[terrylamar]

" I've never killed an animal for sport.... and I don't need an UZI to do so. "

I couldn't let this go, and I didn't want to hijack the other thread. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or any type of sport shooting. It has everything to do with protecting ourselves from our government and other outside forces. To own or not to own a firearms is a personal decision. By not owning and training with one you are avoiding your responsibility as a citizen to protect the great nation of ours. Whether you desire it or not you are the Militia.

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by terrylamar

" I've never killed an animal for sport.... and I don't need an UZI to do so. "

I couldn't let this go, and I didn't want to hijack the other thread. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or any type of sport shooting. It has everything to do with protecting ourselves from our government and other outside forces. To own or not to own a firearms is a personal decision. By not owning and training with one you are avoiding your responsibility as a citizen to protect the great nation of ours. Whether you desire it or not you are the Militia.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. The second ammendment was written at a time when the "settlers" were responsible for their own security from foreign governments that owned territories bordering the original colonies, Indians, and marauders. Also, the government couldn't and didn't equip the people with arms.

The National Guard replaced these "colonial" militias, and became the de facto MILITIA for each state. THEY are trained, armed, and sworn to the protection of their respective states and the U.S. Government.

Now, I agree that the Constitution gives us the right to bear "arms" but it is NOT a blanket proviso to own "assault weapons." If you want to own guns for hunting, OR for personal protection, that is fine with ME and the government. But, NO government is going to allow its people to own MORE firepower than its established military.

This is a touchy subject, and I DO see both sides to the story, but to help prevent and avoid mass shootings by unstable citizens, I see no reason to NOT register your weapons, nor do I see the need to own assault weapons. There are "clubs" where you can go to shoot them if that gets your rocks off.

But, the fact is.... that the "militia" as you refer to it.... is now the National Guard, established, armed, trained, and commanded by the State's Governor. They ARE the "people" as they are citizen soldiers. So the right of the "people" to bear arms, for the purpose of a well armed militia, is satisfied and authorized in the entity of the Guard.

As for "ME" being the milita.... there is no law saying I HAVE to own a gun. If the s##t hits the fan, I will be there. I'm sure I will be issued a gun. I know how to use it, and I will not shrink from my duty.

[Overloaded]

Many people overlook the fact that owning firearms is also to protect ourselves from our own government. In that capacity, the citizens of the US should be able to own firearms capable of matching the firepower of the US military. This is also the reason for firearms not being registered, you don't what the government knowing who has firearms and where to come and get them.

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Overloaded

Many people overlook the fact that owning firearms is also to protect ourselves from our own government. In that capacity, the citizens of the US should be able to own firearms capable of matching the firepower of the US military. This is also the reason for firearms not being registered, you don't what the government knowing who has firearms and where to come and get them.

As I said, Overloaded.... I know and see both sides to the story. You are just repeating THAT side of it. And I "allow" for your point, but I disagree.

OUR government was worried about the imposition and infractions of the "colonial" government, which was an extension of the British Crown, and foreign governments with designs on our New World.

It would be hard to believe that ANY government, EVER in history, would protect its people from itself, let alone equip them with arms and tell them, "Hey... whenever you feel that we are taxing you too much, or ruining your life, you are free to REBEL with ARMS.

That would be tantamount to political/governmental suicide, and engender constant unrest, and armed conflict - continuous civil war.

The fact that the UNION went to war against the Secessionists of the South is proof that there was NO SUCH intention in our constitution.

In fact, the "militias" of each state, the National Guard, SHOULD be and to some extent ARE armed equally to that of the U.S. military, and therefore, if united against our government, COULD wage an equal war against the government military forces (in theory.)

The registration of firearms is 1) for tax reasons, and 2) to allow police forces to track criminals who use those arms to commit crimes. Are you against helping the dedicated men and women of our police forces to track criminals or protect themselves against them?

I don't have anything against the people owning arms. In fact, I don't really have a MAJOR objection to you owning assault weapons (though I fail to see the need) as long as you REGISTER them. If YOUR side would understand that, maybe MY side would meet you half way. This is a country of compromise.

But, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows you to "bear" UNREGISTERED arms of "mass destruction" (which assault weapons are classified as) .... and you are NOT part of the state Militia anymore. So, the 2nd Ammendment doesn't really apply to you. But, other Ammendments DO provide for your right to bear arms, within the law.

No one is trying to tell you that you can't own a gun. Certainly NOT me!

But, don't try to sell me on the idea that you need an unregistered Uzi to HUNT with.... Okay? I'm not THAT stupid.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by terrylamar

By not owning and training with one you are avoiding your responsibility as a citizen to protect the great nation of ours. Whether you desire it or not you are the Militia.

Not necessarily, T/L!! While I do support The 2nd Amendment, I am also aware of the fact that there are other ways to protect ourselves. I firmly believe that one purpose of The 2nd Amendment was designed to do was to allow us to protect ourselves from The Government. As for me, I'm not a gun owner; not because of political views or opposition to gun ownership, or opposition to hunting, or anything philosophical in nature. In short, it's just not my thing.

At the same time, I do protect our nation by doing something that most all of us should do, but quite sadly, all too many of us neglect to do; it called VOTING!!

Within the past twelve years, there have been two Revolutions here in America, and both of them were carried out without a shot being fired. I actively participated in both of them.

I'm not the soldier type; you WOULD NOT want someone like me next to you in a fox hole or out on the battle field. Having said that, I am a fairly well educated, competent Nurse. You WOULD want someone like me waiting to care for you after the battle was over!!

So, without owning a gun, and without firing a single shot, I CAN still be a vital part off a well organized, properly trained militia!!

In the end, if people are so indifferent that they refuse get up off of their lazy, apathetic, complacent asses and go to the polls to vote, and to hold their elected leaders accountable for their decisions and actions, then I hardly see where they could be counted upon to protect anything or anyone in an armed struggle with the government.

[Fozzy]

This is more masturbation law... feels good, but doesn't really do anything but make those doing it feel better!

Assault weapons are no more powerful than a deer rifle. There was one senator who changed a deer rifle into an assault weapon using a toilet paper tube and some other paper items. This is more symbolism over substance.

If an American can own a sports car they should be able to own any weapon that they wish. Guns are a heck of a lot less dangerous than cars to EVERYONE yet they are allowed on the streets day and night, night and day.

[OverTheRoad]

Originally Posted by Fozzy

This is more masturbation law... feels good, but doesn't really do anything but make those doing it feel better!

Assault weapons are no more powerful than a deer rifle. There was one senator who changed a deer rifle into an assault weapon using a toilet paper tube and some other paper items. This is more symbolism over substance.

If an American can own a sports car they should be able to own any weapon that they wish. Guns are a heck of a lot less dangerous than cars to EVERYONE yet they are allowed on the streets day and night, night and day.

Interesting point... I guess you could make the argument. If citizens are not allowed to own more firepower than the government then citizens are not allowed to own faster cars/motorcycles than the cops.

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Fozzy

This is more masturbation law... feels good, but doesn't really do anything but make those doing it feel better!

Assault weapons are no more powerful than a deer rifle. There was one senator who changed a deer rifle into an assault weapon using a toilet paper tube and some other paper items. This is more symbolism over substance.

If an American can own a sports car they should be able to own any weapon that they wish. Guns are a heck of a lot less dangerous than cars to EVERYONE yet they are allowed on the streets day and night, night and day.

Ahhh.... Fozzy! I thought you would join in with your usual disconnected reality! :lol:

Assault weapons are no more powerful than a deer rifle.

You're kidding, right? You're trying to tell me that you can spray 30 bullets in a crowded MacDonalds in about 5 seconds with a lever action 30/30? Man.... you've been trucking too long, cuz that's a trucker's lie if I ever heard one! :roll: :lol:

There was one senator who changed a deer rifle into an assault weapon using a toilet paper tube and some other paper items.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :shock: :roll: :roll:

Name the Senator, give me a link, and/or shut the Heck up! That's laughable!!! :roll:

Guns are a heck of a lot less dangerous than cars to EVERYONE

What's the highest number of persons killed in a single accident caused by a vehicle? Does that exceed the number dead at Columbine? Or many other mass shootings? Tell this B.S. to the survivors of Luby's Diner! Cuz "I" ain't EVEN believing it! :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol:

If an American can own a sports car they should be able to own any weapon that they wish.

Does this include small tactical NUKES???? Would you EVER draw a line? And, if so, just WHERE???

:lol: :lol: Thanks for the "input" Fozzy! I needed a good laugh to loosen me up! :roll:

[terrylamar]

[quote="golfhobo"]

Originally Posted by Fozzy

This is more masturbation law... feels good, but doesn't really do anything but make those doing it feel better!

Assault weapons are no more powerful than a deer rifle. There was one senator who changed a deer rifle into an assault weapon using a toilet paper tube and some other paper items. This is more symbolism over substance.

If an American can own a sports car they should be able to own any weapon that they wish. Guns are a heck of a lot less dangerous than cars to EVERYONE yet they are allowed on the streets day and night, night and day.

[quote]Ahhh.... Fozzy! I thought you would join in with your usual disconnected reality! :lol:

You're kidding, right? You're trying to tell me that you can spray 30 bullets in a crowded MacDonalds in about 5 seconds with a lever action 30/30? Man.... you've been trucking too long, cuz that's a trucker's lie if I ever heard one! :roll: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :shock: :roll: :roll:

Name the Senator, give me a link, and/or shut the Heck up! That's laughable!!! :roll:

Does this include small tactical NUKES???? Would you EVER draw a line? And, if so, just WHERE???

:lol: :lol: Thanks for the "input" Fozzy! I needed a good laugh to loosen me up! :roll:

Assault weapons are no more powerful than a deer rifle.

[quote]You're kidding, right? You're trying to tell me that you can spray 30 bullets in a crowded MacDonalds in about 5 seconds with a lever action 30/30? Man.... you've been trucking too long, cuz that's a trucker's lie if I ever heard one! :roll: :lol: [quote]

Your are confusing power and capacity. There are many deer rifles you can get a higher capacity magazines for. It just doesn't look "evil." Besides, deer rifles or assault weapons don't spray. Assault weapons, as the term is mistakenly used are semi-auto weapons, not full auto. Anyway since full autos were restricted there has been less than one percent of one percent of them used in crimes.

Guns are a heck of a lot less dangerous than cars to EVERYONE

[quote]What's the highest number of persons killed in a single accident caused by a vehicle? Does that exceed the number dead at Columbine? Or many other mass shootings? Tell this B.S. to the survivors of Luby's Diner! Cuz "I" ain't EVEN believing it! :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: [quote]

Why do you limit it to a single incident? In total more people are killed each year than with firearms. One of the survivors of Luby's Diner is one of the strongest proponent of the individuals right to carry and bear arms. She feels strongly that the pistol ,she left in her car under then current law, would have save many people that day, including her parents.

[quote]Does this include small tactical NUKES???? Would you EVER draw a line? And, if so, just WHERE???[quote]

Sure with individual hand held weapons.

[golfhobo]

You're are confusing power and capacity.

No, I'm not. I'm not even addressing power. I'm talking capacity AND rounds per second. (leaving NO time for victims to get out of the way.)

Besides, deer rifles or assault weapons don't spray. Assault weapons, as the term is mistakenly used are semi-auto weapons, not full auto.

Deer rifles don't, I agree. That's why I have no problem with them. Assault weapons most certainly DO spray a full clip in any "un-aimed" direction in which the weapon is pointed while the trigger is pulled! (if set to auto.) There is NO mistake in the term assault weapons... even for a semi-auto. Ask the SWAT team if they don't train to "Assault" a target with their weapons. The definition of an "assault weapon" is one that can fire on auto or semi, up to 30 rounds without stopping to reload.

I once fired a MAC-10 on full auto (owned by a private citizen) on the Natchez Trace Parkway. I was aiming in the general direction of a sappling. I had a 30 round clip, and the LAST round left the barrel before the first round hit the tree. I cut the sappling in half! Had I not had a steady hand, and let the barrel sway a bit, you would most certainly call it a SPRAY!

This kind of firepower is meant for one thing. To "assault" a position, and cover the entire area with suppressing fire! That is an "assault weapon."

Anyway since full autos were restricted there has been less than one percent of one percent of them used in crimes.

And since they did NOT restrict semi-auto weapons... there have been COUNTLESS incidents of them being used in crimes. They are, in fact, the preferred weapons of drive-by shootings and gangland assaults. Where have YOU been? You just MADE my point for the restriction of semi-auto assault weapons!! :roll:


Quote:
Guns are a heck of a lot less dangerous than cars to EVERYONE


[quote]What's the highest number of persons killed in a single accident caused by a vehicle? Does that exceed the number dead at Columbine? Or many other mass shootings? Tell this B.S. to the survivors of Luby's Diner! Cuz "I" ain't EVEN believing it! [quote]

Why do you limit it to a single incident? In total more people are killed each year than with firearms.

Because I am comparing single incidents of deaths caused by a single sports car with single incidents of death caused by assault weapons. I have no desire nor need to compare total numbers. If you want to do that.... you might want to outlaw ALL vehicles in general!

One of the survivors of Luby's Diner is one of the strongest proponent of the individuals right to carry and bear arms. She feels strongly that the pistol ,she left in her car under then current law, would have save many people that day, including her parents.

I'm aware of this. Are you aware that she is talking about a PISTOL? And a completely different law than we are discussing? This is a typical NRA argument.... comparing apples to oranges. And you might note that her pistol might not have been necessary if the assailant didn't have an assault weapon!

[quote]Does this include small tactical NUKES???? Would you EVER draw a line? And, if so, just WHERE???[quote]

Sure with individual hand held weapons.

A tactical nuke can be fired from a grenade launcher, or a shoulder mounted AA type weapon. These are "individual handheld weapons." So, again I ask, where would you draw the line?

There are reasons for limiting clips to 15 rounds (they have to momentarily stop to reload... giving the cops a chance to overtake them) and outlawing fully auto weapons (for similar reasons.) They (the gov't) are giving you ALOT of leeway in allowing THAT much!!

If it were up to me, there would be NO clips allowed. Only what can be loaded into a rifle's built in magazine. If you can't hit a deer with 7 rounds or so, with a lever action or automatic rifle, you don't deserve to be out there hunting!!!

And the same goes for your self defense.