I've been a gun owner for over 6yrs now. But I still chuckle of the thought of crazy NRA supporters clinging to their guns in fear of the gub'ment coming to take them away. :lol:
Right to bear arms..
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Ok, so I'm a junkie, I want a fix but I don't have a lot of money, I invest whatever I have left in a cheap ass pistol and I rob Walmart or something. At what point does a FOID come into this? It's not about the laws that surround guns it's the fact they are there to begin with.It's pretty easy for a few guns to fall out of the back of a truck and into the lap of a maniac or criminal.Who is going to invade America? France? Belgium? Maybe those pesky Canadians right on your doorstep? Get real.clembo1990
You get real. Felons and criminals can't get guns and there is a waiting period for guns so you can't just buy a "cheap ass pistol" and rob a place. And if you do, since the gun is registered, you'll get caught. By outlawing guns you'll be forcing that guy to get one illegally and then he is much more difficult to track.
As far as who might invade America? Try Terrorists. In 2001. If our civilians were carrying firearms they could have detained those men and the towers would still be there. Who knows how it would have played out.
I don't think we're willing to give up our freedoms, we're willing to amend them so they apply more easily to modern times. Right now, I'm at more danger from getting shot in the face by someone legally carrying a handgun then a government tyranny or violent revolution. Maniacc1
No, you really aren't. When was the last time you saw someone legally carrying a hand gun around the streets? Unless they're a cop (which I would say falls under government tyranny if they're going around shooting people for no reason) that just doesn't happen. Legal gun owners are much smarter than you apparently give us credit for.
Yes, I got the impression Treflis' post said rip up the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights instead of expressing concern that the Second Amendment was an anachronism, relevant to only a specific context. You are indeed shrewd.Danm_999
It's called exaggerating. I know he didn't really suggest that but if we're going to remove the Second Amendment why stop there? Why not remove all things that conflict? We have "freedom of speech" but can't say cuss words or slang in public because it hurts people's feelings. Might as well remove that too.
And if your government chooses to oppress you, given modern military technology, how effective is a handgun going to be?Danm_999
Soldiers are just soldiers. They aren't death squads. They're humans and people that are afraid. They march into battle against a common foe but when they have to march against their friends and family, it'll be a far different story. A handgun might not do much, but that's why it's a side arm. You use a rifle or a shotgun in battle.
Inever said firearms should be made illegal. I said their should be strict regulations. No one needs more than one gun, no one needs to take it out in public. And the argument of "because I can" just doesn't cut it anymore. It seems to me people are buying guns for the sole principal of it, not even understanding what it's original purpose in the Constitution was.Maniacc1
Really? I only need one gun? Alright, then during pistol season I can't hunt, because I only have a shotgun. When I go to a rifle state, I can't hunt, because I only have a shotgun. I can only hunt deer and not birds because I only have ONE gun. Each gun has a different use just like each screw driver or wrench has a different use. I agree that an AK is a little absurd, unless it's just a collector or for target practice (they are cheap to fire), but there are several uses for several guns. You can't get close enough to a coyote to hunt them with a shotgun and they are a huge problem in Illinois.
You're right, thought. People are buying guns for the sole principal of it. Because they're afraid Obama is going to take them away; but that's a conversation for another day.
Really? I only need one gun? Alright, then during pistol season I can't hunt, because I only have a shotgun. When I go to a rifle state, I can't hunt, because I only have a shotgun. I can only hunt deer and not birds because I only have ONE gun. Each gun has a different use just like each screw driver or wrench has a different use. I agree that an AK is a little absurd, unless it's just a collector or for target practice (they are cheap to fire), but there are several uses for several guns. You can't get close enough to a coyote to hunt them with a shotgun and they are a huge problem in Illinois.You're right, thought. People are buying guns for the sole principal of it. Because they're afraid Obama is going to take them away; but that's a conversation for another day.AustXilo
Oh, I meant just one handgun for inside the house, for protection means. Hunting weapons are entirely different, I don't see a strong need for tough regulation if one has a hunting license, etc.
