Main > Everything Else
The Clinton gun ban has expired!
tep0583:
--- Quote from: hunky_artist on September 14, 2004, 06:30:40 pm ---
I understand target shooting as a sport, I did it in the RAF cadets. I enjoy shooting rifles and guns at targets. It's a skill.
But why anybody other than people who use them in the military would actually want, or should be allowed to own a firearm is beyond me.
--- End quote ---
Look at your first paragraph. You answered your own question. In my case, I DO target shoot (more specifically I shoot competition, Service Rifle Class) The so-called "assult" rifle known as the AR-15 is currently the top dog in this class because of its inhearent accurate shooting attributes. The number two rifle in this class is the M1A, another rifle that is often mistakenly referred to as an assult rifle.
Secondarily, my AR can be used in a self-defense situation, if nessessary. I probably won't ever need it, but I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. It does give me a firepower advantage over the typical criminal. I wouldn't have it any other way. If I end up in a situation where I have no other choice but to defend myself and my loved ones, I damn sure don't believe in making it a fair fight. I'll take any advantage I can get.
--- Quote ---(and don't give me that 'it's so we can defend ourselves and our country,and take our country back from an opressive government' crap... you have that now and i dont see any of you taking to the streets)
--- End quote ---
OK, so defense isn't a legitamate reason? Since when? One of the rights you are granted in this country is the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property (amoung other things). An armed population is a safeguard against an opressive government, it keeps the politicians honest, if you will. True, a loosely-organized band of armed citizens would have little chance against an army such as the one the US has, but that scenerio also doesn't take into account the troops that will refuse to take up arms against their fellow citizens and the general political sucide that politicians that tried to force the armed forces upon the citizens of this country would face. I simply don't think there's too many politicians out there that will see the good in having to kill millions of Americans and and armed populace forces them to take that into account.
And the whole 'opressive government' thing, that's a matter of opinion. Our government is nowhere near as opressive as a great majority of the governments out there. Things would have to get much orse, in my opinion, before anyone's going to take to the street.
tep0583:
To everybody who 'doesn't see the need' to own arms, consider this:
The Bill of Rights is a collection of 'rights' not 'needs' there is nothing outlined there that is absolutely nessessary to anyone's survival. All of it, however, is important to the preservation of America and the type of country that she was intended to be. You could take every one of those rights away and you'd still have a country. It just wouldn't be America.
You have no 'need' for the right to free assembly or speach.
You have no 'need' for the right to be free of self-incrimination.
You have no 'need' for the right to be free from illegal search and seizure.
(yo uget the idea)
It's not about your 'needs', its about your rights. There's a huge difference between the two. Any loss of rights, ANY rights, should be something that each and every one of us should take very seriously. A lot of time, effort, and blood went into securing those rights and, once they're gone, we'll pay hell getting them back.
RacerX:
--- Quote from: tep0583 on September 14, 2004, 09:45:11 pm ---To everybody who 'doesn't see the need' to own arms, consider this:
The Bill of Rights is a collection of 'rights' not 'needs' there is nothing outlined there that is absolutely nessessary to anyone's survival. All of it, however, is important to the preservation of America and the type of country that she was intended to be. You could take every one of those rights away and you'd still have a country. It just wouldn't be America.
You have no 'need' for the right to free assembly or speach.
You have no 'need' for the right to be free of self-incrimination.
You have no 'need' for the right to be free from illegal search and seizure.
(yo uget the idea)
It's not about your 'needs', its about your rights. There's a huge difference between the two. Any loss of rights, ANY rights, should be something that each and every one of us should take very seriously. A lot of time, effort, and blood went into securing those rights and, once they're gone, we'll pay hell getting them back.
--- End quote ---
Amen, brother. I couldn't have said it any better. If that makes me a "gun nut", so be it.
shmokes:
So does that include rocket propelled grenades or shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile launchers? Does it include weaponized anthrax or sarin gas?
It's a cop-out to hide behind the second amendment. It's like saying that not allowing cars on the road that aren't "street legal" is taking away your ability to drive.
THESE RIGHTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE!!!
--- Quote ---You have no 'need' for the right to free assembly or speach.
--- End quote ---
The Supreme Court has upheld time-and-place laws for speech, such as those prohibiting protestors from coming within set distances from abortion clinics and people entering and exiting those clinics. Protestors must apply for protesting permits. Slander and Libel are illegal. Physically threatening people is illegal. The FCC censors television and radio stations. In 2003 the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a devout Muslim woman would not be allowed to wear her full-faced veil in her drivers license picture, even though she belongs to a centuries old religion which forbids her to show her face to strangers or men outside her immediate family.
--- Quote ---You have no 'need' for the right to be free of self-incrimination.
--- End quote ---
Illinois v. Perkins (1990) - Supreme Court ruled that police officers may pose as prisoners to interrogate other prisoners without reading them Miranda warnings. Coerced Self-incrimination obtained in this way is admissible in court.
Brown v. Illinois (1975) - Supreme Court ruled that confessions may be admissible even when they were preceeded by an illegal search and seizure (the confession, of course, would probably not have occurred if the police didn't already have the evidence they obtained illegally)
--- Quote ---You have no 'need' for the right to be free from illegal search and seizure.
--- End quote ---
U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985) - The Supreme Court ruled that people at borders may be subjected to warrantless searches without any requirement of reasonable suspicion.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) - The Supreme Court ruled that minors are not protected by the 4th Amendment to the same degree as adults. (A high school student was forced to comply with a warrantless search of her purse, looking for marijuana)
Illinois v. Wardlaw (2000) - The Supreme Court ruled that running in a high crime neighborhood is enough to justify a stop and initial warrantless search by police.
Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - The Supreme Court ruled that cars do not enjoy the same 4th Amendment protection from search & seizure as houses and offices. (Cops stopped and searched the car without a warrant looking for alcohol -- this was during prohibition)
I'm sorry, I'm sure this is dull lesson in constitutional law, but I tried to say all this in broader terms just a few posts ago and it seems to have been ignored. The protections in the Bill of Rights are extremely important, but they have to be balanced. You can't let people sacrifice virgins and drink their blood in order to not infringe on their freedom of religion.
Some weapons HAVE TO BE BANNED. You might make a compelling argument (though I don't know how) that assault rifles do not reach this level, but clearly there is a threshold as to what weapons can be legal. Please refer to the list of weapons at the beginning of this post. Would you argue that a nuclear briefcase bomb cannot be outlawed because of the 2nd amendment?
Mameotron:
Actually, if you can get a permit from The Nuclear Regulatory Comission, there is no law against owning a properly liscenced Nuclear device of any kind.
Yes, I'm being a smarta$$, I get what you are saying.
I must admit that if you are ever put in a situation where someone points a gun at you, it completely changes your outlook on gun control.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version