following the constitution in regards to gun control. I believe it is not. I believe the constitution gives me the right to keep and bear arms. If the government wants to change that, it should do it the right way with an amendment to the constitution not through executive order or incrementalism.
<< <i>"intransigence of the gun lobby" You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
It's "intransigence," and yes. Americans are entitled , by virtue of the Declaration of Independence, to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts. You can stand in your own space and swing your arms all you want, this is America, but when you start swinging them in my space I have a right to object. >>
Your argument helps make the point I am trying to get across. My owning a 30 round clip or weapon intended for the battlefield does not interfere with "your space". I only "swing in your space" if I use the weapon criminally. It is not the weapon that is causing the harm, it is the person using the weapon in an unlawful manner. I am not taking away your right to life and liberty by owning a weapon. I would take away your right if I use a weapon to cause undue harm to you. There is a big difference. The weapon is not committing the crime, the criminal is. If that criminal "swings in your space" then by all means you have a right to object and to defend yourself. I am not in your space and I never will be unless I am breaking the law.
On the other hand, you want to take away my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If you want to take away that right, amend the constitution so that it clearly defines what firearms/weapons are acceptable in today's society. Don't circumvent the system with executive orders and incrementalism.
Following your logic, no one would be able to drive a car because someone might possibly get in a car and kill someone. Is it not the liability of the driver that causes the accident, not the car itself? Shouldn't the driver who negligently caused the accident be liable and not the car?
The problem with society today is that we all to often try to fix the symptom and not the cause. I hate to say it but guns don't kill people, people kill people. The cause of the problem is not the gun, it is the person choosing to use the gun illegally. My gun has nothing to do with limiting your rights.
Doesn't the law already state that it is illegal for me to kill a person with a weapon unless it is self defense?
To think that armed citizens would ever last against a full military assault from our own government is absurd.............That being said........The outrage over the military being used against American citizens would be widespread and not just here but in foreign countries............Even the most liberal mind would turn against the powers that ordered this........(see start civil war)........The easiest way is to disarm, and disconnect those that own firearms from decision.....no war no blood........can't fight without the means!.......You simply have to look at the current administration asking top commanders if they could fire on Americans..........The average person (soldier) could never never ever fire on American citizens......The current liberal administration knows this so they want laws in place to PREVENT this from happening............first registration next confiscation ..............no guns easy to take charge.......ASK HITLER!!.........
<< <i>"intransigence of the gun lobby" You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
It's "intransigence," and yes. Americans are entitled , by virtue of the Declaration of Independence, to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts. You can stand in your own space and swing your arms all you want, this is America, but when you start swinging them in my space I have a right to object. >>
Your argument helps make the point I am trying to get across. My owning a 30 round clip or weapon intended for the battlefield does not interfere with "your space". I only "swing in your space" if I use the weapon criminally. It is not the weapon that is causing the harm, it is the person using the weapon in an unlawful manner. I am not taking away your right to life and liberty by owning a weapon. I would take away your right if I use a weapon to cause undue harm to you. There is a big difference. The weapon is not committing the crime, the criminal is. If that criminal "swings in your space" then by all means you have a right to object and to defend yourself. I am not in your space and I never will be unless I am breaking the law.
On the other hand, you want to take away my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If you want to take away that right, amend the constitution so that it clearly defines what firearms/weapons are acceptable in today's society. Don't circumvent the system with executive orders and incrementalism.
Following your logic, no one would be able to drive a car because someone might possibly get in a car and kill someone. Is it not the liability of the driver that causes the accident, not the car itself? Shouldn't the driver who negligently caused the accident be liable and not the car?
The problem with society today is that we all to often try to fix the symptom and not the cause. I hate to say it but guns don't kill people, people kill people. The cause of the problem is not the gun, it is the person choosing to use the gun illegally. My gun has nothing to do with limiting your rights.
Doesn't the law already state that it is illegal for me to kill a person with a weapon unless it is self defense? >>
Excellent post hchcoin......yellowkid is showing his 'kid' side here.
Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts. Quite a laughable, yet dangerous statement. So you will be satisfied when only politicians. the police, the armed forces and Hollywood liberals' body guards have firearms.
<< <i>"intransigence of the gun lobby" You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
It's "intransigence," and yes. Americans are entitled , by virtue of the Declaration of Independence, to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts. You can stand in your own space and swing your arms all you want, this is America, but when you start swinging them in my space I have a right to object. >>
Dear yellowkid, I would just like to add, if you really want to know what intransigence means in a real world application, come to my house first to try and confiscate my gun.
What most people are looking for, in the "anti gun" crowd, is for some way to get rid of the battlefield type weapons. I don't think there are enough people zealous enough to start shooting at authority if this "right" were to be curtailed. I am much more concerned about the super pacs and corporations, the"military industrial complex," and it's hold on our purse strings, and rabble rousing demagogues trying to pin the Nation's woes on the indigent and newly arrived.
<< <i>"intransigence of the gun lobby" You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
It's "intransigence," and yes. Americans are entitled , by virtue of the Declaration of Independence, to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts. You can stand in your own space and swing your arms all you want, this is America, but when you start swinging them in my space I have a right to object. >>
Dear yellowkid, I would just like to add, if you really want to know what intransigence means in a real world application, come to my house first to try and confiscate my gun.
semper fi, sweatheart. >>
It won't be me, I've seen enough violence for one lifetime, but someone will be there one day. Make sure the kids are hunkered down in the cellar.
