If assault weapons are bad, why does DHS want to buy 7,000 of them

[red states rule]

All we hear from government officials is that how bad "assault weapons" are yet why does DHS want to buy 7,000 of them (at taxpayer expense of course) Perhaps the government wants them because they are great weapons to use to protect yourself, family, and property
The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0) (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports (http://radioviceonline.com/department-of-homeland-security-sport-rifle-ar-15-suitable-for-personal-defense/) that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.
The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”
Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball also issued a press release (http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/department-homeland-security-latest-highlight-flawed-logic-cuomo-gun-grab) this week bringing attention to the weapons purchase request.
Calls made to DHS seeking information regarding whether or not the RFP was accepted and fulfilled were not immediately returned on Saturday.
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Thursday introduced legislation (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/24/dems-reintroduce-assault-weapons-ban-and-its-not-just-rifles-purpose-is-to-dry-up-the-supply-of-these-weapons-over-time/) that would enact a so-called “assault weapons” ban. The bill would ban more than 150 firearms and limit magazines to 10 rounds. There is no expiration date on Feinstein’s bill. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-does-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/

[jimnyc]

"for personal defense"


The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”

Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball also issued a press release this week bringing attention to the weapons purchase request.

Calls made to DHS seeking information regarding whether or not the RFP was accepted and fulfilled were not immediately returned on Saturday.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would enact a so-called “assault weapons” ban. The bill would ban more than 150 firearms and limit magazines to 10 rounds. There is no expiration date on Feinstein’s bill.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-does-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/

[ConHog]

"for personal defense"



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-does-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/

to be fair, all the weapons in the military are personal defense weapons as well when you boil it down.

Surely we can differentiate from weapons for law enforcement purposes and weapons for personal defense

and admitting that difference has NO bearing on whether a ban is permissible or okay.

[gabosaurus]

Jim, are you really asking the difference between buying weapons for personal use and buying weapons for law enforcement?
Please tell me you are not this stupid. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

to be fair, all the weapons in the military are personal defense weapons as well when you boil it down.

Surely we can differentiate from weapons for law enforcement purposes and weapons for personal defense

and admitting that difference has NO bearing on whether a ban is permissible or okay.

If they are personal defense weapons, great for in close quarters, as they say - then they should be just fine for law abiding citizens as well - and the government, and Feinstein, would be better off not speaking out the other side of their mouths and making it sound as if these are "rampage weapons" or assault weapons, as in for mass casualty. The entire thing reeks of hypocrisy.

[Voted4Reagan]

Jim, are you really asking the difference between buying weapons for personal use and buying weapons for law enforcement?
Please tell me you are not this stupid. :rolleyes:

yeah...Obama was just so careful with them in Fast and Furious...... What could possibly go wrong?

again.........

[jimnyc]

Jim, are you really asking the difference between buying weapons for personal use and buying weapons for law enforcement?
Please tell me you are not this stupid. :rolleyes:

Name another weapon in the arsenal of law enforcement that would be illegal for law abiding citizens. You do realize that up until now, citizens can buy the same weapons. Please tell me you are not this stupid.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

"for personal defense"



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-does-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/

Its obvious why? In the coming government only the elitists and the masters will have weapons! That's the plan because they plan on forcing a European style socialism here. I said forcing because our Constitution will not allow for that kind of government. So it too must be destroyed!
And they envision armed resistance to that. So we see the start of rapidly finishing the job of nullifying the 2nd Amendment. A prediction I made months before the maggot got a second term and its started even before he was sworn in again!
Disagree, do not believe me or whatever , I'm used to people thinking my predictions are crazy and even denying I ever made them after they come true!
Within ten years or less most will see how correct I am. -Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Name another weapon in the arsenal of law enforcement that would be illegal for law abiding citizens. You do realize that up until now, citizens can buy the same weapons. Please tell me you are not this stupid.

Private citizens should NOT be able to buy and own the same weapons that law enforcement agencies use. That's the point. Duh...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If they are personal defense weapons, great for in close quarters, as they say - then they should be just fine for law abiding citizens as well - and the government, and Feinstein, would be better off not speaking out the other side of their mouths and making it sound as if these are "rampage weapons" or assault weapons, as in for mass casualty. The entire thing reeks of hypocrisy.