A gun deals death, and that isits only purpose. It is not just another tool that you are entitled to own, like a hammer. Because of its exceptionally high capacity to cause harm even unintentionally, it must be carefully but reasonably regulated.
Exactly this. Although 5 is a little much :P You've obviously never been to Idaho. I own just one, and people look at me like I'm crippled for it.
We're at the point in our society that we don't need people to be able to get AK-47's or auto shotguns. They have no purpose but to kill other (and often times many) people. I can understand having a pistol for self defense, or a rifle for hunting, but do you need to riddle a deer with 25 AK bullets to kill it? No. These stupid laws would be so much easier to interpret and follow if people weren't morons and exercise discretion, but sadly, that's not the case.hillelslovakAlmost all guns purchased legally are never used for crime. Those can be traced back to the vendor and owner... So who care if you buy an auto shotgun or an AK? People use them out at the shooting range. It's actually alot of fun an a good activity to get into. There is absolutely nothing wrong with shooting clay pigeons and targets.
[QUOTE="AustXilo"]Really? I only need one gun? Alright, then during pistol season I can't hunt, because I only have a shotgun. When I go to a rifle state, I can't hunt, because I only have a shotgun. I can only hunt deer and not birds because I only have ONE gun. Each gun has a different use just like each screw driver or wrench has a different use. I agree that an AK is a little absurd, unless it's just a collector or for target practice (they are cheap to fire), but there are several uses for several guns. You can't get close enough to a coyote to hunt them with a shotgun and they are a huge problem in Illinois.
You're right, thought. People are buying guns for the sole principal of it. Because they're afraid Obama is going to take them away; but that's a conversation for another day.
Oh, I meant just one handgun for inside the house, for protection means. Hunting weapons are entirely different, I don't see a strong need for tough regulation if one has a hunting license, etc.
Alright, well, that's a different story. The problem is; most of the guns you can buy are for hunting. AKs, MP5s, stuff like that, are solely collectors or range-only. Those aren't legal anywhere just to have on you. Most people don't see a need for guns even for hunting. I, for one, would rather not die of some nasty disease that the overpopulation gun restriction would cause. Before you think "that won't happen" it has. The mad cow equivilant in deer. They got this because they are vastly overpopulated. Coyotoes are the same way.It's called exaggerating. AustXilo
Actually, it's called a slippery slope fallacy.
It's not even where you exagerate, it's where you begin inventing extreme positions the person didn't originally propose.
[QUOTE="AustXilo"]I know he didn't really suggest that but if we're going to remove the Second Amendment why stop there? Why not remove all things that conflict? We have "freedom of speech" but can't say cuss words or slang in public because it hurts people's feelings. Might as well remove that too.AustXilo
Because Treflis gave you a specific reason the intention of the Second Amendment conflicts with modern realities.
Other issues do not conflict, like the First Amendment, hence we don't remove them. You can legally cuss or slang in public, that has always been looked down upon, but never seriously proposed as an illegality.
Bottom line is outdated parts of the constitution and the Bill of Rights need to change. If we didn't amend things, a certain ethnic group would still only count for 3/5ths of a regular vote.
Soldiers are just soldiers. They aren't death squads. They're humans and people that are afraid. They march into battle against a common foe but when they have to march against their friends and family, it'll be a far different story. A handgun might not do much, but that's why it's a side arm. You use a rifle or a shotgun in battle.AustXilo
Actually, I'm more talking about aircraft, armored vehicles, missiles, you know, the high powered weapons the US government can bring to bear if it needs to. We're no longer in an age where small fire arms are an effective counter to modern military power.
Try Terrorists. In 2001. If our civilians were carrying firearms they could have detained those men and the towers would still be there. Who knows how it would have played out.
AustXilo
Are you serious?
9/11 wasn't an invasion.
Terrorists cannot invade your country. And if they did, and your military was unable to stop them, civilians with small arms aren't going to.
