Gun nut opens fire in Carson City, Nevada

[gabosaurus]

God bless all the gun nuts. :salute:

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20110906/NEWS/110909853/1100

[KartRacerBoy]

Isn't the right to own a semiauto great? They really help out when you're hunting and have to cull the herd.

But don't worry. Guns don't kill people. People with semi-auto weapons kill people. So it's all good.

Reasonable regulations, people. Own your guns but military equivalent weapons in civilian hands should not be allowed.

[Little-Acorn]

little gabby SO delights in saying that all gun owners would do the same.

BTW, kartboy, murdering people was already illegal in Nevada (and I believe other states too) before this guy did it.

Explain to us how making more laws would have stopped him, when he was happy to break the ones already on the books?

(That takes care of the _complete_ idiots. Anyone else have a comment?)

[KartRacerBoy]

little gabby SO delights in saying that all gun owners would do the same.

BTW, kartboy, murdering people was already illegal in Nevada (and I believe other states too) before this guy did it.

Explain to us how making more laws would have stopped him, when he was happy to break the ones already on the books?

(That takes care of the _complete_ idiots. Anyone else have a comment?)

Imagine someone with a bolt action rifle shooting at a crowd. Now imagine someone with a semiauto rifle shooting into the same crowd. Who do you think will kill more people? I imagine that the semiauto weapon holder, all else equal, will kill more people. I think it's a reasonable regulation to ban semiauto weapons.

There I took care of you, the complete idiot. Anyone else have an INTELLIGENT COMMENT?

[jimnyc]

Imagine someone with a bolt action rifle shooting at a crowd. Now imagine someone with a semiauto rifle shooting into the same crowd. Who do you think will kill more people? I imagine that the semiauto weapon holder, all else equal, will kill more people. I think it's a reasonable regulation to ban semiauto weapons.

There I took care of you, the complete idiot. Anyone else have an INTELLIGENT COMMENT?

I'm pretty confident that if an idiot is capable of committing murder, he probably doesn't have a problem owning a gun that would be banned. All you would do with more stupid laws is take away guns from people who don't break the law.

[Noir]

I've heard nothing but bad things, Let's make people illegal.

[ConHog]

Imagine someone with a bolt action rifle shooting at a crowd. Now imagine someone with a semiauto rifle shooting into the same crowd. Who do you think will kill more people? I imagine that the semiauto weapon holder, all else equal, will kill more people. I think it's a reasonable regulation to ban semiauto weapons.

There I took care of you, the complete idiot. Anyone else have an INTELLIGENT COMMENT?

So your argument is that okay let's let people have guns that can only kill a few people, but the ones that could kill a lot of people, oh noway they can't have those?


And your ridicolous comment about bolt action rifles tells us, further, what a clown you really are. Hell let's limit the definition of firearms to mean flint locks. Imagine some asshole trying to kill a crowd of people with a flint lock, bet he'd get about one before the rest of the crowd beat the shit out of him. Well either that or he'd illegally obtain a semi automatic firearm.

Reasonable limits? Sure , no one has need to own a Ma Duce, but an AR-15 or its equivalent is a far cry from that weapon.

[KartRacerBoy]

I'm pretty confident that if an idiot is capable of committing murder, he probably doesn't have a problem owning a gun that would be banned. All you would do with more stupid laws is take away guns from people who don't break the law.

I agree with you, but don't you want to take the means to kill MORE people away? A guy with a machine gun shooting into a crowd is going to kill more people than a guy with a slashing at the same crowd with a knife. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to have guns, but the govt has the right to regulate the weapons that can be owned privately. What are reasonable weapons for private ownership? I've seen some nuts argue that since the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the populace to overthrow a tyrannical govt, that the populace needs the same weapons as the govt so they can match them. That, obviously, is stupid. It means if the govt has an atomic weapon, a private individual can have the same weapon.

That's fantasy in the modern world. It might have been valid in the world of black powder canons but not now. That is why the SCt limits 2nd Amendment rights by saying "subject to reasonable regulation."

[KartRacerBoy]

So your argument is that okay let's let people have guns that can only kill a few people, but the ones that could kill a lot of people, oh noway they can't have those?


And your ridicolous comment about bolt action rifles tells us, further, what a clown you really are. Hell let's limit the definition of firearms to mean flint locks. Imagine some asshole trying to kill a crowd of people with a flint lock, bet he'd get about one before the rest of the crowd beat the shit out of him. Well either that or he'd illegally obtain a semi automatic firearm.

Reasonable limits? Sure , no one has need to own a Ma Duce, but an AR-15 or its equivalent is a far cry from that weapon.


ConHog, if you want to ride the slippery slope down your anal canal, enjoy it. If you want to have a reasonable conversation, however, have at it.

[ConHog]

I agree with you, but don't you want to take the means to kill MORE people away? A guy with a machine gun shooting into a crowd is going to kill more people than a guy with a slashing at the same crowd with a knife. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to have guns, but the govt has the right to regulate the weapons that can be owned privately. What are reasonable weapons for private ownership? I've seen some nuts argue that since the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the populace to overthrow a tyrannical govt, that the populace needs the same weapons as the govt so they can match them. That, obviously, is stupid. It means if the govt has an atomic weapon, a private individual can have the same weapon.

That's fantasy in the modern world. It might have been valid in the world of black powder canons but not now. That is why the SCt limits 2nd Amendment rights by saying "subject to reasonable regulation."

And reasonable regulation is not saying "okay a relatively small number of people a year are killed by semi automatic weapons, so NO ONE can have semi automatic weapons." That is completely unreasonable. Hell, more people are killed by idiots who don't have any business driving , but are every year than are killed by semi automatic weapons ; and you have no Constitutional right to drive, so go after people's cars.

[ConHog]

ConHog, if you want to ride the slippery slope down your anal canal, enjoy it. If you want to have a reasonable conversation, however, have at it.

In other words, I just nailed your stupid opinion to the wall and you have no response so back to the insults you go.

[Little-Acorn]

I agree with you, but don't you want to take the means to kill MORE people away?

Yep, better take everyone's cars away right now. They kill a lot more than gunz, you know. And they come equipped with (gasp) silencers!

Can't believe people are STILL making the same uber-dumb comments year after year.........

[KarlMarx]

Up here in my part of Upstate New York a lot of people owned guns because they liked to hunt. While I was growing up, there were few murders or shootings. Now, however, my community has been invaded by people from the city who are not the kind of people you want for a neighbor. Each day there is a news report that so-and-so from the Bronx was arrested for shooting so-and-so from Queens... in short, one gang banger shot another gang banger over a dope deal...

I doubt very much that a 15 year old gang banger went to a gun dealer to buy his "9" so that he could clip one of his rivals. He bought that gun on the street and that gun was stolen.

Gabby's argument that guns should be banned because one nut went on a rampage would make as much sense as banning fertilizer because of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Nuts kill people, criminals kill people, law abiding citizens don't (whether they own semi automatic weapons or not)

[Little-Acorn]

Nuts kill people, criminals kill people, law abiding citizens don't (whether they own semi automatic weapons or not)

Nuts also accuse law-abiding folks of tending to kill people, simply because they own a similar gun; and they make laws to take away guns ONLY FROM LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE and pat themselves on the back for doing so much "good".

BTW, every news report I've read so far says that the slimeball used an AUTOMATIC rifle or AUTOMATIC weapon.

That's a machine gun.

Not a single report yet, has said "semi-automatic"... which is a gun that only fires one shot per trigger pull.

I'm SO glad our reporters are on the job, rigorously vetting their own stories and checking the facts.......

Though for some reason I've never seen a story that made a mistake that made the gun sound LESS dangerous. Every mistake calls a single-shot weapon a machine gun... or refers to a single-shot gun as a scary-sounding "assault rifle" (which is also a machine gun, sometimes with a select-fire switch) instead of what it was, a semiauto.

Never yet seen a story that accidentally called a semi a pump or bolt gun, or called a machine gun a semi.

All these "random-chance" mistakes always go one way, never the other.

Hardly suprising, though. When it comes to guns of any kind, wrong is the new "right". With people like little gabby and kartboy on the job, how could it be otherwise?

[logroller]

a "gun nut", really? Isn't he just a nut with a gun?

hey Kart. If we had a law which required everybody to know the proper use of firearms, this situation would be less common.

[Kathianne]

God bless all the gun nuts. :salute:

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20110906/NEWS/110909853/1100

I read the article you posted. Where was the perps pov on guns cited? How do you think gun restricting laws would have prevented?

[ConHog]

a "gun nut", really? Isn't he just a nut with a gun?

hey Kart. If we had a law which required everybody to know the proper use of firearms, this situation would be less common.

The correct answer is if we would summarily execute such obviously guilty nuts , then fewer nuts would act like nuts.

[Kathianne]

The correct answer is if we would summarily execute such obviously guilty nuts , then fewer nuts would act like nuts.

If we summarily executed all males, there would be fewer violent nuts among us. Then again, might be a price to pay?

[ConHog]

If we summarily executed all males, there would be fewer violent nuts among us. Then again, might be a price to pay?

If we summarily executed all females, the word would be a saner place. Less fun too bu sure, but saner.

[Gaffer]

I was reading this story earlier today. I noticed a few things in the reporting. There was a shooter. That's it. No information on the shooter other than it appeared to be a man. No name, no description. He was apparently shot, no report of how. But the reporter made mention that two national guardsmen were killed and that oh yeah another person was killed as well and 6 were wounded. With all the instant communication available today this is the best reporting they can do? I always take note of what is not reported on. If no name is mentioned he's either a muslim or an illegal. If he's a white male he's most likely a leftist nut case. If the weapon can be traced to fast and furious it will not be reported. And this is exactly the kind of scenario the fast and furious thing was set up for. An excuse to make more laws against gun ownership.

[logroller]

I agree with you, but don't you want to take the means to kill MORE people away? A guy with a machine gun shooting into a crowd is going to kill more people than a guy with a slashing at the same crowd with a knife. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to have guns, but the govt has the right to regulate the weapons that can be owned privately. What are reasonable weapons for private ownership?

Well you assume that making high-capacity magazines and semi-auto rifles illegal means those persons with malicious intent won't possess them. Means vs ends, if we outlaw some thing, only outlaws will have them-- remember Prohibition?

[Kathianne]

I was reading this story earlier today. I noticed a few things in the reporting. There was a shooter. That's it. No information on the shooter other than it appeared to be a man. No name, no description. He was apparently shot, no report of how. But the reporter made mention that two national guardsmen were killed and that oh yeah another person was killed as well and 6 were wounded. With all the instant communication available today this is the best reporting they can do? I always take note of what is not reported on. If no name is mentioned he's either a muslim or an illegal. If he's a white male he's most likely a leftist nut case. If the weapon can be traced to fast and furious it will not be reported. And this is exactly the kind of scenario the fast and furious thing was set up for. An excuse to make more laws against gun ownership.

It will be interesting to see if your summations come to be fact. I'd lay a small wager on it.

[logroller]

If we summarily executed all females, the word would be a saner place. Less fun too bu sure, but saner.
If we castrated all males, we'd have very little rape.:laugh:

[logroller]

I was reading this story earlier today. I noticed a few things in the reporting. There was a shooter. That's it. No information on the shooter other than it appeared to be a man. No name, no description. He was apparently shot, no report of how. But the reporter made mention that two national guardsmen were killed and that oh yeah another person was killed as well and 6 were wounded. With all the instant communication available today this is the best reporting they can do? I always take note of what is not reported on. If no name is mentioned he's either a muslim or an illegal. If he's a white male he's most likely a leftist nut case. If the weapon can be traced to fast and furious it will not be reported. And this is exactly the kind of scenario the fast and furious thing was set up for. An excuse to make more laws against gun ownership.
Shooter's demise--Self inflicted I read in the linked article.

[Gaffer]

Saw a picture of him. He looks Mexican and has a Mexican sounding name. They said in the report he worked in a family business. They also said he was a "resident" of the city.

Wonder if he had a facebook page. They always seem too. La Raza comes to mind here.

[KarlMarx]

If we castrated all males, we'd have very little rape.:laugh:
Yes, but then we'd be hearing cries from the Left for the need for laws controlling long blunt objects.....

[MtnBiker]

Before we know all of the facts some bold assumptions should be made. The shooter was probably a union thug army soldier just putting into action Hoffa's marching orders to take out Tea Party members. We all know that IHOP is a magnet for Tea Party members.

Soon Obama will be standing next to Harry Reid in Nevada talking about using words that heal rather than wound.

[J.T]

Imagine someone with a bolt action rifle shooting at a crowd. Now imagine someone with a semiauto rifle shooting into the same crowd. Who do you think will kill more people? I imagine that the semiauto weapon holder, all else equal, will kill more people. I think it's a reasonable regulation to ban semiauto weapons.

There I took care of you, the complete idiot. Anyone else have an INTELLIGENT COMMENT?

Imagine two kids shooting up a school. Does a teacher have a better chance of stopping them with your retard-action rifle, a semi-auto pistol, or no gun at all because it's a 'gun-free zone' and only the criminals are armed?

Why do you want the school killers to be able to kill more innocent people?

[gabosaurus]

Please tell me why any normal person needs to own an AK-47. I doubt the founding fathers had this in mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/sheriff-gunman-used-ak-47-ihop-shooting-223140323.html

[Missileman]

Please tell me why any normal person needs to own an AK-47. I doubt the founding fathers had this in mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/sheriff-gunman-used-ak-47-ihop-shooting-223140323.html

Please explain why it would be a problem for a law abiding citizen to own a bazooka if he so wanted.

[ConHog]

If we castrated all males, we'd have very little rape.:laugh:

you do realize the exact same result could be accomplished by getting rid of all the women, right?

[gabosaurus]

Please explain why it would be a problem for a law abiding citizen to own a bazooka if he so wanted.

Because you can kill a lot of people if you decide to. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until the decide to turn nutso. The guy who wielded the AK-47 in Carson City was a law abiding citizen until today.
Some of you just enjoy seeing people slaughtered. You know there is no reason why anyone should own an AK-47, but you want the right to have one just to show what a macho man you are.
The more massacres that happen, the more you will defend your rights to massacre people if you ever turn nutso.

[J.T]

Please tell me why any normal person needs to own an AK-47.

First you tell me why any normal person needs a twinkie, a unicycle, a harpsicord, or tofurkey. No normal person would any need for it- hence they should be banned, right?

I know the concept seems backward to you, since things were different in Soviet Russia, but we in America tend to base our society on the principle that you don't have to argue for your liberties. Rather, you must demonstrate why someone's liberties should be taken away. Hence, we don't have to argue for the AK, the unicycle, or anything else. It is you who must show we why should deny law-abiding citizens their liberty and property.

[hjmick]

The shooter was from Mexico. Must have been a Democrat...

[J.T]

Because you can kill a lot of people if you decide to.

Many members of the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi were armed only with machetes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machetes). Even after the 1993 peace agreement signed in Arusha, businessmen close to General Habyarimana imported 581,000 machetes for Hutu use in killing Tutsi, because machetes were cheaper than guns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide


A 30-year-old man was arrested Sunday on suspicion of fatally stabbing six people, including two young children, on the British island of Jersey, police said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44137724/ns/world_news-europe/t/dead-after-knife-attack-british-isle/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8673311/China-eight-dead-in-Xinjiang-region-knife-attack.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/WorldNews/china-suffers-knife-attack-schoolchildren-months/story?id=10623240

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/11/national/main5080911.shtml


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tB1iAftuME

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/7398142/Nigeria-riots-leave-500-dead-after-machete-attacks.html

[Little-Acorn]

The shooter was from Mexico.

Link? Reference?

[Missileman]

Because you can kill a lot of people if you decide to. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until the decide to turn nutso. The guy who wielded the AK-47 in Carson City was a law abiding citizen until today.
Some of you just enjoy seeing people slaughtered. You know there is no reason why anyone should own an AK-47, but you want the right to have one just to show what a macho man you are.
The more massacres that happen, the more you will defend your rights to massacre people if you ever turn nutso.

You can kill a lot of people with a gallon of gasoline...should we outlaw portable gas containers?

I can't wait for you anti-gun assholes to call for outlawing rocks when someone manages to kill a handful of people with a brick.

[hjmick]

Because you can kill a lot of people if you decide to. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until the decide to turn nutso.

People don't "decide to turn nutso."


The guy who wielded the AK-47 in Carson City was a law abiding citizen until today.

You don't know that... Well, maybe you do... Link?


Some of you just enjoy seeing people slaughtered.

Bullshit. Liar.


You know there is no reason why anyone should own an AK-47, but you want the right to have one just to show what a macho man you are.

It's not about proving anything to anyone, it's about preserving the individual's right to own a gun. If you start to undermine that right by outlawing a specific type of weapon, where does it end? I own a Colt 1911, it's a handgun but is also considered to be semi-automatic. Should that be banned? Certain types of hunting rifles have been classified as "assault weapons" yet they are truly just hunting rifles, nothing more. Personally, I see no need to own an AK-47 (especially when most if not all are cheap knock-off of the Russian weapon), but I am not bothered by the fact that they are readily available in any gun shop I visit here in NM.


The more massacres that happen, the more you will defend your rights to massacre people if you ever turn nutso.

No one is defending their "right to massacre people."

[J.T]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

[J.T]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw

[hjmick]

Link? Reference?

http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/article/20110906/NEWS/110909928/1085

[MtnBiker]

Please tell me why any normal person needs to own an AK-47. I doubt the founding fathers had this in mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/sheriff-gunman-used-ak-47-ihop-shooting-223140323.html

Perhaps there are normal people who want the freedom of choice to own an AK-47, as well as there are people who want the freedom to abort babies.

Are you qualified to determine someone's needs?

[SassyLady]

Imagine someone with a bolt action rifle shooting at a crowd. Now imagine someone with a semiauto rifle shooting into the same crowd. Who do you think will kill more people? I imagine that the semiauto weapon holder, all else equal, will kill more people. I think it's a reasonable regulation to ban semiauto weapons.

There I took care of you, the complete idiot. Anyone else have an INTELLIGENT COMMENT?

What makes you think a ban would have stopped this guy....anyone with murder in their heart will find a weapon to make it happen whether it is legal or illegal.

The part that really upsets me is that our soldiers are supposed to feel safe on their own soil....perhaps they should be allowed to carry their weapons all the time like off duty police officers.

[gabosaurus]

Perhaps there are normal people who want the freedom of choice to own an AK-47, as well as there are people who want the freedom to abort babies.

Are you qualified to determine someone's needs?

Try telling me once again why any normal person would want to own an AK-47.
The AK-47 has one purpose -- to kill people. There is nothing else you can do with it.
Imagine your own mom and/or dad, sitting at a restaurant for breakfast. I can't see anyone walking in with a rock or a can of gas looking to kill people. That is why they would want a rapid fire weapon.
You gun nuts can moralize and pontificate all you want. But the only reason to own an AK-47 is to kill people.
Imagine your mom and/or dad is dead right now. DEAD. Someone killed them. And I am guessing you are sitting around thinking "oh, I suppose some nut could just as easily have killed with a rock. Or a sledgehammer." Because I know gun nuts are stupid enough to think like that.
But they're still dead. And you don't care. Because you support unlimited gun ownership.
It's going to happen again. Very soon. Perhaps to someone you know. If you don't care, why should I?

[SassyLady]

Because you can kill a lot of people if you decide to. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until the decide to turn nutso. The guy who wielded the AK-47 in Carson City was a law abiding citizen until today.
Some of you just enjoy seeing people slaughtered. You know there is no reason why anyone should own an AK-47, but you want the right to have one just to show what a macho man you are.
The more massacres that happen, the more you will defend your rights to massacre people if you ever turn nutso.

Gabby ... what you said is offensive ... I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of people on this site DO NOT enjoy seeing people slaughtered ... you are being hysterical.

[SassyLady]

Try telling me once again why any normal person would want to own an AK-47.
The AK-47 has one purpose -- to kill people. There is nothing else you can do with it.
Imagine your own mom and/or dad, sitting at a restaurant for breakfast. I can't see anyone walking in with a rock or a can of gas looking to kill people. That is why they would want a rapid fire weapon.
You gun nuts can moralize and pontificate all you want. But the only reason to own an AK-47 is to kill people.
Imagine your mom and/or dad is dead right now. DEAD. Someone killed them. And I am guessing you are sitting around thinking "oh, I suppose some nut could just as easily have killed with a rock. Or a sledgehammer." Because I know gun nuts are stupid enough to think like that.
But they're still dead. And you don't care. Because you support unlimited gun ownership.
It's going to happen again. Very soon. Perhaps to someone you know. If you don't care, why should I?

You are right Gabby....AK-47 are for killing .... and I believe the majority of people who own one have it because they intend to use it to kill ... IF the need should ever come up. My husband is a soldier and do you think he feels he can defend himself and his family better with a AK-47 or a revolver?

You keep asking why a sane person would own one ... because they are sane and have no intention of using it to "murder" people....they intend to use it to kill enemies. Big difference between sane and insane.

Am I upset about the people who died .. you bet....I cried this morning when talking about it with my husband and yes I imagined what it would be like if it had been him sitting there this morning when this nut came in.....and you know what he said to me? He said that he's given over 30 years of his life defending our right to own guns ... as well as all the other rights we have here in America. He doesn't want to restrict the rights of the majority because a individual goes nuts one day.

And, as someone else said ... we did not ban the sale of fertilizer because some nutcase decided to use it to kill a bunch of people. Were you just as hysterical about fertilizer as you are guns?

[Missileman]

Try telling me once again why any normal person would want to own an AK-47.
The AK-47 has one purpose -- to kill people. There is nothing else you can do with it.
Imagine your own mom and/or dad, sitting at a restaurant for breakfast. I can't see anyone walking in with a rock or a can of gas looking to kill people. That is why they would want a rapid fire weapon.
You gun nuts can moralize and pontificate all you want. But the only reason to own an AK-47 is to kill people.
Imagine your mom and/or dad is dead right now. DEAD. Someone killed them. And I am guessing you are sitting around thinking "oh, I suppose some nut could just as easily have killed with a rock. Or a sledgehammer." Because I know gun nuts are stupid enough to think like that.
But they're still dead. And you don't care. Because you support unlimited gun ownership.
It's going to happen again. Very soon. Perhaps to someone you know. If you don't care, why should I?

Are you really so fucking stupid as to believe that the thousands of AK-47s owned in the US aren't shot at all unless it's to kill someone?

[red states rule]

Gabby ... what you said is offensive ... I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of people on this site DO NOT enjoy seeing people slaughtered ... you are being hysterical.

This is the typical reaction from the left when people are killed. They want to use this to pass more gun laws that will only disarm law abiding citizens

So far Kart and Gabby have not stated what law could have been passed that would have prevented this. They think criminals will obey any law that is passed

Like with the AZ shootings, the left jumps into action to push their political agenda

[red states rule]

Are you really so fucking stupid as to believe that the thousands of AK-47s owned in the US aren't shot at all unless it's to kill someone?

the clear answer to your question is "YES"

[J.T]

The AK-47 has one purpose -- to kill people. There is nothing else you can do with it.
Really? You can't shoot targets or a deer?



Imagine your own mom and/or dad, sitting at a restaurant for breakfast. I can't see anyone walking in with a rock or a can of gas looking to kill people. That is why they would want a rapid fire weapon.
So that I could defend my family from the person trying to kill them? Yes, that would be a good reason to have a firearm. What, exactly, is your objection to my being able to protect my children?


Because you support unlimited gun ownership.
Wrong. I think everyone here would agree you're too stupid to be allowed anywhere near a firearm, electric outlet, or can opener. ;)

I would love to ban all guns... if i thought for a moment that criminals obeyed the law... :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

Isn't the right to own a semiauto great? They really help out when you're hunting and have to cull the herd.

But don't worry. Guns don't kill people. People with semi-auto weapons kill people. So it's all good.

Reasonable regulations, people. Own your guns but military equivalent weapons in civilian hands should not be allowed.

Criminals fully support your call for more gun laws Kart

<IFRAME height=345 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z92xi08n3ns" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[KartRacerBoy]

Wrong. I think everyone here would agree you're too stupid to be allowed anywhere near a firearm, electric outlet, or can opener. ;)



Actually, the most frightening thing is YOU, JT, near a firearm. With all the hate you carry, you're probably just a click of the safety away from mass murder.

[J.T]

Actually, the most frightening thing is YOU, JT, near a firearm. With all the hate you carry, you're probably just a click of the safety away from mass murder.

Safety? Not on anything I've owned. Double-action and a long pull is all the safety you need.

Besides, I prefer explosives over projectiles :thumb:

[ConHog]

Try telling me once again why any normal person would want to own an AK-47.
The AK-47 has one purpose -- to kill people. There is nothing else you can do with it.
Imagine your own mom and/or dad, sitting at a restaurant for breakfast. I can't see anyone walking in with a rock or a can of gas looking to kill people. That is why they would want a rapid fire weapon.
You gun nuts can moralize and pontificate all you want. But the only reason to own an AK-47 is to kill people.
Imagine your mom and/or dad is dead right now. DEAD. Someone killed them. And I am guessing you are sitting around thinking "oh, I suppose some nut could just as easily have killed with a rock. Or a sledgehammer." Because I know gun nuts are stupid enough to think like that.
But they're still dead. And you don't care. Because you support unlimited gun ownership.
It's going to happen again. Very soon. Perhaps to someone you know. If you don't care, why should I?

Th wonderful thing about the US is that I , nor anyone else, don't have to justify for you why I want something. Why do I want a car that can go three times the speed limit? Because someone builds it. You have NO right to tell me I can't own such. Same with guns.

See that is the problem with YOU anti gun nuts. MOST of us who cherish our 2nd Amendment rights recognize that there are limits both to what we should be able to privately own, and where we should be able to carry them, but oh no you idiots don't want to compromise or be reasonable at all, instead you want just have us all reduced to carrying BB guns.

Unfortunately for you, there is a small document standing between you and your goal, we all it the Constitution of the United States.

[KartRacerBoy]

Th wonderful thing about the US is that I , nor anyone else, don't have to justify for you why I want something. Why do I want a car that can go three times the speed limit? Because someone builds it. You have NO right to tell me I can't own such. Same with guns.

See that is the problem with YOU anti gun nuts. MOST of us who cherish our 2nd Amendment rights recognize that there are limits both to what we should be able to privately own, and where we should be able to carry them, but oh no you idiots don't want to compromise or be reasonable at all, instead you want just have us all reduced to carrying BB guns.

Unfortunately for you, there is a small document standing between you and your goal, we all it the Constitution of the United States.

Please tell me the rationale for owning an AK-47 or the like. Great toys? I have no doubt that is true if you are a gun afficianado. It's like a car nut wanting the ultimate antique, luxury or sports car. I actually understand that.

But an Ak47 for self-defense? Maybe in the apocylopse but not in the real world. Handguns, I'll bet, are by far the more practical weapon for home or personal defense. And how many criminals have something like an AK47? Once again, handguns (or shotguns) are the weapon of choice for criminals overwelmingly, I'd bet.

So other than for sheer giggle, why should the govt not regulate such weapons and restrict or ban such weapons in the US? If such a law were to pass, certainly the govt would have to pay the owners of such weapons who turned them in with a buyback program.

I am no weapons expert, but I don't see why this might not be possible. The SCt allows reasonabl regulations under the 2nd Amendment. In my view, banning guns like the AK47 would be a reasonable regulation. Educate me as to why it isn't reasonable or workable.

[ConHog]

Please tell me the rationale for owning an AK-47 or the like. Great toys? I have no doubt that is true if you are a gun afficianado. It's like a car nut wanting the ultimate antique, luxury or sports car. I actually understand that.

But an Ak47 for self-defense? Maybe in the apocylopse but not in the real world. Handguns, I'll bet, are by far the more practical weapon for home or personal defense. And how many criminals have something like an AK47? Once again, handguns (or shotguns) are the weapon of choice for criminals overwelmingly, I'd bet.

So other than for sheer giggle, why should the govt not regulate such weapons and restrict or ban such weapons in the US? If such a law were to pass, certainly the govt would have to pay the owners of such weapons who turned them in with a buyback program.

I am no weapons expert, but I don't see why this might not be possible. The SCt allows reasonabl regulations under the 2nd Amendment. In my view, banning guns like the AK47 would be a reasonable regulation. Educate me as to why it isn't reasonable or workable.

Please tell me where the COTUS says I have to provide a rationale for owning ANYTHING, especially something that I am specifically given the right to own.

[KartRacerBoy]

Please tell me where the COTUS says I have to provide a rationale for owning ANYTHING, especially something that I am specifically given the right to own.

REASONABLE REGULATIONS. Supreme Court. The 2nd Amendment right isn't absolute. Do you claim you have the right to buy and own SAM handheld weapons, too? I'd guess not. So why can't Congress ban ownership of something like an AK47? Or do you claim the right to own an atomic weapon, too, under the 2nd Amendment? Why wouldn't that be reasonable?

Call me a lawyer, but a principled, logical answer would be appreciated. This isn't an easy topic, but I would've thought those of you who think the 2nd Amendment is more important than other rights in the Bill of Rights would've thought this out a little bit.

[Little-Acorn]

Try telling me once again why any normal person would want to own an AK-47.
Why does anybody here need to do that? Have you forgotten the dozens of other times you've been told this? Is there any point in our telling you for the umpteenth time, when all you will do is forget it yet again and pretend it was never said?


The AK-47 has one purpose -- to kill people.
(sigh) another hysterical fib from little gabby, that has been refuted to her face and elsewhere, more times than I can count.


(balance of little gabby's hysterical raving deleted)

Any point to continuing this (non-)conversation.....?

[J.T]

Please tell me the rationale for owning an AK-47 or the like.
Tell me the rationale for owning a chia pet, a pogo stick, a feather boa, a frozen tofurky, a vw beatle, a pocketwatch on a chain, gaudy make-up, or spandex...

But an Ak47 for self-defense?
You prefer a slingshot?

. Handguns, I'll bet, are by far the more practical weapon for home or personal defense.

Depends on the threat against which you have to defend your family.


And how many criminals have something like an AK47?
Less than have a knife.

Once again, handguns (or shotguns) are the weapon of choice for criminals overwelmingly, I'd bet.
As are non-white clothes. Let's ban all clothes with any colour. Then the gangs couldn't identify themselves or eachother and all the crime would disappear!

So other than for sheer giggle, why should the govt not regulate such weapons and restrict or ban such weapons in the US?
They do regulate them. As for banning: the same reason they shouldn't ban snearkers: you can't give any reason to ban them


I am no weapons expert
obviously, given your ak-47 fetish.


In my view, banning guns like the AK47 would be a reasonable regulation.
Why? Because it's semi-automatic? You do know any AK you walk into a store and buy is going to be incapable of fully-automatic fire, right? because it fires full metal jacket ammo? I can buy FMJ in any caliber you want. Because it does less damage to soft targets than a .40 cal jhp or a .30-06?


Educate me as to why it isn't reasonable or workable.

Soon as you argue why it's no reasonable to ban oink and blue hair die- I mean, what normal person would have a need for any such thing?

Anyone notice that the Democrats started warming up the anti-gun rhetoric after two despotic regimes were overthrown in the ME? Perhaps the government remembered what the Second Amendment is all about...

[KartRacerBoy]

Crickets on any principled response? Still waiting. I realize folks have stuff to do and the site is kinda dead today but I'd love to hear from someone with a brain (ie, not JT).

[J.T]

Crickets on any principled response?


-from you.

Still waiting.

We're not. It's obvious you have no intelligent argument. Else you'd have forwarded it by now.

You are dismissed.

[KartRacerBoy]

-from you..

We're not. It's obvious you have no intelligent argument. Else you'd have forwarded it by now.

You are dismissed.

Dear god. I've been eviscerated by a skinhead. :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

Crickets on any principled response? Still waiting. I realize folks have stuff to do and the site is kinda dead today but I'd love to hear from someone with a brain (ie, not JT).

We don't have to have a reason you fucking idiot.We simply have to have the desire to own one. The burden is on you, and this has been upbheld by SCOTUS time and time again, to give a valid reason to limit what weapons we can own, you seem to believe that the burden is on us to prove why we should able to exercise our second Amendment rights.

I can truly see why you are an unemployed lawyer.

[ConHog]

Dear god. I've been eviscerated by a skinhead. :rolleyes:

JT is a lot of things, but he has also kicked your virtual ass all over this message board in the last few weeks.

[KartRacerBoy]

We don't have to have a reason you fucking idiot.We simply have to have the desire to own one. The burden is on you, and this has been upbheld by SCOTUS time and time again, to give a valid reason to limit what weapons we can own, you seem to believe that the burden is on us to prove why we should able to exercise our second Amendment rights.

I can truly see why you are an unemployed lawyer.


Truly an amazing intellectual response from a guy from multiple degrees. :laugh: And no doubt the idiot exmilitiary on this site will raise you to a deity for your response. Stupid apparently hangs together, especially when it comes to guns. THINGS THAT GO BANG GOOD!!!

I understand evading is a major tactic of the military, but your response merely highlights the stupidity of the "MORE GUNS BIGGER GUNS BETTER' idiots in the gun crowd. Way to represent your side, though. You seem to be a someone truly representative of the type. Thoughtful folks needs not apply.

Really, does anyone with a brain want to talk about this? Or are you so insecure about your postion that you can't defend it or explain it? Please, someone other than the standard idiots respond?

[DragonStryk72]

Isn't the right to own a semiauto great? They really help out when you're hunting and have to cull the herd.

But don't worry. Guns don't kill people. People with semi-auto weapons kill people. So it's all good.

Reasonable regulations, people. Own your guns but military equivalent weapons in civilian hands should not be allowed.

Yeah, because once a person gets to the point of being fully ready to commit mass-murder/suicide, a possession of illegal firearms charge is really going to stop him. Clearly your logic is unassailable. Batshit crazy existed back in the time of the founders, hard as that might be to believe. Mass murderers have been a part of history since before there was history, and before there were guns, they use crossbows, swords, knives, and even simple bludgeons.

This article doesn't bring up a rational individual who killed people. It talks only about a clearly insane individual, and the only thing that would have been made different was the methodology, not the murders. So unless you can prove that this guy wouldn't have killed anyone if he hadn't had a gun, this isn't a matter of gun control.

[KartRacerBoy]

Crickets, as the hyper-intellectual RSR would say. Crickets...

[ConHog]

Truly an amazing intellectual response from a guy from multiple degrees. :laugh: And no doubt the idiot exmilitiary on this site will raise you to a deity for your response. Stupid apparently hangs together, especially when it comes to guns. THINGS THAT GO BANG GOOD!!!

I understand evading is a major tactic of the military, but your response merely highlights the stupidity of the "MORE GUNS BIGGER GUNS BETTER' idiots in the gun crowd. Way to represent your side, though. You seem to be a someone truly representative of the type. Thoughtful folks needs not apply.

Really, does anyone with a brain want to talk about this? Or are you so insecure about your postion that you can't defend it or explain it? Please, someone other than the standard idiots respond?

Hey Queefboy, why do you keep pretending that saying "we don't have to justify WHY we want to enjoy our rights" is not enough to explain why we should be allowed to own the big mean AK47s? It is a completely valid explanation, one that you KNOW you can't counter, so you instead you act superior and pretend like everyone else is stupid.

You're a dishonest idiot.

[Missileman]

Crickets, as the hyper-intellectual RSR would say. Crickets...

The crickets you're hearing are actually the last two brain cells in your head rubbing together. The lack of cerebral function has also apparently left you blind. There have been several logical responses to your posts that you choose to simply ignore rather than refute. BTW, 16,000 people a year are killed in alcohol-related car accidents. For the sake of argument, let's say the majority of those are the result of beer drinking. Are you going to argue that we have to outlaw beer, but leave hard liquor available?

[ConHog]

The crickets you're hearing are actually the last two brain cells in your head rubbing together. The lack of cerebral function has also apparently left you blind. There have been several logical responses to your posts that you choose to simply ignore rather than refute. BTW, 16,000 people a year are killed in alcohol-related car accidents. For the sake of argument, let's say the majority of those are the result of beer drinking. Are you going to argue that we have to outlaw beer, but leave hard liquor available?

I Invite you to look at KRB's last 20 posts and then come back in here and give me your opinion of whether he is actually here for logical debate or not? I wager you will agree that he is not.

[Kathianne]

Let's cool the personal attacks. Please.

[ConHog]

Let's cool the personal attacks. Please.

Pointing out that someone is obviously no longer interested in actual debate is not an attack in my own opinion.

I of course will follow the board rules however.

[J.T]

Truly an amazing intellectual response from a guy from multiple degrees. :laugh: And no doubt the idiot exmilitiary on this site will raise you to a deity for your response. Stupid apparently hangs together, especially when it comes to guns. THINGS THAT GO BANG GOOD!!!
How do you explain me? You'd have a hard time making the case I'm a very big supporter of the U.S. military.

Is that the reason for your earlier swipe- because your canned talking points don't work when it's not a Republican across the table?

I understand evading is a major tactic of the military
Oh, you can evade better that most military men. You've still failed to explain just why we should take away all the AKs.

What's so scary about this:
2424


It's a semi-automatic pistol of debatable quality and practicality. What's so scary about it?


You do know that the only mechanical difference between a rifle and a pistol is the length of the barrel, right? They are functionally the same and differ primarily in accuracy (longer barrel -> greater accuracy -> less danger to any bystanders in the area) and the need, based on the longer barrel, to include a stock to accommodate a method of holding the weapon that accounts for the barrel and allows stability for safe use of the machine.

It's like the laws about magazine capacity. A magazine is extremely simple and any semi-competent guy in a machine shop should be able to turn out a long metal container with some nobs and shit on top matching factory to lock the magazine in place. After that, you just need a spring to fit the mag and follower. Any criminal- let alone any gang or other group of criminals- could easily crank them out regardless of the law if they had had such a whim.

So they ban automatic weapons and we get guys bump-firing a handgun during a drive-by, further reducing his accuracy and making the idiot criminal even more dangerous to innocent bystanders.

Then we find out that hundreds of thousands of weapons are being smuggled in from Afghanistan via Mexico and the same idiots who want to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens form a lynch mob anytime someone suggests we secure the border, proving beyond any doubt or question that they've no interest in actually cutting off the flow of weapons to the real criminals.

Let me guess what your response will be. You'll make some comment about how I'm a stupid racist, you'll declare victory, you'll make baseless attacks against the military in a thread that has nothing to do with them, and then you'll claim that everyone else is evading.

Then you'll wonder why we all think of you as a mildly retarded child.

[Gunny]

Isn't the right to own a semiauto great? They really help out when you're hunting and have to cull the herd.

But don't worry. Guns don't kill people. People with semi-auto weapons kill people. So it's all good.

Reasonable regulations, people. Own your guns but military equivalent weapons in civilian hands should not be allowed.

There already are reasonable regulations and without a Class III license, civilians can't own military equivalents. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If I want you dead and feel the need to use a weapon at all, a pencil will do.

Blaming a tool for the crime itself is delusional BS.

[Missileman]

There already are reasonable regulations and without a Class III license, civilians can't own military equivalents. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If I want you dead and feel the need to use a weapon at all, a pencil will do.

Blaming a tool for the crime itself is delusional BS.

Your first mistake is thinking the average anti-gun whacko understands the concept of reasonable.

[KartRacerBoy]

How do you explain me? You'd have a hard time making the case I'm a very big supporter of the U.S. military.

Is that the reason for your earlier swipe- because your canned talking points don't work when it's not a Republican across the table?
Oh, you can evade better that most military men. You've still failed to explain just why we should take away all the AKs.

What's so scary about this:
2424



It's a semi-automatic pistol of debatable quality and practicality. What's so scary about it?


You do know that the only mechanical difference between a rifle and a pistol is the length of the barrel, right? They are functionally the same and differ primarily in accuracy (longer barrel -> greater accuracy -> less danger to any bystanders in the area) and the need, based on the longer barrel, to include a stock to accommodate a method of holding the weapon that accounts for the barrel and allows stability for safe use of the machine.

It's like the laws about magazine capacity. A magazine is extremely simple and any semi-competent guy in a machine shop should be able to turn out a long metal container with some nobs and shit on top matching factory to lock the magazine in place. After that, you just need a spring to fit the mag and follower. Any criminal- let alone any gang or other group of criminals- could easily crank them out regardless of the law if they had had such a whim.

So they ban automatic weapons and we get guys bump-firing a handgun during a drive-by, further reducing his accuracy and making the idiot criminal even more dangerous to innocent bystanders.

Then we find out that hundreds of thousands of weapons are being smuggled in from Afghanistan via Mexico and the same idiots who want to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens form a lynch mob anytime someone suggests we secure the border, proving beyond any doubt or question that they've no interest in actually cutting off the flow of weapons to the real criminals.

Let me guess what your response will be. You'll make some comment about how I'm a stupid racist, you'll declare victory, you'll make baseless attacks against the military in a thread that has nothing to do with them, and then you'll claim that everyone else is evading.

Then you'll wonder why we all think of you as a mildly retarded child.


Well twist my nuts. Of anyone on this forum, JT is the guy who actually responds with some kind of rational argument. I thank you, JT. Although I gotta say the "canned talking points" thing was rather amusing given the source. :clap:

We can get into the efficacy of banning certain types of guns (the genie is certainly out of the bottle as to guns like the AK47 and private ownership). But that's not what I'm asking about. ConHog can shout as loud as he wants that he doesn't have to explain his desire for automatic weapons. Fine.

The SCT has said the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable regulations of firearms. So how do you hissy girls justify ownership of AK47s if Congress or some state decides to ban them? Please don't shit your Depends on this in your hissy fits. I'm asking how you would logically defened against such a challenge.

From what I've seen so far, the only defense is "We want them!!!"

Not too many brainiacs in the progun crowd, apparently.

[LuvRPgrl]

Because you can kill a lot of people if you decide to. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until the decide to turn nutso. The guy who wielded the AK-47 in Carson City was a law abiding citizen until today.
Some of you just enjoy seeing people slaughtered. You know there is no reason why anyone should own an AK-47, but you want the right to have one just to show what a macho man you are.
The more massacres that happen, the more you will defend your rights to massacre people if you ever turn nutso.

Ola Muchachos,
Me nombre es Vincente Mendoa,
As a nino I grew up in Oaxaca, that in Mexico for those Americanos who grad uate high school these days u dont know much anymore.
..... Me go to IHOP restaurant and Me kill lots of gringos today, poliza. It makes me very happy, they name show after me, Glee. I saw other gun nuts in the crowd, cheering me on wildly, seems they really enjoyed watching helpless people get slaughtered, slaughter, slaughter, slaughter, they couldnt have been happier, at least thats what some muchacha nombre Gabby told me theyt will be like.
......They are happy also cuz it will help their politico cause to own machine guns...(even though there arent really machine guns) so they clapped and cheered, especially one after I kill his padre e mama in front of him
..... You know guns illegal in Mex, theys why we dont have anyone murdered with guns (Oh, except 27 poliza cops in tijuana)
...We played lots of football, soccer, and I have always imagined a gringo face on the ball when i kick really, really hard and angry./
......I do some bad things, wind up in mex prison. They teach me how bad gringos are and how they steal land from us. Me get even more angry, ready to blow bomb.
.......My GF is now pregnant, after I get out of prison. I muredered someone, but since no death penalty, the put me in prison for life. Ohh, yea, ok, since I know fear no more penalty, me can kill anyone me like now. Me kill mucho guard and break out. Me go to US cuz they no ask for proof I belong.

....Me buy machine gun so if I ever go nutso, I can kill lots and lots. It also prove me macho man, yea, thats why I bought it,
.....But soon in Erizona, they get new law, we have hard time getting free stuff, food , money, apt. and I become very, very angry at gringo for tying to stop us from leeching, hey, me no find work, but so many gringos even no find work either, so why me dfiffereent. I also reed a book mein komptf, he showed me the way he sent men with brown shirts and guns to beat those who opposed dictator learn fom him people who have no guns easy to kill-become dictator.

this morning me get up and think, hmmm to day is a good day to go nutso. OK !! Today yes!
me was a law abiding citizen, but once I kill gringos who no let us leech on system, I be criminal. Oh, except me buying gun and having it is illegal, oh, and me break law coming to US.

Me wonder if me normal, normal people dont want to kill lots of people. I mean everyone who wants to have a auto gun is not normal r they? All of dem ready to go kill innocents. Oh my, but just think, those people who think cockroaches have more rights than people say, "no normal person wants to have guns", I laugh who are they to call someone "not normal?" And they say violence is bad, but no mind the places they blow up and people they kill, but hey, no animals get hurt, right? Yes, these is normal people.
cuz they hate guns.
but I like America, cuz they outlaw auto guns so me know i only people with one. If me no have one, what I do? Hmmmm, me thinks about knife, pistola or maybe boom boom. Knife no good, cuz I cant kill myself with it like a gun, but boom boom bomb, good second choice if no gun around.
.....So, I go to cafe and shoot,shoot,shoot, me run out of bullets soon, cuz auto gun waste lots of bullets, hmm, maybe next time I bring rifle or hand gun like terrorist in Norway, and take my time and walk around casually and kill people with ease, lots of them, cuz no one has a gun, and me kill everyone !!
By for now, me off to kill people and vote for Obama, cuz he give me free stuff and let me come here and be lazy and leech. Even if me in american prison, I still vote, they say "no worry" We get lots of felons to vote, dead people too, and old, old, old, Maybe me vote twice, Early and often??. Yes, me love Chicago politicos.
Adios amigos...

[Gunny]

Your first mistake is thinking the average anti-gun whacko understands the concept of reasonable.

No, really I don't. They're the same people that voted for Obama. They live in la-la land. THE first mistake is allowing them a voice and/or so much media coverage. People were killing people long before guns. In fact, in many instances in relatively recent past, disarming the law-abiding citizens allowed the criminal to kill at will and get a much higher body count. The victims were defenseless sheep in a pen.

There have been criminals since the beginning too and they, by definition, don't care what the law says. Disarm the law-abiding public and the criminal will be happier than that giddiest, delusional lib.

[KartRacerBoy]

No, really I don't. They're the same people that voted for Obama. They live in la-la land. THE first mistake is allowing them a voice and/or so much media coverage. People were killing people long before guns. In fact, in many instances in relatively recent past, disarming the law-abiding citizens allowed the criminal to kill at will and get a much higher body count. The victims were defenseless sheep in a pen.

There have been criminals since the beginning too and they, by definition, don't care what the law says. Disarm the law-abiding public and the criminal will be happier than that giddiest, delusional lib.

I agree with everything you said, but a person with a rapid fire weapon kills many more folks than someone with a single shot rifle (for example) or a knife. Ask the kids on the island in Norway.

[J.T]

The SCT has said the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable regulations of firearms.
They also said the courts can impose forced sterilization for any crime if we ever decide to put the laws back into effect, so long as we include blue and white collar crimes among those for which one can face sterilization.

Since the entire discussion is about what the law ought to be, babbling about what it is or what some court said on the matter is not an argument.


So how do you hissy girls justify ownership of AK47s

I'm not explaining the principle of liberty to you again.

Once again you fail to provide a single reason AKs should be banned. Not that you know what you're on about in the first place. Of course, most people with an AK fetish know shit about firearms, so at least you're in good company.

[Missileman]

I agree with everything you said, but a person with a rapid fire weapon kills many more folks than someone with a single shot rifle (for example) or a knife. Ask the kids on the island in Norway.

I think you meant to say a criminal with a rapid fire weapon. How many times do you knuckleheads have to read that a rapid fire weapon in the hands of a law abiding citizen is no threat to anyone before it sinks in?

[J.T]

Why do mass-shootings always happen in gun-free zones, krb?

[LuvRPgrl]

ConHog can shout as loud as he wants that he doesn't have to explain his desire for automatic weapons. Fine.

The SCT has said the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable regulations of firearms. So how do you hissy girls justify ownership of AK47s if Congress or some state decides to ban them? I'm asking how you would logically defened against such a challenge.

From what I've seen so far, the only defense is "We want them!!!"

Not too many brainiacs in the progun crowd, apparently.

Well, courts dont rule without reasons. SO, what would the courts justification be for banning them? Then we can discuss why we think we are justified.

BTW, you wouldnt know a rational arguement if it was shot at you with a fully automatic rifle.

[J.T]

I think you meant to say a criminal with a rapid fire weapon. How many times do you knuckleheads have to read that a rapid fire weapon in the hands of a law abiding citizen is no threat to anyone before it sinks in?I

I disagree. It's a threat to that criminal who's so eager to shoot up everyone at a gun-free zone- who suddenly becomes much less likely to pull out his gun when everyone else is armed.

Columbine was a gun-free zone...
How is there even a debate about this?

[Gunny]

I agree with everything you said, but a person with a rapid fire weapon kills many more folks than someone with a single shot rifle (for example) or a knife. Ask the kids on the island in Norway.

I disagree. I know plenty of people that could kill as many if not more with a knife than any of these fools do with a firearm.

What I'd ask the kids in Norway is: How do oyu think this would have turned out had you been allowed, by law, to carry a firearm? Most law-abiding gun owners I know are far moer deadly witha firearm than any criminals you hear about today. Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald are the only criminals that come to mind that were worth a crap with firearms. Both were trained by the Marine Corps and both committed their crimes with civilian, bolt-action weapons.

[Gunny]

I

I disagree. It's a threat to that criminal who's so eager to shoot up everyone at a gun-free zone- who suddenly becomes much less likely to pull out his gun when everyone else is armed.

Columbine was a gun-free zone...

How is there even a debate about this?

There's a debate because a sector of our society (the ones who believe the police will protect them -- not just solve their murder after the fact) believes if guns are outlawed, the criminals that use them will freely relinquish their firearms along with law-abiding citizens. Then nobody will have guns. :thumb:

The law itself would be giving criminals free reign. The aforementioned sector of our society can't grasp this concept.

[fj1200]

I'm not explaining the principle of liberty to you again.

We're free to own our big bad guns but not the benefits of our labor and investments?

[J.T]

We're free to own our big bad guns but not the benefits of our labor and investments?

This argument again? I didn't know you were a communist. yet here you are, complaining about the working proletariat being alienated form the fruits of their labour and the capitalist pocketing surplus value (profit) that only exists because of proletarian labour... I didn't think anyone still forwarded that bizarre bit of argument before. It's as if you're willfully ignorant of everything that had to happen to make it possible for you to make that money- the civilization, infrastructure, and other aspects of the civilized and advanced society that made it possible for you to enter into the contract and take the actions by which you came across that profit.

[gabosaurus]

I am STILL waiting for someone to offer a plausible reason why they need to own an AK-47.
I am not talking about a hand gun. Or a hunting rifle. This is a weapon whose only purpose is to slaughter people.
Yes, of course you CAN own one. But why would you want to? Unless you envision someday pulling off a mass murder. Or you are a total sicko.

[fj1200]

This argument again?

No, just pointing out your own inconsistencies that you are unable to reconcile. Besides it was a nod out to Johnwk who hasn't posted in awhile. You might like him though, his thought process is as irrational as your own along with an uncanny ability to ignore all evidence that would nullify his/your position.

The rest of your post is silly though, thanks for injecting some humor.

[J.T]

No
So you posted the argument but refuse to stand by it? :laugh:


, just pointing out your own inconsistencies that you are unable to reconcile

:laugh:

Whatever it is you're babbling about, make a thread about it, k? I'm still LOLing at you forwarded that idiotic communist argument. I haven't heard that b.s. since Agnapostate was at USMB.

[fj1200]

So you posted the argument but refuse to stand by it? :laugh:

:laugh:

Whatever it is you're babbling about, make a thread about it, k? I'm still LOLing at you forwarded that idiotic communist argument. I haven't heard that b.s. since Agnapostate was at USMB.

See? You ignore what makes you look stupid. It works for you. Agna? He was FAR more fun than you.

[ConHog]

I am STILL waiting for someone to offer a plausible reason why they need to own an AK-47.
I am not talking about a hand gun. Or a hunting rifle. This is a weapon whose only purpose is to slaughter people.
Yes, of course you CAN own one. But why would you want to? Unless you envision someday pulling off a mass murder. Or you are a total sicko.

Simple as this.

If you haven't at some point when out and rock and rolled with a semi automatic weapon , or even better a full on auto, against some imaginary bad guys well then you haven't lived.


It's FUN. It matters not if you understand or even find it enjoyable yourself or not. Some people have snakes as pets, I can see NO rational reason for having the fucking things as pets, but to those who do I say enjoy.

[Gunny]

I am STILL waiting for someone to offer a plausible reason why they need to own an AK-47.
I am not talking about a hand gun. Or a hunting rifle. This is a weapon whose only purpose is to slaughter people.
Yes, of course you CAN own one. But why would you want to? Unless you envision someday pulling off a mass murder. Or you are a total sicko.

Or might just want one? What do you drive? What do you wear? What do you feed your kids?

I can make the same argument for any of the above. You've really regressed since I used to post here. Lame question. Aren't you a lefty who claims to be "liberal" (as if you knew what the word meant)? You mean you're all for freedom of everything unless you disagree. That just makes you a dem.

[Gunny]

No, just pointing out your own inconsistencies that you are unable to reconcile. Besides it was a nod out to Johnwk who hasn't posted in awhile. You might like him though, his thought process is as irrational as your own along with an uncanny ability to ignore all evidence that would nullify his/your position.

The rest of your post is silly though, thanks for injecting some humor.

Hate to break your heart, but J.T's argument insofar as firearms are concerned is completely rational; while, your question is a red herring.

[ConHog]

Or might just want one? What do you drive? What do you wear? What do you feed your kids?

I can make the same argument for any of the above. You've really regressed since I used to post here. Lame question. Aren't you a lefty who claims to be "liberal" (as if you knew what the word meant)? You mean you're all for freedom of everything unless you disagree. That just makes you a dem.

It's actually pretty typical, and not SOLELY the province of the left either. People scream about having rights, if they are the rights THEY are worried about. Never a thought to the rights that they disagree with. When exactly the opposite is what people should do. It is the rights of those you most vehemently disagree with that you should defend the most.


Oh and tell me I'm wrong when I say that firing a fully automatic weapon is the most fun a person can have with their clothes on.

[avatar4321]

Shame more people werent armed so they could defend themselves.

And it's a shame people need to be armed to defend themselves.

[J.T]

Oh and tell me I'm wrong when I say that firing a fully automatic weapon is the most fun a person can have with their clothes on.
I prefer explosives, myself.

[DragonStryk72]

I agree with everything you said, but a person with a rapid fire weapon kills many more folks than someone with a single shot rifle (for example) or a knife. Ask the kids on the island in Norway.

That's actually inaccurate. A single shot rifle has a hell of a lot higher kill rate that semi and full autos. With both the semi and full, you get ammo waste, unlike a single shot rifle. that's why the really horrific body counts have been with hunting rifles and such. One decently trained rifleman can hold off most forces for a long time with any degree of ammo.

[red states rule]

MSNBC host is upset gun control is not an issue in 2012 election. Of course I am waiting for any liberal who wants more gun laws to tell me what law could be passed that would stop criminals from using guns to commit crimes

<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/105395" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[KartRacerBoy]

That's actually inaccurate. A single shot rifle has a hell of a lot higher kill rate that semi and full autos. With both the semi and full, you get ammo waste, unlike a single shot rifle. that's why the really horrific body counts have been with hunting rifles and such. One decently trained rifleman can hold off most forces for a long time with any degree of ammo.

I don't doubt that (remember the DC sniper?), but an AK47 or its brethern makes accuracy far less important for some average idiot.

You guys that love to own such weapons should really think about this issue (justication for owing an assault rifle - however that might be defined). Just screaming "I want one" won't wash in court if they are banned somewhere.

[fj1200]

Hate to break your heart, but J.T's argument insofar as firearms are concerned is completely rational; while, your question is a red herring.

I find it interesting that j.t.'s brand of... "logic"... :rolleyes: suddenly becomes rational when his views happen to lines up with yours and others. You should inquire why he is such a big government advocate in some areas and then all of a sudden brings up liberty when it comes to guns.

[KartRacerBoy]

I find it interesting that j.t.'s brand of... "logic"... :rolleyes: suddenly becomes rational when his views happen to lines up with yours and others. You should inquire why he is such a big government advocate in some areas and then all of a sudden brings up liberty when it comes to guns.


JT is the only one in this thread that has attempted a rational response. I give him kudos for that. Broken clock. Twice a day. All that.

But the rest of DP gun lovers apparently have a hard time engaging their brains when they hold something that goes BANG!

[avatar4321]

JT is the only one in this thread that has attempted a rational response. I give him kudos for that. Broken clock. Twice a day. All that.

But the rest of DP gun lovers apparently have a hard time engaging their brains when they hold something that goes BANG!

You do realize that just saying that no one has attempted a rational response doesn't make that true don't you?

You have countless people here having intelligent discussion. You are welcome to join us when you are dont being pompous and ignoring responses you don't like.

[ConHog]

You do realize that just saying that no one has attempted a rational response doesn't make that true don't you?

You have countless people here having intelligent discussion. You are welcome to join us when you are dont being pompous and ignoring responses you don't like.

BUT BUT BUT .. " I don't have to give you a reason why I want to enjoy my rights" isn't a rationale reason. :laugh:

[KartRacerBoy]

You do realize that just saying that no one has attempted a rational response doesn't make that true don't you?

You have countless people here having intelligent discussion. You are welcome to join us when you are dont being pompous and ignoring responses you don't like.

:laugh:

If by intelligent response you mean "I don't have to justify my 2nd Amendment rights," suuuuuure. It's pure black and white. In fact, under the 2nd Amend, I can own any weapon I want. Gun, tank, nuke, whatever. :rolleyes:

Still waiting...

[J.T]

I don't doubt that (remember the DC sniper?), but an AK47 or its brethern makes accuracy far less important for some average idiot.

You guys that love to own such weapons should really think about this issue (justication for owing an assault rifle - however that might be defined)

So you're babbling on about these mythical 'assault rifles' and you can't even tell us what they are?


gun lovers apparently have a hard time engaging their brains when they hold something that goes BANG!

Are you ever going to make an actual argument, or is lame attempts to insult the intelligence of gun owners all you have?

[LuvRPgrl]

I am STILL waiting for someone to offer a plausible reason why they need to own an AK-47.
I am not talking about a hand gun. Or a hunting rifle. This is a weapon whose only purpose is to slaughter people.
Yes, of course you CAN own one. But why would you want to? Unless you envision someday pulling off a mass murder. Or you are a total sicko.

1. Not having an immediate reason is not justification for denying the right.
2. None of you gun banning big govt loving commies have given the reason they are outlawed, or should be.
3. Default goes to having the right to own one. I can own anything, anything, unless a law is imposed saying otherwise. That law has to have a supporting arguement, so what is it? And please provide facts and evidence, not just how much your knees shake when you think of someone with a gun.
4. Hitlers first move was NOT to stifle free speech, he couldnt do that until he had control of the guns, go read the 2nd amendment and how it applies, in fact, it supports my right to own a bazooka or a tank.

[LuvRPgrl]

Shame more people werent armed so they could defend themselves.

And it's a shame people need to be armed to defend themselves.

Everybody seems to be forgetting that the intention of gun rights by the FFs was not to defend against criminals, but to defend against a criminal govt.

[Gaffer]

Everybody seems to be forgetting that the intention of gun rights by the FFs was not to defend against criminals, but to defend against a criminal govt.

Which is the whole purpose of owning an assault weapon.

[LuvRPgrl]

That's actually inaccurate. A single shot rifle has a hell of a lot higher kill rate that semi and full autos. With both the semi and full, you get ammo waste, unlike a single shot rifle. that's why the really horrific body counts have been with hunting rifles and such. One decently trained rifleman can hold off most forces for a long time with any degree of ammo.

I was just telling my wife that.
I would rather face someone with a fully auto than a single shot.
With the fully auto, they tend to be overconfident that they got their target, when in fact they havent, and then they spray shoot all over the place and totally waste ammo.
A marine based in Iraq said the hardest thing to teach the Iraqis how to defend themselves against the terrorists was, to not waste ammo. Once they got shooting, they would always run the mag empty.

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't doubt that (remember the DC sniper?), but an AK47 or its brethern makes accuracy far less important for some average idiot.

You guys that love to own such weapons should really think about this issue (justication for owing an assault rifle - however that might be defined). Just screaming "I want one" won't wash in court if they are banned somewhere.

Once again slippery slope boy, if you ban them, YOU MUST PRESENT THE REASON FIRST. You dont ban something without a reason that is supported by FACTS, (or at least reasonable sociities and people dont)

[Little-Acorn]

3. Default goes to having the right to own one.

There is nothing "default" about it.

There's a quaint, antiquated document, ignored by desperate liberals from coast to coast, that says flatly that no government in the U.S. can make a law banning or restricting the rights of citizens to own or carry a gun or other such weapon. It even gives a reason (for you trembing leftists who keep demanding "WHY?"): An armed and capable populace is NECESSARY for security and freedom. Not that the reason is really necessary. All any U.S. citizen (the law-abiding ones, anyway) need, is the command that government keep hands off.

It's not a "default condition". The right to own and carry your own gun, is the MANDATED condition. Quivering leftist paranoia nothwithstanding.

[ConHog]

:laugh:

If by intelligent response you mean "I don't have to justify my 2nd Amendment rights," suuuuuure. It's pure black and white. In fact, under the 2nd Amend, I can own any weapon I want. Gun, tank, nuke, whatever. :rolleyes:

Still waiting...

Oh for the love of the God you say you don't believe in.

The Second Amendment does NOT say the right to bear weapons, it says the right to bear firearms. A nuke is NOT a firearm, and I've never seen ANYONE argue that a private citizen should be able to own one.

Chicken Little much?

[ConHog]

There is nothing "default" about it.

There's a quaint, antiquated document, ignored by desperate liberals from coast to coast, that says flatly that no government in the U.S. can make a law banning or restricting the rights of citizens to own or carry a gun or other such weapon. It even gives a reason (for you trembing leftists who keep demanding "WHY?"): An armed and capable populace is NECESSARY for security and freedom. Not that the reason is really necessary. All any U.S. citizen (the law-abiding ones, anyway) need, is the command that government keep hands off.

It's not a "default condition". The right to own and carry your own gun, is the MANDATED condition. Quivering leftist paranoia nothwithstanding.

Yep, little Kartman's attempt to make us give a reason why we want to own a semiautomatic weapon is nothing but a red herring. No reason we gave him would ever satisfy him.. And what's more, he damn well knows that the Second Amendment means we don't have to give him a reason for wanting said firearm.

He might as well argue that unless someone can give him a legitimate reason for running out in the street and yelling "you slimy motherfucking liberals are pieces of shit" that the first amendment should be ignored and that phrase outlawed. After all, some people DO use the First Amendment to say hurtful things.

[KartRacerBoy]

Oh for the love of the God you say you don't believe in.

The Second Amendment does NOT say the right to bear weapons, it says the right to bear firearms. A nuke is NOT a firearm, and I've never seen ANYONE argue that a private citizen should be able to own one.

Chicken Little much?

It actually says "right to bear ARMS." Not firearms. And I've argued with idiots who think that since the 2nd Amendment's purpose is to allow for the armed overthrow of an oppressive govt, that necessarily means that citizens must be allowed weapons that equal those in the govt inventory. And they were serious.

When the Constitution was ratified, this wasn't such a crazy argument. Cannons and seige weapons being the biggest, baddest weapon in the govt inventory. Now, though, with nukes, missiles, etc?

But really I'm just trying to get you folks to put out a justification for ownership of things like assault rifles. What principled limit would you put on private ownership of weapons? If I can own a semi-auto AK47, does that mean I should be also be able to own a machine gun? Mortar? What is the limit and how would you define it?

And why does that question get you folks all butthurt?

[KartRacerBoy]

Everybody seems to be forgetting that the intention of gun rights by the FFs was not to defend against criminals, but to defend against a criminal govt.

Tell that to the SCt. I agree with you on the purpose, but they extended it to personal defense, although I see nothing about personal defense in the 2nd Amendment.

Now STATES at the time had their own Bill of Rights with equivalents to the 2nd Amendment. Pennsylvania's state constitution actually mentioned the right to own a firearm so one could hunt, for example. I don't know if it mentioned personal defense, however. I imagine it was not quite the same issue now that it was then in a largely rural state.

[ConHog]

It actually says "right to bear ARMS." Not firearms. And I've argued with idiots who think that since the 2nd Amendment's purpose is to allow for the armed overthrow of an oppressive govt, that necessarily means that citizens must be allowed weapons that equal those in the govt inventory. And they were serious.

When the Constitution was ratified, this wasn't such a crazy argument. Cannons and seige weapons being the biggest, baddest weapon in the govt inventory. Now, though, with nukes, missiles, etc?

But really I'm just trying to get you folks to put out a justification for ownership of things like assault rifles. What principled limit would you put on private ownership of weapons? If I can own a semi-auto AK47, does that mean I should be also be able to own a machine gun? Mortar? What is the limit and how would you define it?

And why does that question get you folks all butthurt?


No one is butthurt over you little man. We're laughing at your illogical attempts at reasonable debate. Any reasonable person would say that yes the 2nd Amednment certainly does mean that you don't have to give me a reason why you want to own a firearm.

it's amazing how you suddenly turn against the COTUS when it doesn't suit you.

FACT : The forefathers envisioned situations where certain folks might have to have certain rights limited or taken away , BUT they envisioned the burden being on those who wished to limt them to show WHY they wanted to limit them, not the burden being on those who wished to keep their rights having to show why they should get to keep them.

You are effectively trying to infringe on both my Second Amendment right to bear arms (and yes they meant firearms, read the supporting documents) and my Fourth Amendment right to due process.

And you claim I am the one with authority issues?

[ConHog]

Tell that to the SCt. I agree with you on the purpose, but they extended it to personal defense, although I see nothing about personal defense in the 2nd Amendment.

Now STATES at the time had their own Bill of Rights with equivalents to the 2nd Amendment. Pennsylvania's state constitution actually mentioned the right to own a firearm so one could hunt, for example. I don't know if it mentioned personal defense, however. I imagine it was not quite the same issue now that it was then in a largely rural state.

So now you're argument is that unless your reason for wanting said weapon is mentioned in the COTUS tough shit?

[KartRacerBoy]

No one is butthurt over you little man. We're laughing at your illogical attempts at reasonable debate. Any reasonable person would say that yes the 2nd Amednment certainly does mean that you don't have to give me a reason why you want to own a firearm.

it's amazing how you suddenly turn against the COTUS when it doesn't suit you.

FACT : The forefathers envisioned situations where certain folks might have to have certain rights limited or taken away , BUT they envisioned the burden being on those who wished to limt them to show WHY they wanted to limit them, not the burden being on those who wished to keep their rights having to show why they should get to keep them.

You are effectively trying to infringe on both my Second Amendment right to bear arms (and yes they meant firearms, read the supporting documents) and my Fourth Amendment right to due process.

And you claim I am the one with authority issues?

Well if you can own something like a semiauto AK47, why do you think owning a minigun is unreasonable (as you stated in another thread)? You obviously think that's unreasonable. Why? What's the reasoning? Rate of fire? What?

[ConHog]

Well if you can own something like a semiauto AK47, why do you think owning a minigun is unreasonable (as you stated in another thread)? You obviously think that's unreasonable. Why? What's the reasoning? Rate of fire? What?

Common fucking sense. You should give it a try.


While you're at it, you might investigate the word compromise.

[logroller]

I am STILL waiting for someone to offer a plausible reason why they need to own an AK-47.
I am not talking about a hand gun. Or a hunting rifle. This is a weapon whose only purpose is to slaughter people.
Yes, of course you CAN own one. But why would you want to? Unless you envision someday pulling off a mass murder. Or you are a total sicko.

Why AK's...
The development of AK-47s evolved from the Russian experience in WWII where an inadequate number of rifles were available to greater number of soldiers, citizens really, who were called to duty in mutual defense of country. Two-thirds of front-line soldiers were issued magazines alone, instructed to pickup the rifles of the fallen. The mass casualties which resulted defined the need for a weapon which was inexpensive, easy-to-operate, durable and dependable-- in 1947, this need would be satisfied by the Automatik Kalashnikov.

Firearms and weaponry...
Weapons are tools, capable of more than killing; specifically, they're a means of causing destruction, more aptly used as a deterrent to an opposition's action than the actual commission of a hostility. Your characterization of it only being used to 'slaughter' is biased by an opinion that all weapons are utilized solely to kill people; demonstrating to me, as a well-trained operator of these weapons, your inherent lack of understanding of automatic weapons and their proper application-- suppressing fire. In a situation where a larger or more force is to be engaged, the rapid rate and extended period of fire of magazine-fed, automatic weapons afford a smaller force to keep a large one at bay. But it is in no way a substitute for a larger force; as characterized in the OP where the gunman would meet his own demise after discharging a great number of rounds with a disproportionately small number of casualties.

Legal arguments...
It's a common argument that in modern American society, the People standing ready and capable of mutual defense is unnecessary (which makes a bold statement in asserting the COTUS itself, is outdated and/or in need of revision). Therefore, your question presents two distinct issues. The first is rather you accept the 2nd Amendment's clause as to firearms being necessary to the security of a free State; for if you dispute this, any further reasoning based on this belief is moot. The second issue, which I think you, KRB and many others have trouble accepting, is rather armed individuals provide for well-regulated public militia and are capable of providing for the security of a free-state. It's important to understand the necessary balance between an individual's right to bear arms and the forbidding of domestically quartered troops. I happen to believe that the improper use and treatment of firearms is a direct result of a lack of understanding and training, not the possession of the weapons themselves.

If you read nothing else, read this---
A mere 5% of firearm-related homicides results from the use of rifles (automatics being lesser still); so arguments that making them illegal would reduce the number of homicides is weak, unless you premise this as a necessary step to ban all firearms--which I think is really what you propose (Am I right?). So be honest, it's not semi autos, or AKs or big scary black guns; but all guns which you want banned. Which is fine, you're entitled to an opinion--but how will enforce that ban, if not for somebody with a gun???? What I fear most is losing is the ability to oppose the infringement of every other right, if I haven't the means to oppose those who still have guns?

[ConHog]

Why AK's...
The development of AK-47s evolved from the Russian experience in WWII where an inadequate number of rifles were available to greater number of soldiers, citizens really, who were called to duty in mutual defense of country. Two-thirds of front-line soldiers were issued magazines alone, instructed to pickup the rifles of the fallen. The mass casualties which resulted defined the need for a weapon which was inexpensive, easy-to-operate, durable and dependable-- in 1947, this need would be satisfied by the Automatik Kalashnikov.

Firearms and weaponry...
Weapons are tools, capable of more than killing; specifically, they're a means of causing destruction, more aptly used as a deterrent to an opposition's action than the actual commission of a hostility. Your characterization of it only being used to 'slaughter' is biased by an opinion that all weapons are utilized solely to kill people; demonstrating to me, as a well-trained operator of these weapons, your inherent lack of understanding of automatic weapons and their proper application-- suppressing fire. In a situation where a larger or more force is to be engaged, the rapid rate and extended period of fire of magazine-fed, automatic weapons afford a smaller force to keep a large one at bay. But it is in no way a substitute for a larger force; as characterized in the OP where the gunman would meet his own demise after discharging a great number of rounds with a disproportionately small number of casualties.

Legal arguments...
It's a common argument that in modern American society, the People standing ready and capable of mutual defense is unnecessary (which makes a bold statement in asserting the COTUS itself, is outdated and/or in need of revision). Therefore, your question presents two distinct issues. The first is rather you accept the 2nd Amendment's clause as to firearms being necessary to the security of a free State; for if you dispute this, any further reasoning based on this belief is moot. The second issue, which I think you, KRB and many others have trouble accepting, is rather armed individuals provide for well-regulated public militia and are capable of providing for the security of a free-state. It's important to understand the necessary balance between an individual's right to bear arms and the forbidding of domestically quartered troops. I happen to believe that the improper use and treatment of firearms is a direct result of a lack of understanding and training, not the possession of the weapons themselves.

If you read nothing else, read this---
A mere 5% of firearm-related homicides results from the use of rifles (automatics being lesser still); so arguments that making them illegal would reduce the number of homicides is weak, unless you premise this as a necessary step to ban all firearms--which I think is really what you propose (Am I right?). So be honest, it's not semi autos, or AKs or big scary black guns; but all guns which you want banned. Which is fine, you're entitled to an opinion--but how will enforce that ban, if not for somebody with a gun???? What I fear most is losing is the ability to oppose the infringement of every other right, if I haven't the means to oppose those who still have guns?


I'd love to see one of these loons show up at my door wanting to confiscate my guns.

Oh PS to Kart, I actually own two fully auto weapons. A Vietnam era Uzi and a first gen M16 that fell out of the back of a truck while on convoy. They are FUN to shoot and amazingly I have somehow resisted the urge to murder anyone with either of them.

[KartRacerBoy]

Legal arguments...
It's a common argument that in modern American society, the People standing ready and capable of mutual defense is unnecessary (which makes a bold statement in asserting the COTUS itself, is outdated and/or in need of revision). Therefore, your question presents two distinct issues. The first is rather you accept the 2nd Amendment's clause as to firearms being necessary to the security of a free State; for if you dispute this, any further reasoning based on this belief is moot. The second issue, which I think you, KRB and many others have trouble accepting, is rather armed individuals provide for well-regulated public militia and are capable of providing for the security of a free-state. It's important to understand the necessary balance between an individual's right to bear arms and the forbidding of domestically quartered troops. I happen to believe that the improper use and treatment of firearms is a direct result of a lack of understanding and training, not the possession of the weapons themselves.

If you read nothing else, read this---
A mere 5% of firearm-related homicides results from the use of rifles (automatics being lesser still); so arguments that making them illegal would reduce the number of homicides is weak, unless you premise this as a necessary step to ban all firearms--which I think is really what you propose (Am I right?). So be honest, it's not semi autos, or AKs or big scary black guns; but all guns which you want banned. Which is fine, you're entitled to an opinion--but how will enforce that ban, if not for somebody with a gun???? What I fear most is losing is the ability to oppose the infringement of every other right, if I haven't the means to oppose those who still have guns?

The SCt decided a few years ago that COTUS gives individuals the right to own guns. I'm not sure I agree or disagree with that decision but that is the law. As I said above, there were state Constitutions with rights similar to the 2nd Amendment that not only discussed defense of country (security of a free state) but also stated people had the right to guns for hunting, something our federal constitution does not mention. In any case, SCOTUS says the right to own a gun is a personal right for the individual. So lets work from that. They also said guns were subject to reasonable regulation. What' is reasoanable?

You folks think I'm for banning all guns. I'm not. Some guns being banned? Yes. ConHog says that miniguns shouldn't be in private hands. OK. But WHY? Why is it ok to own a semiauto COMMON SENSE. Well, to someone who isn't a gun fan, I don't see the "common sense" as obvious at all.

Yours is one of the best response I've gotten so far (thank you, btw), but it still doesn't answer my question.

As to the efficacy of any ban, I suspect that the genie is out of the bottle and it can't be put back in even if there was political will to do so. That does not mean that some govt entity won't try, however.

[KartRacerBoy]

I'd love to see one of these loons show up at my door wanting to confiscate my guns.

Oh PS to Kart, I actually own two fully auto weapons. A Vietnam era Uzi and a first gen M16 that fell out of the back of a truck while on convoy. They are FUN to shoot and amazingly I have somehow resisted the urge to murder anyone with either of them.

I know you have trouble reading, but try going back to my original post in this thread addressing this issue. I GET the fact that gun lovers would like weapons like those you own. As I said, it's like a car fan wanting what they think is the ultimate car.

[ConHog]

I know you have trouble reading, but try going back to my original post in this thread addressing this issue. I GET the fact that gun lovers would like weapons like those you own. As I said, it's like a car fan wanting what they think is the ultimate car.

Exactly, and just like with the car , in the wrong hands it CAN be dangerous, but just because some use it for that purpose, doesn't mean you can just take mine away if I don't give you what you feel is an acceptable reason for having one.

[KartRacerBoy]

Exactly, and just like with the car , in the wrong hands it CAN be dangerous, but just because some use it for that purpose, doesn't mean you can just take mine away if I don't give you what you feel is an acceptable reason for having one.

And so why should miniguns be illegal for private ownership but not semi-auto assault rifles. JT posted the thread about full auto weapons with semiautos firing like automatics. If semiautos can fire like automatic with little or no mods and you think auto weapons like miniguns should stay illegal, why should semiautos be legal? What's the distinction? Is the bumpfire thing BS?

[logroller]

It actually says "right to bear ARMS." Not firearms. And I've argued with idiots who think that since the 2nd Amendment's purpose is to allow for the armed overthrow of an oppressive govt, that necessarily means that citizens must be allowed weapons that equal those in the govt inventory. And they were serious.

When the Constitution was ratified, this wasn't such a crazy argument. Cannons and seige weapons being the biggest, baddest weapon in the govt inventory. Now, though, with nukes, missiles, etc?

But really I'm just trying to get you folks to put out a justification for ownership of things like assault rifles. What principled limit would you put on private ownership of weapons? If I can own a semi-auto AK47, does that mean I should be also be able to own a machine gun? Mortar? What is the limit and how would you define it?

And why does that question get you folks all butthurt?

A limitation is deemed necessary only to ensure who what when where and how such weapons are used in the necessary defense from a hostile force, foreign or domestic.

I'd say limits are a balance between the need for, and capability of, responsible ownership. An outright ban is clearly justified when no lawful use exists; as is clearly the case with nuclear proliferation and many other weapons for mass destruction. Limits of ownership are often justified when the responsibilities associated with its lawful use are beyond what can be provided by an individual; Tanks, missiles, artillery etc.. possess a destructive capability that outweighs an individual's capacity to operate the weapon safely and/or provide for the security of the weapon itself. A machine gun can be operated alone and limitations need only ensure it's lawful acquisition and positive retention.

[KartRacerBoy]

A limitation is deemed necessary only to ensure who what when where and how such weapons are used in the necessary defense from a hostile force, foreign or domestic.

I'd say limits are a balance between the need for, and capability of, responsible ownership. An outright ban is clearly justified when no lawful use exists; as is clearly the case with nuclear proliferation and many other weapons for mass destruction. Limits of ownership are often justified when the responsibilities associated with its lawful use are beyond what can be provided by an individual; Tanks, missiles, artillery etc.. possess a destructive capability that outweighs an individual's capacity to operate the weapon safely and/or provide for the security of the weapon itself. A machine gun can be operated alone and limitations need only ensure it's lawful acquisition and positive retention.

So your limitation is essentially "gun"? if it's a smallbore firearm, it should be legal under the 2nd Amend? I'm not trying to put words in your computer. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

So a shoulder held SAM wouldn't be protected by the 2nd Amend for example but a 50 cal machine gun would?

[logroller]

The SCt decided a few years ago that COTUS gives individuals the right to own guns. I'm not sure I agree or disagree with that decision but that is the law. As I said above, there were state Constitutions with rights similar to the 2nd Amendment that not only discussed defense of country (security of a free state) but also stated people had the right to guns for hunting, something our federal constitution does not mention. In any case, SCOTUS says the right to own a gun is a personal right for the individual. So lets work from that. They also said guns were subject to reasonable regulation. What' is reasoanable?

You folks think I'm for banning all guns. I'm not. Some guns being banned? Yes. ConHog says that miniguns shouldn't be in private hands. OK. But WHY? Why is it ok to own a semiauto COMMON SENSE. Well, to someone who isn't a gun fan, I don't see the "common sense" as obvious at all.

Yours is one of the best response I've gotten so far (thank you, btw), but it still doesn't answer my question.

As to the efficacy of any ban, I suspect that the genie is out of the bottle and it can't be put back in even if there was political will to do so. That does not mean that some govt entity won't try, however.


And so why should miniguns be illegal for private ownership but not semi-auto assault rifles. JT posted the thread about full auto weapons with semiautos firing like automatics. If semiautos can fire like automatic with little or no mods and you think auto weapons like miniguns should stay illegal, why should semiautos be legal? What's the distinction? Is the bumpfire thing BS?


So your limitation is essentially "gun"? if it's a smallbore firearm, it should be legal under the 2nd Amend? I'm not trying to put words in your computer. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

So a shoulder held SAM wouldn't be protected by the 2nd Amend for example but a 50 cal machine gun would?

Sort of... "bear arms", to me, means that which can be operated, in it's intended use, by oneself. A SAM missile poses such a risk of collateral damage, it requires a coordinated effort to ensure that whatever it used against is indeed an enemy (a central command of some sort). A .50 BMG, less so, but similarly requires some regulation as to the proper training and other necessary precautions to ensure it's legitimate use. I'd guess, a machine gun's operational and security costs are tens of thousand$ more than it's purchase cost; regulation should ensure the necessary precautions aren't forsaken.

[ConHog]

And so why should miniguns be illegal for private ownership but not semi-auto assault rifles. JT posted the thread about full auto weapons with semiautos firing like automatics. If semiautos can fire like automatic with little or no mods and you think auto weapons like miniguns should stay illegal, why should semiautos be legal? What's the distinction? Is the bumpfire thing BS?

Because a line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE and reasonable minds have determined that a weapon that can fire multiple rounds with a single squeeze of the trigger is where the line should be drawn. It is NO different than saying why is .08 legally too intoxicated to drive but .07 is not? Well duh, because a fucking line has to exist and only the dumbest of the dumb don't understand this.

[LuvRPgrl]

There is nothing "default" about it..ahhh, quite contrair my dear friend. Default is the posistion held if NOTHING EVER has been done about the situation. Think, invention of gun, who did it, was it banned, or restricted. If not, then thats the default


There's a quaint, antiquated document, ignored by desperate liberals from coast to coast, that says flatly that no government in the U.S. can make a law banning or restricting the rights of citizens to own or carry a gun or other such weapon. I.
Actually, its intent is to prevent the feds from interferring with the states, and they were so concerned abut it, that they did in fact make an amendment to the constitution.

It even gives a reason (for you trembing leftists who keep demanding "WHY?"): An armed and capable populace is NECESSARY for security and freedom. Not that the reason is really necessary.. Amen


All any U.S. citizen (the law-abiding ones, anyway) need, is the command that government keep hands off.. Actually, just to add on to your posistion,
The second amendment does not give us legal permission to bear, own a gun. That is given to us by simply being born. The "default" posistion. If you notice, it doesnt even say that people have the right to bear arms, it says, THE FEDERAL GOVT SHALL MAKE NO LAW..... Meaning, they already have that right. The amendments were not made to create the rights, but to protect them.


It's not a "default condition". The right to own and carry your own gun, is the MANDATED condition. Quivering leftist paranoia nothwithstanding.
Which is double wrapping it. For all you gun control freaks, the FF's not only knew we had the right, but they insisted on re iterating it to the point of the possibility the Constitution might not even being ratified.
NOT ONLY ARE WE BORN WITH THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, BUT YOUR STINKING GOVT AND THOSE CONTROL FREAKS WHO TRY TO USE IT TO IMPOSE THEIR WILL ON OTHERS, SHALL NOT, NOT, NOT MAKE ANY LAWS TO NULLIFY THAT RIGHT.
By authority of the undersigned:
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Partrick Henry
etc
etc
etc

[LuvRPgrl]

So your limitation is essentially "gun"? if it's a smallbore firearm, it should be legal under the 2nd Amend? I'm not trying to put words in your computer. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

So a shoulder held SAM wouldn't be protected by the 2nd Amend for example but a 50 cal machine gun would?

In the document itself, it makes no such distinction or restriction.It does not contain the following:
EXCEPT FOR
RESTRICED TO
ONLY INCLUDING
MOST OF
MANY
ALMOST ALL

Excuse me for thinking "arms" is plural and all inclusive.
As for nukes, thats a ridiculous arguement, but nonetheless, there are many ways to quashit.
1. A nuke is not neccessary to defend against a tyrannical govt
2. A nuke wouldnt even help to defend against a tyrannical govt, for if used, it would kill many of the very people its trying to protect, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
3. Just possesing it is dangerous by itself, as it contains radioactive materials, and in the event of a natural catasthrope, it would become dangerous when it becomes out of control. Not the case with other weapons.

[fj1200]

Because a line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE and reasonable minds have determined that a weapon that can fire multiple rounds with a single squeeze of the trigger is where the line should be drawn. It is NO different than saying why is .08 legally too intoxicated to drive but .07 is not? Well duh, because a fucking line has to exist and only the dumbest of the dumb don't understand this.

So if the line were drawn to the left ;) of an AK47 by the populace as determined by its' representatives... You'd be OK with that?

[ConHog]

So if the line were drawn to the left ;) of an AK47 by the populace as determined by its' representatives... You'd be OK with that?

Depends , are we talking total ban or are we talking about limiting semi autos similarly to how we now regulate autos? Because I would be against the former and okay with the latter.

[KartRacerBoy]

In the document itself, it makes no such distinction or restriction.It does not contain the following:
EXCEPT FOR
RESTRICED TO
ONLY INCLUDING
MOST OF
MANY
ALMOST ALL

Excuse me for thinking "arms" is plural and all inclusive.
As for nukes, thats a ridiculous arguement, but nonetheless, there are many ways to quashit.
1. A nuke is not neccessary to defend against a tyrannical govt
2. A nuke wouldnt even help to defend against a tyrannical govt, for if used, it would kill many of the very people its trying to protect, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
3. Just possesing it is dangerous by itself, as it contains radioactive materials, and in the event of a natural catasthrope, it would become dangerous when it becomes out of control. Not the case with other weapons.

So short of nukes, the 2nd amendment allows private ownership of pretty much all weapons? If that's what you're thinking, where is the nuke exception in the original intent of the 2nd Amendment?

[Little-Acorn]

So short of nukes, the 2nd amendment allows private ownership of pretty much all weapons? If that's what you're thinking, where is the nuke exception in the original intent of the 2nd Amendment?

Sounds like you don't care for the 2nd being as permissive as it is.

Have you started the process for amending the Constitution yet? You can, you know.

If your idea for restricting nukes in private hands is as good as you seem to feel, then you should have no trouble getting 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree with you.

Right?

Let us know how it goes.

[KartRacerBoy]

Sounds like you don't care for the 2nd being as permissive as it is.

Have you started the process for amending the Constitution yet? You can, you know.

If your idea for restricting nukes in private hands is as good as you seem to feel, then you should have no trouble getting 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree with you.

Right?

Let us know how it goes.

Hey SHIT FOR BRAINS, I'm trying to figure out how permissive YOU think it is and WHY. I'm sorry that I'm trying to learn your position but you're too stupid to actually have one. Cry and rant like a little girl all you want, bitch, but don't bother responding if you don't have something intellligent to add. I get it. Thinking obviously SCARES you. :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Hey SHIT FOR BRAINS, I'm trying to figure out how permissive YOU think it is and WHY. I'm sorry that I'm trying to learn your position but you're too stupid to actually have one. Cry and rant like a little girl all you want, bitch, but don't bother responding if you don't have something intellligent go add. I get it. Thinking SCARES you. :rolleyes:

For most of the day seems you were making arguments, now you are back to name calling and questioning others intellects. Chill with the personal attacks. Seriously.


Flaming - While in heated debates, we understand that it can become emotional and sometimes we let that get the better of us. The board will tolerate such outbursts to a degree. So long as it doesn't get out of hand, and become a habitual occurrence, it will be tolerated. If this is abused, the member will be issued a warning via PM and asked to refrain from further abuse. Sarcastic comments are not considered flaming. Not discussing the subject and attacking the poster in a nasty manner would be. We're all adults here, so let's again allow common sense to prevail here.

You've had many pm's via staff, you need to cool it.

[LuvRPgrl]

Sounds like you don't care for the 2nd being as permissive as it is.

Have you started the process for amending the Constitution yet? You can, you know.

If your idea for restricting nukes in private hands is as good as you seem to feel, then you should have no trouble getting 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree with you.

Right?

Let us know how it goes.

Exactly, seems like a no brainer to me.

[LuvRPgrl]

Hey SHIT FOR BRAINS, I'm trying to figure out how permissive YOU think it is and WHY. I'm sorry that I'm trying to learn your position but you're too stupid to actually have one. Cry and rant like a little girl all you want, bitch, but don't bother responding if you don't have something intellligent to add. I get it. Thinking obviously SCARES you. :rolleyes:

I dont know, I got alot out of his posts here. In fact, he was the first one to mention amending the Constitution. Does that make him a shitFORbrains?
How permissive is he? You cant figure that out? I think I have pretty much got it. You see, he says to limit Nukes, you should amend the Cotus,,,,hmmm, since nothing goes beyond a nuke, we dont have to worry about anything on that side, and anything less than a nuke, would be included too, since he does include nukes.
So, it appears he thinks the amendments kinda, sorta, MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS FUCKHEAD, NOT WHAT YOU AND YOUR LIBERAL CONTROL FREAK CONSTITUTION DESTROYING ELITIST ARROGANT FAGGOT FRIENDS WANT IT TO SAY.

[ConHog]

I dont know, I got alot out of his posts here. In fact, he was the first one to mention amending the Constitution. Does that make him a shitFORbrains?
How permissive is he? You cant figure that out? I think I have pretty much got it. You see, he says to limit Nukes, you should amend the Cotus,,,,hmmm, since nothing goes beyond a nuke, we dont have to worry about anything on that side, and anything less than a nuke, would be included too, since he does include nukes.
So, it appears he thinks the amendments kinda, sorta, MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS FUCKHEAD, NOT WHAT YOU AND YOUR LIBERAL CONTROL FREAK CONSTITUTION DESTROYING ELITIST ARROGANT FAGGOT FRIENDS WANT IT TO SAY.

get with the times, the COTUS is really just a suggestion you know. The Amendments are are just guidelines more than anything. Often times the words don't even mean what they say.

Do I get to be an honorary liberal for that?

[logroller]

So if the line were drawn to the left ;) of an AK47 by the populace as determined by its' representatives... You'd be OK with that?

'where to draw the line' should be based upon the reasonable certainty that a ban, as a means of reducing firearm- related crime, will satisfy that end. I don't believe banning a AK will prevent them from being used by those who commit crime; it may reduce it, but its far from a certainty. As I mentioned earlier, the number of assault rifles used in violent crime is quite low, so I don't see there is any demonstrated benefit which justifies forbidding the lawful possession.

FWIW--I think AK47s shoot for shit, and certainly wouldn't trust my life with one; but if I was to arm a militia, their low cost alone offers a feasible economic benefit, despite their inaccuracy.

[ConHog]

'where to draw the line' should be based upon the reasonable certainty that a ban, as a means of reducing firearm- related crime, will satisfy that end. I don't believe banning a AK will prevent them from being used by those who commit crime; it may reduce it, but its far from a certainty. As I mentioned earlier, the number of assault rifles used in violent crime is quite low, so I don't see there is any demonstrated benefit which justifies forbidding the lawful possession.

FWIW--I think AK47s shoot for shit, and certainly wouldn't trust my life with one; but if I was to arm a militia, their low cost alone offers a feasible economic benefit, despite their inaccuracy.

Thankfully, most sane people agree with you and thus we will likely never be put in a situation where most people feel semi automatic rifles should be illegal.

Oh and for what it's worth, the AK47 was and is a superior weapon to the M16. It's a perfectly reliable weapon with readily available ammunition.

But I'd rather have a BAR :thumb:

[J.T]

Oh for the love of the God you say you don't believe in.

The Second Amendment does NOT say the right to bear weapons, it says the right to bear firearms.

Actually, it says arms



But really I'm just trying to get you folks to put out a justification for ownership of things like assault rifles.
Define: assault rifle

Why are you so afraid of semi-automatics?


What is the limit and how would you define it?
You tell us. You're the one who wants to take away semi-autos. You draw the line and argue for it.

Why do you get so pissy when someone expects you to argue your own case?



FWIW--I think AK47s shoot for shit, and certainly wouldn't trust my life with one; but if I was to arm a militia, their low cost alone offers a feasible economic benefit, despite their inaccuracy.

It's probably a 100-150 yard weapon. Beyond that , good luck hitting shit. However, in urban or guerrilla combat, you're rarely going to engage a target outside that range. Like the Uzi, it's great for its intended purpose but not so great outside its POU.

As for SAMs and shit, I once again suggest that control the National Guard be handed over to the States, not the President and that they be used to fill the role of the organized militia. They operate wholly outside the military chain of command unless the State legislature and governor agree to send the State militia to aid the military. They will continue to be trained and outfitted by the military and shall constitute a domestic defense force- a final line of defense- as well as fulfilling humanitarian missions as the respective State legislatures deem appropriate and fulfilling the original intent of the second amendment. SAMs, mortars, and other heavy weapons will be at the disposal of the State milita with a supermajority vote by the State legislature and the approval of the governor and kept in the armories under lock and key until needed. Individual citizens should be encouraged to keep their own rifles ans pistols for home defense and to ensure that, in the unlikely event the State militia were needed to defend against federal aggression, the armoury would not be faced with arming more persons than it can handle.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable and logical approach that ensures the intent of the second amendment is meant and the rights of the citizenry are protected why also taking reasonable measures to ensure that criminal elements cannot get explosive or other heavy weapons too easily and endanger public safety.

[LuvRPgrl]

get with the times, the COTUS is really just a suggestion you know. The Amendments are are just guidelines more than anything. Often times the words don't even mean what they say.

Do I get to be an honorary liberal for that?
sarcasm noted.

[ConHog]

Actually, it says arms


Define: assault rifle

Why are you so afraid of semi-automatics?


You tell us. You're the one who wants to take away semi-autos. You draw the line and argue for it.

Why do you get so pissy when someone expects you to argue your own case?



It's probably a 100-150 yard weapon. Beyond that , good luck hitting shit. However, in urban or guerrilla combat, you're rarely going to engage a target outside that range. Like the Uzi, it's great for its intended purpose but not so great outside its POU.

As for SAMs and shit, I once again suggest that control the National Guard be handed over to the States, not the President and that they be used to fill the role of the organized militia. They operate wholly outside the military chain of command unless the State legislature and governor agree to send the State militia to aid the military. They will continue to be trained and outfitted by the military and shall constitute a domestic defense force- a final line of defense- as well as fulfilling humanitarian missions as the respective State legislatures deem appropriate and fulfilling the original intent of the second amendment. SAMs, mortars, and other heavy weapons will be at the disposal of the State milita with a supermajority vote by the State legislature and the approval of the governor and kept in the armories under lock and key until needed. Individual citizens should be encouraged to keep their own rifles ans pistols for home defense and to ensure that, in the unlikely event the State militia were needed to defend against federal aggression, the armoury would not be faced with arming more persons than it can handle.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable and logical approach that ensures the intent of the second amendment is meant and the rights of the citizenry are protected why also taking reasonable measures to ensure that criminal elements cannot get explosive or other heavy weapons too easily and endanger public safety.


Correct , and I clarified that I was only paraphrasing the supporting documents not quoting the COTUS.


I would also support your idea of not letting the POTUS co opt the national guard but rather keeping them under state authority.

[J.T]

I would also support your idea of not letting the POTUS co opt the national guard but rather keeping them under state authority.

Yea, putting the president in control of the militia (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.shtml) always kinda defeats the purpose of the militia as outlined in the second amendment. If I were the sort to distrust power-grabbing governments, I might think that's why the federal government took over control of the organized militia...

[KartRacerBoy]

For most of the day seems you were making arguments, now you are back to name calling and questioning others intellects. Chill with the personal attacks. Seriously.

You've had many pm's via staff, you need to cool it.


I know you don[t like my political point of view. That's fine, but have you read the responses to my attempts to elicit an intelligent response? I ask a question and get attacked. That doesn't seem to concern you, but whoa if I challenge the common theolgogy of the DP forum. Somehow that's an attack (since I'm a liberal and you don't like folks like me).

If someone posts a stupid post, including you, I'll get in your face. Ban me if you want. I'm pretty sure I'll live. I realize I'm not suffciently RW nutcase for you like RSR. Sorry if you don't like it.

[ConHog]

If someone posts a stupid post, including you, I'll get in your face. Ban me if you want. I'm pretty sure I'll live. I realize I'm not suffciently RW nutcase for you like RSR. Sorry if you don't like it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReYfu5E-hOE

[gabosaurus]

Next time there is a threat of Indian attack, or if any battalions of British are spotted on the horizon, I would see the need for a "well armed militia." But why do we need one now?
Anyone who truly feels they need an Uzi, AK-47 or any other assault type weapon to "defend themselves" is truly a gun nut.

[Gaffer]

Actually, it says arms


Define: assault rifle

Why are you so afraid of semi-automatics?


You tell us. You're the one who wants to take away semi-autos. You draw the line and argue for it.

Why do you get so pissy when someone expects you to argue your own case?



It's probably a 100-150 yard weapon. Beyond that , good luck hitting shit. However, in urban or guerrilla combat, you're rarely going to engage a target outside that range. Like the Uzi, it's great for its intended purpose but not so great outside its POU.

As for SAMs and shit, I once again suggest that control the National Guard be handed over to the States, not the President and that they be used to fill the role of the organized militia. They operate wholly outside the military chain of command unless the State legislature and governor agree to send the State militia to aid the military. They will continue to be trained and outfitted by the military and shall constitute a domestic defense force- a final line of defense- as well as fulfilling humanitarian missions as the respective State legislatures deem appropriate and fulfilling the original intent of the second amendment. SAMs, mortars, and other heavy weapons will be at the disposal of the State milita with a supermajority vote by the State legislature and the approval of the governor and kept in the armories under lock and key until needed. Individual citizens should be encouraged to keep their own rifles ans pistols for home defense and to ensure that, in the unlikely event the State militia were needed to defend against federal aggression, the armoury would not be faced with arming more persons than it can handle.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable and logical approach that ensures the intent of the second amendment is meant and the rights of the citizenry are protected why also taking reasonable measures to ensure that criminal elements cannot get explosive or other heavy weapons too easily and endanger public safety.

Up until the mid 70's that's the way it was. The National Guard was strictly state controlled. If the regular military needed augmentation they called up the reserves.

[ConHog]

Next time there is a threat of Indian attack, or if any battalions of British are spotted on the horizon, I would see the need for a "well armed militia." But why do we need one now?
Anyone who truly feels they need an Uzi, AK-47 or any other assault type weapon to "defend themselves" is truly a gun nut.

Tell that to the people who live along our southern border and have their lands invaded daily by INVADERS who are destroying their land and KILLING whenever they want. Yep, no need for them to be able to defend themselves.

And once again, your inane belief that we don't need to defend ourselves in NO WAY negates the fact that we do NOT have to have a reason to exercise our Second Amendment rights.

[J.T]

Up until the mid 70's that's the way it was. The National Guard was strictly state controlled. If the regular military needed augmentation they called up the reserves.

Why did we let them change that?

Do you have a link to a good history of the matter?

[ConHog]

Why did we let them change that?

Do you have a link to a good history of the matter?

It was a combination of things, mostly Vietnam and the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Between losing so many military members in Vietnam and needing so many military members because of fear of the Soviet Union there was only one place to get those numbers. That's right, the NG.

[J.T]

It was a combination of things, mostly Vietnam and the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Between losing so many military members in Vietnam and needing so many military members because of fear of the Soviet Union there was only one place to get those numbers. That's right, the NG.

If the wars were needed and the people wanted to play war against the evil reds, they shouldn't have had any trouble convincing the States to send the militias to help

Besides, they had conscription at the time

[Missileman]

Next time there is a threat of Indian attack, or if any battalions of British are spotted on the horizon, I would see the need for a "well armed militia." But why do we need one now?
Anyone who truly feels they need an Uzi, AK-47 or any other assault type weapon to "defend themselves" is truly a gun nut.

You don't have the slightest clue what the difference is between a semi-auto hunting rifle and a semi-auto "assault" rifle do you?

[ConHog]

If the wars were needed and the people wanted to play war against the evil reds, they shouldn't have had any trouble convincing the States to send the militias to help

Besides, they had conscription at the time

Hey don't shoot the messenger, I didn't say I agreed with the reasoning, I merely gave you the reasoning.

[ConHog]

You don't have the slightest clue

You could have stopped there. :laugh2:

[J.T]

You don't have the slightest clue what the difference is between a semi-auto hunting rifle and a semi-auto "assault" rifle do you?

One has a wood stock and the other has a scary-looking black 'plastic' stock?

[Gaffer]

If the wars were needed and the people wanted to play war against the evil reds, they shouldn't have had any trouble convincing the States to send the militias to help

Besides, they had conscription at the time

I don't need links. I lived it. Peanut carter took office in Jan of 77. The military was being neutered. The draft was done away with. We still needed a strong military and there were not enough "volunteers". So they developed the combined forces methodology. It was the only way to keep the military strength up to par. The national guard of that time was totally different than what we have today. Poorly trained and equipped. They weren't called weekend warriors for nothing. Now days they can match any regular military unit.

The media turned most people against the military. And it remained that way until the late 80's. The media has been a left wing tool since the 60's. As for fighting the reds, we're still fighting them. Now days they are called liberals. Same agenda, to destroy democracy. They just change names as needed.

[logroller]

Correct , and I clarified that I was only paraphrasing the supporting documents not quoting the COTUS.


I would also support your idea of not letting the POTUS co opt the national guard but rather keeping them under state authority.

Not to wax semantics as to what authority wields the primary power of domestic policing; you and JT are clearly correct (it is the States); but it is the National Guard, and their duty extends to upholding the laws of USA, not that of individual States.

[ConHog]

Not to wax semantics as to what authority wields the primary power of domestic policing; you and JT are clearly correct (it is the States); but it is the National Guard, and their duty extends to upholding the laws of USA, not that of individual States.

Absolutely correct. The oath I took as an Officer in the Arkansas National Guard was to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic. No mention of Arkansas law actually. Nonetheless our primary mission was to serve the State of Arkansas.

[jimnyc]

I know you don[t like my political point of view. That's fine, but have you read the responses to my attempts to elicit an intelligent response? I ask a question and get attacked. That doesn't seem to concern you, but whoa if I challenge the common theolgogy of the DP forum. Somehow that's an attack (since I'm a liberal and you don't like folks like me).

If someone posts a stupid post, including you, I'll get in your face. Ban me if you want. I'm pretty sure I'll live. I realize I'm not suffciently RW nutcase for you like RSR. Sorry if you don't like it.

I placed the above in bold only for the comedy value.

Please explain to the community how you are banned or treated differently because you have a different POV? Correct me if I'm wrong, the ONLY "adverse" reaction you have received at this board thus far was a thread ban, no? It would appear to me that you are judging and/or calling staff members biased for their decisions for no good reason. Then calling for a ban as if it's expected, when you've yet to see how and why we would pull the plug on someone.

As for this particular topic - I bet I can go back and show quite a few posts that were on topic, lengthy and well thought out - but you continue on saying how nobody is giving a good response. Is the only decent response, to you, one in which someone agrees with you? All you've done thus far really is claim there's no need for an AK47 and the rest is basically whining about others responses or your perceived shitty treatment here from other members and staff.

Either stop the inane complaining that doesn't exist, or grow a pair, and some thicker skin.

[ConHog]

I placed the above in bold only for the comedy value.

Please explain to the community how you are banned or treated differently because you have a different POV? Correct me if I'm wrong, the ONLY "adverse" reaction you have received at this board thus far was a thread ban, no? It would appear to me that you are judging and/or calling staff members biased for their decisions for no good reason. Then calling for a ban as if it's expected, when you've yet to see how and why we would pull the plug on someone.

As for this particular topic - I bet I can go back and show quite a few posts that were on topic, lengthy and well thought out - but you continue on saying how nobody is giving a good response. Is the only decent response, to you, one in which someone agrees with you? All you've done thus far really is claim there's no need for an AK47 and the rest is basically whining about others responses or your perceived shitty treatment here from other members and staff.

Either stop the inane complaining that doesn't exist, or grow a pair, and some thicker skin.

BUT JIMMY, if you can't give me a good goddamn reason why you feel the need to enjoy the full freedoms that you are guaranteed well then you don't really get to enjoy them.

[J.T]

Did krb ever explain why any normal person needs a pogo stick, a vw bug, an Obama bumper sticker, or tofurkey? or can we move ahead with banning all of those things?

[ConHog]

Did krb ever explain why any normal person needs a pogo stick, a vw bug, an Obama bumper sticker, or tofurkey? or can we move ahead with banning all of those things?

I think KRB couldn't prove why he shouldn't be banned from this thread and so he can't post in it.

Either that or he finally realized he's fighting a losing battle and ran.

[logroller]

Next time there is a threat of Indian attack, or if any battalions of British are spotted on the horizon, I would see the need for a "well armed militia." But why do we need one now?
Anyone who truly feels they need an Uzi, AK-47 or any other assault type weapon to "defend themselves" is truly a gun nut.

Well first off, I'm sorry you feel that way. I respectfully disagree and I will continue to defend Our rights despite the fact you care so little for them.
Secondly, it's 'well regulated militia' not well-armed, and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is ensure the security of a free State through mutual defense, not merely that of oneself. I don't think all people should have have firearms, only those who are law-abiding and responsible. And it is these people who are most impacted by gun bans, far more greatly than those who are are not.

[Kathianne]

Next time there is a threat of Indian attack, or if any battalions of British are spotted on the horizon, I would see the need for a "well armed militia." But why do we need one now?
Anyone who truly feels they need an Uzi, AK-47 or any other assault type weapon to "defend themselves" is truly a gun nut.

Oh you are correct, the natives would have been well served to have had the most modern weapons once upon a time. They didn't and the rest is history. You wish a repeat. Some disagree.

[ConHog]

Oh you are correct, the natives would have been well served to have had the most modern weapons once upon a time. They didn't and the rest is history. You wish a repeat. Some disagree.

Too true, I'm fairly sure that the Jews wish they had had some decent weapons in 1941 Germany as well.

[DragonStryk72]

I don't doubt that (remember the DC sniper?), but an AK47 or its brethern makes accuracy far less important for some average idiot.

You guys that love to own such weapons should really think about this issue (justication for owing an assault rifle - however that might be defined). Just screaming "I want one" won't wash in court if they are banned somewhere.

Um, we can thereby possibly stop the assholes who would walk in on an IHOP with an AK and mow people down en masse? The criminals and the corrupted will not stop owning these sorts of weapons simply because they are illegal. Hell, if every law abiding citizen stopped buying any fullly automatic weapon, and turned over their collections, I guarantee you that the criminals we really need to worry about would start carrying them as default load out. That's basically the difficulty that England hit when their ban on firearms hit- The good people all turned in their weapons, as was their duty, but the people you don't want to have guns still had theirs.

These killings always happen where guns are known to be banned. Guys may be crazy, but they're not stupid, same at columbine. The killers most definitely were not legally allowed to own the weapons they used to kill others with, and they didn't roll into a police precinct or military base and lay down fire. They took the weapons to school, where they knew the victims were unarmed.

As well, an AK is about the most ubiquitous assault rifle in the world. Do you have any idea how many militaries world-wide use them? It's like the Coke of the gun world to the M-16s Pepsi. Even if we'd outlawed it completely, and every law abiding citizen handed over their supplies, this guy still could have gotten one, either by getting it piecemeal, smuggled in, or otherwise. He wouldn't the first or last mass murder to wait until they had their "special weapon".

In the end, banning assault rifles helps only those who want to use them for vile purpose.

[DragonStryk72]

Too true, I'm fairly sure that the Jews wish they had had some decent weapons in 1941 Germany as well.

I imagine the Nazis might have rethought their "final solution" a bit more if the Jews had been able to put up more of a fight.

[DragonStryk72]

It was a combination of things, mostly Vietnam and the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Between losing so many military members in Vietnam and needing so many military members because of fear of the Soviet Union there was only one place to get those numbers. That's right, the NG.

I'm sort of noticing that more of our massive fuck-ups happened during the Cold War. Installed the Taliban, Saddam, etc., we were just not paying attention at all outside of beating the russians.

[J.T]

Virgina Tech was a gun free zone...

[avatar4321]

Everybody seems to be forgetting that the intention of gun rights by the FFs was not to defend against criminals, but to defend against a criminal govt.

Individuals who are unable to defend their own life cannot defend their liberty.

[ConHog]

I'm sort of noticing that more of our massive fuck-ups happened during the Cold War. Installed the Taliban, Saddam, etc., we were just not paying attention at all outside of beating the russians.

Oh most certainly they were our main focal point.

[J.T]

2425
nice work, gunaphobes:thumb:

[avatar4321]

I dont know, I got alot out of his posts here. In fact, he was the first one to mention amending the Constitution. Does that make him a shitFORbrains?
How permissive is he? You cant figure that out? I think I have pretty much got it. You see, he says to limit Nukes, you should amend the Cotus,,,,hmmm, since nothing goes beyond a nuke, we dont have to worry about anything on that side, and anything less than a nuke, would be included too, since he does include nukes.
So, it appears he thinks the amendments kinda, sorta, MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS FUCKHEAD, NOT WHAT YOU AND YOUR LIBERAL CONTROL FREAK CONSTITUTION DESTROYING ELITIST ARROGANT FAGGOT FRIENDS WANT IT TO SAY.

The Second amendment has to be one of the easiest to read and understand. I am truly amazed that there are some people who want to claim that it doesn't say what it clearly says.

We have the right to bear arms. If someone doesn't like that they should amend the Constitution. But until then, we still have the right to bear arms.

I am not a gun person. But the idea that we can't exercise a basic right such as self defense against others and against government is absolutely absurd.

Personally, I like knives and swords and using my own fists. Yes it's not as damaging as a gun. But it can get the job done in most circumstances.

[avatar4321]

Correct , and I clarified that I was only paraphrasing the supporting documents not quoting the COTUS.


I would also support your idea of not letting the POTUS co opt the national guard but rather keeping them under state authority.

I would have to concur with the national guard being in state control.

[avatar4321]

Yea, putting the president in control of the militia (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.shtml) always kinda defeats the purpose of the militia as outlined in the second amendment. If I were the sort to distrust power-grabbing governments, I might think that's why the federal government took over control of the organized militia...

But who on earth is crazy enough to distrust power-grabbing governments?;)

[avatar4321]

Next time there is a threat of Indian attack, or if any battalions of British are spotted on the horizon, I would see the need for a "well armed militia." But why do we need one now?
Anyone who truly feels they need an Uzi, AK-47 or any other assault type weapon to "defend themselves" is truly a gun nut.

We need one so we never have to use it.

You honestly dont think we dont have enemies?

[DragonStryk72]

We need one so we never have to use it.

You honestly dont think we dont have enemies?

Wait, wait, wait.... I keep rereading what she wrote, and here's my question: Let's say you get a determined, focused enemy that decides they're going to invade our country, I don't know.... Japan, we'll say. I mean, I know it's not possible they would ever assault us, being so much smaller than us, and let's say they decide to invade one of our outlying states, we'll say... Hawaii, just for shits and giggles. Now, imagine, if at all possible, that the use aerial and naval tactics to go after a military target, like say a naval base (I know, where does he come up with this stuff?).

she's saying we should wait until after we get attacked to arm up. Just a thought on that, um, most military units will secure the various gun stores and such immediately upon taking over, so unless you're armed before the fighting begins, you're fucked.

[fj1200]

Depends , are we talking total ban or are we talking about limiting semi autos similarly to how we now regulate autos? Because I would be against the former and okay with the latter.

So you are or are NOT okay with a reasoned minds determination?

[DragonStryk72]

2425
nice work, gunaphobes:thumb:



yeah, I used to live around that area when that went down at VA Tech. One guy, just one person with a firearm could have saved a number of lives.

[fj1200]

'where to draw the line' should be based upon the reasonable certainty that a ban, as a means of reducing firearm- related crime, will satisfy that end. I don't believe banning a AK will prevent them from being used by those who commit crime; it may reduce it, but its far from a certainty. As I mentioned earlier, the number of assault rifles used in violent crime is quite low, so I don't see there is any demonstrated benefit which justifies forbidding the lawful possession.

FWIW--I think AK47s shoot for shit, and certainly wouldn't trust my life with one; but if I was to arm a militia, their low cost alone offers a feasible economic benefit, despite their inaccuracy.

Hmm, controlling crime vs. overthrowing a tyrannical government. Controlling crime; you ban an AK but still allow handguns, CCW, and all that so if someone does go on a rampage you still have the argument that someone with a handgun can take him out. There is zero probability that another citizen will pull out an AK to engage him so what's the point other than liberty? Overthrowing a tyrannical government; If law enforcement, militia, national guard, etc. are not with you and your cause you will lose even if you and your militia are armed with AKs so what's the point other than liberty? Just thinking out loud...

[fj1200]

BUT JIMMY, if you can't give me a good goddamn reason why you feel the need to enjoy the full freedoms that you are guaranteed well then you don't really get to enjoy them.

You've already accepted limitations to the "full freedoms" the question is why the line should be drawn where.

[fj1200]

In the end, banning assault rifles helps only those who want to use them for vile purpose.

When was the last time that an assault rifle wielding perp was taken out with another (non-law enforcement) assault rifle wielding citizen?

[DragonStryk72]

When was the last time that an assault rifle wielding perp was taken out with another (non-law enforcement) assault rifle wielding citizen?

When was the last time they were legal for carry?

[J.T]

I asked the anti-gun freaks to tell us exactly what constitutes an 'assault rifle' several times in this thread. I've yet to see them do so.

[DragonStryk72]

You've already accepted limitations to the "full freedoms" the question is why the line should be drawn where.

Uh, as pointed out by JT, You don't need an AK to have a fully automatic weapon, you just need a semi, some tools, and enough time on the internet. Honestly, the line is retarded, because the only thing it does is give you a false feeling of safety from "the bad people".

[J.T]

I'd hardly call a rubber band 'some tools'. Heck, you don't even really need the rubber band. It just helps.

And yet... we have no epidemic of people going on sprees with such a setup. Hell, guns are used for suicide more than for homicide in America. And those criminals who have no intent of following the law still acquire full-autos when they want and still prefer a handgun for committing most crimes (probably because they conceal their weapons).

People like fj and krb get people killed because they give a false sense of security and discourage law-abiding citizens from owning the means to defend themselves and disarm law-abiding citizens, giving murderous criminals shooting ranges full of empty targets (see: Virginia Tech, Columbine).

[fj1200]

When was the last time they were legal for carry?

Are you proposing?

[fj1200]

Uh, as pointed out by JT, You don't need an AK to have a fully automatic weapon, you just need a semi, some tools, and enough time on the internet. Honestly, the line is retarded, because the only thing it does is give you a false feeling of safety from "the bad people".

Non-sequitur. The point is if you're going to push for maximum liberties on gun ownership and something like this happens you better have a rational argument on why restrictions aren't necessary. What are the CCW laws like in NV?

[DragonStryk72]

Are you proposing?

Well, I can't really talk about them being used for daily defense without them having ever been street legal, now can I?

[fj1200]

People like fj and krb get people killed...

That's a stupid thing to say, you have no idea where I stand on the issue.

[fj1200]

Well, I can't really talk about them being used for daily defense without them having ever been street legal, now can I?

I think everyone has been pointing out that they would not be very effective against a lone target, unless I'm misunderstanding, so what would be the point of using one for daily defense?

[DragonStryk72]

I think everyone has been pointing out that they would not be very effective against a lone target, unless I'm misunderstanding, so what would be the point of using one for daily defense?

Then why did you ask the question about why they haven't been used? Either you asked a sham question, or you have to admit, it's quite impossible to answer. A number of Assault Rifles do have a single or burst fire mode, as opposed to the "rock-n-roll" full-auto when they think of assault rifles. People get scared because of that one setting, and so they stop paying attention to the realities of firearms, preferring to make themselves "safe" by banning the "scary" guns.

All guns are scary when they're being used against you, period. doesn't matter if it's winchester, sig sauer, or an assault rifle. In the right or wrong, they are all incredibly lethal.

[J.T]

Non-sequitur. The point is if you're going to push for maximum liberties on gun ownership and something like this happens you better have a rational argument on why restrictions aren't necessary. What are the CCW laws like in NV?

You never explained why you need KFCs, pogo sticks, or bluetooth to be legal.


That's a stupid thing to say, you have no idea where I stand on the issue.

You repudiate what you've said in this thread and advocating lifting those idiotic 'gun free zone' laws?

[J.T]

All this talk about 'assault weapons' and nobody's bothered to define this big scary trigger word

[fj1200]

Then why did you ask the question about why they haven't been used? Either you asked a sham question, or you have to admit, it's quite impossible to answer.

I asked a question, DS made a good point, hence my follow-up; it's how this works. It better not be impossible to answer if you honestly expect that you'd be allowed to carry one.

[fj1200]

You never explained why you need KFCs, pogo sticks, or bluetooth to be legal.

You explain why they should be ILlegal.


You repudiate what you've said in this thread and advocating lifting those idiotic 'gun free zone' laws?

Where did I advocate such?

[J.T]

You explain why they should be ILlegal.

Exactly ;)

Good to see you come around :clap:

[LuvRPgrl]

Next time there is a threat of Indian attack, or if any battalions of British are spotted on the horizon, I would see the need for a "well armed militia." But why do we need one now?
Anyone who truly feels they need an Uzi, AK-47 or any other assault type weapon to "defend themselves" is truly a gun nut.

You know, history goes a long way, and it will be going on several centuries from now. We wont always be so safe from invasion.
Countries are often overrun when they think they are invulnerable. France 1939, Pearl Harbor, Many thought the Roman Empire would never end, guess what ,, it did.

Or do you just not care about our future generations?
You know, only 3-4 generations and we will be in the 24th century.

[LuvRPgrl]

Too true, I'm fairly sure that the Jews wish they had had some decent weapons in 1941 Germany as well.

As I said, Hitlers first right to strip from citizens was....

Hey, and what about a Mars attack??

[logroller]

Hmm, controlling crime vs. overthrowing a tyrannical government. Controlling crime; you ban an AK but still allow handguns, CCW, and all that so if someone does go on a rampage you still have the argument that someone with a handgun can take him out. There is zero probability that another citizen will pull out an AK to engage him so what's the point other than liberty? Overthrowing a tyrannical government; If law enforcement, militia, national guard, etc. are not with you and your cause you will lose even if you and your militia are armed with AKs so what's the point other than liberty? Just thinking out loud...

I would say a well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free-State DOES NOT mean guns-a-blazing--that's just foolish. If someone is coming at you with a gun or a knife, whatever really--get the fuck away. Standing ready to defend one's self and principles is more of a deterrent than an actionable defense; it's posturing really-- the hardening of a target. If avoidance is not possible, then it becomes necessary to take up arms--only then. You're in your house with nowhere to go, death or destruction is imminent--pretty easy decision and I'd recommend a shotgun. In the streets, cover or conceal--seek backup. Rather or not there's an assault weapon involved matters little; my actions would be the same.

As for tyranny, again, mostly posturing. If, in the off chance, govt gets a bug for violent oppression, knowing the populous is armed and capable is a symbolic deterrent; not that they couldn't crush you-look at Waco; burned 'em to death; but we're still a democracy, I think...and slaughtered civilians may not vote, but they certainly don't help out reelection campaigns. They would be remiss to attempt a repeat performance. However, if this sort of behavior were to become widespread (not just some crazy cult compound), say, i don't know, they told 35 million people they had to give up all their guns-- What would be the response of the people? Compliance or face criminal prosecution? House searches? There does exists a slippery slope here, not yet in full tilt. It's not that I need to have an assault rifle to overthrow government, because Our government doesn't need overthrowing-- We're guaranteed this by a Constitution which protects our rights, including the right to bear arms.

[logroller]

You know, history goes a long way, and it will be going on several centuries from now. We wont always be so safe from invasion.
Countries are often overrun when they think they are invulnerable. France 1939, Pearl Harbor, Many thought the Roman Empire would never end, guess what ,, it did.

Or do you just not care about our future generations?
You know, only 3-4 generations and we will be in the 24th century.

Ummm. Had yourself a Dan Quayle moment there. I believe a generation is 25 years.

[LuvRPgrl]

Ummm. Had yourself a Dan Quayle moment there. I believe a generation is 25 years.

I love Danny boy !

Is it? Well, you know, yesterdays 25 is todays 45.
I actually thought a generation is about 50 years, but never was sure, so I stand corrected.
So, lets add on a few more,,,,,but one thing is for sure, what people often think "will never happen" almost always does.

[logroller]

I love Danny boy !

Is it? Well, you know, yesterdays 25 is todays 45.
I actually thought a generation is about 50 years, but never was sure, so I stand corrected.
So, lets add on a few more,,,,,but one thing is for sure, what people often think "will never happen" almost always does.

Ah, no worries, your point was still made. Who knows what, in a few hundred years, weaponry will be like or even if one need bear it. What is important is that We are diligent in upholding the values instilled in our Constitution which have allowed us and people around the world to prosper under the banner of freedom.

[DragonStryk72]

I asked a question, DS made a good point, hence my follow-up; it's how this works. It better not be impossible to answer if you honestly expect that you'd be allowed to carry one.

Actually you're wrong. Cars kill far more people in this country every day than guns, and certainly more than fully automatic guns do, so why should you have the right to drive one, or even own one? I mean, your kid could start it up, and run over a baby even if you never drive the thing. Our government is not set up around proving why we should have a right, and many people forget this. In the United States, proof must be shown as to why The People should not have a right. Our Founders believed that liberty was inherent to all men, something that we are all born with as a gift of our Creator. For things such as Murder, Theft, Rape, etc. it's pretty cut and dry: You do not have the right to do those things because it impinges on the core liberties of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of others, as well as the inherent right to claim ownership over that which they have been given, made, grown, traded for, or bought rightfully. It is the same with firearms, as we'll discuss next.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Let's look at that for a minute. Nowhere in all of the Constitution does it state you have the right to bear arms, period. It also never grants you the right to own a home you have paid for, eat food you have purchased or grown, or use the toilet. Pretty simple, and you know why? Because of course you have the right to bear arms, the amendment isn't there to tell you that, it's there to tell government that. The Constitution does not grant a single, solitary right to anyone. It specifically limits the power of government to impinge on the inherent rights that all men are born with.

You are not and never will be in danger from responsible, law-abiding citizens with registered weapons, regardless of what they are. You will always be at threat from those who are irresponsible, and criminal. There is simply no law that will matter to these people. Despite an express lane to the death penalty in TX (Not debating death penalty, simply making a point), there is still crime, although lower than many places because pretty much every criminal there has to figure that their target has at least 1-2 firearms on them, or at home. How much is getting shot worth? They have to think about it. Meanwhile, in NY, a robber can expect to get away with robbing a person at knifepoint with little to no chance of reprisal.

Assault weapons are not the problem, banning will do nothing to have prevented what happened at that IHOP, just as it never has previously. We banned, alcohol, we got the mafia and speakeasies. People determined to a certain course will achieve that course by whatever means are necessary.

So you, the reason it is impossible to answer your question is that the question itself goes against the very thinking of the Constitution of the United States.

[fj1200]

Exactly ;)

Good to see you come around :clap:

I see you couldn't find it so you need to revert to the "pogo stick" "argument." :rolleyes:

[avatar4321]

I love Danny boy !

Is it? Well, you know, yesterdays 25 is todays 45.
I actually thought a generation is about 50 years, but never was sure, so I stand corrected.
So, lets add on a few more,,,,,but one thing is for sure, what people often think "will never happen" almost always does.

Generation is actually much more flexible than that. It's not a set amount of years.

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually you're wrong. Cars kill far more people in this country every day than guns, and certainly more than fully automatic guns do, so why should you have the right to drive one, or even own one?.
Being the devils advocate, driving is not a right, it is a privledge. So I dont like those analogies, besides, it puts our posistion on the defensive, which we shouldnt allow.


I mean, your kid could start it up, and run over a baby even if you never drive the thing. Our government is not set up around proving why we should have a right, and many people forget this. In the United States, proof must be shown as to why The People should not have a right. Our Founders believed that liberty was inherent to all men, something that we are all born with as a gift of our Creator. .
Even with our liberal guests here, there will be no rebuttal to that point.


For things such as Murder, Theft, Rape, etc. it's pretty cut and dry: You do not have the right to do those things because it impinges on the core liberties of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of others,.
Yep, those actions are outlawed, and as far as I know, there are no rights protected by the COTUS involving the relations of activity between two individuals. At least in the original COTUS, I dont know about things like civil rights act, but then, I KNOW those amendments are actually unconstitutional.



"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Let's look at that for a minute. Nowhere in all of the Constitution does it state you have the right to bear arms, period. Because of course you have the right to bear arms, the amendment isn't there to tell you that, it's there to tell government that. The Constitution does not grant a single, solitary right to anyone. It specifically limits the power of government to impinge on the inherent rights that all men are born with..

Precisely as I pointed out in post #132.

Exactly. What the 2nd amendment does do:
Controls govt actions
provides a framework of governmental actions that are banned.
Gives a reason why the right shall not be infringed.
Declared it is a right just as any other rights that are God given.
Told us it is imperative and A NECCISITY for our country to remain soverign. Not probably, perhaps, or might.....

What it DOESNT do:
Quantify or qualify what arms are covered.
allow for exceptions.
allow for regulations at all.
prevent the individual states from imposing their own regulations.

The amendment merely and simply says NO LAW shall be put on the books, by the federal govt. with regards to arms.
Their usage of terms was very carefully laid out by the FF's, and hence, must be understood by us as to what they exactly meant, unless you just want to toss the COTUS out, which many libs would love.
ARMS: At that time it included ANYTHING a person would take into battle. Period, end of issue. That right continues to include any type of arms invented. If there is to be any ban, on any arms, as Little BIG acorn pointed out, lawfully amend the COTUS.

It means what it says, nothing more, nothing less, its clear, simple and precise.

The danger is established. Amendments arent necessary, only needed are rules/regs to ban anything. Once they established that with one of our rights,the rest are subject also, which is precisely what happened.
Seat belt laws for example.
And every other infringement on our freedoms.
We are no longer governed by COTUS, as much as some may object or deny, but its a fact.

[DragonStryk72]

Being the devils advocate, driving is not a right, it is a privledge. So I dont like those analogies, besides, it puts our posistion on the defensive, which we shouldnt allow.

Wrong, the ability to drive a car (or carriage, wagon, cart, or other such conveyance back then) falls under inherent rights. All rights can be taken away. The right to Bear Arms can be taken away if you get convicted for knocking over the local liquor store with a 12 gauge. Your right to drive your car ends when you violate the traffic laws badly and/or repeatedly enough.

Even with our liberal guests here, there will be no rebuttal to that point.


Yep, those actions are outlawed, and as far as I know, there are no rights protected by the COTUS involving the relations of activity between two individuals. At least in the original COTUS, I dont know about things like civil rights act, but then, I KNOW those amendments are actually unconstitutional.


Precisely as I pointed out in post #132.

Exactly. What the 2nd amendment does do:
Controls govt actions
provides a framework of governmental actions that are banned.
Gives a reason why the right shall not be infringed.
Declared it is a right just as any other rights that are God given.
Told us it is imperative and A NECCISITY for our country to remain soverign. Not probably, perhaps, or might.....

What it DOESNT do:
Quantify or qualify what arms are covered.
allow for exceptions.
allow for regulations at all.
prevent the individual states from imposing their own regulations.

The amendment merely and simply says NO LAW shall be put on the books, by the federal govt. with regards to arms.
Their usage of terms was very carefully laid out by the FF's, and hence, must be understood by us as to what they exactly meant, unless you just want to toss the COTUS out, which many libs would love.
ARMS: At that time it included ANYTHING a person would take into battle. Period, end of issue. That right continues to include any type of arms invented. If there is to be any ban, on any arms, as Little BIG acorn pointed out, lawfully amend the COTUS.

It means what it says, nothing more, nothing less, its clear, simple and precise.

The danger is established. Amendments arent necessary, only needed are rules/regs to ban anything. Once they established that with one of our rights,the rest are subject also, which is precisely what happened.
Seat belt laws for example.
And every other infringement on our freedoms.
We are no longer governed by COTUS, as much as some may object or deny, but its a fact.

For now at least, though I suspect with the steady gain of Ron Paul, and other Libertarian candidates, it'll start to swing back in the next few years. Obama and Bush have both done a great job of showing why the federal government needs limitations, and should usually stay out of most affairs.

[LuvRPgrl]

For now at least, though I suspect with the steady gain of Ron Paul, and other Libertarian candidates, it'll start to swing back in the next few years. Obama and Bush have both done a great job of showing why the federal government needs limitations, and should usually stay out of most affairs.

The problem is, everytime we go back to conservative values to bail us out of what liberal policies have brought us, after it works and our country is on its feet again, people start to toss conservatism out the window, liberalism fails, we go down the tubes again, conservatism bails us, liberalism takes over again during the successful times, we go down the tube.....

[DragonStryk72]

The problem is, everytime we go back to conservative values to bail us out of what liberal policies have brought us, after it works and our country is on its feet again, people start to toss conservatism out the window, liberalism fails, we go down the tubes again, conservatism bails us, liberalism takes over again during the successful times, we go down the tube.....

The solution there is to start voting for the conservative candidates that are going to do the most sweeping reforms, then, so that the blowback can be minimized. Set up the next candidate as likeable VP (This is where Gore failed. He was so wooden as VP, no one could really see him as president, and Bush, if nothing else, was able to get people to like him). This is precisely why we need a Ron Paul in office, someone who is generally likeable, but is very specific about his goals.

[J.T]

The problem is, everytime we go back to conservative values to bail us out of what liberal policies have brought us, after it works and our country is on its feet again, people start to toss conservatism out the window, liberalism fails, we go down the tubes again, conservatism bails us, liberalism takes over again during the successful times, we go down the tube.....

The problem is actually that when social democracy brings us prosperity and rectifies the evils of capitalism, those further to the left see it as a green light for democratic socialism and attempts at planned economy. Then the reactionaries respond by dismantling or undermining regulatory agencies such as the MMS and we backslide into capitalism, leaving us with collapsing mines, offshore oil spills, declining quality of living for the working class, an increasing wealth gap, and growing economic and political inequality.

[LuvRPgrl]

The problem is actually that when social democracy brings us prosperity and rectifies the evils of capitalism, those further to the left see it as a green light for democratic socialism and attempts at planned economy. Then the reactionaries respond by dismantling or undermining regulatory agencies such as the MMS and we backslide into capitalism, leaving us with collapsing mines, offshore oil spills, declining quality of living for the working class, an increasing wealth gap, and growing economic and political inequality.

I could care less about a wealth gap or inequality. For starters, they will never end.
But I like to compare my current situation to my former, if it is an improvement, then fine.
You like to compare your situation, or that of the middle class to the wealthy, and guess what, the wealthy, by definition, will always be richer, which will cause you to whine and moan, cry evil capatilism, and forever be unhappy. YOUR CHOICE

[ConHog]

I could care less about a wealth gap or inequality. For starters, they will never end.
But I like to compare my current situation to my former, if it is an improvement, then fine.
You like to compare your situation, or that of the middle class to the wealthy, and guess what, the wealthy, by definition, will always be richer, which will cause you to whine and moan, cry evil capatilism, and forever be unhappy. YOUR CHOICE


As if JT needs ANY valid reason to bitch.

[J.T]

I could care less about a wealth gap or inequality. For starters, they will never end.
But I like to compare my current situation to my former, if it is an improvement, then fine.
You like to compare your situation, or that of the middle class to the wealthy, and guess what, the wealthy, by definition, will always be richer, which will cause you to whine and moan, cry evil capatilism, and forever be unhappy. YOUR CHOICE
I compare the condition of the working class of today to that of 55 years ago. Perhaps you don't believe America can be great again, but some of us do.

[Missileman]

I compare the condition of the working class of today to that of 55 years ago. Perhaps you don't believe America can be great again, but some of us do.

I believe it will be great again...Feb 2013. Obama GONE, DEM controlled Senate GONE...that will be GREAT!

[ConHog]

I compare the condition of the working class of today to that of 55 years ago. Perhaps you don't believe America can be great again, but some of us do.

Surely you don't believe that taking from the rich will somehow magically improve the lot of the average working person?

[Gaffer]

I compare the condition of the working class of today to that of 55 years ago. Perhaps you don't believe America can be great again, but some of us do.

55 years ago the unions didn't run all the big businesses. And most of the govt dept's and regulations didn't exist.

[J.T]

55 years ago the unions didn't run all the big businesses.
Actually, unions were a lot stronger 55 years ago and union membership was a lot higher. Hence the higher real income and standard of living for the working class compared to today. Also, the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans were a lot higher. Furthermore, there actually was regulation, where there is little to no effective regulation in many industries today (recall the recent problems with the Mineral Management Service and the infiltration of capitalist agents which rendered the agency incapable of functioning, helping make it possible for the Deepwater Horizon to blow up and kill 11 people)

Do you have any facts, or just regurgitated right-wing talking points?

[DragonStryk72]

I compare the condition of the working class of today to that of 55 years ago. Perhaps you don't believe America can be great again, but some of us do.

You know back when we were engrossed in yet more capitalism?

[DragonStryk72]

Actually, unions were a lot stronger 55 years ago and union membership was a lot higher. Hence the higher real income and standard of living for the working class compared to today. Also, the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans were a lot higher. Furthermore, there actually was regulation, where there is little to no effective regulation in many industries today (recall the recent problems with the Mineral Management Service and the infiltration of capitalist agents which rendered the agency incapable of functioning, helping make it possible for the Deepwater Horizon to blow up and kill 11 people)

Do you have any facts, or just regurgitated right-wing talking points?

Says the guy who just offered up no evidence to back his newest claims.

[J.T]

You know back when we were engrossed in yet more capitalism?

Higher taxes, stronger unions, and protection of workers is capitalism? :laugh:

America in the 1950s was social democracy- and the country prospered because of it.

[DragonStryk72]

Higher taxes, stronger unions, and protection of workers is capitalism? :laugh:

America in the 1950s was social democracy- and the country prospered because of it.

Social democracy or not, we were still capitalist, period. You hem and haw, but you offer no proof, again.

[J.T]

Says the guy who just offered up no evidence to back his newest claims.

Compare union membership today to what is was then. Less Americans, as a percentage, are unionized today than were in the 1950s. Compare the middle-class standard of living. Compare the degree to which capitalists were allowed to exploit their workers and run sweatshops. We didn't used to allow them to do that. It used to be that if they wanted to do business here, they had to build the plant here and meet American labour and environmental standards.

You want to fix the economy? Start by closing the tax loopholes and cracking down on those who hide funds offshore. Use steep tariffs on any imported goods produced in any plant not meeting environmental and labour standards not comparable to our own and watch outsourcing halt and manufacturing return to America. If you want prosperity, you must reject capitalism and America must once again embrace social democracy or something akin to it.

[J.T]

Social democracy or not, we were still capitalist, period.

:lol:

That's like saying that, man or not, you're still a woman :laugh:

Social democracy is not capitalism. Bureaucratic collectivism is not communism. A parakeet is not a woodpecker.

Good to see you finally admit we thrived as socialists in the 50s, though.

[ConHog]

Compare union membership today to what is was then. Less Americans, as a percentage, are unionized today than were in the 1950s. Compare the middle-class standard of living. Compare the degree to which capitalists were allowed to exploit their workers and run sweatshops. We didn't used to allow them to do that. It used to be that if they wanted to do business here, they had to build the plant here and meet American labour and environmental standards.

You want to fix the economy? Start by closing the tax loopholes and cracking down on those who hide funds offshore. Use steep tariffs on any imported goods produced in any plant not meeting environmental and labour standards not comparable to our own and watch outsourcing halt and manufacturing return to America. If you want prosperity, you must reject capitalism and America must once again embrace social democracy or something akin to it.

Yep, look at who mostly is in unions. public sector employees, and then tell us how those organizations are doing financially. Oh that's right, most of them are huge failures. Why? Oh that's right, because the unions are without exception greedy motherfuckers.

[Gaffer]

Compare union membership today to what is was then. Less Americans, as a percentage, are unionized today than were in the 1950s. Compare the middle-class standard of living. Compare the degree to which capitalists were allowed to exploit their workers and run sweatshops. We didn't used to allow them to do that. It used to be that if they wanted to do business here, they had to build the plant here and meet American labour and environmental standards.

You want to fix the economy? Start by closing the tax loopholes and cracking down on those who hide funds offshore. Use steep tariffs on any imported goods produced in any plant not meeting environmental and labour standards not comparable to our own and watch outsourcing halt and manufacturing return to America. If you want prosperity, you must reject capitalism and America must once again embrace social democracy or something akin to it.

Again, you have no idea what your talking about. Have you been studying this silly shit in school or just reading it on wikipedia? How do I know what was going on then? I lived it.

[ConHog]

Again, you have no idea what your talking about. Have you been studying this silly shit in school or just reading it on wikipedia? How do I know what was going on then? I lived it.

Your mistake is engaging JT as an adult. He is incapable of reaching said level. Best to just move on.

[Missileman]

Again, you have no idea what your talking about. Have you been studying this silly shit in school or just reading it on wikipedia? How do I know what was going on then? I lived it.

In this case, at least as it pertains to percentages and numbers, he is correct. As to his other notion that we need more unions and members, he can't be any more wrong. Unions are the bane of our economy, they are of no benefit to anyone but politicians and mediocre or worse employees.

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Union+Membership:+Overall+(1948-2004)

[J.T]

Oh that's right, because the unions are without exception greedy motherfuckers.

If greed is so evil, I trust you're an anti-capitalist and you hate CEOs. Or is it only 'greed' and evil when a working man wants the most he can get?



Unions are the bane of our economy

Yes, you liked being literally chained to the machine, working 18 hour shifts, and still going hungry. It was so much better when a new employer was basically an indentured servant waiting for the mine to collapse. It was better when we had 8-year-olds in mine shafts, exposed gears, and zero safety standards. If only those evil unions hadn't demanded safe working conditions and enough pay to survive :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

If greed is so evil, I trust you're an anti-capitalist and you hate CEOs. Or is it only 'greed' and evil when a working man wants the most he can get?




Yes, you liked being literally chained to the machine, working 18 hour shifts, and still going hungry. It was so much better when a new employer was basically an indentured servant waiting for the mine to collapse. It was better when we had 8-year-olds in mine shafts, exposed gears, and zero safety standards. If only those evil unions hadn't demanded safe working conditions and enough pay to survive :rolleyes:

You're the most dishonest piece of shit I've ever "debated " with. I never said greed was evil you liar.

Oh and as for your stupid contentions about unions. It is true that at one time they served a purpose, so did buggy whips.

[J.T]

I never said greed was evil you liar.

So greed is good? So unions are good, since you insist their greedy. Or greed is nether good nor bad and there's no more reason to describe unions as such than their is to describe Obama as black, since it's of no relevance?

Is greed a bad thing, yes or no?

[ConHog]

So greed is good? So unions are good, since you insist their greedy. Or greed is nether good nor bad and there's no more reason to describe unions as such than their is to describe Obama as black, since it's of no relevance?

Is greed a bad thing, yes or no?

Take your childish antics somewhere else. Adults are trying to talk .

[J.T]

Once again you're too cowardly to stand by your own statements or stake put a position you're willing to defend...

Is greed a bad thing, yes or no? You felt the need to call unions greedy. Is greed a bad thing? Do you condemn CEOs and greedy capitalists? Or is greed not a bad thing?

[Missileman]

If greed is so evil, I trust you're an anti-capitalist and you hate CEOs. Or is it only 'greed' and evil when a working man wants the most he can get?




Yes, you liked being literally chained to the machine, working 18 hour shifts, and still going hungry. It was so much better when a new employer was basically an indentured servant waiting for the mine to collapse. It was better when we had 8-year-olds in mine shafts, exposed gears, and zero safety standards. If only those evil unions hadn't demanded safe working conditions and enough pay to survive :rolleyes:

I work in an industry that is unionized in some states. It's currently not unionized in my area. My experience has been one where my pay has been increased because of what I bring to the job and some dipshit who doesn't know his ass from your head isn't getting paid at the same rate I am just because we share a union.

As for workplace safety, there are OSHA standards that cover all that now.

You still can't dispute that unions are breeding grounds for mediocrity, poor production, and ridiculous wages and benefits. All that leads to companies moving their operations out of the US. Get rid of the unions and the jobs will return.

[LuvRPgrl]

I compare the condition of the working class of today to that of 55 years ago. Perhaps you don't believe America can be great again, but some of us do.

Not even close. People with lower level jobs are affording things like vacations, buying a house, big screen tv's, computers, customized cars, partly because some of those dotes have jobs that require nothing more than scanning some meter with a hand held device, or pushing buttons that have little pictures on them cuz so many cant read "hamburger"

[LuvRPgrl]

:lol:

That's like saying that, man or not, you're still a woman :laugh:

Social democracy is not capitalism. Bureaucratic collectivism is not communism. A parakeet is not a woodpecker.

Good to see you finally admit we thrived as socialists in the 50s, though.o

You forgot a few,
JT is not smart
JT is not honest

[LuvRPgrl]

Higher taxes, stronger unions, and protection of workers is capitalism? :laugh:

America in the 1950s was social democracy- and the country prospered because of it.
Unions were weak in the fifties.
as for your statement about numbers, its taken totally out of context, and doesnt adress who was responsable, and what the reasons were.

[Gunny]

Non-sequitur. The point is if you're going to push for maximum liberties on gun ownership and something like this happens you better have a rational argument on why restrictions aren't necessary. What are the CCW laws like in NV?

Ummm .... no? Your requirement is the non sequitur. Or do we demand a "rational argument" every time someone gets killed by an automobile? There ARE idiots out there. We've become a nation of wimps always punishing the vast majority for the quirks and bad behavior of the few. All I ever hear is "tyranny of the majority", but what about the tyranny of the MINORITY that seems to rule the day in most facts of our lives?

I've never committed a crime with a firearm so why should I be punished for what some numbnut does? He's a criminal that set out to intentionally break the law to begin with. Do you think breaking one more by having a firearm was going to phase him? Not. Restrictions on firearms affect only people who already abide by the law. Not the ones that are setting out to break a few anyway.

[fj1200]

The problem is actually that when social democracy brings us prosperity and rectifies the evils of capitalism, those further to the left see it as a green light for democratic socialism and attempts at planned economy. Then the reactionaries respond by dismantling or undermining regulatory agencies such as the MMS and we backslide into capitalism, leaving us with collapsing mines, offshore oil spills, declining quality of living for the working class, an increasing wealth gap, and growing economic and political inequality.

:laugh: When Socialism fails, call it Capitalism and demand more Socialism.


I ignorantly compare the condition of the working class of today to that of 55 years ago. Perhaps you don't believe America can be great again, but some of us do.

I think I understand now, that was before the black man was getting all uppity huh? :rolleyes:


Actually, unions were a lot stronger 55 years ago and union membership was a lot higher. Hence the higher real income and standard of living for the working class compared to today. Also, the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans were a lot higher. Furthermore, there actually was regulation, where there is little to no effective regulation in many industries today (recall the recent problems with the Mineral Management Service and the infiltration of capitalist agents which rendered the agency incapable of functioning, helping make it possible for the Deepwater Horizon to blow up and kill 11 people)

Do you have any facts, or just regurgitated right-wing talking points?

So you think we should bomb the rest of the world into oblivion and endure the interventionist quagmire of the 30's so we can enjoy the 50's again? When you can't beat 'em bomb them right j.t?

[ConHog]

:laugh: When Socialism fails, call it Capitalism and demand more Socialism.



I think I understand now, that was before the black man was getting all uppity huh? :rolleyes:



So you think we should bomb the rest of the world into oblivion and endure the interventionist quagmire of the 30's so we can enjoy the 50's again? When you can't beat 'em bomb them right j.t?

May sound sexist, but it IS true that families were a lot better off in MANY ways before the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s. Now I'm in NOWAY suggesting that women can't compete with men in the workplace or anything like that. I'm merely saying that when there were less potential employees employers took better care of those they did have and families prospered because of it, not to mention the societal advantages of having a parent at home to care for the children.

[fj1200]

Compare union membership today to what is was then. Less Americans, as a percentage, are unionized today than were in the 1950s. Compare the middle-class standard of living. Compare the degree to which capitalists were allowed to exploit their workers and run sweatshops. We didn't used to allow them to do that. It used to be that if they wanted to do business here, they had to build the plant here and meet American labour and environmental standards.

You want to fix the economy? Start by closing the tax loopholes and cracking down on those who hide funds offshore. Use steep tariffs on any imported goods produced in any plant not meeting environmental and labour standards not comparable to our own and watch outsourcing halt and manufacturing return to America. If you want prosperity, you must reject capitalism and America must once again embrace social democracy or something akin to it.

So your response to interventionist government creating our own downfall is to increase government interventionism? Tarrifs? Perhaps you should do some research about how protectionism leads to unemployment and economic stagnation. Hint: The 30's.

[LuvRPgrl]

May sound sexist, but it IS true that families were a lot better off in MANY ways before the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s. Now I'm in NOWAY suggesting that women can't compete with men in the workplace or anything like that. I'm merely saying that when there were less potential employees employers took better care of those they did have and families prospered because of it, not to mention the societal advantages of having a parent at home to care for the children.

You pussy. Then I will say it.

MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT. TO SAY OTHERWISE IS A FLAT OUT BLATANT LIE.

Some women can compete with men, but not all, in fact an avg female cant do the job as well as an avg male.
Some women simply arent cut out to be at home moms, or moms at all. They certainly should be in the workforce, But to put women into the workforce in numbers equating to men is injuring our homes, kids, families and country.
. how much you value something is proven by how you treat it. The pundits always say we put our kids first, then run off to work leaving their kids to fend for themselves. We can all see the results.
, Insisting that there be equal representation of the genders in certain fields like politics and other fields is ludicrous. A certain % of women are good at it, but when you start forcing women who arent qualified just to meet a quoto, its not good for anyone.
. I often wonder why there are no female plumbers.

SOME women are great leaders, but men are inheirently more qualified, its in the genes.
. A vast majority of men suck at being a stay at home parent. WOmen naturally are much better, they are more empathetic and patient with kids. Probably the teacher profession should be dominated by women.
. WOmen naturally tend to be caretakers, hence the nursing profession is dominated by women.

But its mostly a % game. Both genders should be free to choose whatever they want to do, unless and until they have kids. Once kids are in the equation, it is a responsability that limits your freedom, or should at least.
. But the right to choose also means not being forced into a profession the lady doesn't really want to do, by feminist groups.

Lots of women have come out and said they were duped, and regret going into the workforce and commiting so much time to it. FORCING A WOMEN INTO A PROFESSION IS JUST AS BAD AS DENYING ONE THE OPPORTUNITY.

I think part time work would be great for lots of women, also, but it should be THEIR CALL.

Im sure after reading this, HOGTRASH would still claim Im PC all the time.

[J.T]

. how much you value something is proven by how you treat it. The pundits always say we put our kids first, then run off to work leaving their kids to fend for themselves. We can all see the results.
So you'd mandate higher pay and focus on closing the wealth/income gap so a single father could support his family alone? Or you'd force women to stay at home instead of earning the money needed to feed the children and then tell them it's their problem when they can't provide for their family anymore? Or are you calling for more abortions when unplanned pregnancies occur?


FORCING A WOMEN INTO A PROFESSION IS JUST AS BAD AS DENYING ONE THE OPPORTUNITY.

The only one who seems to want to deny women the choice of working and earning the money to support their families is you.


I think part time work would be great for lots of women

So long as they know their place don't think they belong in a proper office pursuing a career like a man, right?


but it should be THEIR CALL.

Please make up your mind.

[ConHog]

You pussy. Then I will say it.

MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT. TO SAY OTHERWISE IS A FLAT OUT BLATANT LIE.

Some women can compete with men, but not all, in fact an avg female cant do the job as well as an avg male.
Some women simply arent cut out to be at home moms, or moms at all. They certainly should be in the workforce, But to put women into the workforce in numbers equating to men is injuring our homes, kids, families and country.
. how much you value something is proven by how you treat it. The pundits always say we put our kids first, then run off to work leaving their kids to fend for themselves. We can all see the results.
, Insisting that there be equal representation of the genders in certain fields like politics and other fields is ludicrous. A certain % of women are good at it, but when you start forcing women who arent qualified just to meet a quoto, its not good for anyone.
. I often wonder why there are no female plumbers.

SOME women are great leaders, but men are inheirently more qualified, its in the genes.
. A vast majority of men suck at being a stay at home parent. WOmen naturally are much better, they are more empathetic and patient with kids. Probably the teacher profession should be dominated by women.
. WOmen naturally tend to be caretakers, hence the nursing profession is dominated by women.

But its mostly a % game. Both genders should be free to choose whatever they want to do, unless and until they have kids. Once kids are in the equation, it is a responsability that limits your freedom, or should at least.
. But the right to choose also means not being forced into a profession the lady doesn't really want to do, by feminist groups.

Lots of women have come out and said they were duped, and regret going into the workforce and commiting so much time to it. FORCING A WOMEN INTO A PROFESSION IS JUST AS BAD AS DENYING ONE THE OPPORTUNITY.

I think part time work would be great for lots of women, also, but it should be THEIR CALL.

Im sure after reading this, HOGTRASH would still claim Im PC all the time.


I don't know that it was necessary to call me a pussy , but okay.

Anyway, hey some women enjoy working, and there's no problem with that, I do agree that there are some professions which one sex or the other is more qualified for, I don't agree that leadership is a quality mostly seen in men though. I've seen some good female leaders in my time and plenty of shitty male leaders in my time.

My only real point was that once we started seeing two income families we seen wages go down, obviously since demand has went down while supply has went up wages were going to go down. AND there were some societal costs as well.

Now the question is, could we go back to one income families forcing companies to raise wages to remain competitive for the employees who were in the market?

[fj1200]

No.