Your argument helps make the point I am trying to get across. My owning a 30 round clip or weapon intended for the battlefield does not interfere with "your space". I only "swing in your space" if I use the weapon criminally. It is not the weapon that is causing the harm, it is the person using the weapon in an unlawful manner. I am not taking away your right to life and liberty by owning a weapon. I would take away your right if I use a weapon to cause undue harm to you. There is a big difference. The weapon is not committing the crime, the criminal is. If that criminal "swings in your space" then by all means you have a right to object and to defend yourself. I am not in your space and I never will be unless I am breaking the law.
On the other hand, you want to take away my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If you want to take away that right, amend the constitution so that it clearly defines what firearms/weapons are acceptable in today's society. Don't circumvent the system with executive orders and incrementalism.
I don't think your car analogy holds up, cars aren't designed solely to kill people, and by my right, I mean society's right. What becomes more important to more people, the right of a minority who feels they need to have 15 or 30 round clips? Or a majority who feels that the existence of these things preclude their enjoying rights guaranteed under the Declaration of Independence?
That is what is going to decide the issue at some point. The Constitution is an amazing document, but it has been amended as the times have changed.
Following your logic, no one would be able to drive a car because someone might possibly get in a car and kill someone. Is it not the liability of the driver that causes the accident, not the car itself? Shouldn't the driver who negligently caused the accident be liable and not the car?
Flashback - 1960 - my dad bought a M1 Garand and an M1-carbine w/ 15 round magazine from the NRA. Both of these firearms still used by the military during that time (maybe you saw them while in the USMC). But you know what. People paid attention to their kids back then and also respected other people and their property. Well, where I am from anyways! >>
We qualified with M-14's but still used M-1's during IRT training. We had a ten round clip for the M-1, I never saw a magazine for one. Hey, I was an expert marksman in the Corps and actually got a promotion once for my shooting ability. Then came the M-16 and the "spray and pray" method. I liked things with firepower in those days, I just question the need for them in society now.
Comments
<< <i>.....NOW keeping this PM related Question?
During the time where everyone is stacking or hoarding waiting for the collapse......who are you going to sell your hoard or stack to if everyone else has no money.........and when you sell would you take worthless dollars in trade?....or would you be using your hoard or stack to purchase items you need? >>
If a collapse is inevitable, shouldn't someone be making fractional ASEs so that even some sort of semblance of commerce can continue? I mean how are we going to buy a dozen eggs at WalMart, pay with a 5 ounce hockey puck and expect to get any kind of useable change in return? Assuming of course that it doesn't take the whole 5 ounce puck to buy the eggs. I guess we'll all go shopping with silver eagles/bars/rounds, a scale and a pair of tin snips to cut the silver up with. Plus we'll need a letter/number punch set to mark the weight of the pieces.
<< <i>Ok so I stack........500K in gold eagles that I have paid between 14-17 per ounce........now gold goes to 21..........but who would buy my gold now if the system (financial) has collapsed ?.........would there be buyers?...and how would they pay?........If at this time the dollar is worth 25 cents now selling my stack would have no gains (if I traded for dollars).........and I doubt you could walk into the bank and pay off your home with these gold eagles... >>
Well your mortgage is in dollars so it would take 4 times as many to pay it off. I expect a banker would rather take your gold than get stiffed for what you owe. I expect if you walked in to a B & M that he'd only take your gold if he had a place to dump it off. The banker would probably do the same.
<< <i>
<< <i>The Bill of Rights, more specifically, the 2nd Ammendment, is not a "Constitutional principle." It is a right. Rights do not need to be implemented. They need to be recognized and respected.
I totally disagree. The second amendment is the same as every other statement in the constitution; it is simply a foundational statement that is used to build our system of laws. And, that's why this debate is so difficult. Some people view their right to bear arms as if it is some type of religious right. It isn't.
I live in Massachusetts. I had lunch today with a friend who lives in Watertown, where there was a shoot-out with the police and 200 rounds were fired. Watertown is a nice, working-class suburb, but people could actually hear the gun-shots. My friend's daughters are afraid to go to school. It's a horrible situation and the people around here do not have a lot of patience for statements indicating that a 19 year old kid has a God-given right to own an arsenal of weapons so that he can use his weapons to manifest his personal political beliefs. >>
Well, I think you're totally wrong about the Bill of Rights. These are rights that have been endowed by our Creator. They are not granted to us from the government. >>
Exactly. The individual rights enumerated in the Constitution were well known long before the document we call the Constitution was a gleam in its writers' eyes. Where do people think they came from? Did a bunch of guys just one day sit down and write this stuff up out of the blue?
The problem might come when nobody wants your dollars for any purpose. That happened to the Continental Currency. It happened to the Greenback during the Civil War.
Maybe you'll be able to buy a couple 12-packs of toilet paper for a Silver Eagle, and then you trade one of them to someone else for some eggs.
Maybe someone is selling 4 acres and is willing to take an ounce of gold.
Maybe someone wants your $21,000,000 and is willing to trade you a carton of cigarettes for it.
If it's a total collapse, that's something like what I'd expect. And that firearm would probably become your best friend, as you become known as an honest trader.
I knew it would happen.