I also don't see how the attacks could be prevented unless civilians were allowed to carry guns on planes, which isn't going to happen anyway.
allowing almost anyone to have semi automatics doesn't = well regulated Militia. also free from whom? does that need still exist?[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="Danm_999"] It is necessary to the security of a free state!trix5817
He was mocking people like me to somehow prove his point. HILARIOUS!!!:roll:
And no, the right to bear arms was not just for a "well regulated militia", it was meant for everyone. There really is no denying this. Read what the Founding Father's wrote.
what was the point of adding "well regulated Militia" if everyone can get a gun without any obligation to a well regulated militia?[QUOTE="AustXilo"]
It's called exaggerating.
Actually, it's called a slippery slope fallacy.
It's not even where you exagerate, it's where you begin inventing extreme positions the person didn't originally propose.
I know he didn't really suggest that but if we're going to remove the Second Amendment why stop there? Why not remove all things that conflict? We have "freedom of speech" but can't say cuss words or slang in public because it hurts people's feelings. Might as well remove that too.AustXilo
Because Treflis gave you a specific reason the intention of the Second Amendment conflicts with modern realities.
Other issues do not conflict, like the First Amendment, hence we don't remove them. You can legally cuss or slang in public, that has always been looked down upon, but never seriously proposed as an illegality.
Bottom line is outdated parts of the constitution and the Bill of Rights need to change. If we didn't amend things, a certain ethnic group would still only count for 3/5ths of a regular vote.
Soldiers are just soldiers. They aren't death squads. They're humans and people that are afraid. They march into battle against a common foe but when they have to march against their friends and family, it'll be a far different story. A handgun might not do much, but that's why it's a side arm. You use a rifle or a shotgun in battle.AustXilo
Actually, I'm more talking about aircraft, armored vehicles, missiles, you know, the high powered weapons the US government can bring to bear if it needs to. We're no longer in an age where small fire arms are an effective counter to modern military power.
You really think they have enough of those to completely oppress the entire US? If that were the case we'd have easily covered every inch of land in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else. There would be no more war. I, for one, am not about to lay down my protection just because someone has a bigger gun than me. A lot of the military would turn on the government if they were forced against their families. We'd have those vehicles too. Besides, it's not the military I'm afraid of. It's terrorists (domestic and otherwise). You should watch Jericho. The military wasn't there to help them. They had to use their own guns to protect themselves from bandits and what not.[QUOTE="AustXilo"]
Try Terrorists. In 2001. If our civilians were carrying firearms they could have detained those men and the towers would still be there. Who knows how it would have played out.
Danm_999
Are you serious?
9/11 wasn't an invasion.
Terrorists cannot invade your country. And if they did, and your military was unable to stop them, civilians with small arms aren't going to.
I also don't see how the attacks could be prevented unless civilians were allowed to carry guns on planes, which isn't going to happen anyway.
It's not allowed because that's the path our society took. If it were allowed things would have been very different. And I know a lot of people who would disagree with you. 9/11 was an attack on our people. Whether or not they sent an army or a bomb, they still got the job done. It's obvious you people are blind to my side of this opinion, though. I respect guns and see them as deadly weapons but I know that used correctly they are harmless. If you would rather just give them up; by all means, never buy one but don't ever force that right from my hands.[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="Ontain"] allowing almost anyone to have semi automatics doesn't = well regulated Militia. also free from whom? does that need still exist? Ontain
He was mocking people like me to somehow prove his point. HILARIOUS!!!:roll:
And no, the right to bear arms was not just for a "well regulated militia", it was meant for everyone. There really is no denying this. Read what the Founding Father's wrote.
what was the point of adding "well regulated Militia" if everyone can get a gun without any obligation to a well regulated militia?Please. Just stop. READ WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID. You can disagree with what they said, but you can't deny their intentions. Seriously just look it up. It takes about 10 seconds.
You really think they have enough of those to completely oppress the entire US? If that were the case we'd have easily covered every inch of land in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else. AustXilo
I don't think the entire ridiculous scenario of your government oppressing you is feesible at all.
But it's a major argument from anti-gun control debators. I'm just trying to impress upon you that if your government wanted to oppress you, your small arms would not be the impediment the founding fathers envisaged because technology has changed somewhat.
You should watch Jericho. The military wasn't there to help them. They had to use their own guns to protect themselves from bandits and what not.AustXilo
Did you see the end of that show? How it turned out the conspiracy which had infiltrated the military completely knocked the head of civilian governance? How the people of Jericho were put under military occupation and couldn't do jack because the military had tanks and choppers and nukes?
But ok, let's structure laws governing the nation based around a fictional post-apocolyptic TV show.
Want a neat idea? In Jericho, if nobody had guns, those other towns wouldn't have been able to raid them so easily.
what was the point of adding "well regulated Militia" if everyone can get a gun without any obligation to a well regulated militia?[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="trix5817"]
He was mocking people like me to somehow prove his point. HILARIOUS!!!:roll:
And no, the right to bear arms was not just for a "well regulated militia", it was meant for everyone. There really is no denying this. Read what the Founding Father's wrote.
trix5817
Please. Just stop. READ WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID. You can disagree with what they said, but you can't deny their intentions. Seriously just look it up. It takes about 10 seconds.
Like this one from Jefferson?
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
[QUOTE="AustXilo"] You really think they have enough of those to completely oppress the entire US? If that were the case we'd have easily covered every inch of land in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else. Danm_999
I don't think the entire ridiculous scenario of your government oppressing you is feesible at all.
But it's a major argument from anti-gun control debators. I'm just trying to impress upon you that if your government wanted to oppress you, your small arms would not be the impediment the founding fathers envisaged because technology has changed somewhat.
You should watch Jericho. The military wasn't there to help them. They had to use their own guns to protect themselves from bandits and what not.AustXilo
Did you see the end of that show? How it turned out the conspiracy which had infiltrated the military completely knocked the head of civilian governance? How the people of Jericho were put under military occupation and couldn't do jack because the military had tanks and choppers and nukes?
But ok, let's structure laws governing the nation based around a fictional post-apocolyptic TV show.
Want a neat idea? In Jericho, if nobody had guns, those other towns wouldn't have been able to raid them so easily.
I dunno. The terrorists over in Iraq, who are allowed to buy the more powerful weapons via the black market, are doing a damn good job of repelling our government. Yeah, we're winning, but it's taking a lot of time and there are a lot of casualties. Yeah, our small arms may not be able to fend them off, but they could help us take over storage facilities that may not be heavily guarded and gain access to larger weapons. What I'm saying is that something is better than nothing. I'd rather have a pitchfork than my bare hands when going up a guy with a sword and a shield. At least then I have SOMETHING to work with. As far as Jericho, if NO one had guns, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we wouldn't know what guns were. The bad guys abused the guns in that show. The good guys used them for defense. The bad guys (namely, that fake military group) stole those weapons. You think that criminals don't do that now?I dunno. The terrorists over in Iraq, who are allowed to buy the more powerful weapons via the black market, are doing a damn good job of repelling our government. Yeah, we're winning, but it's taking a lot of time and there are a lot of casualties. Yeah, our small arms may not be able to fend them off, but they could help us take over storage facilities that may not be heavily guarded and gain access to larger weapons. What I'm saying is that something is better than nothing. I'd rather have a pitchfork than my bare hands when going up a guy with a sword and a shield. At least then I have SOMETHING to work with.AustXilo
The continental United States isn't going to be invaded by terrorists in a set piece battle.
As far as Jericho, if NO one had guns, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we wouldn't know what guns were. The bad guys abused the guns in that show. The good guys used them for defense. The bad guys (namely, that fake military group) stole those weapons. You think that criminals don't do that now?AustXilo
If nobody had guns in Jericho, Jericho would have been far more secure. The people raiding them wouldn't have guns either. The bad guys in Jericho were private contractors and elements of the military involved in the original conspiracy.
The problem with your second statement is, criminals tend to steal guns from lawful registered users, or get them through poor regulations that give easy access to firearms.
