Results 16 to 30 of 59
05-30-12, 10:16 AM #16
Ban weapons so only the criminals will have them !
If it comes to that all you LIBS will be the first ones down the tubes.
Didn't have all the supposed weapons problems 20 yrs ago did we ?
Had even fewer 50 years ago-----HMMMM
05-30-12, 10:35 AM #17
Last edited by thewookie; 05-30-12 at 10:44 AM. Reason: cleaning
05-30-12, 10:40 AM #18
Are you on meds?
Our forefathers knew that people could be shot with guns, this is not a 21st century innovation.
And banning semi-auto's isn't the answer either, watch this -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpCellB_UQ
With only LEO and military with gun access you are talking about a police state, is that what you really want here in this great nation, where so many have given their lives so freely to keep it a free nation?
Let me try to educate you just a little here. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
Mexico has very strict gun ownership laws, from what I understand. I wonder how it's working out there?
05-30-12, 10:45 AM #19
Mike, good, sound reasoned post. Thanks.
05-30-12, 10:46 AM #20
It's downright pitiful that you have to resort to personal attacks against a picture of someone just because they disagree with you and the mode allow it. Pitiful.
05-30-12, 10:46 AM #21
Conch - I can't help but think you remind me of Rosie
"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."
05-30-12, 10:49 AM #22
Willie, I agree.
Of course, every situation is unique. There can be more than one aggressor; they may have optimal cover and concealment; and now days some bad guys take aggressive dogs with them, i.e., pitbulls, and you had better shoot until you see no movement.
Personally, I keep 3 rounds in my shotgun for intruders, not because I believe I am a great shot, but I just haven't taken out the spacer that allows 5 and 1 in the chamber.
05-30-12, 11:28 AM #23
05-30-12, 11:51 AM #24
05-30-12, 12:12 PM #25
05-30-12, 12:29 PM #26
Enough of the crap, stay on topic...
05-30-12, 12:32 PM #27
What did they intend?
What people are taught today they intended is a far cry different from what they did intend.
When the U.S. Constitution was written, there was much debate over whether or not to include a specific bill of rights. Many people at the time believed that if the government made a list of protected rights, then all rights that were not on the list would be trampled upon by the government. Other people felt that it was necessary to include specific freedoms to keep them from being eroded and taken away by an overactive federal government. Still, others felt that we needed to "trust" our government to lead us, and not shackle them with things they could and could not do.
Originally, the Constitution was approved without a Bill of Rights, then sent to the states for ratification. No power could be granted the Federal Government except that which the states allowed. Today that has been reversed. Many of the states, however, did not approve of a Constitution that did not guarantee the protection of certain rights and freedoms. So, in the process of ratification, many of the states voted for the Constitution while specifically listing rights they felt should be included by amendment. Among these rights were freedom of religion, speech, and the right to keep and bear arms.
James Madison was largely in charge of drafting the original Bill of Rights. He looked over a very large list of proposed amendments which had been recommended by various states. Then he narrowed them down. He submitted them to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, where they passed ten of them, and those ten became known as the Bill of Rights. This story is well told in Stephen P. Halbrooks book, "That Every Man Be Armed."
According to the writings cited in "That Every Man Be Armed, "Mr. Madison has introduced long-expected amendments...It contains a bill of rights...the right of the people to bear arms." -Trench Coxe (p. 76).
The intent of these amendments was to protect individuals from government powers. They were meant as a guarantee to the individual state governments, as well as the American Citizen, that the Federal government would NOT try to take away the freedoms which many of them had so recently fought for.
Many view the 2nd Amendment as a method of self-protection against the thug on the street, whereas the original intent was so the individual would have protection against a Federal government that would seek to enslave its citizenry.
Senator William Grayson wrote to Patrick Henry, "Last Monday, a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty..." (p. 76).
"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, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and members of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
The 2nd Amendment right to self-protection and defense of liberty should be granted to all those eligible, including everyone of legal age, and those who are not violent criminals.
05-30-12, 12:44 PM #28
But since you chose to go off topic with respect to "personal attacks," please review what you said.
You chastise Marines for their alleged "personal attacks," and in the next sentence what do you do? You state, "If anyone must be gay, it's some of you..." and then you state, "...Sad bunch of right wing homophobes. You sound like..." and you do exactly what it is you are censuring these men for.
As a First Lieutenant of Marines, understand that more will be learned by what is caught than by what is taught. Interpretation: Leading by example will communicate the strongest message you intend to convey.
05-30-12, 01:13 PM #29
Let me weigh in on this topic! You want my guns? Come on, and you'd better bring a possee with you. As far as the piece of proposed legislation on shotguns? Bring it on as well. You've got a snowballs chance in hell of it passing or not being ruled unconstitutional. I have several shotguns that hold more than five shells including one shotgun with a drum.
That aside; you trespass or without an invitation on my property; I'm coming to you, and hell's coming with me. I'm well aware of the stand your ground law; and this REAL MARINE will enforce it.
LT., nothing personal, but this forum is not Pass Road in Gulfport/Biloxi; north Biloxi; or Keesler AFB; you're in the real world; you need to deal with reality.
05-30-12, 01:31 PM #30
That is hugely different than 'very strict gun control.'
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)