Addressing your post Jim, law abiding citizens are fine to have long guns or close quarters weapons. There was no stipulation in the 2nd Amendment. Myself, I refuse to debate such tripe with any opposition here or on any other forum I post on!! Such garbage tossed out comes from a complete lack of understanding of the 2nd Amendment IMHO.-TYR

[jimnyc]

Private citizens should NOT be able to buy and own the same weapons that law enforcement agencies use. That's the point. Duh...

That's laughable, and so totally against the point, and what the 2nd stands for.

[ConHog]

Name another weapon in the arsenal of law enforcement that would be illegal for law abiding citizens. You do realize that up until now, citizens can buy the same weapons. Please tell me you are not this stupid.

Not really you couldnt. Well not without the proper license. Which wont change even if the unconstitutionnal bill passes.

They arw buying fully automatic selective fire rifles.

[ConHog]

Name another weapon in the arsenal of law enforcement that would be illegal for law abiding citizens. You do realize that up until now, citizens can buy the same weapons. Please tell me you are not this stupid.

Are we counting swat ? If so, a lot.

[jimnyc]

Not really you couldnt. Well not without the proper license. Which wont change even if the unconstitutionnal bill passes.

They arw buying fully automatic selective fire rifles.

And in many states you can still get an M16 and an AK47, with proper licensing. I don't think weapons should be passed around to protect others if citizens can't buy them to protect themselves. And no, I'm not speaking of citizens arming themselves with rocket launchers and such. Most reasonable people know what I mean by a firearm.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Private citizens should NOT be able to buy and own the same weapons that law enforcement agencies use. That's the point. Duh...

^^^^^ Another with a complete lack of understanding of the 2nd Amendment and our Constitutional rights!!
Was public school that devoid of any true teachings when you attended?--Tyr

[ConHog]

And in many states you can still get an M16 and an AK47, with proper licensing. I don't think weapons should be passed around to protect others if citizens can't buy them to protect themselves. And no, I'm not speaking of citizens arming themselves with rocket launchers and such. Most reasonable people know what I mean by a firearm.

Under fedrral law you can obtain a fully automTic weapon like an m16 or ak47 to jim.


By the way the license you get iz from the atf. As far as im aware there is no state equivelant. You have to have a fereral permit to own an automatic weapon.

As far as I can tell feinsteins bill wouodnt change that.

However thats another topic. This threas is about comparing what weapons the dhs might need compared to what citizens should be able to own. Which is ridiculous. Dhs comprises many law enforcement agencies some of whom operate in other countries against terrorists.

Any sane person would recognize two things
.1. They obviously require more weaponry than does the average person.
2. Their weapons requirements and requests have jack shit to do with liberals and or obama. Im sure they buy that many guns every year.

[hjmick]

Actually, James, the weapons they are looking to buy are select fire, which, as we learned people know, makes these weapons true "assault rifles" and illegal for civilians to own. The are one hundred and eighty degrees from the weapons Feinstein wants banned, except cosmetically.

Ultimately, the answer to your question is found in the portion of the article yu quoted: Because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”

[gabosaurus]

And in many states you can still get an M16 and an AK47, with proper licensing. I don't think weapons should be passed around to protect others if citizens can't buy them to protect themselves. And no, I'm not speaking of citizens arming themselves with rocket launchers and such. Most reasonable people know what I mean by a firearm.

So basically, you want to be able to defend yourself about the police. Right?

Someone sent me a link to this cartoon. It strikes me as very appropriate. And truthful.

http://blog.chron.com/nickanderson/files/2013/01/and012713blog.jpg

[jimnyc]

.1. They obviously require more weaponry than does the average person.

No person, or collection of persons, should be allowed for better protection via firearms than another.

[jimnyc]

Actually, James, the weapons they are looking to buy are select fire, which, as we learned people know, makes these weapons true "assault rifles" and illegal for civilians to own. The are one hundred and eighty degrees from the weapons Feinstein wants banned, except cosmetically.

Ultimately, the answer to your question is found in the portion of the article yu quoted: Because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”

That's what I was digging at, that they say it's good for PERSONAL defense, which is what so many have been denying for so long now. But it makes my point nonetheless - as they are saying a semi-auto AR15 needs to be 86'd - and at the same time they are buying fully auto AR15's.

[jimnyc]

So basically, you want to be able to defend yourself about the police. Right?