Its only fair that firearms are illegal in Cali. You guys have pot legalized. :P
[QUOTE="AustXilo"]I dunno. The terrorists over in Iraq, who are allowed to buy the more powerful weapons via the black market, are doing a damn good job of repelling our government. Yeah, we're winning, but it's taking a lot of time and there are a lot of casualties. Yeah, our small arms may not be able to fend them off, but they could help us take over storage facilities that may not be heavily guarded and gain access to larger weapons. What I'm saying is that something is better than nothing. I'd rather have a pitchfork than my bare hands when going up a guy with a sword and a shield. At least then I have SOMETHING to work with.Danm_999
The continental United States isn't going to be invaded by terrorists in a set piece battle.
As far as Jericho, if NO one had guns, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we wouldn't know what guns were. The bad guys abused the guns in that show. The good guys used them for defense. The bad guys (namely, that fake military group) stole those weapons. You think that criminals don't do that now?AustXilo
If nobody had guns in Jericho, Jericho would have been far more secure. The people raiding them wouldn't have guns either. The bad guys in Jericho were private contractors and elements of the military involved in the original conspiracy.
The problem with your second statement is, criminals tend to steal guns from lawful registered users, or get them through poor regulations that give easy access to firearms.
Do you think that guns would just suddenly disappear if the US outlawed them? Most illegal guns come from stolen government facilities, opposing governments, old warehouses, or are manufactured from existing parts. The entire world would have to give up guns for the illegal guns to go away when legal citizens gave them up as well. A lot of times it's corrupt military people selling to private contractors. The military isn't going to give up their guns just because they make their civilians. So, no, it's not flawed. They don't break into people's homes for handguns. They buy from the black markets and get AKs and stuff. Which, I've already stated, I do not think AKs are guns that anyone needs. I'm going to end my participating in this thread. It's clear that you guys do not want guns and that I do. I think we've settled that and we're not going to change each other's minds. I don't want to gain any enemies here, as I feel you've all done a good job at arguing your points, but this is going no where. So, no hard feelings. Just going to have to agree to disagree.here's a good video that expresses my views.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umK8U_FxPic&feature=fvw
you want to protect our freedoms, ban together and pool our money and get lobbyists. our guns didn't protect us from the Patriot Act or any number of laws striping us of our other freedoms.
Do you think that guns would just suddenly disappear if the US outlawed them?AustXilo
I don't believe that ridiculous idea, no.
Most illegal guns come from stolen government facilities, opposing governments, old warehouses, or are manufactured from existing parts.AustXilo
No, the majority of illegal guns were once owned by legal users. Another large group of illegal guns comes from sloppy and lax registration or poorly regulated ownership laws. Opposing governments barely ever send guns into the US (illegal guns are usually manufactured within the country).
As for your other; manufactured from existing parts (what, are these guys MacGuyver) or found in 'old warehouses', it seems to me you just gave me a large shopping list of unlikely scenarios.
The entire world would have to give up guns for the illegal guns to go away when legal citizens gave them up as well. AustXilo
Of course you'd never get illegal guns down to zero, you don't get that in countries where guns are completely illegal. But you do get vastly reduced numbers of guns being stolen.
And why is the argument 'we'd never be able to stamp it out completely, so let's not bother' valid? By this logic, we should give up campaigns against drink driving, drugs, underage sex, etc etc.
A lot of times it's corrupt military people selling to private contractors. The military isn't going to give up their guns just because they make their civilians. AustXilo
Nobody expects them to....
So, no, it's not flawed. They don't break into people's homes for handguns. They buy from the black markets and get AKs and stuff. AustXilo
Which are often stolen originally.
Which, I've already stated, I do not think AKs are guns that anyone needs. I'm going to end my participating in this thread. It's clear that you guys do not want guns and that I do. I think we've settled that and we're not going to change each other's minds. I don't want to gain any enemies here, as I feel you've all done a good job at arguing your points, but this is going no where. So, no hard feelings. Just going to have to agree to disagree.AustXilo
No problem, I can always respect someone who respects others. Have a good one.
The terrorists over in Iraq, who are allowed to buy the more powerful weapons via the black market, are doing a damn good job of repelling our government. Yeah, we're winning, but it's taking a lot of time and there are a lot of casualties. AustXilo
The Iraq War is not even remotely comparable to terrorists invading the USA. And the terrorists aren't doing a good job of "repelling our government" at all. We are wiping the floor with them.