When I was 12, I would walk to the range with my Marlin 22 single shot and participate in the NRA sharpshooter program. Ended up with the 9 bar sharpshooter award, the final medal in the training program. I walked through the neighborhood with my rifle going to and from the range. Funny but nobody even gave it a second thought. If I did that now, there would be blackhawks overhead, mraps on every corner, drones circling, a 200 member multi agency task force under Homela nd secur direction and media stretched out for 40 miles in all directions. That just happened for a 19 year old punk that had been shot nine times...talk about overkill. What ever happened to "One riot, one Ranger"? This response was wayyyy off the charts in terms of what may have been appropriate.
So, how did everybody get so scared? Is it because innocent people were harmed? If you want to get scared them maybe you could think about the armed drug cartels operating in the borders, moving freely around the country moving drugs, kidnapping, murdering citizens, poisioning our kids...but no mraps, no blackhawks or multiagency task forces? It is going on right now, every day, everywhere, but no problem I guess, hell, we even give them the guns...somehow this all makes little sense. The peculiar thing is that the cartels are barely even in the news, maybe there is some kind of media instruction to not talk about it for fear of bringing up fast and fur ious.
Yet somehow the talking heads want to disparage the guy that has a weapon, has been trained and has a permit to carry a concealed handgun...still don't get it.
<< <i>"The solution to criminal action and terrorist action is for people to stand up and defend themselves, and to do it very well."
When I was 12, I would walk to the range with my Marlin 22 single shot and participate in the NRA sharpshooter program. Ended up with the 9 bar sharpshooter award, the final medal in the training program. I walked through the neighborhood with my rifle going to and from the range. Funny but nobody even gave it a second thought. If I did that now, there would be blackhawks overhead, mraps on every corner, drones circling, a 200 member multi agency task force under Homela nd secur direction and media stretched out for 40 miles in all directions. That just happened for a 19 year old punk that had been shot nine times...talk about overkill. What ever happened to "One riot, one Ranger"? This response was wayyyy off the charts in terms of what may have been appropriate.
So, how did everybody get so scared? Is it because innocent people were harmed? If you want to get scared them maybe you could think about the armed drug cartels operating in the borders, moving freely around the country moving drugs, kidnapping, murdering citizens, poisioning our kids...but no mraps, no blackhawks or multiagency task forces? It is going on right now, every day, everywhere, but no problem I guess, hell, we even give them the guns...somehow this all makes little sense. The peculiar thing is that the cartels are barely even in the news, maybe there is some kind of media instruction to not talk about it for fear of bringing up fast and fur ious.
Yet somehow the talking heads want to disparage the guy that has a weapon, has been trained and has a permit to carry a concealed handgun...still don't get it. >>
Excellent point!
<< <i>For example: free speech is our right, but hate speech and slander are illegal. >>
I always love arguments like this and yelling FIRE in a theater when there isn't one.
Yes, free speech (& arms) is our right, but hate speech and slander and yelling fire in a theater (killing people) are illegal!!!
So, to stop hate speech, slander and yelling fire do you cut the tongues out of everyone or punish those that commit the crime???????
<< <i>1 word=control.........The US government is trying to systematically remove your rights in an effort to control the masses.........They believe they are better at running your lives than you are!..........they have learned thru the years that it is easier to control those who follow laws than those that do not.............IF they concentrated their efforts in going against law breakers instead of taking rights from those that follow laws this world would be a better place........Criminals do not apply for background checks.............Criminals do not check the yes box when asked if they have weapons..........People with mental difficulties do not automatically stand up and shout about their insanity.........IF you believe that a government agent or police officer can be your watchdog then you favor gun bans............IF you know that they cannot then you favor freedom to choose............Your rights...........NOW keeping this PM related Question?
During the time where everyone is stacking or hoarding waiting for the collapse......who are you going to sell your hoard or stack to if everyone else has no money.........and when you sell would you take worthless dollars in trade?....or would you be using your hoard or stack to purchase items you need? >>
If you don't have any issue with submitting to a background check [when required] when buying a firearm from a local dealer at his place of business, why would you be upset about a background check when buying the same firearm from the same dealer at a local show? Would everyone be happier if ALL sales were required to go thru a licensed dealer? I believe it's still true here in Iowa that in order to buy a handgun, you need a permit which includes a background check. Several years ago, I consigned a custom rifle to Cabela's in Mitchell, SD. If it didn't sell, and I wanted it back, they said if I didn't pass a background check, that they wouldn't return it to me. As long as the legislation involved just background checks, I'd have no issue with it. I'd think as a licensed dealer, it'd be smart business to do the check whether it was required to do so or not.
Again, the criminals and terrorists aren't about to begin submitting to background checks, no matter how many requirements are put on legal gun owners.
Is this that hard?
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Dealers at gun shows already require background checks, and paperwork. And so does CCW permitting. Plenty of paperwork already.
Again, the criminals and terrorists aren't about to begin submitting to background checks, no matter how many requirements are put on legal gun owners.
Is this that hard? >>
<< <i>Dealers at gun shows already require background checks, and paperwork. And so does CCW permitting. Plenty of paperwork already.
Again, the criminals and terrorists aren't about to begin submitting to background checks, no matter how many requirements are put on legal gun owners.
Is this that hard? >>
But private sales [such as might occur between you and me] at gun shows and other places don't require a background check and this is said to be the source of weapons for those who can't pass a legitimate BC. Of course criminals, terrorists and other unqualified individuals aren't going to submit to a BC when they have other means to get what they want. What's so hard to understand about that? It's not like BCs are some new kind of thing.
