Gun control

[Reba]

Problem here is your thinking with a 21 century mind and the framers where thinking with a 18th century one!

No, just the opposite. The piece I posted explained the framers' thoughts at the time the amendment was written. Read it again.

So what you're are actually saying is your in the militia?

Did you read the section about the militia vs. a militia?

When do you people get together and practice being in the militia?

There you go again with the "you people." :roll:

George Washington couldn't count on you guys and said so. It wasn't until he figured out the only way you guys were of any use was in gorilla warfare. Unfortunately, today that is exactly how people who own weapons of war (AR type weapons) are using them but they are going after innocent victims and killing them!

"You guys" would be better ready if they weren't disarmed so that they could get the training and practice that they need. If the American revolutionists had been better armed as a population, and they had been allowed to train and practice by the British governors, the overthrow of that government could have been accomplished sooner with fewer casualties. My own ancestor, Nicholas Starr, wouldn't have died fighting with only a pike in his hands at the massacre of Groton Heights. The patriots could have defended Fort Griswold from a distance with guns instead of being mowed down by the better armed British troops.

"AR type weapons" are not "weapons of war." An AR-15 (Armalite Rifle) is a semi-automatic rifle, not an automatic rifle that the military would use.

 

[seb]

No, just the opposite. The piece I posted explained the framers' thoughts at the time the amendment was written. Read it again.

I did read it. What you presented was his interpretation as to what the framers meant and unless he can provide actual documentation from the framers as to their actual thoughts on the 2 nd Amendment in regards to militia and right to bear arms, that is all he has provided, his interpretation. The SC over the years have changed their opinions a number of times depending on whether we have a liberal or conservative slant to the court, so they are as changeable as the weather in regards to the 2nd Amendment.

 

[seb]

No, just the opposite. The piece I posted explained the framers' thoughts at the time the amendment was written. Read it again.


Did you read the section about the militia vs. a militia?
-Yes I did and I also read what GW had to say about the militia in the revolutionary war.



"You guys" would be better ready if they weren't disarmed so that they could get the training and practice that they need. If the American revolutionists had been better armed as a population, and they had been allowed to train and practice by the British governors, the overthrow of that government could have been accomplished sooner with fewer casualties. My own ancestor, Nicholas Starr, wouldn't have died fighting with only a pike in his hands at the massacre of Groton Heights. The patriots could have defended Fort Griswold from a distance with guns instead of being mowed down by the better armed British troops.

There you go again! Who exactly is talking about taking ALL YOUR GUNS AWAY? Nobody! It's obvious that the NRA has put us in this predicament with their refusal to allow the Congress to enact legislation that would get us comprehensive background checks and also eliminate high capacity magazines that allow this type of carnage to happen with the wacko's being able to buy these semi automatics and using bump stocks to pretty much make them machine guns and then go into schools, places of business, hotels in Las Vegas and kill a lot of people in a very short time and just in case you forgot: in LV the shooter was able to kill or wound almost 600 people in less than 12 MINUTES!

 

[seb]

Hey @seb , How does it feel to be a rat/traitor to the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments? It's all on the same piece of paper. You can't pick and choose. It's all or nothing. Are you pals with the OP? Same person? Are you even a U.S. citizen?

I have no problem with people who are sane owning firearms. I do have a problem with people owning a weapon that is basically a civilian copy of the M-16(AR-15, this is how Armalite promoted it when it originally came out) and having access to bump stocks, high capacity magazines. You and the NRA has already been responsible for men/ women and children being needlessly killed or wounded by people who should never of been able to buy a firearm in the first place and then going out and mass murdering innocent people. It's time for common sense to take over and put some restrictions on these killers weapons of choice and take their firepower away.

 

[Cappy]

Who exactly is talking about taking ALL YOUR GUNS AWAY?

YOU and your congress critters. More new laws. More new limitations, little by little leads to confiscation. Thousands of laws already in the books and none could have stopped it. Its never ending. Murder is already illegal, didntya know it? Support your local NRA/GOA. Protect the 2A.

 

[Cappy]

I do have a problem with people owning a weapon that is basically a civilian copy of the M-16(AR-15, this is how Armalite promoted it when it originally came out) and having access to bump stocks, high capacity magazines.

Woodnt you want something like that or better if the bad guy(s) had it too? New laws will not prevent the bad guys from doing this. They laugh at words on a piece of paper. It will only hamper the good people from protecting them selves. Didja know the cops have no obligation to protect you? You are your own first responder. Whatcha gonna do? Call Sheriff John Brown? Good luck with that.

 

[seb]

YOU and your congress critters. More new laws. More new limitations, little by little leads to confiscation. Thousands of laws already in the books and none could have stopped it. Its never ending. Murder is already illegal, didntya know it? Support your local NRA/GOA. Protect the 2A.

So you're okay with somebody shooting on 20,000+ people from the 32 story of a building with what amounts to a machine gun? Glad none of your relatives where being shot at. Get rid of the AR weapons, the high capacity clips, the bump stocks and the trigger cranks, also put in place what needs to be put in place that will ring out alarm bells when someone starts buying a large number of guns in a short period of time. You can have the handguns, shotguns and a regular rifles, nobody will take them away.

 

[seb]

Woodnt you want something like that or better if the bad guy(s) had it too? New laws will not prevent the bad guys from doing this. They laugh at words on a piece of paper. It will only hamper the good people from protecting them selves. Didja know the cops have no obligation to protect you? You are your own first responder. Whatcha gonna do? Call Sheriff John Brown? Good luck with that.

And how many citizens with guns of lessor or equal firepower have stopped any of these mass shootings. And where exactly were all the gun fanatics when Stephen Paddock opened up on all the people in Las Vegas. Sorry, having the right gun to go up against someone with what amounts to a machine gun is like looking for a cop, they are never around when you need them.

 

[Reba]

I did read it. What you presented was his interpretation as to what the framers meant and unless he can provide actual documentation from the framers as to their actual thoughts on the 2 nd Amendment in regards to militia and right to bear arms, that is all he has provided, his interpretation. The SC over the years have changed their opinions a number of times depending on whether we have a liberal or conservative slant to the court, so they are as changeable as the weather in regards to the 2nd Amendment.

That's all you're presenting, too, an interpretation. At least mine had citations.

 

[Reba]

So you're okay with somebody shooting on 20,000+ people from the 32 story of a building with what amounts to a machine gun?

Give it a rest. Any time someone disagrees with you, you throw that at them. NO ONE IS OK with mass shooting killers.

Stick with facts, not personal accusations, please.

 

[Reba]

And where were all the gun fanatics when Stephen Paddock opened up on all the people in Las Vegas. Sorry, having the right gun to go up against someone with what amounts to a machine gun is like a looking for a cop, they are never around when you need them.

There you go--you said it. Cops are never around when you need them. Yet, you don't want to let people have a chance to defend themselves.

Of course, being armed isn't a 100% guarantee that no harm will come to you but when you can use a gun for self defense you want it to be accessible.

I don't consider protecting oneself or family and friends to be fanatical.

 

[Reba]

I have no problem with people who are sane owning firearms. I do have a problem with people owning a weapon that is basically a civilian copy of the M-16(AR-15, this is how Armalite promoted it when it originally came out) and having access to bump stocks, high capacity magazines. You and the NRA has already been responsible for men/ women and children being needlessly killed or wounded by people who should never of been able to buy a firearm in the first place and then going out and mass murdering innocent people. It's time for common sense to take over and put some restrictions on these killers weapons of choice and take their firepower away.

Again with the nonsensical personal attacks. Do you think you can guilt people into accepting unconstitutional gun control?

 

[seb]

There you go--you said it. Cops are never around when you need them. Yet, you don't want to let people have a chance to defend themselves.

Of course, being armed isn't a 100% guarantee that no harm will come to you but when you can use a gun for self defense you want it to be accessible.

I don't consider protecting oneself or family and friends to be fanatical.

Did any citizen run up to the 32nd floor in Las Vegas to take on the gunman with their own gun? Like I said, you can say your ready to defend yourself, but when the time comes, you aren't where your needed and one more nut with a gun kills or wounds a lot of innocent people. We aren't any safer with the proliferation of firearms, just the opposite is true.

 

[seb]

Give it a rest. Any time someone disagrees with you, you throw that at them. NO ONE IS OK with mass shooting killers.

Stick with facts, not personal accusations, please.

The facts remain that Stephan Paddock shot at 20,000+ people, killed 59 and wounded over 500 in less than 12 minutes with an arsenal of weapons that were modified with bump stocks that allowed him to turn his weapons, with high capacity magazines into basically machine guns and you don't want any restrictions put on your being able to own a weapon that can do the same kind of damage. I know you're a law abiding citizen, but until you and the NRA can own up to the fact that something has to be done and figure out how to keep the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't be allowed to own them we will continue to have these shootings every few months.

 

[Beowulf]

Actually, I see what you get when you put people with guns in the presence of people who throw rocks and bottles at them.

Edit: Let me assure anyone reading this that I am well aware that the Kent State shooting was a tragedy. I was pointing out that bad things happen when tempers flare in tense situations. I was definitely not trying to insinuate that anyone who was killed "had it coming" for throwing things at the National Guard.

Or here, either.

 

[Beowulf]

Our founding fathers were LIBERALS.
They just didn't mind shooting people.

 

[seb]

That's all you're presenting, too, an interpretation. At least mine had citations.

Our founding fathers were LIBERALS.
They just didn't mind shooting people.

They might of thought differently if they had weapons such as: machine guns or semi automatic rifles with bump stocks that could shoot almost 600 people in less than 12 minutes! Guns were meant for survival, whether it was for food or protection, you didn't have to worry about someone with a machine gun or semi automatic weapon going into a movie theater, school house, night club or concert looking to kill as many innocent civilians as they could. Time's were different then and they are much different today.

 

[Beowulf]

They might of thought differently if they had weapons such as: machine guns or semi automatic rifles with bump stocks that could shoot almost 600 people in less than 12 minutes! Guns were meant for survival, whether it was for food or protection, you didn't have to worry about someone with a machine gun or semi automatic weapon going into a movie theater, school house, night club or concert looking to kill as many innocent civilians as they could. Time's were different then and they are much different today.

Are you kidding me? In the Revolutionary War, did any of those weapons exist? Of course not. In those days, wouldn't you agree that the citizens be given the right to protect/fight against outside forces?
Bring those founding fathers to today. They would weep. A whole crowd of people were unarmed and helpless while being attacked from the "outside."
What happened to their vision of the citizens being armed?

 

[Foxrac]

I’m all for gun rights but I don’t like NRA nor GOA because they are partisan and care about political issues, other than gun rights.

 

[Double-U]

The facts remain that Stephan Paddock shot at 20,000+ people, killed 59 and wounded over 500 in less than 12 minutes with an arsenal of weapons that were modified with bump stocks that allowed him to turn his weapons, with high capacity magazines into basically machine guns and you don't want any restrictions put on your being able to own a weapon that can do the same kind of damage. I know you're a law abiding citizen, but until you and the NRA can own up to the fact that something has to be done and figure out how to keep the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't be allowed to own them we will continue to have these shootings every few months.

To address your first point: I would support a ban on bump stocks (and drum magazines for assault weapons, for that matter) IF a bill were introduced that would accomplish that and ONLY that. Most gun owners would likely have no problem with it. The problem is that banning bump stocks would be bundled with other gun control measures I vehemently oppose. Also, the language of the bill would almost certainly be (deliberately) vague and subject to interpretation. Liberal Democrats aren't interested in such targeted legislation because they're too focused on criminalizing gun ownership in general. I just wish you all would be honest and say that you really don't think ordinary people should own any kind of gun.

Point number 2: Gun control legislation disarms only law abiding citizens. If liberals ran the United States unopposed, they would relentlessly prosecute gun violations and unauthorized speech, all the while allowing street criminals to operate with impunity, creating the kind of conditions that now exist in Brazil and Central America. This process has already begun.