Someone sent me a link to this cartoon. It strikes me as very appropriate. And truthful.

http://blog.chron.com/nickanderson/files/2013/01/and012713blog.jpg

Now I know why you so very rarely make it to page #2 when debating here.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually, James, the weapons they are looking to buy are select fire, which, as we learned people know, makes these weapons true "assault rifles" and illegal for civilians to own. The are one hundred and eighty degrees from the weapons Feinstein wants banned, except cosmetically.

Ultimately, the answer to your question is found in the portion of the article yu quoted: Because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”

As in house to house searches and sweeps!! As would be conducted in gun confiscation raids!!!-Tyr

[ConHog]

No person, or collection of persons, should be allowed for better protection via firearms than another.

Really? In that case you should be able to own a tank. I mean the Army certainly doesn't need better protection than you do... oh wait.

Oh, and I think yall are getting caught up on the word personal in personal defense.

personal defense weapon simply means a one man defensive weapon as opposed to a squad service weapon or something like that. They aren't actually referring to a weapon that is used for defending oneself.

[jimnyc]

Really? In that case you should be able to own a tank. I mean the Army certainly doesn't need better protection than you do... oh wait.

Oh, and I think yall are getting caught up on the word personal in personal defense.

personal defense weapon simply means a one man defensive weapon as opposed to a squad service weapon or something like that. They aren't actually referring to a weapon that is used for defending oneself.

Most 'reasonable' people, as I said, wouldn't consider a tank to be a "firearm".

[jimnyc]

No person, or collection of persons, should be allowed for better protection via firearms than another.


Really? In that case you should be able to own a tank. I mean the Army certainly doesn't need better protection than you do... oh wait.

Oh, and I think yall are getting caught up on the word personal in personal defense.

personal defense weapon simply means a one man defensive weapon as opposed to a squad service weapon or something like that. They aren't actually referring to a weapon that is used for defending oneself.

Firearm - a small arms (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arm) weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) a projectile is fired (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fire) by gunpowder.

[jimnyc]

Is a tank typically classified as a firearm, Con?

[aboutime]

Is a tank typically classified as a firearm, Con?



jimnyc. It should be corrected to read "TANKED", not TANK. As in totally drunk on stupidity. That kind of TANKED would be more appropriate for anyone so dumb...they'd have to ask such a question.

[ConHog]

Is a tank typically classified as a firearm, Con?

I could certainly make an argument that in terms of the second Amendment it is arms.

Please remember that the 2nd amendment does NOT say firearms. It says ARMS.

So, the logical conclusion is that arms = weapons , not arms = firearms. Therefor if you argue that the second amendment means we can own whatever firearms the police and or military own then you must also conclude that is says we can own any ARMS period that the police or military own.

[aboutime]

All we hear from government officials is that how bad "assault weapons" are yet why does DHS want to buy 7,000 of them (at taxpayer expense of course) Perhaps the government wants them because they are great weapons to use to protect yourself, family, and property


red states rule. Know what?

I really am surprised. Following all of this anti-gun talk, and Assault weapon BS now being directed by Joe The MOUTH Biden, WHY OBAMA hasn't jumped in and threatened to TAKE OVER THE GUN manufacturers. Making them the property of the U.S. Govt...like he did with Detroit, and GM with the UAW auto workers union.

Just think of the BIG OBAMA BUCKS they could have made by TAKING OVER? Bringing billions into the Revenue Column all for Obama, and the Dems to spend on more STUPIDITY CLASSES.

[jimnyc]

I could certainly make an argument that in terms of the second Amendment it is arms.

Please remember that the 2nd amendment does NOT say firearms. It says ARMS.

So, the logical conclusion is that arms = weapons , not arms = firearms. Therefor if you argue that the second amendment means we can own whatever firearms the police and or military own then you must also conclude that is says we can own any ARMS period that the police or military own.

I used the word firearms. It has a specific meaning. I didn't say arms. So when I say "No person, or collection of persons, should be allowed for better protection via firearms than another." I'm speaking of firearms, and no way a tank could become part of the conversation.

[ConHog]

I used the word firearms. It has a specific meaning. I didn't say arms. So when I say "No person, or collection of persons, should be allowed for better protection via firearms than another." I'm speaking of firearms, and no way a tank could become part of the conversation.

but the argument should be about what the constitutions says, not what Jim says. Otherwise someone like Obama could come around with yet another definition and say arms = single shot revolvers.