<< <i>
<< <i>Dealers at gun shows already require background checks, and paperwork. And so does CCW permitting. Plenty of paperwork already.
Again, the criminals and terrorists aren't about to begin submitting to background checks, no matter how many requirements are put on legal gun owners.
Is this that hard? >>
But private sales [such as might occur between you and me] at gun shows and other places don't require a background check and this is said to be the source of weapons for those who can't pass a legitimate BC. Of course criminals, terrorists and other unqualified individuals aren't going to submit to a BC when they have other means to get what they want. What's so hard to understand about that? It's not like BCs are some new kind of thing. >>
Umm...no, the source of weapons for those who can't pass a legitimate BC is usually via purchasing stolen or illegally imported weapons on the black market.
Here in IL if you're buying at a show from an FFL-holding dealer you get to wait for a BC and holding period- then the weapon can be picked up from them or shipped to a dealer near you for pickup. Even a private sale requires both parties to have FOID cards (which require a background check to obtain), and anyone selling a weapon has to record the transaction including name and info of the buyer as well as all identifying info about the weapon. If you're caught selling to someone who doesn't have a FOID (and they occasionally do stings to check), it's fines, suspension/possible revocation of your FOID, confiscation of the weapon, and depending on other variables, perhaps even jail time.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Five days later on April 19, 1775, the Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought, the first battles of the America Revolution that were initiated by the British efforts to take guns away from the people.
On June 12, 1776, Virginia passed their Declaration of Rights and delared independence from Britain, which included "a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people." The subsequent Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights had much influence from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, composed and influenced by Patriot Virginians including Geoge Mason, Patrick Henry, George Wythe, and Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence largely described the "absolute tyranny" of King Geoge III. The colonists knew that tyranny could manifest itself very quickly (as it still can today), and knew that a tyrant's disarming of the people is the first step in eliminating freedom with total control.
The liberals don't realize that overturning the 2nd will result in civil war. That being said, the early Americans did not have nukes, biological and chemical weapons (that some wacko's think should be legal to own). Extremists at both ends poloraze any logical drawing of the line between a military weapon, and the arms that people should own. Teachers who want to conceal carry should be allowed, if they choose, which could have stopped many of the tragedies. The cartridges used in assault weapons are not any more effective than hunting rifles, I would rather have my Marlin 45-70 if the SHTF than any assualt weapon. However, large capacity can be used to kill indiscriminately of many innocent people. For myself, as a person who owns many guns, the capacity (8) of my .45 ACP 1911's is more than adequate to protect my family.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Dealers at gun shows already require background checks, and paperwork. And so does CCW permitting. Plenty of paperwork already.
Again, the criminals and terrorists aren't about to begin submitting to background checks, no matter how many requirements are put on legal gun owners.
Is this that hard? >>
But private sales [such as might occur between you and me] at gun shows and other places don't require a background check and this is said to be the source of weapons for those who can't pass a legitimate BC. Of course criminals, terrorists and other unqualified individuals aren't going to submit to a BC when they have other means to get what they want. What's so hard to understand about that? It's not like BCs are some new kind of thing. >>
Umm...no, the source of weapons for those who can't pass a legitimate BC is usually via purchasing stolen or illegally imported weapons on the black market.
Here in IL if you're buying at a show from an FFL-holding dealer you get to wait for a BC and holding period- then the weapon can be picked up from them or shipped to a dealer near you for pickup. Even a private sale requires both parties to have FOID cards (which require a background check to obtain), and anyone selling a weapon has to record the transaction including name and info of the buyer as well as all identifying info about the weapon. If you're caught selling to someone who doesn't have a FOID (and they occasionally do stings to check), it's fines, suspension/possible revocation of your FOID, confiscation of the weapon, and depending on other variables, perhaps even jail time. >>
How about other states then? Where are all the guns coming from that supposedly get brought into Chicago?
<< <i>How about other states then? Where are all the guns coming from that supposedly get brought into Chicago? >>
Illegal straw purchases. Criminals do not comply with the law. That's why they are criminals.
<< <i>The cartridges used in assault weapons are not any more effective than hunting rifles >>
Actually, the hunting rounds (big game) are far more effective. The M1 Garand (30:06) as well as the M-14 (.308) are by far more effective than today's 5.56. Had they not messed with the 5.56 when it first came out as well as the rifle, it would be a very effective round but it was considered inhumane because it was very effective.
<< <i>I would rather have my Marlin 45-70 if the SHTF than any assualt weapon. However, large capacity can be used to kill indiscriminately of many innocent people. For myself, as a person who owns many guns, the capacity (8) of my 1911's is more than adequate to protect my family. >>
And you should have the right to choose what you feel is comfortable with. Biden thinks you should only have a double barrel shotgun!
<< <i>How about other states then? Where are all the guns coming from that supposedly get brought into Chicago? >>
Isn't it against the law to bring guns into Chicago?? You mean the criminal is committing a crime???
By the way, you get 10 years in prison if you take a gun across state line to commit a crime. Well, if they would punish the criminal, that is!!!
But, i guess it is just easier to punish the lawbiding citizens that it is to go after the criminals.
<< <i>Isn't it against the law to bring guns into Chicago?? You mean the criminal is committing a crime???
By the way, you get 10 years in prison if you take a gun across state line to commit a crime. Well, if they would punish the criminal, that is!!!
But, i guess it is just easier to punish the lawbiding citizens that it is to go after the criminals. >>
And of course Illinois ranks near the bottom of the list of the number of gun-crime prosecutions.
Here's an idea...why not enforce the existing laws, and prosecute the existing criminals and gun-crimes before trying to pass more intrusive and useless gun legislation?
<<<I totally disagree. The second amendment is the same as every other statement in the constitution; it is simply a foundational statement that is used to build our system of laws. And, that's why this debate is so difficult. Some people view their right to bear arms as if it is some type of religious right. It isn't.
...
<<< Well, I think you're totally wrong about the Bill of Rights. These are rights that have been endowed by our Creator. They are not granted to us from the government.
Amazing! So, let's looks at the Third Amendment, which talks about quartering troops. So you really think that the Creator is concerned about the rules for quartering troops! And, what about the fifth amendment and eminent domain? I just don't think that the Creator gave the government that right.
I strongly disagree that the first ten amendments are somehow endowed by the Creator.
With regard to the second amendment, I still view those statements as constitutional statements.
<< <i>Amazing! So, let's looks at the Third Amendment, which talks about quartering troops. So you really think that the Creator is concerned about the rules for quartering troops! And, what about the fifth amendment and eminent domain? I just don't think that the Creator gave the government that right.
I strongly disagree that the first ten amendments are somehow endowed by the Creator.
With regard to the second amendment, I still view those statements as constitutional statements. >>
I'm amazed that you think the way you do. Tell ya what...read and study John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Then study how these philosophers influenced Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
I think what you fail at understanding is that the Creator has given us Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Extending those beliefs - we should be able to speak our mind regarding governance, we should be free to be able to defend ourselves and our property, we should be able to defend against tyranny, and we have rights concerning how we are to be judged when accused of a crime.
Yes, these are natural rights. They are not granted by the government. They are protections from tyranny.
Do they not teach philosophy any more? Were you not required to pass a Constitution test in high school?
So, why would a criminal submit to a background check in a private party transaction any more so than at a gun show? They wouldn't. It's pretty clear that a criminal isn't going to ask me to sell him a gun if I insist that I run a background check on him. Wouldn't you agree? Point, Set, Match.
How about other states then? Where are all the guns coming from that supposedly get brought into Chicago?
Maybe Eric Holder could answer your question. The overwhelming majority of those guns aren't being obtained legally in Illiniois or from any other legal outside sources, I assure you. Criminals don't care about the laws. Please tell me that you understand that much.
I knew it would happen.
The broad statement of inalienable rights is not the same thing as saying that the entire Bill of Rights represents rights endowed by the Creator.
For example, you say that we should be able to defend ourselves and our property. I am okay with that concept, but I think that the concept of personal defense should limit the second amendment. I don't care if people possess weapons to protect themselves. I just don't think that the second amendment means that any individual can possess an arsenal of weapons and ammunition, as occurred with the recent incident in Massachusetts. I certainly don't think that individuals should possess weapons of mass destruction.
If the federal government were to only enforce drug laws and current laws on the books gun deaths and the use of guns would drop considerably.........BUT that would go against the liberal agenda of complete confiscation......in addition they have changed the perimeters of the statistics to show lower crimes rate in certain categories..........choosing to lump all murders together (guns knifes bats screwdrivers ect ect)...............when using actual FBI stats the rate of gun violence is actually lower..........The talking heads will not use those preferring instead to use numbers supplied by Liberal outlets which do not paint the full picture.........
If they really wanted to settle this argument then put forth an amendment to curtail gun ownership........very few politicians would back this as it would be political suicide and it has no chance to pass that is why they haven't tried.....instead preferring to back door laws before the public wakes up..........IF you have to sneak at something then you are just as bad as the criminals and just as corrupt...........and few can stand up and say that washington is not corrupt...............
<< <i>The broad statement of inalienable rights is not the same thing as saying that the entire Bill of Rights represents rights endowed by the Creator.
For example, you say that we should be able to defend ourselves and our property. I am okay with that concept, but I think that the concept of personal defense should limit the second amendment. I don't care if people possess weapons to protect themselves. I just don't think that the second amendment means that any individual can possess an arsenal of weapons and ammunition, as occurred with the recent incident in Massachusetts. I certainly don't think that individuals should possess weapons of mass destruction. >>
Ok. Substitute "Creator" with "the natural rights of man" since you seem to have difficulty with the "Creator" word.
What you think people need or deserve regarding their personal protection and defense from tyranny does not matter to me one iota.
I am not surprised that you don't care what I think.
And, you are not alone in thinking that you have natural rights to protect against tyranny. And, you are not alone in your view that your natural rights, granted by the Creator, allow you to take actions with those weapons when you decide. After all, that's what those two kids in Boston probably thought. They had a religious view, like yours, that said that they had an obligation to defend against tyranny. And, they thought that they had a natural right to the weapons that they possessed.
<< <i>What you think people need or deserve regarding their personal protection and defense from tyranny does not matter to me one iota.
I am not surprised that you don't care what I think.
And, you are not alone in thinking that you have natural rights to protect against tyranny. And, you are not alone in your view that your natural rights, granted by the Creator, allow you to take actions with those weapons when you decide. After all, that's what those two kids in Boston probably thought. They had a religious view, like yours, that said that they had an obligation to defend against tyranny. And, they thought that they had a natural right to the weapons that they possessed. >>
Right. So, if I can summarize your thoughts in the paragraph you wrote above: agree with me, and you're all good. disagree with me, and you must be a jihadist terrorist.
<< <i> I just don't think that the second amendment means that any individual can possess an arsenal of weapons and ammunition, as occurred with the recent incident in Massachusetts. >>
So, now we get down to the definition of an "arsenal of weapons and ammunition." Who is to say how much is too much??? Can we or the government also decide what size car you drive or how big of house you live in? A person may have 10, 20 or 1,000 guns and 5,000 rounds of ammo for each. BUT, when it comes down to using them, I bet you he will be only using one gun at a time, be it as a criminal or as a hunter.
When I go to the range, I usually take 3, 4 or 5 handguns (difference calibers and styles), a couple of rifles and maybe a couple of shotguns, depending on who is going with me and how long we are going to be there.
My wife likes to shoot a .38 or 9mm. I like to shoot a .357, 40 S&W and .45APC. We may be shooting .22 rifle, 5.56 rifle, .243 rifle, a 30:06 rifle, a 300Win Mag, etc.! We may also shoot some trap, 20 gauge (wife) and 12 gauge (my son brings the one he hunter with and I bring the one I hunt with). Sometimes we make a day of it and at times we have to be flexible where we get to shoot at the range because it is so darn crowded now!!!
Lawmakers and courts will decide where it makes sense for the intersection between indivudual rights and public safety should be, and in those decisions, statistics and probability will play a part, as well as the "reasonableness" of what an individual or group wants to do. I feel safe saying that small arms will never be taken from citizens ("cutting out everyone's tongues to prevent shouting Fire in crowded theaters") and equally safe saying it will never be legal to have a hobby or personal protection claim of nuclear, biological, or large scale explosives.
I find the oft-repeated argument about criminals not obeying laws specious, for this reason: that's not the point of background checks and competency tests for ownership of what are, essentially, machine guns (semi-autos that fire 30 rounds in less than 30 sec., even if not "fully automatic" technically"). ... The point of background checks and competency tests are to.. STATISTICALLY ... reduce the liklihood and severity of the inevitable (it seems)mass shootings.. not to prevent citizens from defending themselves from thug (individual crooks and small groups like gangs and militia groups of opposing loyalty) or , more generally, from invasion or tyranny from foreign entities.
Finally, of course, everyone can do what they dare, and will deal with the consequences society imposes. But if someone feels they need "an arsenal" do defend their family and stuff, perhaps they should consider moving somewhere nicer.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
The only thing specious is your reasoning, Baley. It's not the same as it was before.
Apparently, you really do take alot of things for granted because you live in a nice neighborhood and have a really good job with a great company and a great family in a great community. I'm glad for you. I wouldn't ever want anything to intrude into that world either, and you're entitled to your belief that nothing bad will happen if you urge the government to institute more gun controls.
Statistically speaking however, the states and localities that have tighter gun controls are the very same states that suffer from higher violent crime rates and more mass shootings than the states that don't control gun ownership and the type of guns you are afraid of. It's well-documented. Your point regarding background checks is simply pushing bad information in order to push bad legislation.
Frankly, I find your statement that disregards criminality as being a primary concern for public safety - to be its own very specious argument and just another attempt at misdirection. The whole point of any more gun regulation is gun registration and ultimately - gun confiscation. Ask your Senator Feinstein, she's on record stating exactly that.
The issue isn't about legally-owned guns or legal gun owners. The issue is criminality and terrorism. I don't believe that criminals and terrorist should be allowed to own guns, board airplanes or to possess explosives or boxcutters, or tubes of toothpaste gel that might look like something else. I'm all for making that a reality, but leave my Constitutional Rights out of it. I'm fine without your rules for the types of guns I want to own, how many of them, and whether or not I want them for self-protection or anything else that is legal and Constitutional.
If you want to use your energy a bit more constructively - I don't think that our government should be supplying weapons to Mexican drug cartels or to Al-Qaeda in Syria via our embassy in Bengahzi either. Can you get started doing something about that? If you are truly worried about someone like me owning an AR-15, then you have your priorities for fear slightly misplaced. Heck, I'd even try to protect you with my Smith & Wesson M&P-15, but I hope that situation never arises.
I knew it would happen.
Had the Founding Fathers an inkling as to how technology would change their idea of a firearm, the second amendment would have taken a different form. Most people don't want guns outlawed, they would though like to see some control over semi and automatic weapons in the hands of the citizenry. The intransigence of the gun lobby to any effort at all to do this is what will eventually cause the second amendment to be challenged, not this year, not after the next bloodbath made possible by high firepower, but one day.
Liberal? Yes I am, I worked for it. USMC '66-'70
I do not feel I need "an arsenal" do defend my family and stuff. However, shooting is a hobby I grew up with and have passed to my kids. As such, it is nice to experiment with different guns just like I assume you have more than on type of coin in your collection. Further, as anyone who truly shoots knows, different guns fit different people. As for ammo, I am glad I bought what I did, when I did!!!!!
<< <i>I'm amused at the "we need our guns to protect us from the government" argument, as if a bunch of undisciplined citizens would amount to anything against the force the government could bring to bear against them. As for citizen militias they wouldn't be anything more than speed bumps for "big government." >>
Yup, that is why we did so well in:
Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan
To name a few!!!
Big mighty techno government sure destroyed all the peasant freedom fighters, now didn't they!! Oh wait, we gave up and pulled out (THANK GOD!!!)
You also assume our friends and family in the military would kill their friends and family.
<< <i>I'm amused at the "we need our guns to protect us from the government" argument, as if a bunch of undisciplined citizens would amount to anything against the force the government could bring to bear against them. As for citizen militias they wouldn't be anything more than speed bumps for "big government."
Had the Founding Fathers an inkling as to how technology would change their idea of a firearm, the second amendment would have taken a different form. Most people don't want guns outlawed, they would though like to see some control over semi and automatic weapons in the hands of the citizenry. The intransigence of the gun lobby to any effort at all to do this is what will eventually cause the second amendment to be challenged, not this year, not after the next bloodbath made possible by high firepower, but one day.
Liberal? Yes I am, I worked for it. USMC '66-'70 >>
"intransigence of the gun lobby"
You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
Ok, just making sure.
<< <i>Yes I am, I worked for it. USMC '66-'70 >>
Oh and thank you for your service to the Country and protecting the US Constitution!
"intransigence of the gun lobby"
You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
It's "intransigence," and yes. Americans are entitled , by virtue of the Declaration of Independence, to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts. You can stand in your own space and swing your arms all you want, this is America, but when you start swinging them in my space I have a right to object.
<< <i>At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. >>
Flashback - 1960 - my dad bought a M1 Garand and an M1-carbine w/ 15 round magazine from the NRA. Both of these firearms still used by the military during that time (maybe you saw them while in the USMC). But you know what. People paid attention to their kids back then and also respected other people and their property. Well, where I am from anyways!
<< <i>"intransigence of the gun lobby"
You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
It's "intransigence," and yes. Americans are entitled , by virtue of the Declaration of Independence, to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts. You can stand in your own space and swing your arms all you want, this is America, but when you start swinging them in my space I have a right to object. >>
That's very, ummmmmm....."liberal" of you.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm amused at the "we need our guns to protect us from the government" argument, as if a bunch of undisciplined citizens would amount to anything against the force the government could bring to bear against them. As for citizen militias they wouldn't be anything more than speed bumps for "big government." >>
Yup, that is why we did so well in:
Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan
To name a few!!!
Big mighty techno government sure destroyed all the peasant freedom fighters, now didn't they!! Oh wait, we gave up and pulled out (THANK GOD!!!)
You also assume our friends and family in the military would kill their friends and family. >>
It is amazing what undisciplined citizens will do when they are backed into a corner and are fighting for their freedom and rights. Without an armed citizen base, the government can and often does run amok. An argument that the will of the armed citizen cannot overturn a despot is the exact reason why we have a United States. The founding of our nation was a direct result of the will of an armed citizen to no longer be under the thumb of despotism. An unarmed citizen base is much easier to CONTROL. Isn't that what gun CONTROL is all about?
When the government loses the will of the people, no army will be able to stand against the majority indefinetely. It has been proven throughout history. That lesson applies in todays world just as it did 200+ years ago. Our form of government was set up to peacefully change every 2 years through a representative election. It also separated the government into 3 branches so that no one branch had ultimate power. That process only works if the constitution is the over ruling form of governance. Once the government fails to follow the constitution and/or the representative election process you have civil unrest. The core issue at debate in my mind is whether the government is following the constitution in regards to gun control. I believe it is not. I believe the constitution gives me the right to keep and bear arms. If the government wants to change that, it should do it the right way with an amendment to the constitution not through executive order or incrementalism.
<< <i>"intransigence of the gun lobby"
You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
It's "intransigence," and yes. Americans are entitled , by virtue of the Declaration of Independence, to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts. You can stand in your own space and swing your arms all you want, this is America, but when you start swinging them in my space I have a right to object. >>
Your argument helps make the point I am trying to get across. My owning a 30 round clip or weapon intended for the battlefield does not interfere with "your space". I only "swing in your space" if I use the weapon criminally. It is not the weapon that is causing the harm, it is the person using the weapon in an unlawful manner. I am not taking away your right to life and liberty by owning a weapon. I would take away your right if I use a weapon to cause undue harm to you. There is a big difference. The weapon is not committing the crime, the criminal is. If that criminal "swings in your space" then by all means you have a right to object and to defend yourself. I am not in your space and I never will be unless I am breaking the law.
On the other hand, you want to take away my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If you want to take away that right, amend the constitution so that it clearly defines what firearms/weapons are acceptable in today's society. Don't circumvent the system with executive orders and incrementalism.
Following your logic, no one would be able to drive a car because someone might possibly get in a car and kill someone. Is it not the liability of the driver that causes the accident, not the car itself? Shouldn't the driver who negligently caused the accident be liable and not the car?
The problem with society today is that we all to often try to fix the symptom and not the cause. I hate to say it but guns don't kill people, people kill people. The cause of the problem is not the gun, it is the person choosing to use the gun illegally. My gun has nothing to do with limiting your rights.
Doesn't the law already state that it is illegal for me to kill a person with a weapon unless it is self defense?
Yellowkid, you know history. Do you really think it can never happen here?
Yes, these things really did happen.
as if a bunch of undisciplined citizens would amount to anything against the force the government could bring to bear against them.
You really have no concerns?
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>"intransigence of the gun lobby"
You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
It's "intransigence," and yes. Americans are entitled , by virtue of the Declaration of Independence, to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts. You can stand in your own space and swing your arms all you want, this is America, but when you start swinging them in my space I have a right to object. >>
Your argument helps make the point I am trying to get across. My owning a 30 round clip or weapon intended for the battlefield does not interfere with "your space". I only "swing in your space" if I use the weapon criminally. It is not the weapon that is causing the harm, it is the person using the weapon in an unlawful manner. I am not taking away your right to life and liberty by owning a weapon. I would take away your right if I use a weapon to cause undue harm to you. There is a big difference. The weapon is not committing the crime, the criminal is. If that criminal "swings in your space" then by all means you have a right to object and to defend yourself. I am not in your space and I never will be unless I am breaking the law.
On the other hand, you want to take away my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If you want to take away that right, amend the constitution so that it clearly defines what firearms/weapons are acceptable in today's society. Don't circumvent the system with executive orders and incrementalism.
Following your logic, no one would be able to drive a car because someone might possibly get in a car and kill someone. Is it not the liability of the driver that causes the accident, not the car itself? Shouldn't the driver who negligently caused the accident be liable and not the car?
The problem with society today is that we all to often try to fix the symptom and not the cause. I hate to say it but guns don't kill people, people kill people. The cause of the problem is not the gun, it is the person choosing to use the gun illegally. My gun has nothing to do with limiting your rights.
Doesn't the law already state that it is illegal for me to kill a person with a weapon unless it is self defense? >>
Excellent post hchcoin......yellowkid is showing his 'kid' side here.
Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts.
Quite a laughable, yet dangerous statement. So you will be satisfied when only politicians. the police, the armed forces and Hollywood liberals' body guards have firearms.
<< <i>"intransigence of the gun lobby"
You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
It's "intransigence," and yes. Americans are entitled , by virtue of the Declaration of Independence, to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts. You can stand in your own space and swing your arms all you want, this is America, but when you start swinging them in my space I have a right to object. >>
Dear yellowkid,
I would just like to add, if you really want to know what intransigence means in a real world application, come to my house first to try and confiscate my gun.
semper fi, sweatheart.
<< <i>
<< <i>"intransigence of the gun lobby"
You mean to say that a group of citizens who lobby and petition the government to protect an enumerated constitutional right from those who would infringe upon it, amounts to 'intransignence?"
It's "intransigence," and yes. Americans are entitled , by virtue of the Declaration of Independence, to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At some point, which I feel we have arrived at, my "right" to life and liberty is endangered by your "right" to own weapons intended to be used on the battlefield. Eventually my "right" is going to beat your "right" in the courts. You can stand in your own space and swing your arms all you want, this is America, but when you start swinging them in my space I have a right to object. >>
Dear yellowkid,
I would just like to add, if you really want to know what intransigence means in a real world application, come to my house first to try and confiscate my gun.
semper fi, sweatheart. >>
It won't be me, I've seen enough violence for one lifetime, but someone will be there one day. Make sure the kids are hunkered down in the cellar.
Your argument helps make the point I am trying to get across. My owning a 30 round clip or weapon intended for the battlefield does not interfere with "your space". I only "swing in your space" if I use the weapon criminally. It is not the weapon that is causing the harm, it is the person using the weapon in an unlawful manner. I am not taking away your right to life and liberty by owning a weapon. I would take away your right if I use a weapon to cause undue harm to you. There is a big difference. The weapon is not committing the crime, the criminal is. If that criminal "swings in your space" then by all means you have a right to object and to defend yourself. I am not in your space and I never will be unless I am breaking the law.
On the other hand, you want to take away my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If you want to take away that right, amend the constitution so that it clearly defines what firearms/weapons are acceptable in today's society. Don't circumvent the system with executive orders and incrementalism.
I don't think your car analogy holds up, cars aren't designed solely to kill people, and by my right, I mean society's right. What becomes more important to more people, the right of a minority who feels they need to have 15 or 30 round clips? Or a majority who feels that the existence of these things preclude their enjoying rights guaranteed under the Declaration of Independence?
That is what is going to decide the issue at some point. The Constitution is an amazing document, but it has been amended as the times have changed.
Following your logic, no one would be able to drive a car because someone might possibly get in a car and kill someone. Is it not the liability of the driver that causes the accident, not the car itself? Shouldn't the driver who negligently caused the accident be liable and not the car?
We qualified with M-14's but still used M-1's during IRT training. We had a ten round clip for the M-1, I never saw a magazine for one. Hey, I was an expert marksman in the Corps and actually got a promotion once for my shooting ability. Then came the M-16 and the "spray and pray" method. I liked things with firepower in those days, I just question the need for them in society now.
By the by, this has certainly gotten OT
<< <i>I don't think your car analogy holds up, cars aren't designed solely to kill people >>
I would argue neither are guns
<< <i>We qualified with M-14's but still used M-1's during IRT training. We had a ten round clip for the M-1, I never saw a magazine for one. >>
The Garand (M-1) had a built-in magazine and the ball ammo, 30:06, came on clips (that is why the new media and a lot of people call magazines "clips)
The M-1 CARBINE came with a 15 round detachable box magazine and used 30 Carbine ammo.
Two difference firearms yellowkid. Just like M16s and AR15s are!
By the wat yellowkid, did you ever get "bit" by the M-1?