the latest from the right...

[bucfan64 307]

The idea that the CONSTITUTION IS A LIVING BREATHING DOCUMENT and that it needs to change with the times is PURE PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGY.

 

If that is anyones opinion, fine they are entitled to it.

 

But the origin of this ideology is rooted in DARWINISM. Liberals take the same approach to govt. as they do to the DARWINIAN EVOLUTION model. They believe that the economy and the govt. is a real entitiy and therefore if it does not change then it cannot be improving or evolving and adapting.

 

Some have any went as far as saying "any change is good for the economy/govt." this way of thinking often leads to many progressives ideas being implemented before they are actually thought out. Example, the TARP money plan was just rushed into without actually evaluating the possible outcome, the progressives say we will figure out what to do with it later.

 

It is sort of like asking for funding for a program BEFORE you have even worked out the plan of operations for the program. This is exactly what Obama has done with several programs and Bush did as well with the DHS and other organizations.

 

I don't buy into (tadpole, froggy, monkey to man evolution) therefore, I do not see the Constitution as an evolutionary creation.

 

here is a little rhyme I wrote about evolution;

 

I once was a tadpole, tiny and strong,

Then I grew legs and hopped right along

started eating bananas and swinging from a tree

 

tadpole, froggy, monkey now ME!

[BigBlueAlum 12]

I don't buy into (tadpole, froggy, monkey to man evolution) therefore, I do not see the Constitution as an evolutionary creation.

 

here is a little rhyme I wrote about evolution;

 

I once was a tadpole, tiny and strong,

Then I grew legs and hopped right along

started eating bananas and swinging from a tree

 

tadpole, froggy, monkey now ME!

 

You probably don't buy into it because you don't fully understand it.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Sorry guys, I havent really read any post in this thread (sorry). But I would like to ask a question or two:

 

My question is, why should we be able to have sub-machine guns in our house? I mean i'm going to use call of duty 4: Modern Warefare for example. In that game, I like to use the p90 and the ak47 and the mp5. Now, this may sound stupid, but this game is pretty realisitic in the way in which they shoot, the the amount of rounds that are used. Now the p90 shoots ammo insanley fast. I understand people like to take their guns out and have fun with them. I don't care about that, i've did that before. My question is why do you really need those kind of wepons? Say your house gets robbed, they steal your ak47 and a few days later they find where 5 or 6 people were shot and killed on a street corner with an Ak47, turns out it is yours. What will happen now? My point is, most people have guns for protection and hunting. You DO NOT take a fully auto machine gun into the woods. You take 30.6's and pistols and stuff like that. Why is their a need for sub machine guns in peoples houses?

 

Not trying to stir up anything or cause problems. I'm just looking for an honest answer

 

Thus my response with regards to strict scrutiny encroaching on Constitutional rights.

And strict scrutiny allows the government to take AK-47s.

No one outside the military has a need for these weapons.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Unfortunately, they do not work and never will. Will a criminal buy a gun that is traceable or where there is a background check? Nope. Will law abiding citizens? Yup.

 

So what good does a brackground check do? Makes me pay the state some money.

 

I know I have quoted this fact a MILLION times, but it deserves to be heard repeatedly. NY state implemented a law where the ballistics of every new handgun be shot and recorded in a database. Years later and THOUSANDS of handguns sold, that database has had 2 hits in all the violent crimes in NY state. No arrests have ever been made.

 

The proof is in the pudding that these things dont work, as good as they sound. I mean Im not against them neccessarily but when they take it further and raise prices for background checks and make all ammo traceable and making ammo unaffordable, I will raise cain because obviously it is not working.

 

I see your point, and it's logical as always.

 

I have a counter, though. Why reopen this avenue to the aforementioned criminals? I have three reasons why I think we should not.

1. It allows law enforcement to focus on illegal markets, rather than diffusing their resources.

2. It eliminates at least one pathway for criminals. Is it perfect? No, but it at least impedes the flow.

3. It's not burdensome for the average citizen to obtain them.

 

And you bring up the issue of money. Would you rather have the government pay $120 per background check, or would you rather have to pay public defenders and Commonwealth's attorneys at $60/hour, a judge at $150/hour, a court transcriber at $25/hour, the jury screening process...all throughout pretrial, trial, and sentencing, which may take 3 months if one's lucky. You could pay for hundreds of these background checks, all for the costs of 1 person deciding to plead "not guilty".

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

I see your point, and it's logical as always.

 

I have a counter, though. Why reopen this avenue to the aforementioned criminals? I have three reasons why I think we should not.