The only reason we aren't done over in Iraq is because GWB's failed policies.
"hey yutz, guns are not toys. they're for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the king of england out of your face."
:o I can't beleive some people in this world beleive i should not be allowed to have my arms!
I thought Thought it meant Every one was aloud to Hang a pear of Bear Arms on our Wall?
[QUOTE="AustXilo"]The terrorists over in Iraq, who are allowed to buy the more powerful weapons via the black market, are doing a damn good job of repelling our government. Yeah, we're winning, but it's taking a lot of time and there are a lot of casualties. LosDaddie
The Iraq War is not even remotely comparable to terrorists invading the USA. And the terrorists aren't doing a good job of "repelling our government" at all. We are wiping the floor with them.
The only reason we aren't done over in Iraq is because GWB's failed policies.
LOL, failed policies? You obviously have not a damn clue about Iraq, and insurgency, and I find it hysterical you would blame a former administration. Insurgency isn't a normal army, we are NOT fighting a normal army with uniforms. This isn't WW2 when the majority of the population supports the countries goals, and they have a national army that is fighting another national army. Identification is near impossible, because everyone looks the same, and due to strict ROE's (because the population looks the same, and they are staying put in a war zone), this war has been incredibly hard. You can't just run in guns-ablazing, because thats how civilians get killed, lots of them. And yes, I know there are tons of civilian casulties, but there was also multiple more civilian casulties and fatalities, they just didn't have an anti-war liberal media to harp on whoever is barely responsible for it during WW2 to spread their pointless objections. I know none of you have an inch of a clue of how hard it is to fight something like insurgency and guerilla wars,I know none of you have an inch of a clue of how hard it is to fight something like insurgency and guerilla wars, Spicy-McHaggis
:lol: And obviously you neo-cons don't....and that's why patriotic Americans gleefully voted you guys out of power.
But please keep regurgitating those Limbaugh talking points. Doing so will guarantee another Dem victory in 2012 :)
[QUOTE="Spicy-McHaggis"]I know none of you have an inch of a clue of how hard it is to fight something like insurgency and guerilla wars, LosDaddie
:lol: And obviously you neo-cons don't....and that's why patriotic Americans gleefully voted you guys out of power.
But please keep regurgitating those Limbaugh talking points. Doing so will guarantee another Dem victory in 2012 :)
I'd love for you to share with me what you are talking about. Victory in 2012? That's completely irrelevant. If you want to argue that insurgency is easy, I have no knowledge to share with you, because you have failed to see the picture in the first place.[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Spicy-McHaggis"]I know none of you have an inch of a clue of how hard it is to fight something like insurgency and guerilla wars, Spicy-McHaggis
:lol: And obviously you neo-cons don't....and that's why patriotic Americans gleefully voted you guys out of power.
But please keep regurgitating those Limbaugh talking points. Doing so will guarantee another Dem victory in 2012 :)
I'd love for you to share with me what you are talking about. Victory in 2012? That's completely irrelevant. If you want to argue that insurgency is easy, I have no knowledge to share with you, because you have failed to see the picture in the first place.:| Who said or implied the insurgency would be easy? Certainly not me.
But clearly GWB and his supporters (like yourself) did think it would be easy and our troops would be welcomed as liberators. Obviously it was a failed policy and patriotic Americans voted REpubs out of power :)
:| Who said or implied the insurgency would be easy? Certainly not me.But clearly GWB and his supporters (like yourself) did think it would be easy and our troops would be welcomed as liberators. Obviously it was a failed policy and patriotic Americans voted REpubs out of power :)
LosDaddie
:| Wow. Everytime you post about politics you have to claim "victory" for your political affiliation and "defeat" for the opposition. How about lets focus on getting the economy restored and getting people back to work instead of who is going to have the majority in 2012. Nice outlook.
It is infringing on your rights. Outlaw guns and outlaws will be the only ones with guns. ;)
Attack of the Second Amendment
We're at the point in our society that we don't need people to be able to get AK-47's or auto shotguns. They have no purpose but to kill other (and often times many) people. I can understand having a pistol for self defense, or a rifle for hunting, but do you need to riddle a deer with 25 AK bullets to kill it? No. These stupid laws would be so much easier to interpret and follow if people weren't morons and exercise discretion, but sadly, that's not the case.hillelslovakAn Ak-47 civilian version does not have fully-automatic capabilities. It is no different than a rifle for hunting.
I support the right.
ragek1ll589
I second that!
I'm pretty sure you cant carry o concealed fire arm in public in most any state though you can keep it at home or you are supposedly allowed to carry a weapon that isn't concealed in many states, though im sure if you tried something bad would happen. Anyway there isn't really a need to have something like an AK-47 or M-16. I still want one though... :P
I :lol: at people who feel like they need a firearm to defend themselves. I'm okay with using guns to hunt, but everything else, not so much.
[QUOTE="LosDaddie"]:| Who said or implied the insurgency would be easy? Certainly not me.
But clearly GWB and his supporters (like yourself) did think it would be easy and our troops would be welcomed as liberators. Obviously it was a failed policy and patriotic Americans voted REpubs out of power :)
luamhtrad
:| Wow. Everytime you post about politics you have to claim "victory" for your political affiliation and "defeat" for the opposition.
Do you understand how politics work?
Back when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they considered every able-bodied man to be a part of the militia. In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary.
"It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
I could post quotes all day about the level and width of support that the founders of our nation held for guns.
whet40I'm just glad that SCOTUS agreed with them last year.
[QUOTE="luamhtrad"]
[QUOTE="LosDaddie"]:| Who said or implied the insurgency would be easy? Certainly not me.
But clearly GWB and his supporters (like yourself) did think it would be easy and our troops would be welcomed as liberators. Obviously it was a failed policy and patriotic Americans voted REpubs out of power :)
LosDaddie
:| Wow. Everytime you post about politics you have to claim "victory" for your political affiliation and "defeat" for the opposition.
Do you understand how politics work?
Yes. I also understand that politics are NOT a sporting event... ;)
[QUOTE="LosDaddie"]
[QUOTE="luamhtrad"]
:| Wow. Everytime you post about politics you have to claim "victory" for your political affiliation and "defeat" for the opposition. luamhtrad
Do you understand how politics work?
Yes. I also understand that politics are NOT a sporting event... ;)
In real life, no they are not. But here on the internets, it makes them fun, especially when your "team" is in power.
Are you in a "well regulated Militia" in this hypothetical?Here in the state of California, or rather even the city of SF, Firearms of any type are illegal, and you are to be arrested on the spot should you be caught with one. So you're saying, if I'm to be caught with an AK-47 or M16, or w/e....I am to be arrested? This puzzles me.....I thought....the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms? I know theres been a lot of crime lately, but still. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." So if I get arrested, aren't my rights being taken away? Which I think is also supported by the Ninth Amendment, which provides unenumerated rights.
S0mEGuY12
I am angry that states like California refuse to let me defend myself, and are denying me my Second Amendment rights. Sure, no one should be walking around with machine guns, automatic rifles, etc., but I can't even walk around with a knife with a blade bigger than 2" without it being a felony and I can't keep a pistol around to defend myself. I believe that if I want a small weapon to defend myself in public, I should be allowed to do so! Can you imagine if in a hostage situation, someone had a pistol with them? It'd be over before they know it. Sure, the chances that someone will be in a hostage situation is low, but "better safe than sorry." remmbermytitansOne thing I know from talking to various members of law enforcement, attorneys, and martial artist is that criminals don't usually fear cops because they're bound by so many rules. They're afraid of Joe Citizen pulling a gun if the criminal tries to rob him. Criminals are all about power and control, and dealing with someone either armed or knows how to fight is something they're not always ready to deal with.
Well, I feel no need to carry a gun. Where I live it is very peaceful and there is not much crime at all, so I feel secure and don't feel the need to get a weapon. In more violent cities full with crime, though, I can kinda understand why people may want guns; I just hope those people use the guns only when absolutely necessary and don't become the criminals themselves.
I think that there should be stricter laws for guns, but I think that guns should still be allowed to be purchased for those that will be responsible with them.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment