Flying to Nevada from Illinois with a gun

[xar256]

I don't even know why people have to explain a "right".

We don't have to explain breathing, or justify it. It's a "right".
We don't have to explain voting, it's a "right"
We dont' have to explain any rights, because they are rights.

There is no need to explain them, justify them, or even rationalize them.

Correct me if I'm wrong...Wasn't there also a "right" for certain people to own other people at one point in time?

[Dartful Dodger]

Correct me if I'm wrong...Wasn't there also a "right" for certain people to own other people at one point in time?

[xar256]

That was never a right.

[SeaMonkey]

Correct me if I'm wrong...Wasn't there also a "right" for certain people to own other people at one point in time?

[xar256]

Kinda interesting that when someone feels compelled enough that something is just <like slavery> they can quote rulebooks at you...But when they feel stongly enough that they are right, they can just ignore the other parts of the same rulebook.  <Sorry Seamonkey, you took my bait on that one>

"The right to bear arms openly"
vs.
"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"

There must be an awful lot of 1 person militias out there protecting the State.  <Considering the actual definition of a militia, I don't see a arguement here - I know some will try>.

But I do feel that that amendment could and should have been worded much better to prevent people twisting it around like what has happened over the years.  But that's just me...

Xar256

[SeaMonkey]

I don't ignore the other parts of the rule book.
Maybe you just don't understand the rule book. Let me help you out.
Every man of age was considered the

[DrewKaree]

How did this get away from throwing bullets at people and rolling tires over them onto something like this?

I think I'm going to create a gun that fires rope, or knives. 

THEN you'll all see....yes, then you certainly will see!

[fredster]

Now that you mention it Drew, they do!

When I was a soldier in the Army, I was a gunner in a towed Artillery unit (REDLEGS). We could shoot a 155mm howizter 18-24 miles and hit a target within 50 meters at that range.

Anyway, we have the coolest rounds. We had of course the :
HE round - High explosive.  Kill radius - 50 meters Standard
We had fuses to blow the round up at impact, after impact, or at a time, or near a metal object.

Gas rounds, all kinds of gas rounds. GB, Mustard, etc

We had the White Phosphorus round, shot fire out the back, for burning troops and equipment. 

We had the Flares, lots of different flares.

We had the RAP round, Rocket assisted Projectile with laser guided accuracy.

We had the anti-personnel round, shot fish hook type metal shards out the back.  We have used those a lot in these last two wars.

My favorite, the mine field round.  It would hit the ground and would eject a net with mines out.  Anyone stepping into the net would set off the mines.  The mines would blow on their own after 2 hours.

And we had Nuclear Rounds. They would destroy a zone of 1000 meters x 1000 meters, and damage 3X that.  There are lots of those rounds still around. I never got to fire any, and kinda glad I didn't.  But you can bet if you see our troops with a cannon, they have one or two of those around them somewhere.   Those weapons were used as last resort, and authorized only by the President.

So there is 200 years of technology wrapped up in todays firearms too.

[tommy]

post some pics of your fire arms

[jbox]

C'mon, I'm not the only one who thought that right?

WARNING: Do not try this at home kids, get your parents to do it instead...

[tommy]

Thats creative jbox 

[shmokes]

When I was a soldier in the Army, I was a gunner in a towed Artillery unit (REDLEGS).

I thought you made the deals you had to make in order not to be sent out of the country...

[Otraotaku]

Apollo, guns don't kill people, any more than hammers drive nails.

[Dartful Dodger]

yeah, guns make the job easier too... BANG* your dead... ^.^

"Sir, please stop raping my daughter"
"Excuse, sir, I said please stop raping my daughter"

Dial 9-1-1

"Hello ... Yes I'll wait...."

"Hello, there are some men raping my daughter, could you please send some police"

"Never mind they're done, and they just cut her throat, so just send an ambulance"


Otraotaku, you're right! 
Bang my daughter is safe, is much easier.

Guns don't save people, citizens armed with guns save people.

[fredster]

Of the people I know that are against guns, they have little or no experience with weapons.  They are always from the city. They never understood that guns are a tool in the country.

You have to defend your livestock.  Take care of predatory animals, and occasionally defend your property.  I never had to I'm glad to say.

Of all the people on this post who have a problem with weapons, I notice they are not from the US.

Except Shmokes.  Whom is of age to serve his country.

I thought you made the deals you had to make in order not to be sent out of the country...

For the time I was in active full time duty, I was in the US. Brilliant deal, I was in California. But if there was a war on, there is no deal.   I didn't want to go overseas. 

When I was in the reserves in Gulf War 1 I wasn't called. We were ready to deploy.  Were you in kindergarden then, right? 

[Sasquatch!]

Yeah, so that Act-Labs lightgun, that thing's kind of weird-looking, huh?  What's up with that whole "sci-fi ray gun" thing they're going for?

[shmokes]

When I was a soldier in the Army, I was a gunner in a towed Artillery unit (REDLEGS).

Just clearing things up, Fred.  It sounded as though you were actually being towed...you know....gunning.  Seeing as you've never in your life been off American soil, and it's been quite some time since hostile foreign troops have been inside our borders I wondered what/who exactly you were shooting at and where your unit was being towed  (forgive me if towed means something other than what I am suggesting.  I've never heard of a towed artillery unit and just assume it means towed in the same sense that you would tow a trailer or boat).

I make no bones about my age.  I'm 26.  I don't try to, nor feel the need to hide that or feel embarrassed about it.  In fact, as you know, I'm the one who told you within the last couple of weeks or so that I started Kindergarten around 1983.  Incessantly referring to my age, or my being a student, or my mom must be proud, etc. shows nothing more than that you either are unable to or choose not to go toe to toe with me intellectually so instead resort to circumstantial ad hominem attacks. 

Age an't all it's cracked up to be Fredster.  When you're in diapers and wheeling around an oxygen tank, I'll still be playing golf and building arcade controls.  And I'll still be able to run circles around you when it comes to logical reasoning.

Whatever. 

[mnm1200]

Kinda interesting that when someone feels compelled enough that something is just <like slavery> they can quote rulebooks at you...But when they feel stongly enough that they are right, they can just ignore the other parts of the same rulebook.  <Sorry Seamonkey, you took my bait on that one>

"The right to bear arms openly"
vs.
"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"

There must be an awful lot of 1 person militias out there protecting the State.  <Considering the actual definition of a militia, I don't see a arguement here - I know some will try>.

But I do feel that that amendment could and should have been worded much better to prevent people twisting it around like what has happened over the years.  But that's just me...

Xar256

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
-The first draft of the 2nd Amendment, submitted by Virginia
Obviously the standing army part was a sore point between the Colonies, so it was stricken. However we are left with very important verbage that explains EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment means.

There would be no controversy with this at all if they left it the original way (maybe w/o the standing armies part). As is, it's improper English. If there were a semicolon as there was originally, there would be no confusion as to the meaning of this! =/

[shmokes]

I suspect that the vagueness was sometimes intentional, as a compromise.  There was a lot of contention over the wording of these amendments.  I think some of them could not get enough votes to pass until it was made vague enough that people of various positions could read it in a way that they felt could reasonably be interpreted as they liked.  Damned democracy always compllicating things!

[mnm1200]

I don't see why it should have to be vague, let alone grammatically incorrect.
Granted, I don't remember much of the history of the time, but I believe it should have been clearly specified. Much of early American law arose out of how the British has been treating them. The amendment regarding quartering of troops was one of them, which was clear and to the point.
With the second amendment, you don't have that liberty. Yes as it's written, it is vague, which means you have to go to the original intent. Of course, there were more than one side back then too. I believe that people can argue all they want about it, but it will take a Supreme Court decision to decide what it really means, and we all know that the Supreme Court in any form is not an unbiased mediator...

:depressed:

 

[TOK]

Age an't all it's cracked up to be Fredster.  When you're in diapers and wheeling around an oxygen tank, I'll still be playing golf and building arcade controls.  And I'll still be able to run circles around you when it comes to logical reasoning.

Whatever. 

Providing you don't get robbed and slaughtered because you're afraid to defend yourself.

[fredster]

And I'll still be able to run circles around you when it comes to logical reasoning.

As long as you think so man.  I'm glad for you.

[fredster]

I guess I have never really understood why people have this aversion to guns. Especially getting comments from overseas.

I can't for the life of me understand why someone in another country doesn't like the fact that Americans have the right to bare arms.  What does it matter to you?  How could it possibly affect these people?

[SeaMonkey]

Heh.

I am just overly satisfied that the facts are not refutable, and in the end, would-be detractors are left with, grasping at straws.

The time of formation is well docuemented, by personal diary and the slew of conversations that took place on the editorial pages of news papers of the day.

If you can't find it quoted by the founding fathers, they didn't say it.

Anyone in the U.S. with an 8th grade education knows why the 2nd Amendment was reworded. This isn't even highschool civics. It's elementary history.

However, disingenuous the last weak volley may be, there are those from other countries that never had the good fortune to sit in an American History class.

The fact is, Hamilton wanted a standing army. Jefferson, it could be argued, was a one man army that kept Hamilton from making the Americas into a monarchy.

However, the fact remains that the meaning of the word militia was not vague to the men of the day. And it wouldn't be now, if liberals would not have spent 200 years trying to rewrite history. There is nothing ambiguous about

[SeaMonkey]

I suspect that the vagueness was sometimes intentional, as a compromise.  There was a lot of contention over the wording of these amendments.  I think some of them could not get enough votes to pass until it was made vague enough that people of various positions could read it in a way that they felt could reasonably be interpreted as they liked.  Damned democracy always compllicating things!

Well yeah. That was the point. The states could make the important decisions and the fed was to keep their hands off. The entire constitution reads like that....on purpose.

Who had a democracy? We are a REPUBLIC here in the U.S.

The word "democracy" isn't even in the Constitution.

Seriously....tell me you knew we were not a democracy. I mean, if you didn't get anything else from 12 years of public schools, tell me you at least know what KIND of government you have.

[Bones]

I guess I have never really understood why people have this aversion to guns. Especially getting comments from overseas.

I can't for the life of me understand why someone in another country doesn't like the fact that Americans have the right to bare arms.

[SeaMonkey]

I don't think it's a case of not liking the fact that you bare arms.

It's more of a curiosity as to why, without fully understanding the social factors that drive a large population towards gun ownership.

If you will go through the quotes in my posts above, the picture will emerge. We were told that our part of the deal is to own guns. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about hunting, or target shooting. It tells Americans that like voting and jury duty, that having a gun is more than a right, it is an obligation you have toward your neighbor, for mutual defense.

I don't wonder that Europeans are baffled, I don't wonder that this last generation of Americans can't tell me who Thomas Pane was. What I do find quite remarkable is that the Swiss don't get this same guff.

Ever since Switzerland's founding in 1291, an armed citizenry has been a cornerstone of its defense. The Swiss Militia also inspired American revolutionaries from John Adams to Patrick Henry and served as the model for the Second Amendment.  Ask them what a militia is...they know.

Everyone who feins ignorance here really knows that the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. They also know that the Bill of Rights, secures rights of the people. The Bill of Rights is not a PROTECTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
And in spite of comments to the contrary, every school child knows that. 
The Bill of Rights was to restrict government's power to take away fundimental rights. That isn't my "take", by the way. Says so right on the document.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

[DrewKaree]

I think we need an assault-knife or assault-rope law on the books.

Something with TEETH! 

Rope cannot be purchased unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no clothes dryer and are going to use it to hang your clothes on to dry.  If you wish to purchase rope, you can only have a certain length lying about the house, and you will be subject to a 5-day waiting period (after all, death by rope HAS to be premeditated, so a longer time period will weed out all the malcontents wanting to get their hands quickly on a phat hank of it)

Knives should be limited to the plastic kind available at any fast-food restaurant.  If you can't complete your task with those, you are simply using them for frivolous purposes, as Grok the caveman didn't have a Henckels knife set and seemed to do just fine without them, therefore, you should be able to also.

Bullets will continue to be sold, at a price of one peso per 50 pounds, and they will be sold in 50 pound increments (your arm will wear out before you can throw all 50 pounds).  All the new gun regulations shall be written in every language EXCEPT Engrish.  We already kill each other even though they are written in Engrish, and those who come into our country always have that as a defense, since clearly there isn't a class required to own a gun, and only those who tend to obey the law generally are the ones taking those classes....which are still taught in Engrish.

We especially should have all the gun laws printed in Spanish and Hmong, with any language we can throw a translator at to be added daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly.  If undue amounts of Americans continue to kill each other with guns, we will continue to strengthen laws that protect the victims shot while unlawfully entering a home, as long as they can demonstrate that the bullet didn't do the damage, thereby clearing the homeowner of all charges.

And to the Republic for which it stands...viva 'merca!

[fredster]

It's more of a curiosity as to why, without fully understanding the social factors that drive a large population towards gun ownership.

Well, anybody from Mexico?

[DrewKaree]

I agree that perhaps I don't need a Browning Heavy Barrel H2 50cal machine gun. While they are really fun to drive, there is nothing left of the squirel you were trying to bag if indeed there would be anything left of the tree. 

Since I don't own a chainsaw, I actually DO find a need to own a Browning Heavy Barrel H2 50cal machine gun, and if it were reasonably priced, I have a feeling I would make that purchase......for removing the diseases and dying trees on my property, of course! and around the rest of the neighborhood and city!  w00t!

[duffjr]

The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is retarded.  Every time I hear or read that I vomit all over myself. 

Guns kill people.  The technicality you rely on to suggest otherwise is absurd. 

Are you deliberately being obtuse by saying it's absurd to suggest otherwise?

Guns kill no one, unless thrown hard enough and precisely struck to inflict death.


Get ahold of yourself, the vomiting has made you light-headed and you don't have your faculties about you....other than at work.

BULLETS kill people.  The technicality YOU rely on to suggest otherwise is absurd.


This message has been brought to you by the Dale Carnegie Outreach Course of Greater BYOAC.

i would argue force kills people.  ever tried to kill someone with only a bullet?

[duffjr]

I'm glad you stopped the rape, but anecdotal evidence is pretty weak when you're trying to support something.  A google search for the phrase "raped at gunpoint" (in quotes) turns up 710 hits.  In reality I think that guns are probably neither the primary cause of, or solution to rape.

quoted google searches turn up far less results and are only useful for specific cases.  how many men need guns to rape women?  i've never heard of such an incident outside of movies.  he said he prevented a rape with a gun.

[duffjr]

[quote author=SeaMonkey link=topic=32167.msg275327#msg275327
Tokyo would be the winner there, BrokenBones1.

No guns AND no crime to protect yourself from. Lowest crime rate on the planet. I could live without my precious guns, if I knew statistically I was going to be safe.

http://auctions.yahoo.co.jp

check out the feedback of random sellers.  100% except if you have over a few thousand ratings.  they're ---Bad words, bad words, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when saint censors you?---, too ashamed to even leave a negative feedback.  would you want to live like that?

[duffjr]

I guess I have never really understood why people have this aversion to guns. Especially getting comments from overseas.

I can't for the life of me understand why someone in another country doesn't like the fact that Americans have the right to bare arms.  What does it matter to you?  How could it possibly affect these people?

when your friends have family members who are dying in gang related incidents, you should fear guns.  you do not want these people to have guns.  you want all guns to disappear, but then what happens if someone has a knife?  more people carry knives than guns.  the truth is people who use guns for protection have fear, which is warranted because its human nature like it is to be a criminal, as long as the criminal isn't afraid.  what happens when both the victim and assailant have guns?  how many people die here?

[DrewKaree]

i would argue force kills people.  ever tried to kill someone with only a bullet?

* DrewKaree puts a bullet on the ground and trips duffjr so he falls on it, thereby killing himself....sooey-side!

Gravity kills.  Speed too! 

 

[Dartful Dodger]

what happens when both the victim and assailant have guns?

[DrewKaree]

Just one more reason to own a gun.  I'm sure he never asked "pretty please" and was the instigator in this whole situation 

[DrewKaree]

This is so wierd.  Even law-abiding people in South Africa aren't willing to sit idly by while their government bans or tries to take away their guns. 

Probably the best quote I've ever heard on this issue, which no one seems to grasp:

"It's not really a matter of choice," Holmes said. "Licensed firearms are not used in crime at any great rate."

The dude is referring to the need to obtain options OTHER than guns to fight criminals who break the law and use the guns the laws were designed to "protect" the people 

If the people in Johannesburg can pick up on this, maybe the NRA should recruit them to speak to those who just can't wrap their head around this issue.

Reuters news story