1. It allows law enforcement to focus on illegal markets, rather than diffusing their resources.

2. It eliminates at least one pathway for criminals. Is it perfect? No, but it at least impedes the flow.

3. It's not burdensome for the average citizen to obtain them.

 

And you bring up the issue of money. Would you rather have the government pay $120 per background check, or would you rather have to pay public defenders and Commonwealth's attorneys at $60/hour, a judge at $150/hour, a court transcriber at $25/hour, the jury screening process...all throughout pretrial, trial, and sentencing, which may take 3 months if one's lucky. You could pay for hundreds of these background checks, all for the costs of 1 person deciding to plead "not guilty".

 

Ah, illegal markets. I honestly think if you ban AW, the illegal market will create more deaths than AW have in the past few years. Look at the illegal markets of drugs and moonshine, its crazy how much money they make and the people that die. Look at the 18th amendment. I believe getting rid of AW will do the same.

 

Like I said, Im not that worried about money.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Sorry guys, I havent really read any post in this thread (sorry). But I would like to ask a question or two:

 

My question is, why should we be able to have sub-machine guns in our house? I mean i'm going to use call of duty 4: Modern Warefare for example. In that game, I like to use the p90 and the ak47 and the mp5. Now, this may sound stupid, but this game is pretty realisitic in the way in which they shoot, the the amount of rounds that are used. Now the p90 shoots ammo insanley fast. I understand people like to take their guns out and have fun with them. I don't care about that, i've did that before. My question is why do you really need those kind of wepons? Say your house gets robbed, they steal your ak47 and a few days later they find where 5 or 6 people were shot and killed on a street corner with an Ak47, turns out it is yours. What will happen now? My point is, most people have guns for protection and hunting. You DO NOT take a fully auto machine gun into the woods. You take 30.6's and pistols and stuff like that. Why is their a need for sub machine guns in peoples houses?

 

Not trying to stir up anything or cause problems. I'm just looking for an honest answer

 

 

Nothing wrong with these questions, although I don't agree with your basic thoughts in the matter.

A big thing is exactly what I've posted before, freedom isn't about need. No one needs a sports vehicle that goes 0 to 60 in 4 seconds, or any fast vehicle, no one needs alcohol or beer, people could live healthily on water, people in America don't "need" many things that cause injury or death, the fore mentioned, vehicles and alcohol, kill a lot more people than guns ever will in America every year. We could make a long list of things to ban for the name of safety if we considered what American's needed or didn't need. So my opinion is it doesn't matter whether or not I need an ak or a semi rifle.

But, as in this case, what people need is debatable itself. As I have a right to defend myself, there are times when I could possibly need to match the firepower a criminal or drug dealer has. You can bet the bad elements I might run into, for example down in beartown or up in some of the places I go with my dogs might very well have semi auto weapons. You can bet some many people into drugs have them.

More than that we aren't even mentioning the need for a "well regulated militia" in America. Something people often don't consider is that people in America were expected to be armed to be able to resist government tyranny. Government is supposed to fear and respect the people. It's not to suggest that people with semi auto rifles intend to overthrow government, but, the citizens are supposed to have the ability to oppose them if they have to, and in order to do that they would need to be very well armed.

 

You mentioned people don't go in the woods with a fully auto machine gun, you might be confusing a semi auto rifle such as an ak or ar, or many others, m1 or fal, ect., with a real fully auto machine gun, which is belt fed, such as the saw or the military's standard heavy duty machine gun..

Fully auto rifles such as ak do exist of course, but those are in use in foreign military and very illegal for the common citizen to have without a certain class weapons license. A fully auto rifle isn't really a machine gun anyhow.

But that said, an ak is exactly what I carry when I go into the woods with my dogs, before I had it it was an ar10. My dad keeps the ar10 now but it's still mine to use whenever. I really like it, the ar10, the firepower is something else, but I really like the reliability of the ak more.

As for people stealing them, I never leave any firearms in my house myself when I'm gone. I know people have bigger gun collections and can't manage that, but that's exactly the reason my dad has the ar10, so I don't have to leave it, besides it's good for every person to have 1 of each of 3 types of guns, a rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol, and along with an edged weapon. So he has those and I have those, but my 3 go with me and the dogs wherever, and the dogs will prevent anyone from getting in the jeep if I'm not in it and his go with him every time they leave their house unless my mom is there at their house by herself.

But the point is it's easier to secure them if you only have a few, I'm a believer in having a few guns that you know and can use really well than a lot of guns, but regardless we shouldn't be expected to live based on what a criminal might do.

1 thing though, I wouldn't use an ak for protection of the house unless it was an extreme case that warranted it, the 12 gauge is the best for home protection without a doubt.

 

my ar10

 

 

and ak, it's a "real" russian ak, very accurate, which most ak's aren't, heavy and and about as tough and reliable a weapon as there is, although of course I've never done it, you could supposedly bury this in the mud for a few months, dig it up pull the trigger and it's going to shoot.

And I know beavetail knows a lot about guns but I'd disagree with him about lack of penetration, this routinely puts rounds through a 10 inch thick block of wood from a distance........

 

I know the date stamp is off on the camera

Edited May 11, 2009 by buzzsawBeaver

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Thus my response with regards to strict scrutiny encroaching on Constitutional rights.

And strict scrutiny allows the government to take AK-47s.

No one outside the military has a need for these weapons.

 

Disagree completely, in what way does it permit the government to take semi auto rifles?

[Lance 228]

i think the waiting period/background check is a good thing...if nothing else it gives someone a cool down period...i don't mind waiting a couple of days myself...however the last time i bought a gun it only took a few minutes to come back approved...lol.

[bucfan64 307]

You probably don't buy into it because you don't fully understand it.

 

Being a minister I have read, studied and have even taken college classes to better help me understand the philosophy. I believe that if you are going to make an argument about something then you should know the subject as well as the enemy or the person that you plan on debating.

 

I have written two 400 level papers on the subject as well as spoke publicly in an evolution vs creation debate, and I am proud to say that I converted a Geology Professor last summer over to the belief in a young earth.

 

I do not FULLY understand Darwinian Evolution, but I am very familiar with the train of thought.

 

It is amazing how Social Darwinism affects the politics of this country, yet so few even are aware of what it really is all about. The modern progressives, get it and they are well grounded in their belief system. I whole heartedly disagree with them, but I respect their knowledge and understanding of the subject.

 

The constitution of the United States is a rather endearing document but it is not a living document. Those that believe that it is a living document believe in JUDICIAL LEGISLATION. Anyone with enough sense to lick a postage stamp (which went up 2 cents today) knows that the legislative branch of govt. in America was never intended to MAKE laws, rather it's purpose is to interpret whether or not the law as it was written has been violated.

 

Historical documents are interpreted within their historical context to find out the intent and meaning of the document. There is absolutely no reason to reinterpret the US Constitution, unless your motives coincide with destroying the original intent of the founders.

 

ORIGINAL INTENT not evolution!

 

by the way Big Blue Alum, I didn't mean that you didn't have enough sense to lick a postage stamp, it was just a general statement, no offense intended.

Edited May 12, 2009 by bucfan64

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

And I know beavetail knows a lot about guns but I'd disagree with him about lack of penetration, this routinely puts rounds through a 10 inch thick block of wood from a distance........

 

Honestly, I felt that it was not capable of that. I have never fired a AK, however I assumed it lost kinetic energy faster than what you have said.

 

Either way, my point was this, and is this. Banning things like this sound great but they are really not. And as for the penetration issue, look at NJ as they banned hollow point ammo. They create a lot of damage to whatever it hits. Key on the word "hits" because full metal jackets and other type of ammo can hit something and go through, giving a much more chance of hitting a bystander.

 

So for protection sake, hollow points are much better, as they will not penetrate walls and people to cause further damage. But they just seem so "bad" that we have to ban them.

 

Same with Automatic weapons, they seem so "bad", and maybe they are. But hey, they do not cause that much harm. Its a 20-1 chance that you will die from a fist, club, or knife compared to a gun. AW I would guess would be around 1000-1. Banning them just gives us more of the Nanny state, and as a Libertarian for the most part I HATE that.

 

Im done on the issue, for now, its finals week. But do not worry, Ill be back :).

[BigBlueAlum 12]

Being a minister I have read, studied and have even taken college classes to better help me understand the philosophy. I believe that if you are going to make an argument about something then you should know the subject as well as the enemy or the person that you plan on debating.

 

I have written two 400 level papers on the subject as well as spoke publicly in an evolution vs creation debate, and I am proud to say that I converted a Geology Professor last summer over to the belief in a young earth.

 

I do not FULLY understand Darwinian Evolution, but I am very familiar with the train of thought.

 

It is amazing how Social Darwinism affects the politics of this country, yet so few even are aware of what it really is all about. The modern progressives, get it and they are well grounded in their belief system. I whole heartedly disagree with them, but I respect their knowledge and understanding of the subject.

 

The constitution of the United States is a rather endearing document but it is not a living document. Those that believe that it is a living document believe in JUDICIAL LEGISLATION. Anyone with enough sense to lick a postage stamp (which went up 2 cents today) knows that the legislative branch of govt. in America was never intended to MAKE laws, rather it's purpose is to interpret whether or not the law as it was written has been violated.

 

Historical documents are interpreted within their historical context to find out the intent and meaning of the document. There is absolutely no reason to reinterpret the US Constitution, unless your motives coincide with destroying the original intent of the founders.

 

ORIGINAL INTENT not evolution!

 

by the way Big Blue Alum, I didn't mean that you didn't have enough sense to lick a postage stamp, it was just a general statement, no offense intended.

 

I didn't mean my comment about you not having an understanding of evolution to be an insult, just to clear that up.

 

I also was only referring to the biological part of evolution, not the social part. And the reason I said you probably didn't understand it was because of you comment about tadpole to frog to monkey to man. That is not what the true theory of evolution is. Men did not come from monkeys, we do have common ancestors though (according to the theory of evolution).

 

I think the fundamentals of evolution are inarguable. I majored in Biology in undergrad and have taken classes specifically on evolution. To be honest, I wasn't so sure about it before I took the classes, but if you look at the macroevolutionary forces they are pretty basic and common sense.

 

When most people think about evolution they automatically think about Monkey to Man, but that is exactly what evolution isn't. You have to look at things like genetic drift, gene flow between populations, genetic mutations, and natural selection to really see what evolution is. While these things definitely effect populations of organisms, and can cause changes in the appearance and attributes of said populations, over time of course, it can still be debated whether or not this is how we got to where are now. And I can certainly see why a minister wouldn't think that is how it happened, and I respect that.

[bucfan64 307]

I agree with you regarding the actual meaning of Darwinian Evolution, suvival of the fittest so to speak. However, today the theory has been twisted and convulted to the point that the very word "evolution" itself is now associated with the tadpole, froggy,monkey to man myth.

 

I can see some things about survival of the fittest, but knowing that it is the one element that fueled the EUGENICS movement, scares me to death.

 

I suppose that one could make an argument that their are some who are not fit enough to procreate or live, (as Hitler and Margaret Sanger did). But I value life to much to accept that argument. Interestingly enough, Hillary Clinton recently stated her greatest admiration for Sanger, which goes to prove that she too falls into the Progressive category deservedly.

 

respectfully,

[bucfan64 307]

ONe of the arguments that seem to refute the idea that everything is in constant state of evolution is the discovery of the coelacanth. This "fish" was considered extinct for 65 million years, since the early 1900's there have been well over 30 or more discovered.

 

It has been considered a living fossil.

 

My problem is if the one recently found in the ocean are carbon copies of the 65 million year old fossils that have been discovered. Why haven't they evolved one iota in the past 65 million years?

 

I don't necessarily think that this question disproves the myth but rather I think that it proves that the dating of the fossil is flawed.

 

I believe in a rather young earth.

[BigBlueAlum 12]

 

My problem is if the one recently found in the ocean are carbon copies of the 65 million year old fossils that have been discovered. Why haven't they evolved one iota in the past 65 million years?

 

 

I have actually heard about this before and have done some research on it in the past. The term Coelacanth actually refers to an entire order of fish. The most recent Coelacanth belong to the genius Latimeria, while none of the of the ancient fish belong to the same genius. In fact, the genus Latimeria is vastly different than the ancient fossilized fish.

 

Here are some fossil examples from ancient coelacanths. The first one is of the "modern" coelacanth, and the last three are ancient fossils. I can certainly tell a difference.

[fieldgeneral 10]

"I have no problem banning semi automatic / automatic weapons that are not used for hunting or self protection. I hope that clears up the confusion. I don't think everyone CONCERNED with their 2nd amendment rights as an idiot. I only call those who are to the extreme idiots. I hear people all the time crying......the government wants to take my guns, and it's not that all."

 

As for the guns dispute, you made your position known, I guess people like myself shouldn't have any reason to have concerns about future fights for our 2nd amendment rights because by your very admission, you and your side don't want to ban my or anyone else's guns, you just want to tell me and the others which few guns we can have and the many types that we can't. Obviously it's not that at all....

 

 

 

 

"I am completely in agreement with the fact that noone should have their guns taken from them and it's not what it's about at all! Just regulate the ones that our nations youth are killing each other with."

 

We shouldn't have our guns taken, just the guns you and the liberals don't think we should have, got it, the 1st time.

 

How about we regulate alcohol and all vehicles to? They kill tenfold more.

 

 

 

"The constitution was made a long time ago and the world has changed a lot since then. We have to amend to fit our times."

 

The fundamental mentality of the liberal, the constitution is old and therefore really doesn't apply, it can be trampled for an agenda's sake, got it.....

 

 

eta liberal vocabulary clarification, "regulate"...translation...ban..

 

lol, and you super righties want to take everything to the extreme and put fear in those who don't know. I've seen it time and time again, flyers on the cars at walmart and other stores. " Don't vote for anything Democrat, they'll take your guns and your Bible!" I have actually seen that on a yellow flyer on my windshield coming outside of Walmart. Pretty sad, because it was done on the eve of GWB's second election. While I know this area is small and counts for very few in the presidential election, it does alter or confirm somes vote. Especially the old and the easily brainwashed with no way of thinking on their own.

 

By your far right's view, we should allow all guns legal! Hell I want to buy a tank and drive it down College Avenue.......wonder how that would go over? Unfortunately when people that you label as those damn liberals or lefties or whatever, try to save a life due to violence and so forth, they get called bad people who want to take away our 2nd amendment right.

 

The Constitution is old! However I agree with all of it in principle. Some things need amended which why it is the duty of the US Government to change it when necessary. I'm not saying remove Admendment 2, I'm saying amend it by excluding automatic machine guns and guns of that nature that are not needed in everyday life or for protection.

 

We do regulate alcohol with age and blood alcohol levels and stiff penalties and fines for being over and stupid.

 

We do regulate cars, you break the law, you may lose a license or pay a hefty fine. A drag car is illegal to drive on the streets. Modifications to your exhaust or stereo can land you a ticket. Come on that was a reach for an arguement.

[Popeye 32]

Not really a stretch if you find and understand the princible for his argument. Its not the need or use for an object that should be questioned but rather the right of choice. I can find no personal need to own a fully automatic weapon at this moment but certainly cherish the oppurtunity to choose to own one. Personally I belive that gun control, as most view, is a waste of intellectual process. There are obviuosly things in this country that need more attention than the constant stripping of choice from law abiding citizens. The ban on such weapons will most likely have little or no impact on the availability to such by those that would use them for unlawful actions. Therefore the focus should be averted to finding a standard method of punishment for those that use any firearm in the commision of of a crime.

[bucfan64 307]

Not really a stretch if you find and understand the princible for his argument. Its not the need or use for an object that should be questioned but rather the right of choice. I can find no personal need to own a fully automatic weapon at this moment but certainly cherish the oppurtunity to choose to own one. Personally I belive that gun control, as most view, is a waste of intellectual process. There are obviuosly things in this country that need more attention than the constant stripping of choice from law abiding citizens. The ban on such weapons will most likely have little or no impact on the availability to such by those that would use them for unlawful actions. Therefore the focus should be averted to finding a standard method of punishment for those that use any firearm in the commision of of a crime.

 

Yeah, what he said............

[bucfan64 307]

The Constitution is old! However I agree with all of it in principle. Some things need amended which why it is the duty of the US Government to change it when necessary. I'm not saying remove Admendment 2, I'm saying amend it by excluding automatic machine guns and guns of that nature that are not needed in everyday life or for protection.

 

I agree with saying that if you want it changed that it should be done through an amendment, not through Judicial interpretation!

 

But here is something to think about. You say that the machine guns are not needed for protection, (don't worry I agree with you on that), but if the people were ever in need of protection from the Govt. then a machine gun probably wouldn't be a bad weapon of choice.

 

I don't think that it will ever come to that, but the second amendment was intended for defense.......especially from a tyrannical govt.

 

Just something to chew on,

 

later

[fieldgeneral 10]

I agree with saying that if you want it changed that it should be done through an amendment, not through Judicial interpretation!

 

But here is something to think about. You say that the machine guns are not needed for protection, (don't worry I agree with you on that), but if the people were ever in need of protection from the Govt. then a machine gun probably wouldn't be a bad weapon of choice.

 

I don't think that it will ever come to that, but the second amendment was intended for defense.......especially from a tyrannical govt.

 

Just something to chew on,

 

later

 

I like your comments on this , and I agree to an extent. The government is going to get bashed whether they follow up on this or not. Some will say you have to in order to reduce crime and unlawful use and others will say 2nd amendment is being tampered with. The government is for us by us. We put those in office who makes these decisions and in a way the majority is making these decisions in a round about way.

 

I feel that there are a group of people who are in fear of the government and then there is a group that isn't. Those that fear seem to feel the need to have the option of grabbing their m-16 or ak47 and so forth. I have no problem with gun collectors , hunters, and so forth, but I think the availability of these guns to fall into the wrong hands is greater when not regulated. Besides as you said, if people really want them for crime use, they can get them. So, if we really needed to get a gun automatic or not, we could get one.

 

Besides it would take a lot more than some pissed off 2nd amendment people to overturn a government with the military firepower that we have.

 

I don't like all the division among people these days, from the politicians to the media, to just people on here. I am all for freedom of speech and all, it's just unfortunate that some reach for ideas to be disgusted with one side or the other, and I agree with earlier statements that both sides need to get away from the extremes and find some common ground.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

 

By your far right's view, we should allow all guns legal! Hell I want to buy a tank and drive it down College Avenue.......wonder how that would go over? Unfortunately when people that you label as those damn liberals or lefties or whatever, try to save a life due to violence and so forth, they get called bad people who want to take away our 2nd amendment right.

 

The Constitution is old! However I agree with all of it in principle. Some things need amended which why it is the duty of the US Government to change it when necessary. I'm not saying remove Admendment 2, I'm saying amend it by excluding automatic machine guns and guns of that nature that are not needed in everyday life or for protection.

 

We do regulate alcohol with age and blood alcohol levels and stiff penalties and fines for being over and stupid.

 

We do regulate cars, you break the law, you may lose a license or pay a hefty fine. A drag car is illegal to drive on the streets. Modifications to your exhaust or stereo can land you a ticket. Come on that was a reach for an arguement.

 

Did I suggest all guns should be legal, or already mention without mentioning disagreement that not all are? Seems you really don't have much of an argument.

You didn't seem to argue in any way any reason that I or anyone else might not need more firepower on our side, ironically you suggest the good guys don't really need firepower while suggesting we should ban such firepower because "the bad guys have it and are using it in crimes". If I didn't know better your very reason for supporting banning such weapons backs up the notion that people might very well need such weapons in self defense.

That said, guess what, I know alcohol and vehicles are already regulated, that was my point, guns are already very regulated to, there's some ten thousands gun laws in law as it is.

The bigger point is what has all the alcohol regulation done to stop drunk driving, how many people are there who have multiple dwi's? How many are killed every year by drunk drivers yearly? How many students at colleges under the legal age to drink do so? Why do people have to emphasize alcohol free graduation parties from our country's high schools? We have regulated speed limits yet how many people are killed or kill others by excessive speeding or reckless driving? The list goes on. These are already very regulated items.

The day I read as loud a voice and as much concern for banning those types of things, which kill tenfold more than guns yearly, from the left is the day I'll believe for a 2nd that it simply isn't something personal against guns and gun owners.

Speaking of the 2nd, the 2nd amendment considers it a constitutional right to own guns, it's 2nd only behind the 1t for a reason, alcohol and vehicles are not rights nor are they constitutionally protected.

So in the name of safety put your $ where your concerned mouth is and suggest going after those or make any valid argument against it.

Edited May 13, 2009 by buzzsawBeaver

[bucfan64 307]

The hypocrisy of the left is that they fight for the right to CHOOSE, but they don't want me to choose to own a gun.

 

 

and before a liberal can respond and say that I don't want them to choose to have an abortion but do want to choose to own a gun. There is a fundamental difference.

 

The conservative position does not guarantee DEATH to a human being, whereas the liberal position guarantees that someone INNOCENT will die.

Edited May 14, 2009 by bucfan64

[Lance 228]

The hypocrisy of the left is that they fight for the right to CHOOSE, but they don't want me to choose to own a gun.

 

 

and before a liberal can respond and say that I don't want them to choose to have an abortion but do want to choose to own a gun. There is a fundamental difference.

 

The conservative position does not guarantee DEATH to a human being, whereas the liberal position guarantees that someone INNOCENT will die.

 

apples and oranges...

[fieldgeneral 10]

Did I suggest all guns should be legal, or already mention without mentioning disagreement that not all are? Seems you really don't have much of an argument.

You didn't seem to argue in any way any reason that I or anyone else might not need more firepower on our side, ironically you suggest the good guys don't really need firepower while suggesting we should ban such firepower because "the bad guys have it and are using it in crimes". If I didn't know better your very reason for supporting banning such weapons backs up the notion that people might very well need such weapons in self defense.

That said, guess what, I know alcohol and vehicles are already regulated, that was my point, guns are already very regulated to, there's some ten thousands gun laws in law as it is.

The bigger point is what has all the alcohol regulation done to stop drunk driving, how many people are there who have multiple dwi's? How many are killed every year by drunk drivers yearly? How many students at colleges under the legal age to drink do so? Why do people have to emphasize alcohol free graduation parties from our country's high schools? We have regulated speed limits yet how many people are killed or kill others by excessive speeding or reckless driving? The list goes on. These are already very regulated items.

The day I read as loud a voice and as much concern for banning those types of things, which kill tenfold more than guns yearly, from the left is the day I'll believe for a 2nd that it simply isn't something personal against guns and gun owners.

Speaking of the 2nd, the 2nd amendment considers it a constitutional right to own guns, it's 2nd only behind the 1t for a reason, alcohol and vehicles are not rights nor are they constitutionally protected.

So in the name of safety put your $ where your concerned mouth is and suggest going after those or make any valid argument against it.

 

Look I wasn't necessarily arguing with bucfan, I agreed with him to an extent and gave my thoughts. And because someone's views aren't your's doesn't make them invalid, it makes you a few choice words I shall not say because we get banned! Anyway, I understand your points after clearing our the insults and all. I love my constitution and agree with it , I also understand that we don't need those type of weapons available to anyone at anytime. Why not make a bazooka, rpg launcher, and owning a tank legal? Hell maybe they are. The fact remains that the idea of these such weapons were not around at the time of the 1700's. It's like the education of anything. Everything changes with time and we must change laws or whatever to suit the changes. I agree that everyone should own guns if they want to. But why should an insane bastard with no history of crimes / problems have the capability to stroll in buy any one of those in question and blast through a school, church, nursing home, movie theatre, theme park, etc....? There are more and more of these things happening everyday. This my only point about gun control. If you don't commit crimes or have mental issues etc, then you can go buy one all day long. But why is it necessary to buy an automatic weapon?

 

My point on buc's comment on having one against a tyranical gov't is just that it wouldn't matter even if they were legal, a minority of people with an m-16 cannot overpower our military. It's pretty bothersome that some think of that so much anyway.

 

 

Are there not vehicles prohibited from road / highway use.....yes. Are there not alcohol types prohibited?.... yes! I know I know they don't fit in your 2nd amendment arguement, but it's not the matter of allowing you to have something, it not letting things get out of hand.

 

That was just a thought and a comment, you TRIED to take a small reply to another poster's comment to make my OPINION not valid. You FAILED! My opinion as well as yours and everyone elses is valid, just because it doesn't match yours doesn't make it wrong. If we all believed the same way, we'd have a boring world and very little growth as a country.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Look I wasn't necessarily arguing with bucfan, I agreed with him to an extent and gave my thoughts. And because someone's views aren't your's doesn't make them invalid, it makes you a few choice words I shall not say because we get banned! Anyway, I understand your points after clearing our the insults and all. I love my constitution and agree with it , I also understand that we don't need those type of weapons available to anyone at anytime. Why not make a bazooka, rpg launcher, and owning a tank legal? Hell maybe they are. The fact remains that the idea of these such weapons were not around at the time of the 1700's. It's like the education of anything. Everything changes with time and we must change laws or whatever to suit the changes. I agree that everyone should own guns if they want to. But why should an insane bastard with no history of crimes / problems have the capability to stroll in buy any one of those in question and blast through a school, church, nursing home, movie theatre, theme park, etc....? There are more and more of these things happening everyday. This my only point about gun control. If you don't commit crimes or have mental issues etc, then you can go buy one all day long. But why is it necessary to buy an automatic weapon?

 

My point on buc's comment on having one against a tyranical gov't is just that it wouldn't matter even if they were legal, a minority of people with an m-16 cannot overpower our military. It's pretty bothersome that some think of that so much anyway.

 

 

Are there not vehicles prohibited from road / highway use.....yes. Are there not alcohol types prohibited?.... yes! I know I know they don't fit in your 2nd amendment arguement, but it's not the matter of allowing you to have something, it not letting things get out of hand.

 

That was just a thought and a comment, you TRIED to take a small reply to another poster's comment to make my OPINION not valid. You FAILED! My opinion as well as yours and everyone elses is valid, just because it doesn't match yours doesn't make it wrong. If we all believed the same way, we'd have a boring world and very little growth as a country.

 

 

I wasn't responding to anyone's post or comments but yours that I quoted, if I was it would have been easily known with other quotes.

 

You're only repeating concerns about what some criminal might do affecting the way we should run our country, it's not suddenly a better argument a day later either.

 

It doesn't matter what weapons were around in the 1700s, the 2nd isn't about the tool, it's about the cause of protecting one's life and family and being able to oppose the government if the need is ever there, and at some point it always eventually will be, that's simply a historical fact.

Your arguments in these matters are in complete ignorance. Yet again you're talking about the u.s. military as if you know something about it, this is a fact, the military will never turn on this country in any of the ways you're suggesting, the people who serve love it a lot more than the common person and it's their home and families, they aren't either going to destroy it or enforce government tyranny. Many or most in the military would refuse to obey "unconstitutional" orders.

The government does have firepower and armor in itself, that was on display at waco when they murdered all the men women and children there. But I would argue that your side has accepted defeat of your liberties long ago, it's obvious your side wouldn't put up any fight for those liberties. The fact is waco was a seige anyhow, a revolution wouldn't be.

Another concept I'd argue is that the government simply shouldn't be able to overpower it's citizens, the balance shifted wrongly in their advantage decades ago as well. But that was the intentions of a well regulated militia. That said, something to consider, clinton and janet reno started off quickly down the oppression way early in his administration at ruby ridge and then waco, but, while I'm not advocating what tim mcveigh did in oklahoma city was right or moral in any way, the fact is their oppression stopped cold after that bombing.

I'm certain you gravely underestimate the power of fear, fear that a simple accurate shot with a rifle can put into a population, if you or anyone doubts that in any way, someone only needs to recall the panic, standstill and forced changes to the way of life of the people in the northern va., maryland region when those 2 cowards when on that shooting spree in '02 that lasted 2 weeks or so. That was 1 shooter with ar15 that brought that region to a standstill.

You're gravely mistaken if you doubt what fear could do to a country as soft as the u.s. has become, and those in government aren't any braver than any other of the common American sheep.

I'll tell you what though, I'll be optimistically paranoid and cautious, you and your side be ruled subjects.

[fieldgeneral 10]

I wasn't responding to anyone's post or comments but yours that I quoted, if I was it would have been easily known with other quotes.

 

You're only repeating concerns about what some criminal might do affecting the way we should run our country, it's not suddenly a better argument a day later either.

 

It doesn't matter what weapons were around in the 1700s, the 2nd isn't about the tool, it's about the cause of protecting one's life and family and being able to oppose the government if the need is ever there, and at some point it always eventually will be, that's simply a historical fact.

Your arguments in these matters are in complete ignorance. Yet again you're talking about the u.s. military as if you know something about it, this is a fact, the military will never turn on this country in any of the ways you're suggesting, the people who serve love it a lot more than the common person and it's their home and families, they aren't either going to destroy it or enforce government tyranny. Many or most in the military would refuse to obey "unconstitutional" orders.

The government does have firepower and armor in itself, that was on display at waco when they murdered all the men women and children there. But I would argue that your side has accepted defeat of your liberties long ago, it's obvious your side wouldn't put up any fight for those liberties. The fact is waco was a seige anyhow, a revolution wouldn't be.

Another concept I'd argue is that the government simply shouldn't be able to overpower it's citizens, the balance shifted wrongly in their advantage decades ago as well. But that was the intentions of a well regulated militia. That said, something to consider, clinton and janet reno started off quickly down the oppression way early in his administration at ruby ridge and then waco, but, while I'm not advocating what tim mcveigh did in oklahoma city was right or moral in any way, the fact is their oppression stopped cold after that bombing.

I'm certain you gravely underestimate the power of fear, fear that a simple accurate shot with a rifle can put into a population, if you or anyone doubts that in any way, someone only needs to recall the panic, standstill and forced changes to the way of life of the people in the northern va., maryland region when those 2 cowards when on that shooting spree in '02 that lasted 2 weeks or so. That was 1 shooter with ar15 that brought that region to a standstill.

You're gravely mistaken if you doubt what fear could do to a country as soft as the u.s. has become, and those in government aren't any braver than any other of the common American sheep.

I'll tell you what though, I'll be optimistically paranoid and cautious, you and your side be ruled subjects.

 

See the problem with you is that no matter what anyone should write, they are wrong if they disagree with you. That type of closed mindedness didn't make this country the great one that it is, but hey......you are right! That's what you want to hear, otherwise we are all ignorant and know nothing about anything.

 

I admitted that damage is done with any weapon! So your comments about the sniper were dead on to what I said. Nevertheless, my opinion was that noone needs high powered guns in their everyday life for protection or what not. My comments about the military were that they would never turn on their country just as you said, but some how I was wrong. Anyway, the general population couldn't muster enough firepower or weaponry if they wanted to rebel against our government in today's times with laws as they are.

 

The views I typed were my opinion and they aren't wrong! You may disagree, but you are ignorant if you think someone's opinion is WRONG. I disagree with people all the time too, but I tend not to tell you how stupid, ignorant, or a pain in the arse that you may be. LOL, really dude it's sad that people are that closed minded that they can't look at the other side of things , but would rather to talk about how "ignorant" or whatever another person is simply for having an opinion about what goes on in this country. There are all too many that are those sheep who sit around and believe everything told to them and either vote with what jimmy told them or not at all. Those are the ones you need to blast with the ignorance speech. But wait, several of them will vote your way because the government is taking all their guns and they can't hunt. Balongna, preach to them about ignorance.

Edited May 15, 2009 by fieldgeneral