Words have meanings.

If you prefer to just have a discussion about what a firearm is, then we agree in the definition.

[Marcus Aurelius]

If they are personal defense weapons, great for in close quarters, as they say - then they should be just fine for law abiding citizens as well - and the government, and Feinstein, would be better off not speaking out the other side of their mouths and making it sound as if these are "rampage weapons" or assault weapons, as in for mass casualty. The entire thing reeks of hypocrisy.

pos repped.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Is a tank typically classified as a firearm, Con?

:tank3:---This a firearm!!!! --:laugh2:--:lol:--A weapon system yes, firearm = no!

:devilgun::soldier99::bluegun::gunner2::gunner3::g unner4:

^^^ These are cartoon firearms but they show the difference for anybody that is confused. -:laugh:

Good to see that you know the difference between the two , Jim!! -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Is a tank typically classified as a firearm, Con?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jimnyc again.

^^^ Darn limitations!--Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

Private citizens should NOT be able to buy and own the same weapons that law enforcement agencies use. That's the point. Duh...



So you are saying that citizens should not have access to Handguns, shotguns or Rifles......

is that correct?

[logroller]

Private citizens should NOT be able to buy and own the same weapons that law enforcement agencies use. That's the point. Duh...
...funny, I thought the role of the people was to control the government, not the other way around...just like I thought the bill of rights was to control the government, not the people. Whatever, it's not like governments ever use violence against the People...duh indeed.

[ConHog]

So you are saying that citizens should not have access to Handguns, shotguns or Rifles......

is that correct?

Thats not correct. But i suspect you knew that

[Voted4Reagan]

<label> This message is hidden because ConHog is on your ignore list (http://www.debatepolicy.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist). </label>

[logroller]

I could certainly make an argument that in terms of the second Amendment it is arms.

I suspect it'll not be a very good one; but surprise me.


Please remember that the 2nd amendment does NOT say firearms. It says ARMS.


arm -- 1 a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense ; especially : firearm http://i.word.com/idictionary/arm


So, the logical conclusion is that arms = weapons , not arms = firearms. Therefor if you argue that the second amendment means we can own whatever firearms the police and or military own then you must also conclude that is says we can own any ARMS period that the police or military own.
Clearly there are reasonable limitations, as in unusually dangerous weapons, but Do you honestly believe that the intent of the second meant for the basic grunt to be better armed than the average citizen? Pretty sure it meant them to be the equally armed. It's not as though its just swat teams that get these weapons Or special weapons squads-- we're talking about the standard issue weapon for militias...quite contrarily, there should be no exception. Maybe it is unusualy destructive; I feel like there was some debate in the sixties that the round's performance was inhumane-- Even for the military. But that argument, that it is unsuakly destructive, would Reinforce the hypocrisy of the OP that so many want to excuse/justify through some necessity of a police state.

[red states rule]

The gun grabbers are using fear to try and ram this bill through. And of course they get to keep the same weapons for their protection while making it illegal for you to buy them for your protection
The best illustration of this deception is Mrs. Feinstein (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dianne-feinstein/)’s placing of the “Armalite M15 22LR Carbine” on her list of items that she claims have the sole purpose “to hold at the hip if possible, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers.” This particular weapon fires a .22 long rifle cartridge, which has one-tenth the power of the standard military round and is generally suited for plinking tin cans or hunting small varmints. It simply looks like a military rifle, which fits Mrs. Feinstein (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dianne-feinstein/)’s effort to eliminate items that look scary to her.
During the marathon news conference, politicians played on emotions rather than facts. We know the new “assault weapons” ban would be useless because crime didn’t decrease during the 10 years that the 1994 ban was in effect. In the eight years Americans have been free to buy any semi-automatic rifles, gun ownership has gone up while crime has steadily declined.
According to a survey conducted in 2010 for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 90 percent of the owners of modern sporting rifles use them for target shooting, 80 percent for home defense and 60 percent for hunting.
About 44 percent of owners are former military or law enforcement, who enjoy using a familiar rifle. The typical owner is over 35 years old, married and has some college education. These good Americans are the ones who will be affected by a ban, not the criminals who will continue to use whatever they want.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/25/the-assault-weapon-myth/#ixzz2JJXaHhnU

[jimnyc]

...funny, I thought the role of the people was to control the government, not the other way around...just like I thought the bill of rights was to control the government, not the people. Whatever, it's not like governments ever use violence against the People...duh indeed.

I believe your words will be lost on Gabby. But from me - :clap:

[ConHog]

I suspect it'll not be a very good one; but surprise me.


http://i.word.com/idictionary/arm

Clearly there are reasonable limitations, as in unusually dangerous weapons, but Do you honestly believe that the intent of the second meant for the basic grunt to be better armed than the average citizen? Pretty sure it meant them to be the equally armed. It's not as though its just swat teams that get these weapons Or special weapons squads-- we're talking about the standard issue weapon for militias...quite contrarily, there should be no exception. Maybe it is unusualy destructive; I feel like there was some debate in the sixties that the round's performance was inhumane-- Even for the military. But that argument, that it is unsuakly destructive, would Reinforce the hypocrisy of the OP that so many want to excuse/justify through some necessity of a police state.

Log,kinda busy today don't have time to post much, but just wanted to say you clearly misread my posts . I wasn't in any way intimating that the second limits us to certain times of arms. In fact I believe that the founders in fact meant for there to be NO limits. The Amendment says "arms" not "firearms"

I do however believe that with the advent of technology that simply isn't advisable. Clearly no one in their right mind wants any private citizen to be able to buy a nuclear weapon, but I believe that the 2nd Amendment is clear and that any law which says we can't is unconstitutional.

THAT is why I propose a new amendment. One that narrows it a down a bit and simultaneously takes away that argument from those who would reach even further and take semi automatic rifles.

Yes, the amendment should say "ye can not own nuclear weapons" it should also say "ye CAN machine guns" or wherever we the people draw the line.

[jimnyc]

While in some weird worlds, a tank can be listed as "arms" - in no world that I am aware of would one be consider a "firearm". :poke: :coffee:

[Missileman]

Log,kinda busy today don't have time to post much, but just wanted to say you clearly misread my posts . I wasn't in any way intimating that the second limits us to certain times of arms. In fact I believe that the founders in fact meant for there to be NO limits. The Amendment says "arms" not "firearms"

I do however believe that with the advent of technology that simply isn't advisable. Clearly no one in their right mind wants any private citizen to be able to buy a nuclear weapon, but I believe that the 2nd Amendment is clear and that any law which says we can't is unconstitutional.

THAT is why I propose a new amendment. One that narrows it a down a bit and simultaneously takes away that argument from those who would reach even further and take semi automatic rifles.

Yes, the amendment should say "ye can not own nuclear weapons" it should also say "ye CAN machine guns" or wherever we the people draw the line.

Your average grunt doesn't walk into a battle carrying a nuke, or an aircraft carrier, or a B-52 bomber, or a bazooka, or a fighter jet, etc...you get the idea. The second is peachy just the way it's written. The founders' intent to have a populace that could, should the need arise, aid in the defense of liberty is crystal clear and needs no re-write...especially from the idiots that currently inhabit the federal government. I wouldn't trust any of them to draw up a used car sales agreement.

[ConHog]

While in some weird worlds, a tank can be listed as "arms" - in no world that I am aware of would one be consider a "firearm". :poke: :coffee:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



please tell me where in that you see the word FIREARM

[ConHog]

Your average grunt doesn't walk into a battle carrying a nuke, or an aircraft carrier, or a B-52 bomber, or a bazooka, or a fighter jet, etc...you get the idea. The second is peachy just the way it's written. The founders' intent to have a populace that could, should the need arise, aid in the defense of liberty is crystal clear and needs no re-write...especially from the idiots that currently inhabit the federal government. I wouldn't trust any of them to draw up a used car sales agreement.

I wouldn't either. Luckily there is a procedure where the states can modify the COTUS without their stupidity.

[Missileman]

I wouldn't either. Luckily there is a procedure where the states can modify the COTUS without their stupidity.

I have no confidence at the state level either. Our whole damn system of government from top to bottom is polluted with politicians and politicians can't be trusted IMO. We are fortunate that the writers of the Constitution were anything but.

[ConHog]

I have no confidence at the state level either. Our whole damn system of government from top to bottom is polluted with politicians and politicians can't be trusted IMO. We are fortunate that the writers of the Constitution were anything but.


That's a sad indictment MM.

[jimnyc]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

please tell me where in that you see the word FIREARM

And then:


No person, or collection of persons, should be allowed for better protection via firearms than another.

Tell me where I mentioned anything about "arms". I simply said no one should be allowed for better protection than others, using firearms. You then replied with tank crap, when I clearly was discussing firearms.

[jimnyc]

http://i.imgur.com/V1r7uyU.jpg

[ConHog]

http://i.imgur.com/V1r7uyU.jpg

cute picture, but don't you guys argue that cops don't prevent crimes anyway and that's why you need your own gun, but now you're posting a picture claiming that cops carry guns to prevent crime?

:laugh:

[jimnyc]

cute picture, but don't you guys argue that cops don't prevent crimes anyway and that's why you need your own gun, but now you're posting a picture claiming that cops carry guns to prevent crime?

:laugh:

Not sure who you're referring to but quoted me. I never once said that cops don't prevent crimes. Just like I never said anything other than firearms, not tanks.

[ConHog]

Not sure who you're referring to but quoted me. I never once said that cops don't prevent crimes. Just like I never said anything other than firearms, not tanks.

I only quoted you b/c I was speaking of the pic you posted. I said you guys referring to the plural group who do say such things, not because I meant YOU specifically.

Sorry, I'm bad about saying you when meaning the generic plural rather than the specific singular.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not sure who you're referring to but quoted me. I never once said that cops don't prevent crimes. Just like I never said anything other than firearms, not tanks.

TANKS, :laugh:
------------------:tank3:

:devilgun::bluegun::gunner2::gunner3::gunner4:

I hope this time the difference is noted .. ----:laugh2:--Tyr

[red states rule]

...funny, I thought the role of the people was to control the government, not the other way around...just like I thought the bill of rights was to control the government, not the people. Whatever, it's not like governments ever use violence against the People...duh indeed.

According to the US Constitution that is correct. But we are talking about liberals whose the US Constitution as a roadblock to "transforming America" as Obama has promised many times

[logroller]

Log,kinda busy today don't have time to post much, but just wanted to say you clearly misread my posts . I wasn't in any way intimating that the second limits us to certain times of arms. In fact I believe that the founders in fact meant for there to be NO limits. The Amendment says "arms" not "firearms"

I do however believe that with the advent of technology that simply isn't advisable. Clearly no one in their right mind wants any private citizen to be able to buy a nuclear weapon, but I believe that the 2nd Amendment is clear and that any law which says we can't is unconstitutional.

THAT is why I propose a new amendment. One that narrows it a down a bit and simultaneously takes away that argument from those who would reach even further and take semi automatic rifles.

Yes, the amendment should say "ye can not own nuclear weapons" it should also say "ye CAN machine guns" or wherever we the people draw the line.
Ye cannot haveth a detachable magazine if ye grip extendeth below thine trigger guard; nor pistol in excess of 90 ounces, nor collapsible stock attacheth ...
we'll have a constitution that resembles the federal register.

[ConHog]

Ye cannot haveth a detachable magazine if ye grip extendeth below thine trigger guard; nor pistol in excess of 90 ounces, nor collapsible stock attacheth ...
we'll have a constitution that resembles the federal register.

or the US tax code

According to code 1102.1.35 subsection A paragraph 6 sentence 2 you may not have a weapon that has both a collapsible stock and a bayonet mount.

[gabosaurus]

In the era of the Founding Fathers, there was no law enforcement. It was up to citizens to protect themselves from foreign invaders and Indian attacks.
I don't think it is the same way now. Except in the eyes of gun nuts who believe their interpretation of the law supersedes that of any government agency that they are not in agreement with.

[jimnyc]

In the era of the Founding Fathers, there was no law enforcement. It was up to citizens to protect themselves from foreign invaders and Indian attacks.
I don't think it is the same way now. Except in the eyes of gun nuts who believe their interpretation of the law supersedes that of any government agency that they are not in agreement with.

Why is it that those who believe in the 2nd amendment are gun "nuts"? I think I'll refer to those against as illiterate gun twits.

[gabosaurus]

People who take ANY belief to an extreme are nuts.
I own a gun for self protection. But I don't own 20 military style weapons. I don't cream myself at gun shows. I don't dream about mowing down my enemies with multiple fire weaponry.

I simply believe you don't need anything other than a handgun for self protection. And a rifle if you enjoy killing animals.
This is my opinion. I don't need to defend it further.

[jimnyc]

People who take ANY belief to an extreme are nuts.
I own a gun for self protection. But I don't own 20 military style weapons. I don't cream myself at gun shows. I don't dream about mowing down my enemies with multiple fire weaponry.

I simply believe you don't need anything other than a handgun for self protection. And a rifle if you enjoy killing animals.
This is my opinion. I don't need to defend it further.

You never have before, we wouldn't expect any different these days.

But funny that you don't make that point when calling people gun nuts all the time. Some of us don't even own guns and yet are extremely passionate about the 2nd. That hardly makes me, or the guy with 100 guns, a nut.

[Abbey Marie]

You never have before, we wouldn't expect any different these days.

But funny that you don't make that point when calling people gun nuts all the time. Some of us don't even own guns and yet are extremely passionate about the 2nd. That hardly makes me, or the guy with 100 guns, a nut.

You just gave me an idea. From now on, anyone who feels strongly about a woman's so-called Constitutional right to choose, should be called an "abortion nut".

(At least in our case, there actually is an amendment protecting the right to arms).

[ConHog]

People who take ANY belief to an extreme are nuts.
I own a gun for self protection. But I don't own 20 military style weapons. I don't cream myself at gun shows. I don't dream about mowing down my enemies with multiple fire weaponry.

I simply believe you don't need anything other than a handgun for self protection. And a rifle if you enjoy killing animals.
This is my opinion. I don't need to defend it further.

Pardon me, but I own LOTS of guns. I'm not a gun nut. Truth be told I rarely shoot any of them anymore. But they are there if I choose to shoot them. Not everyone who owns a lot of guns or supports the right to own guns is a gun nut.

Likewise not everyone who opposes guns is not a gun twit, but there are some of those out there.

[ConHog]

You never have before, we wouldn't expect any different these days.

But funny that you don't make that point when calling people gun nuts all the time. Some of us don't even own guns and yet are extremely passionate about the 2nd. That hardly makes me, or the guy with 100 guns, a nut.

was it yesterday that someone posted a video of a guy carving a pumpkin with a pistol? LOL That guy is a nut who happens to own guns.

[Marcus Aurelius]

People who take ANY belief to an extreme are nuts.
I own a gun for self protection. But I don't own 20 military style weapons. I don't cream myself at gun shows. I don't dream about mowing down my enemies with multiple fire weaponry.

I simply believe you don't need anything other than a handgun for self protection. And a rifle if you enjoy killing animals.
This is my opinion. I don't need to defend it further.

But apparently people who don't have the same opinion, who have multiple guns, who go to gun shows, THEY are just nuts, right?

Dumb ass.

[Missileman]

People who take ANY belief to an extreme are nuts.
I own a gun for self protection. But I don't own 20 military style weapons. I don't cream myself at gun shows. I don't dream about mowing down my enemies with multiple fire weaponry.

I simply believe you don't need anything other than a handgun for self protection. And a rifle if you enjoy killing animals.
This is my opinion. I don't need to defend it further.

Point to the portions of the 2nd Amendment that discuss self-defense and hunting.

[ConHog]

Point to the portions of the 2nd Amendment that discuss self-defense and hunting.

Eh shes entitled to an opinion as long as she keeps it at just an opinion.

[Voted4Reagan]

Point to the portions of the 2nd Amendment that discuss self-defense and hunting.

we may be here a while if youre waiting for gabby to actually answer that one

[Missileman]

Eh shes entitled to an opinion as long as she keeps it at just an opinion.

I see no harm in asking her to substantiate her stance. At the very least, it'd be nice to see her ackonwledge that her opinions and the 2nd Amendment are in no way aligned.

[ConHog]

I see no harm in asking her to substantiate her stance. At the very least, it'd be nice to see her ackonwledge that her opinions and the 2nd Amendment are in no way aligned.

Youre right . And I wasnt auggesting otherwise. But just having isnt something bad

[red states rule]

In the era of the Founding Fathers, there was no law enforcement. It was up to citizens to protect themselves from foreign invaders and Indian attacks.
I don't think it is the same way now. Except in the eyes of gun nuts who believe their interpretation of the law supersedes that of any government agency that they are not in agreement with.

Some thoughts from the Founding Fathers on guns
The Founding Fathers on Arms
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45. "The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8 http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm